Customer Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions:

the Effects of Consumer Search Behavior

Wahyuningsih*

This study develops and tests an integrative model to examine the relationships among customer
value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions based upon a typology of consumer search behaviors. The
model was tested using surveyed data from 546 customers of car insurance in Melbourne, Australia.
The findings demonstrate that each type of consumer (passive, rational-active, relational-dependent),
performs differently on the relationships among customer value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions.
The identification of value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions within each search behavior allows
managers to deliver optimal value and satisfaction to their consumers.

Keywords: customer value, satisfaction, behavior intensions, consumer behavior

Penelitian ini mengembangkan dan menguji model integratif untuk menguji hubungan antara nilai
pelanggan, kepuasan dan perilaku terencana berdasarkan tipologi perilaku pencarian dari konsumen.
Model ini diuji menggunakan data survei dari 546 pelanggan asuransi mobil di Melbourne, Australia.
Penelitian menemukan bahwa setiap tipe konsumen (pasif, aktif-rasional, relasional-tergantung)
menunjukkan relasi yang berbeda terkait hubungan antara nilai pelanggan, kepuasan dan perilaku
terencana. Identifikasi dari nilai, kepuasan dan perilaku terencana dalam setiap perilaku pencarian akan
membuat para manajer memberikan nilai dan kepuasan yang optimal kepada konsumen mereka.

Introduction that customer value and its relationships with

customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions
The study of relationships among value, differ from one search type to another, and thus
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions is of need to be examined separately for each segment
increasing interest to both academics and of consumers.
practitioners. However, the relationships among Studies of the interrelationships among
these constructs have been studied assuming customer value, satisfaction, and behavior are
homogeneity in consumers. That is, previous not new. For example, Choi et. al (2004) have
studies (Choi et al. 2004; Hutchinson, Lai, investigated the interrelationships among value,
and Wang, 2009; Lam et al. 2004; McDougall satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in health
and Levesque 2000; Ryu, Han, and Kim, care provider choice. Similarly, Hutchinson et.
2008; Yang and Peterson, 2004) have seen the al (2009) examine the interrelationships among
relationships among value, satisfaction, and value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions of
behavioral intentions as pertaining uniformly golf travelers. Eggert and Ulaga (2002) have
to all customers. Based on the theory of market also studied the interrelationships among value,
segmentation, specifically segmenting a market satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in business
from the behavior of consumers, it is perceived markets. These past studies have investigated the
that each type of consumer needs a specific interrelationships among the three constructs
approach. As pointed out by Eggert and Ulaga (value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions) for all
(2002), different customer segments perceive
value differently for the same product. Starting
* Wahyuningsih: Tadulako University, Palu-Indonesia
from this premise, this study demonstrates Email: [email protected]

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

1
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
types of customer, without looking at consumer Benefits
segments. This paper attempts to bridge the gap
found in the literature of relationships between In any purchase decisions, a consumer is
value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions model seeking to acquire benefits (Lapierre, 2000;
and consumer market segmentation. The paper Monroe, 1990). The perceived benefits are
proceeds as follows. First, definitions and a a combination of physical attributes, service
brief discussion of customer value, customer attributes, and technical support available in
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions will be relation to a particular use situation (Monroe,
presented. Next we discuss consumer search and 1990). The benefits delivered by organisations
how it might affect each of value, satisfaction, need to be consistent with benefits desired by
and behavioral intentions. Finally, we discuss customers. This is the core concept of benefit
the possible interconnections among the main analysis (Myers and Tauber, 1977). Based
constructs in the model and test a model of the on this concept, the benefits delivered to
relationships among value, satisfaction, and customers are determined by characteristics/
behavior in each of the three search types. attributes of products/services, the firms, the
customer characteristics, and usage situations or
Literature Review occasions. This concept has certain implications
for companies; first, it is necessary to identify the
Customer Value benefits that the customers will perceive about
the product or service; second, it is necessary
Organizations which have a strong focus to determine the relative importance of those
on customer value will form a sustainable benefits that the customers place on the product
competitive advantage (Parasuraman, 1997; or service (Monroe, 1990). It can be argued,
Woodruff, 1997). The rationale behind this therefore, that in order to meet the customers’
is that, delivering better value to customers needs and wants, components of benefits need to
might result in a higher likelihood of purchase, be critically identified.
repeat purchase, and positive word-of-mouth
communication (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Sacrifices
Grisaffe and Kumar, 1998). In other words, if the
organizations know what drives value for their Sacrifices are primarily important to customers
customers and provide superior customer value, in value perceptions (Eggert and Ulaga, 2002).
they have a greater probability of obtaining Sacrifices are what the consumers have to give
and retaining customers (Slater and Narver, up in obtaining the purchased products. These
2000). Therefore, it can be noted that an in- are defined from the customer’s perspective
depth understanding of customer value is very (Monroe, 1990) and include monetary terms
important for companies to succeed. (Anderson, Jain, and Chintagunta, 1993) and
Generally, it is argued that value means non-monetary terms such as energy, time and
many things to many people. Concepts of value effort (Hutchinson et al, 2009; Lapierre, 2000).
have been discussed in many literatures, for According to Monroe (1990, p.88), sacrifice
example economics, social science, accounting, in the context of perceived value is defined as
and marketing which results in diversity in “perceived total costs to the buyer, including:
interpretations. The concepts of value are purchase price, start-up costs (acquisition
multifaceted and complicated (Huber et al., 2001) costs, transport, installation, order handling),
and characterised as fragmented (Woodruff, post-purchase costs (repairs and maintenance,
1997). Having reviewed the literature, in this risk of failure or poor performance”. Gabbott
paper customer value defined as the difference (2004) identifies sacrifices as having three
between benefits and sacrifices (Eggert and aspects acquisition, consumption, and disposal.
Ulaga 2002; Ha and Jang, 2010; Lapierre 2000; Acquisition includes the psychological cost of
Snoj et al. 2004; Ulaga and Chacour 2001; Van thinking, selecting and comparing, the physical
Der Haar et al. 2001; Walter et al. 2001). costs of searching such as walking, driving, and

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

2
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
parking, and the economic cost associated with enhances a firm’s reputation in the marketplace,
acquiring publications, applying for information and lowers the costs of attracting and transacting
and acquiring information. Consumption with new customers (Bodet, 2007). From
includes the physical and mental effort involved the above advantages, accordingly, customer
in consuming, such as riding a bike or a visiting satisfaction leads to profitability (Luo and
a gym, and the required economic inputs to Homburg, 2007). This is in agreement with Rust
make a product consumable such as petrol for and Zahorik (1993) who have empirically tested
a car. The last aspect is disposal; for example, the subsequent links from customer satisfaction,
changing a bank account or phone account can to individual loyalty, aggregate retention rate,
involve a complex series of activities such as market share, and profits. They also point out that
sending letters, making phone calls, tracking retention rate is seen to be the most important
documentation, etc. Hence, it can be summarised component of market share, and that it is driven
that customer perceived sacrifices is the loss by customer satisfaction.
derived from the product or service due to the Customer satisfaction has been a popular
increment of its perceived short-term and long- topic in marketing for more than 30 years
term costs (Wang et al., 2004, p. 172). without the emergence of a consensual definition
of the concept (Host and Knie-Andersen, 2004).
Customer Satisfaction Johnson, Anderson, and Fornell (1995) argue that
customer satisfaction is a cumulative construct
There has been extensive research in that is affected by market expectations and
customer satisfaction over many years. Customer performance perceptions in any given period,
satisfaction has been considered by companies as and is also affected by past satisfaction from
a key strategic indicator of a company’s success period to period. According to Oliver (1980)
and long-term competitiveness (Anderson et satisfaction outcomes are a function of perceived
al, 2008; Law, Hui, and Zhao, 2004; Luo and performance and perceived disconfirmation. This
Homburg, 2007). So highly is it regarded that author explains that perceived disconfirmation
many service companies spend as much as half depends on perceived performance and a standard
of their research budget on measuring customer for comparison. Standards of comparison may
satisfaction (Wilson, 2002). include expectations, ideals, competitors, other
Research into customer satisfaction has service categories, marketer promises and
revealed several advantages for companies: industry norms.
• A satisfied consumer is more likely to stay In this study, we adopt the definition put
with the same company (Bodet, 2008; forward by Anderson et al (2008) and Luo and
Shankar et al., 2003) Homburg (2007), which argues that customer
• The longer a consumer stays with a company, satisfaction, is “an overall post-purchase
the more products or services he/she evaluation”. This definition focuses on post-
purchases from the company (Wangenheim purchase perceived product performance
and Bayon, 2007; Law, Hui, and Zhao, 2004) compared with pre-purchase expectations. This
• It costs more to capture a new consumer than choice allows us to make a clearer distinction
to retain a current consumer (Sheth et al., between value and satisfaction.
1999)
• A satisfied consumer is less likely to switch to Behavioral Intentions
other companies (Gremler and Brown, 1999;
Keaveney, 1995) Two behavioral intentions investigated in
this study include repurchase intentions and
For these reasons, many organisations have word-of-mouth communication. The discussion
placed much attention on studying customer concerning the two concepts is presented as
satisfaction. follows:
Furthermore, higher customer satisfaction
insulates current customers from competitors,

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

3
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Repurchase Intentions the benefits of things enjoyed (Wirtz and Chew
2002).
Repurchase intentions are defined as “the WoM has been identified in previous research
individual’s judgment about buying again a as an important behavior after consuming a
designated service from the same company, product or service (e.g., Gremler et al. 2001;
taking into account his or her current situation Wirtz and Chew 2002). Customers who show up
and likely circumstances” (Hellier et al. 2003, on the strength of a personal recommendation
p.1764). From this definition, it is clear that tend to be more profitable and stay with the
repurchase behavior occurs when customers company longer than customers who respond
purchase other products or services for the to conquest advertising, sales pitches, or price
second or more times with the same company; promotions (Reichheld 1996). From the previous
and the reason for purchasing again is mainly studies, it is perceived that WoM plays a key role
triggered by customer experience towards the in shaping consumers attitudes and behaviors
products or services. Thus, it is noticed that (Harrison-Walker 2001). Thus, WoM serves as
consumers are more likely to purchase again enforcement to consumers to remain loyal to a
from the same company if they think that what service provider.
they have received was worth what they have WoM is more important and influential
given up. within a service context than strictly just product
Hellier et al. (2003) argue that customer marketing scenarios, given their intangibility
repurchase intentions are influenced by seven and higher associated risk (Mangold et al. 1999).
important factors. Namely, service quality, Compared to purchasers of goods, Murray
equity, value, customer satisfaction, past loyalty, (1991) found that service buyers have greater
expected switching cost, and brand preference. confidence in personal sources of information
The study by Petrick, Morais, and Norman as well as a greater pre-purchase preference for
(2001) suggests that consumers’ intention to personal information sources. In addition, Ennew
repurchase is influenced by three factors: past et al. (2000) suggest that WoM may also be one
behavior, satisfaction, and perceived value. This of the most powerful forms of communication
is supported by Diaz and Ruiz (2002) who assert within financial services, given they tend to be
that customer satisfaction is a primary precursor characterized by a predominance of experience
of repeat purchase behavior. Meanwhile, Gross and credence qualities. A consumer may not
(1997) argues that repurchase intentions are understand a service fully before its consumption;
directly impacted by perceived value omitting he or she might seek WoM information from an
satisfaction. From these arguments, it can be experienced source (Bansal and Voyer 2000).
noticed that customer value and/or customer Therefore, WoM becomes especially important
satisfaction have a positive influence on within the services purchase decision context.
repurchase intentions, and that the relative role
of these factors is still unclear. Factors Influencing Consumer’s Word-of-
Mouth Communication
Word-of-Mouth Communication (WoM)
Bone (1992) argues that WOM can be partially
WoM communication is defined as “informal influenced by four factors. These are social tie
communications directed at other consumers strength, the presence/absence of an individual
about the ownership, usage, or characteristics taking a committed decision maker role,
of particular goods and services and/or their consumer satisfaction, and perceived novelty.
sellers” (Westbrook 1987, p.261). Customers Social ties represent the strength of a consumers’
engage in WoM communications because they relationship to the people accompanying them.
want to ease a tension that the positive or negative The author suggests that the weaker the social
experience produced, to reassure themselves in ties that exist among group members, the more
front of others, to gain support from others who WoM will occur. A second factor is whether one
share their opinions, to gain attention, or to share or more group members take on the role of a

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

4
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
committed decision maker. It is suggested that that value leads to the increase of word-of-
whenever there is a committed decision maker mouth intentions. Moreover, Chang and Wildt
in a group, WoM is likely to occur. Third, the (1994) found that perceived value mediates the
author argues that the level of satisfaction and relationship between perceived quality, perceived
dissatisfaction affect an individual’s mood and price, and purchase intention. The model of these
increase the amount of WoM. The last factor relationships can be seen in Figure 1.
is perceived novelty that may be a function Further to the discussion, Cronin et al. (1997)
of the consumer’s lifestyle and experiences, propose the value added model which examines
characteristics of the product/service, and/ service quality and sacrifice as a direct measure of
or the manner in which the product/service is value that has a direct link to purchase intentions.
presented. A situation that is perceived as novel They found that the addition of a direct measure
will receive the consumer’s attention, making of service value to the model which is defined
WoM more likely. Specifically, previous studies solely by service quality and sacrifice increases
(e.g., Bansal and Voyer 2000; Bone 1992; Ennew the ability of the model to explain variance in
et al. 2000) suggest that WoM is often influenced consumers’ purchase intentions.
by customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Basically, a rationale for neglecting
purchasing experiences. satisfaction is provided by Gross (1997) who
argues that in business markets, purchasing
The Link between Customer Value and managers’ decision making is mainly guided
Behavioral Intentions (Direct Impact Model) by cognitive factors and not by affective ones.
Therefore, a direct link between value and
Most conceptual and empirical contributions outcome variables has been developed taking
to value literature conceive a direct impact into consideration solely the cognitive input and
of customer value on behavioral outcomes cognitive output which consist of repurchase
neglecting the role of satisfaction (Eggert and intentions, search for alternatives, and word-of-
Ulaga, 2002). For example, Grisaffe and Kumar mouth communication (Eggert and Ulaga 2002).
(1998) point out two behavioral intentions as In consumer markets, buying decision-making
direct consequences of customer value. These is determined by both cognitive and affective
are customer likelihood to recommend and factors (Sheth et al. 1991). Hence, it is reasonable
likelihood to continue doing business with the to argue that there is a direct relationship between
company. This is in agreement with Petrick’s value and behavioral intentions in consumer. In
(2002) argument that customer value has a direct this context, customer value is supposed to have
impact on repurchase intentions and word-of- a direct impact on behavioral intentions.
mouth communication. In addition, Bolton Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan (1998) and
and Drew (1991) found that value is related to Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson (1999) suggest
customers’ subscription intentions and intentions that in a pre-purchase situation, perception of
to recommend. This is in line with the study value might directly influence willingness to buy.
by Hartline and Jones (1996) who suggest Neal (1999) argues that satisfaction is necessary,

Figure 1. A Direct Link between Value and Purchase Intentions

Source: Adapted from Chang and Wildt (1994)

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

5
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
but value drives loyalty. This is because the most drivers of customer satisfaction with relational
satisfied customer may not necessarily be the service quality a significant but less important
most loyal; thus, value is a better predictor for driver. They also reveal that there is a direct link
loyalty. The key foundation underlying all these between customer satisfaction and future
studies is that value is the key linkage between intentions. The links can be seen in figure 2.
the cognitive elements of perceived quality or This argument is in agreement with the
performance, perceived sacrifice, and behavioral work of Chan et al. (2003), Cronin et al.
intentions (Patterson and Spreng 1997). Based on (2000), McNaughton et al., (2002) and Petrick
these previous studies, it is noticed that value may et al., (2001) who assess the effects of value
well directly impact on behavioral intentions. on behavioral intentions through customer
Based on this discussion, it is hypothesized that: satisfaction. In addition, Lam et al. (2004)
found that customer satisfaction mediates
H1: Customer value is antecedent to behavioral the relationship between customer value and
intentions customer loyalty including repurchase intentions
and intentions to recommend. From these
The Link between Customer Value and previous studies, it is clear that the relationship
Behavioral Intentions Mediated by between perceived value and future intentions is
Satisfaction (Indirect-Impact Model) mediated by customer satisfaction.
The reasoning behind the argument that the
Unlike studies that have found perceived link between value and behavioral intentions
value to influence intentions directly thus is mediated by satisfaction may be described
neglecting satisfaction, the findings of Ha and as follows. To continue doing business with a
Yang (2010) and Patterson and Spreng (1997) company and recommend to other people about
suggest that value is completely mediated the products and services, consumers need to
through satisfaction in influencing repeat have formed a judgment towards the products
purchase behavior. Their argument supports an and services as to whether they are satisfied or
earlier study by Fornell et al., (1996) that the dissatisfied. It might be difficult for a consumer
impact of value on behavioral intentions is to form behavioral intentions before they have
mediated by satisfaction. In agreement with this a reaction (or judgment) towards the products
view, McDougall and Levesque (2000) and services. Thus, the degree of behavioral
investigate the relationships among these intentions is dependent on the level of satisfaction.
constructs: core service quality, relational service Therefore, it can be noticed that the link between
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, customer value and behavioral intentions may
and future intentions to purchase across four also be mediated through customer satisfaction.
services. They found that core service quality Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
and perceived value are the most important

Figure 2. Indirect Link between Perceived Value and Future Intentions

Source: McDougall and Levesque (2000)

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

6
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
H2: The relationship between value and No-purchase
behavioral intentions is mediated by
satisfaction According to Beckett et al. (2000) consumers
who do not have involvement with financial
Consumer Behavior Search Typology products and do not possess confidence in them
make no purchase. An example of the “no-
Classifying target markets into groups of purchase” consumers is that individuals who
consumers assists marketers to clearly identify leave significant sums of money on deposit
and satisfy the needs and wants of each group. rather than purchase financial services that could
In parallel with this view, Beckett et al., generate greater return (Beckett et al. 2000).
(2000) formulate a consumer behavior matrix The authors do not discuss the “no-purchase”
(see Figure 3) that divides financial services consumers in their study. In their empirical
consumers into four groups of consumers based discussion, they only focus on the three types
on their behavior. of consumer purchase behavior: repeat-passive,
According to Beckett et al., (2000), it is rational-active, and relational-dependent. This is
possible to specify consumer search behavior because “no-purchase” is not a type of consumer,
through two principal factors that motivate rather, it is an action made by the three types of
and determine individual contracting choices, consumer behavior (passive, rational-active, and
namely involvement and uncertainty (Bateson relational-dependent). Figure 4 shows how this
1989; Ennew and McKechnie 1998; Harrison works.
1994; McKechnie 1992). Consumer involvement From figure 4, it is clear that in evaluating a
incorporates a number of subsets: customer product, the three types of consumers will make
control (Bateson 1989), customer participation, a decision whether or not to purchase a product.
and level of contact (Chase 1978). Uncertainty or Thus, purchase or not purchase is not a type of
confidence is largely determined by perception consumer search, it is a decision. The remaining
of risk, which is determined by the complexity categories are defined in Table 1.
of the product being purchased and the certainty As noted earlier, these three types of
of the outcome associated with that product consumers possess different levels of confidence
(Shostack 1977). The following presents further and involvement, which in turn have an impact on
discussion on involvement and confidence. their search behavior. Therefore, their perceptions
From the above key factors, involvement of a certain product might also differ, including
and confidence, the matrix can be formulated their perceived value and satisfaction. As argued
(Figure 4). This matrix describes different types by Moorthy et al. (1997), consumers will search
of consumer behavior: repeat-passive, rational- for more information when they perceive that the
active, relational-dependent, and no-purchase. product will give them high value or make them

Figure 3. Consumer Behavior Matrix

Source: Beckett, Hewer, and Howcroft (2000)

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

7
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Figure 4. Types of Consumer Behavior and their Action

Table 1. Patterns in consumer knowledge, confidence, and search behavior

Search Type Key Indicators
Passive • Repeated interactions without seeking alternatives
• Considered “loyal” due to repeat nature of purchase (e.g., Ehrenberg 1972) or repeated pattern behavior (e.g., Johnson 1982).
• Not searching for information
Rational • Highly involved
Active • Highly confident
• Attempts to search for information before coming to a final decision
Relational • Highly Involved
Dependent • Uncertain in knowledge of product or service (Urbany et al. 1989)
• Seeks advice from others

satisfied. Ratchford et al. (2003) suggest that Methodology

less satisfaction might trigger a more extensive
search. In addition, Eggert and Ulaga (2002) This research investigates the typology of
suggest that different customer segments perceive consumer search behavior and examines the
different value levels within the same product. value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions model
As discussed earlier, customer value is related to displayed by each consumer type regarding their
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. experiences with the car insurance industry. To
Taking into account that customer value might collect these data, this study employs closed-
be perceived differently by consumers in ended questions in a structured questionnaire. A
different segments, and the arguments that nine point Likert scale from “1” to “9” was used
there are interactions among customer value, to capture the behavior, attitudes, and perceptions
customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions; of consumers toward the product. The unit of
accordingly, it is hypothesized that: analysis of this study is individuals, specifically,
students who have purchased car insurance
H3: Each type of consumer search behavior within the past year. A convenience sample of
perform differently on the relationships 654 questionnaires were distributed directly
among perceived value, satisfaction, and to undergraduate student respondents. These
behavioral intentions students were first screened for owning a car, and

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

8
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
for paying their own car insurance premium. Out themselves. In the former case respondents
of 654 questionnaires, 546 questionnaires were were classified as relational dependent, while in
usable and 13 questionnaires were incomplete. the latter they were classified as rational active.
Thus, the response rate in this survey was 85%. Thus, each respondent was classified uniquely
into one category.
Measures and Data Analysis Data analysis technique used in this research
is Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using
This study uses multi-item scales to measure AMOS 5. The assumptions to apply these
the model constructs. The measures for consumer techniques including absence of multicollinearity,
behavior typology were derived from the study outliers, and heteroscedasticity, as well as
of Beckett et al. (2000), and information search the presence of homogeneity, linearity, and
(e.g., Moorthy et al. 1997; Murray 1991; Urbany normality have all been met. SEM was employed
et al. 1989). We used existing scales for the to construct and test the measurement model,
measures of customer value including measures which enables a comprehensive, confirmatory
for functional benefits (e.g., Alfansi and Sargeant assessment of construct validity, and provides a
2000), social and emotional benefits (Kahle confirmatory assessment of convergent validity
1983; Petrick 2002; Sheth et al. 1999; Sweeney and discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing
and Soutar 2001), and functional, social, and 1988). The measurement model performed
emotional sacrifices (e.g., Cronin et al. 1997; well as indicated by the summary of model fit
Sheth et al. 1991). We also used existing scales (χ2 =18.520, df=8, P value=.018, χ2/df=2.315,
for the measures of customer satisfaction (e.g. GFI=.989, AGFI=.972, NFI=.981, IFI=.989,
Athanassopoulos, 2000; Spreng et al.1996; TLI=.979, CFI=.989, and RMSEA=.049).
Oliver 1981) and behavioral intentions (e.g. The reliability of constructs have been
Eggert and Ulaga, 2002; Bansal and Voyer 2000; assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which is
Bone 1992; Ennew et al. 2000). justified for this study since the object of
The respondents have been classified into the measurement (the consumer) is the same as
three search categories based on their responses the unit of analysis (Finn and Kayande 1997).
to questions on sources of information used, and Coefficient α score for functional benefit is .84,
the degree to which they relied on these sources. functional sacrifice is .78, social benefit is .79,
For each source there was a one to seven scale and emotional benefit .78. Since the concept of
and the respondents were asked to indicate how value will be investigated across different types
much they had used each source. The anchors of consumer (passive, rational-active, relational-
for these scales were “Not at all” and “A great dependent), the Measurement Equivalence/
deal.” The question was repeated, but this time Invariance (ME/I) using SEM needs to be
the respondents were asked to indicate which performed. The purpose of establishing ME/I
sources were the most influential in their decision is to examine whether the conceptualization of
and the anchors were “Not influential” and “Very value was perceived similarly by the different
influential.” We then classified our respondents types of consumer (Vanderberg and Lance 2000).
by first splitting between those who searched at
all (scored at least a four on any one item and Result and Discussion
had that item with at least a four in terms of its
influence). Thus, someone who did not search at As mentioned earlier, the conceptualization
all (scored less than a four on each of the seven of customer value, customer satisfaction, and
point scales) was considered passive. Someone behavioral intentions need to be investigated
who scored highly on any of the sources was across the types of consumer using Measurement
then sub-classified depending on whether the Equivalence/Invariance (ME/I). Since behavioral
most important sources of information were intentions in this study has been measured using
considered influencers (Friends/family/partner nominal scale (“yes-no” question), measurement
or financial adviser/intermediary) or if they were model cannot be established for this construct.
influenced by data they collected and assessed Thus, the ME/I will be established for the

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

9
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Table 2. Chi-Square Difference Test for Customer Satisfaction Construct at Strong Factorial
Equivalence Level
χ2 Df p χ2/df Δχ2 Δdf Δχ2/Δdf P
Baseline 17.911 14 .211 1.279
Corporate 19.022 15 .213 1.268 1.111 1 1.111 p>.75
Convenience 18.754 15 .225 1.250 0.843 1 0.843 p>.75
Innovativeness
and Pricing 18.394 15 .243 1.226 0.483 1 0.483 p>.75
Expectation 19.458 15 .194 1.297 1.547 1 1.547 p>.25
Feeling 24.514 15 .057 1.634 6.603 1 6.603 p<.01

Table 3. Chi-Square Difference Test

Model Comparison χ2 Df P χ2/df Δχ2 Δdf P
Baseline 130.560 52 .000 2.511
Model 1 (Constraint β customer value to behavioral intentions) 154.605 54 .000 2.863 24.045 2 <.005
Model 2 (Constraint β customer value to customer satisfaction) 170.114 54 .000 3.150 39.554 2 <.005
Model 3 (Constraint β customer satisfaction to behavioral intentions) 171.987 54 .000 3.185 41.427 2 <.005

conceptualization of customer value and customer The above chi-square difference test shows
satisfaction for the three groups of consumer: that the four variables: corporate, convenience,
passive (N=79), rational-active (N=208), and innovative-commission, expectation have been
relational-dependent (N=259), being aware that perceived as equivalent by our respondents. In
the sample size for passive consumers is small other words, only “feeling” has been perceived to
compared to the other two groups. However, be non-equivalent. Therefore, it can be concluded
using the justification suggested by Bentler and that “corporate, convenience, innovativeness-
Yuan (1999), the ME/I test can still be run given pricing, and expectation” can be generalized for
that the number of distinct parameters to be measuring customer satisfaction across types of
estimated is low (13), which is still more than 1:6 consumer.
for the sample. Hence, statistically the sample Following from the above result (Table 2), the
is adequate to run a measurement equivalence/ measurement equivalence/invariance test needed
invariance test. Results of testing ME/I for to be re-performed excluding the “feeling”
customer value and customer satisfaction variable as it was detected that this item was
across three group comparisons are presented in perceived by consumers to be non-equivalent.
Appendix 1 and 2 respectively. The results are presented in Appendix 3. The
The results of testing measurement measurement equivalence test, as presented
equivalence for customer value shows that in Appendix 3 shows that without “feeling”
the conceptualization of customer value has variable, the conceptualization of customer
been perceived similarly by the three groups of satisfaction has been perceived as equivalent by
consumer as indicated by the non-significant the three groups of consumer as indicated by the
of all the p value (see Table 3). However, the non-significant of all the p values.
conceptualization of customer satisfaction has Having tested the conceptualization of
been perceived significantly differently (non- the constructs across types of consumer, the
equivalent) by consumers at the Strong Factorial relationships among the constructs (customer
Level (Model 3) as indicated by the significant p value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions) for
value (p<.05) (see Appendix 2). Therefore, further the three types of consumer can now be tested.
investigation was needed to determine which Chi-square difference test is established to test
variable(s) were perceived as non-equivalent by whether each group of consumers performs
consumers. As there are five main variables for significantly different on each link in the model.
measuring satisfaction (corporate, convenience, As the investigation revealed that the concept
innovative-commission, expectation, and of “feeling” variable was perceived to be non-
feeling), the chi-square difference test was equivalent by the three groups of consumer,
performed on each variable which is presented the conceptual model of the study has been
in Table 2. performed excluding “feeling” variable. The

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

10
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Figure 5. The Relationships among Customer Value, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions
across the Three Types of Consumer

Table 4. Standardized Regression Weights for the Relationships among Customer Value,
Customer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions across Types of Consumer
Passive Rational-Active Relational-Dependent
Customer Behavioral Customer Behavioral Customer Behavioral
Satisfaction Intentions Satisfaction Intentions Satisfaction Intentions
Customer
.44 .46 .53
value
Customer
.52 .77 .96
Satisfaction
Note: non-significant results are grayed out.

result is presented in Table 3. The above regression weights show that

The above chi-square difference test indicates relational-dependent consumers demonstrate the
that there is a significant difference between strongest relationship between satisfaction and
the models (p<.005). In other words, there is a behavioral intentions (.96), followed by rational-
significant difference in the relationships among active consumers (.77), and passive consumers
customer value, customer satisfaction, and (.52). Similarly, relational-dependent consumers
behavioral intentions across the three types of also account for the strongest relationship
consumer. Moreover, it is interesting to note the between perceived value and satisfaction (.53),
differences in standardized regression weights followed by rational-active consumers (.46), and
among customer value, customer satisfaction, passive consumers (.44). The results show that
and behavioral intentions across the types of there is a non-significant relationship between
consumer. This result is presented in Figure 5 perceived value and behavioral intentions for all
and Table 4. types of consumer. The non-significance of this

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

11
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
result argues against a significant method effect higher level of confidence in relation to whether
in data of this research. or not they are going to recommend the product
This study found that the three types of they are using to other people. Thus, this finding
consumers display different relationships suggests that the level of intentions to repurchase
among value, satisfaction, and behavioral and to recommend to other people, depends
intentions. Before testing the relationships, on both the amount of search and from whom
the conceptualization of customer value and consumers were directed to purchase a product
customer satisfaction has been assessed using (level of dependence). Hence, this study is the
measurement/equivalence invariance (ME/I). first empirical study to investigate the effects
The establishment of measurement invariance of information search behavior on intentions
across groups is a logical pre-requisite to to repurchase and to do word-of-mouth
conducting substantive cross-group comparisons communication.
(Vanderberg and Lance 2000), which in this The findings also suggest that the relationship
study is the types of consumer (passive, rational- between value and satisfaction is stronger
active, relational-dependent). The results for relational-dependent and rational-active
indicate that the conceptualization of value has consumers than for passive consumers. This
been perceived equivalently by the consumers. means that, those relational-dependent and
However, the conceptualization of one of the rational-active consumers with a high level of
measures for satisfaction, the “feeling” variable, value will be more likely to perceive high levels
has been perceived differently by the three types of satisfaction. It suggests that consumers who
of consumer. Hence, to test the conceptual model actively collect information before purchasing
of the study, “feeling” has been excluded from the a product will be more sensitive to a change in
measures of satisfaction to achieve measurement their level of satisfaction resulting from their
equivalence across the types of consumer. The perceived value compared to consumers who
result of this study is in accordance with the study passively collect information. Thus, levels
by Ueltschy et al. (2004) who investigated cross- of satisfaction perceived by consumers are
cultural invariance of measures of satisfaction. dependent on their levels of perceived value and
These scholars found that some measures are affected by their search behavior.
of satisfaction can be non-equivalent across Previous studies on information search
cultures. The implication that can be drawn here behavior (e.g., Moorthy et al. 1997; Ozanne et al.
is that future research needs to establish the 1992; Ratchford 2001; Urbany et al. 1989) have
measurement equivalence, even within cultures, mainly focused on the factors affecting search
before conducting cross-group comparisons. behavior and related search behavior to expected
The results of testing the conceptual model value. This implies that the main examination is
of the study suggest that the effect of satisfaction on the process of information search “before”
on behavioral intentions is considered stronger consumers purchase a product (pre-purchase). In
for relational-dependent and rational-active this study, the difference is that consumer search
consumers than for passive consumer (see Figure behavior has a carryover effect on the behavior of
5 for illustration). This means that for consumers consumers after they purchase a product. Hence,
who search for information before purchasing it is an integral part of post-purchase evaluation,
a product, they may well know on what their in other words, with the consumers’ satisfaction.
future behavior depends. In other words, such The findings suggest that consumers’ search
consumers have a higher level of confidence behavior, which is represented by the amount
regarding whether they are going to repurchase of search and level of dependence of directed
a product from the same company or switch search, has an effect on the levels of satisfaction
to another company compared to the passive which are derived from the levels of perceived
consumers who do not search for information value.
before purchasing a product or service. Also, The result further indicates that the direct
compared to the passive consumers, relational- link between customer value and behavioral
dependent and rational-active consumers have a intentions is not significant when satisfaction

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

12
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
is also in the model. This agrees with previous closer to this type of consumer. Alternative
studies (e.g., Chan et al. 2003; Eggert and Ulaga strategies may be used such as reference groups,
2002; Fornell et al. 1996; Ha and Yang, 2010; Lam family members, and opinion leaders. As a
et al. 2004; McNaughton et al. 2002; Patterson consequence, those types of consumers will have
and Spreng 1997; Wang et al. 2004) which high perceived value and high satisfaction, thus
argued that the relationship between customer they will have stronger intentions to repurchase
value and behavioral intentions is mediated by the product from the company and recommend it
satisfaction. This study has confirmed that there to other people. Meanwhile, passive consumers,
is a positive relationship between customer who are less sensitive to the marketplace, may
value and customer satisfaction, and a positive not be sure of what they intend to do in the future.
relationship between customer value and They are less confident in deciding whether they
behavioral intentions (see Appendix 5 for the will repurchase or not, and less confident to
model and results). This is in agreement with state that they will recommend the product to
previous studies that support a positive link someone else, however, they are more likely to
between value and behavioral intentions. For remain with the current company out of simple
example, Grisaffe and Kumar (1998) suggest ignorance of the marketplace.
two behavioral intentions as direct consequences Therefore, it is important for companies to
of customer value. These are customer likelihood identify what types of consumers they serve
to recommend and likelihood to continue doing (passive, rational-active, or relational-dependent).
business with the company. This is in line with This will assist the companies to provide better
the Petrick’s (2002) argument that customer value and increase levels of satisfaction for each
value has a direct impact on repurchase intentions type of consumer. As a consequence, companies
and word-of-mouth communication. In addition, may well predict the future behavior of each
Bolton and Drew (1991) found that value is type of consumer. In doing so, companies need
related to customers’ subscription intentions to create and manage the value proposition
and intentions to recommend. This also agrees strategically before delivering value to each
with the study by Hartline and Jones (1996) who segment of consumers. By providing better
suggest that value leads to an increase in word- value and satisfaction to certain consumers,
of-mouth intentions. companies are motivated to become active in
However, when satisfaction was included managing the value chain and points of product
in the model, the direct link between customer differentiation (Yi and Jeon 2003). They are
value and behavioral intentions became also motivated to make fundamental decisions
non-significant. This suggests that customer on customer segmentation, competencies,
satisfaction completely mediates the relationship culture, infrastructure, technology, resources,
between customer value and behavioral and strategies (O'Dell and Grayson 1999). If this
intentions. occurs, companies will improve effectiveness
By identifying the perceived value across the and efficiency in value delivery. Effectiveness
three types of consumer, companies can predict is the ability of the product or service to meet
the level of satisfaction that will be achieved customer’s needs and wants, and efficiency
by each type of consumer and anticipate the means that customers spend a minimal sacrifice
future behavior for each type of consumer. (money, time, effort) to receive the value (Sheth
For relational-dependent and rational-active et al. 1999). As a result, companies can enhance
consumers who actively search for information, their organizational performance.
companies need to provide them with detailed
information about the benefits of the product. Conclusion
Since relational-dependent consumers, who are
directed by other people to purchase a product, This study opens a new approach to applying
display the strongest behavioral intentions, the concepts of customer value, satisfaction,
companies need to activate and manage word- and behavioral intentions to different types
of-mouth communication strategies to get of consumers based on their search behavior.

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

13
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Unlike previous research, which examined the as the respondents to examine whether the
relationships among value, satisfaction, and findings are consistent. In other words, to
behavioral intentions at the aggregate level, this enhance the generalizability of the findings.
study examined the relationships among these Second, this study has employed car insurance
constructs on a segment-specific basis. The as its context, which might require consumers
contribution is that this study has shown that to search for information before purchasing the
each type of consumer (passive, rational-active, product. Hence, the conceptual model of this
relational-dependent) is significantly different study might well be applied in consumer search
on the relationships among value, satisfaction, in complex or intangible products, which may
and behavioral intentions. Relational-dependent not be so well applied in fast-moving consumer
and rational-active consumers exhibited a goods (FMCG).
stronger relationship between perceived value Third, the investigation of perceived value is
and satisfaction as well as between satisfaction only focused on ‘value’ perceived by consumers
and behavioral intentions compared to passive without investigating the outcomes of value
consumers. This contribution suggests the analysis on financial performance. The focus
mechanisms behind value, satisfaction, and of this study is on the perception of value and
behavioral intentions differ systematically across satisfaction seen and reported by consumers.
groups of consumers. Therefore, the company is not able to identify
This study has some limitations that should direct improvement of its financial performance
be addressed by future research. First, the unit resulting from a value program. Hence, further
of analysis of the study is students, which may research should examine the outcomes of value
limit our results to specific characteristics of analysis on business performance. Future
respondents. Hence, the finding indicates that investigations should identify any increases in
there is a substantial proportion of relational- company profits resulting from improvements
dependent consumers, which means that they in customer value programs. In addition, the
are actively searching for information before the effects of value analysis on business culture,
purchase and directed by other people in making employees’ satisfaction, as well as the benefits
the decision to purchase the product. It might for stakeholder, should be tested empirically by
be useful to replicate this study, perhaps in other future research.
service industries using mass market consumers

References
Alfansi, Lizar and Adrian Sargeant. (2000), Market Segmentation in the Indonesian Banking Sector:
The Relationship Between Demographics and Desired Customer Benefits," International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 18 (2): 64-74.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing. (1988), Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review
and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.
----, C. Jain, and P.K. Chintagunta. (1993), Customer Value Assessment in Business Markets," Journal
of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1: 3-29.
Anderson, Shannon, Lisa Klein Pearo and Sally K. Widener. (2008), Linking Customer Satisfaction to
the Service Concept and Customer Characteristics, Journal of Service Research, 10 (4): 365-381
Athanassopoulos, Antreas D. (2000). Customer Satisfaction Cues to Support Market Segmentation and
Explain Switching Behavior, Journal of Business Research, 47 (3 March): 191-207.
Bansal, Harvis S. and Peter A. Voyer. (2000), Word-of-Mouth Processes Within A Services Purchase
Decision Context, Journal of Service Research, 3 (2): 166-77.
Bateson, John E.G. (1989), Managing Services Marketing: Text and Readings (Second Ed.). The USA:
Dryden Press.

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

14
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Beckett, Anthony, Paul Hewer, and Barry Howcroft. (2000), An Exposition of Consumer Behavior in
the Financial Services Industry, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18 (1): 15-26.
Bodet, Guillaume. (2008), Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Service: Two Concepts, Four
Constructs, Several Relationships, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15: 156-162
Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew. (1991), A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service
Quality and Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 17: 375-84.
Bone, Paula F. (1992), Determinants of Word-of-Mouth Communication during Product Consumption,
Advances in Consumer Research, 19: 579-83.
Chan, Lai K., Yer V. Hui, Hing Po Lo, Siu K. Tse, Geoffrey K.F. Tso, and Ming L. Wu. (2003), Consumer
Satisfaction Index: New Practice and Findings, European Journal of Marketing, 37 (5/6): 872-911.
Chang, Tung-Zong and Albert R. Wildt. (1994), Price, Product Information, and Purchase Intention: An
Empirical Study, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (1): 16-27.
Chase, R.B. (1978), Where Does the Customer Fit in a Service Organization, Harvard Business Review,
56 (6): 137-42.
Choi, Kui-Son, Woo-Hyun Cho, Sunhee Lee, Hanjoon Lee, and Chankon Kim. (2004), The Relationships
among Quality, Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention in Health Care Provider Choice: A
South Korean Study, Journal of Business Research, 57: 913-21.
Cronin, Joseph, Michael Brady, Richard Brand, Roscoe Hightower, and Donald Shemwell. (1997), A
Cross-Sectional Test of The Effect and Conceptualization of Service Value, The Journal of Service
Marketing, 11 (6): 357-91.
Cronin, Joseph, Michael Brady, and Thomas M. Hult. (2000), Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value,
and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments, Journal of
Retailing, 76 (2): 193-218.
Diaz, Ana B. Casado and Fransisco Ruiz, J. Mas. (2002), The Consumer’s Reaction to Delays in Service,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13 (2): 118-140.
Eggert, Andreas and Wolfgang Ulaga. (2002), Customer Perceived Value: A Substitute For Satisfaction
in Business Markets?, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17 (2/3): 107-118.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1972), Repeat-Buying: Theory and Applications. Amsterdam, Holland: North-
Holland.
Ennew, Christine T., Ashish Banerjee, and Derek Li. (2000), Managing Word of Mouth Communication:
Empirical Evidence From India, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18 (2): 75-83.
Ennew, Christine T. and S. McKechnie. (1998), The Financial Services Consumer, in Consumers and
Services, Mark Gabbott, and Hogg, G., Ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Finn, Adam and Ujwal Kayande. (1997), Reliability Assessment and Optimization of Marketing
Measurement, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May): 262-275.
Fornell, Claes. (1992), A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience, Journal
of Marketing, 56 (1): 6-21.
Fornell, Claes, Michael D. Johnson, Eugene Anderson, Jaesung Cha, and Barbara Everitt Bryant (1996),
The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings, Journal of Marketing,
60 (October): 7-18.
Gabbott, Mark. (2004), Introduction to Marketing: a Value Exchange Approach. New South Wales,
Australia: Prentice Hall.
Gremler, Dwayne D, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Stephen W. Brown. (2001), Generating Positive Word-
of-Mouth Communication Through Customer-Employee Relationships, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 12 (1): 44-59.
---- and Stephen W. Brown. (1999), The Loyalty Ripple Effect: Appreciating The Full Value of
Customers, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (3): 271-291.
Grewal, Dhruv, Kent B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan (1998), The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising
on Buyers' Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions, Journal
of Marketing, 62 (April): 46-59.

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

15
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Grisaffe, Douglas B. and Anand Kumar (1998), Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Value:
Testing an Expanded Framework, Marketing Science Institute, 98-107: 1-32.
Gross, I. (1997), Evolution in Customer Value: the Gross Perspective, in Customer Value: Moving
Forward - Back to Basics, B. Donath, Ed.: ISBM Report No.13.
Ha, Jooyeon and SooCheong Jang (Shawn). (2010), Perceived Values, Satisfaction, and Behavioral
Intentions: The Role of Familiarity in Korean Restaurants, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29 (1): 2-13
Harrison-Walker, L.Jean. (2001), The Measurement of Word-of-Mouth Communication and an
Investigation of Service Quality and Customer Commitment as Potential Antecedents, Journal of
Service Research, 4 (1): 20-37.
Harrison, Tina S. (1994), Mapping Customer Segments for Personal Financial Services, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 12 (8): 17-25.
Hartline, Michael D. and Keith C. Jones (1996), Employee Performance Cues in a Hotel Service
Environment: Influence on Perceived Service Quality, Value, and Word-of-Mouth Intentions,
Journal of Business Research, 35: 207-215.
Hellier, Phillip K., Gus Geursen, Rodney A. Carr, and John A. Rickard. (2003), Customer Repurchase
Intention: A General Structural Equation Model, European Journal of Marketing, 37 (11/12): 1762-
1800.
Host, Viggo and Michael Knie-Andersen. (2004), Modeling Customer Satisfaction in Mortgage Credit
Companies, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22 (1): 26-42.
Huber, Frank, Andreas Herrmann, and Robert E. Morgan (2001), Gaining Competitive Advantage
Through Customer Value Oriented Management, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18 (1), 41-53.
Hutchinson, Joe, Lai, Fujun and Youcheng Wang. (2009), Understanding The Relationships of Quality,
Value, Equity, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions Among Golf Travelers, Tourism Management,
30 (2): 298-308
Johnson, M.P. (1982), Social and Cognitive Features of the Dissolution of Commitment to Relationships,
in Dissolving Personal Relationships, Duck S., Ed. New York: Academic Press.
----, Eugene W. Anderson, and Claes Fornell. (1995), Rational and Adaptive Performance Expectations
in a Customer Satisfaction Framework, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (March): 695-707.
Kahle, Lynn R. (1983), Dialectical Tensions in the Theory of Social Values, in Social Values and Social
Change, Lynn R. Kahle, Ed. New York: Praeger.
Keaveney, Susan M. (1995), Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study,
Journal of Service Marketing, 15 (4): 300-321.
Lam, Shun Yin, Venkatesh Shankar, M. Krishna Erramilli, and Bvsan Murthy. (2004), Customer Value,
Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Switching Costs: An Illustration From a Business-to-Business Service
Context, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3): 293-311.
Lapierre, Jozee. (2000), Customer-Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts, The Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 15 (2/3): 122-139.
Law, Agnes K.Y., Y.V. Hui, and Xiande Zhao. (2004), Modeling Repurchase Frequency and Customer
Satisfaction for Fast Food Outlets, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21
(5): 545-563.
Luo, Xueming and Christian Homburg. (2007), Neglected Outcomes of Customer Satisfaction, Journal
of Marketing, 71 (April): 133-149.
Mangold, W. Glynn, Fred Miller, and Gary R. Brockway. (1999), Word-of-Mouth Communication in
the Service Marketplace, Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (1), 73-89.
McDougall, Gordon H.G. and Terrence Levesque (2000), Customer Satisfaction With Services: Putting
Perceived Value Into The Equation, Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (5): 392-410.
McKechnie, Sally (1992), Consumer Buying Behavior in Financial Services: An Overview, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 10 (5): 4-14.

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

16
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
McNaughton, Rod B., Phil Osborne, and Brian C. Imrie (2002). Market-Oriented Value Creation in
Service Firms, European Journal of Marketing, 36 (9/10): 990-1002.
Monroe, Kent B. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. New York, the USA: McGraw-Hill.
Moorthy, Sridhar, Brian T. Ratchford, and Debabrata Talukdar. (1997), Consumer Information Search
Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March): 67-88
Murray, K.B. (1991), A Test of Services Marketing Theory: Consumer Information Acquition Activities,
Journal of Marketing, 55 (1): 10-25.
Myers, James H. and Edward Tauber. (1977), Market Structure Analysis, Chicago: American Marketing
Association: 153.
Neal, William D. (1999), Satisfaction is Nice, but Value Drives Loyalty, Marketing Research , (Spring):
21-23.
O'Dell, C. and J. Grayson. (1999) Knowledge Transfer: Discover Your Value Proposition, Strategy and
Leadership (March/April): 10-15.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions,
Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (September): 46-49.
---- (1981), Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings, Journal of
Retailing, 57 (3): 25-48.
Ozanne, Julie L., Merrie Brucks, and Dhruv Grewal (1992), A Study of Information Search Behavior
during the Categorization of New Products, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March): 452-63.
Patterson, Paul G. and Richard A. Spreng (1997), Modelling The Relationship Between Perceived Value,
Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions in a Business-to-Business, Services Context: An Empirical
Examination, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8 (5): 414-34.
Parasuraman, A. (1997), Reflections on Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Customer Value,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2): 154-161.
Petrick, James F. (2002), Development of a Multi-Dimensional Scale for Measuring the Perceived
Value of a Service, Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (2): 119-34.
Petrick, James F., Morais, Duarte D., and Norman, William. (2001), An Examination of the Determinants
of Entertainment Vacationers' Intentions to Revisit, Journal of Travel Research, 40 (August): 41-48.
Ratchford, Brian T. (2001), The Economics of Consumer Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research,
27 (March): 397-411.
----, Myung-Soo Lee, and Debabrata Talukdar (2003), The Impact of the Internet on Information Search
for Automobiles, Journal of Marketing Research, XL (May): 193-209.
Reichheld, Frederick F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and
Lasting Value. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rust, Roland T. and Anthony J. Zahorik. (1993), Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention, and
Market Share," Journal of Retailing, 69 (2): 193-215.
Ryu, Kisang; Han, Heesup, and Kim, Tae-Hee. (2008), The Relationships Among Overall Quick-Casual
Restaurant Image, Perceived Value, Customer Satisfaction, And Behavioral Intentions, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (September): 459-469.
Sheth, Jagdish N, Banwari Mittal, and Bruce I. Newman. (1999), Customer Behavior: Consumer
Behavior and Beyond. The USA: The Dryden Press.
----, Bruce I. Newman, and Barbara L. Gross (1991), Consumption Values and Market Choice. Cincinati,
Ohio: South Western Publishing.
Shostack, L.G. (1977), Breaking Free From Product Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 41 (2): 73-80.
Slater, Stanley and John C. Narver (2000), Intelligence Generation and Superior Customer Value,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1): 120-127.
Snoj, Boris, Aleksandra P. Korda, and Damijan Mumel (2004), The Relationships Among Perceived
Quality, Perceived Risk and Perceived Product Value, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13
(3): 156-167.

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

17
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Spreng, Richard A., Gilbert Harrell, and Robert D. Mackoy (1995), Service Recovery: Impact on
Satisfaction and Intentions, Journal of Services Marketing, 9 (1): 15-23.
----, S.B. Mackenzie, and R.W. Olshavsky (1996), A Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer
Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing, 60 (3): 15-32.
Sweeney, Jillian C. and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2001), Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a
Multiple Item Scale, Journal of Retailing, 77 (2): 203-220.
Sweeney, Jillian C., Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Lester W. Johnson. (1999), The Role of Perceived Risk
in the Quality-Value Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment, Journal of Retailing, 75 (1):
77-105.
Ueltschy, Linda C., Michel Laroche, Robert D. Tamilia, and Peter Yannopoulos (2004), Cross-cultural
Invariance of Measures of Satisfaction and Service Quality, Journal of Business Research (57):
901-912.
Ulaga, Wolfgang and Samir Chacour (2001), Measuring Customer-Perceived Value in Business Markets,
Industrial Marketing Management (30): 525-540.
Urbany, Joel E., Peter R. Dickson, and William L. Wilkie (1989), Buyer Uncertainty and Information
Search, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September): 208-215.
Van Der Haar, Jeanke, Ron Kemp, and Onno Omta. (2001), Creating Value That Cannot Be Copied,
Industrial Marketing Management (30): 627-636.
Vanderberg, Robert J. and Charles E. Lance. (2000), A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement
Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research,
Organizational Research Methods, 3 (1): 4-70.
Walter, Achim, Thomas Ritter, and Hans G. Gemunden (2001), Value Creation in Buyer-Seller
Relationships," Industrial Marketing Management (30): 365-377.
Wang, Yonngui, Hing Po Lo, Renyong Chi, and Yongyeng Yang. (2004), An Integrated Framework
for Customer Value and Customer-Relationship-Management Performance: A Customer-Based
Perspective From China, Managing Service Quality, 14 (2/3): 169-182.
Wangenheim, Florian and Tomas Bayon. (2007), The Chain from Customer Satisfaction via Word-of-
Mouth Referrals to New Customer Acquisition, Journal of the Academy Marketing Science (35):
233-249
Westbrook, Robert A. (1987), Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase
Processes, Journal of Marketing Research, (24): 258-270.
Wilson, Alan (2002), Attitudes towards Customer Satisfaction Measurement in The Retail Sector, The
Market Research Society, 44 (2): 213-221.
Wirtz, Jochen and Patricia Chew. (2002), The Effects of Incentives, Deal Proneness, Satisfaction and
Tie Strength on Word-of-Mouth Behavior, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
13 (2): 141-162.
Woodruff, Robert B. (1997), Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage," Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2): 139-153.
Yang, Zhilin and Robin T. Peterson. (2004), Customer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty: The
Role of Switching Costs, Psychology & Marketing, 21 (10) (October): 799-822.
Yi, Joujae and Hoseong Jeon. (2003), Effects of Loyalty Programs on Value Perception, Program
Loyalty, and Brand Loyalty, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3): 229-240.

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

18
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
Appendix
Appendix 1. Measurement Equivalence/Invariance for CUSTOMER VALUE construct
Model Comparison χ2 df P χ2/df RMSEA NFI TLI CFI Δχ2 Δdf Δχ2/Δdf P ΔNFI ΔTLI ΔCFI
Baseline 31.642 16 .011 1.978 .046 .962 .963 .980

Model 1 (configural invariance) 35.164 20 .019 1.758 .040 .957 .971 .981

Model 1 VS Baseline 3.522 4 0.881 p>.25 -.005 .008 .001

Model 2 (weak factorial invariance) 39.128 24 .026 1.630 .037 .952 .976 .981

Model 2 VS Model 1 3.964 4 .991 p>.25 -.005 .005 .000

Testing for weak factorial invariance
Model 3 (strong factorial invariance) 44.761 28 .023 1.599 .036 .946 .977 .979

Model 3 VS Model 2 5.633 4 1.408 p>.25 -.006 -.001 -.002

Testing for strong factorial invariance
Model 4 (strict factorial invariance) 48.848 29 .012 1.684 .038 .947 .977 .978

Model 4 VS Model 2 9.720 5 1.944 p>.25 -.005 -.001 -.003

Testing for strict factorial invariance
Model 5 (elegant factorial invariance) 49.461 31 .019 1.596 .036 .946 .980 .979

Model 5 VS Model 2 10.333 7 1.476 p>.10 -.006 .004 .002

Testing for elegant factorial invariance

Appendix 2. Measurement Equivalence/Invariance for CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

construct
Model Comparison χ2 df P χ2/df RMSEA NFI TLI CFI Δχ2 Δdf Δχ2/Δdf P ΔNFI ΔTLI ΔCFI
Baseline 5.773 4 .217 1.443 .031 .979 .980 .993

Model 1 (configural invariance) 6.018 6 .421 1.003 .003 .978 1.000 1.000

Model 1 VS Baseline 0.245 2 .1225 p>.75 -.001 .02 .007

Model 2 (weak factorial invariance) 10.542 8 .229 1.318 .026 .961 .985 .990

Model 2 VS Model 1 4.524 2 2.262 p>.10 -.017 -.015 -.01

Testing for weak factorial invariance

Model 3 (strong factorial invariance) 11.756 10 .302 1.176 .019 .957 .992 .993

Model 3 VS Model 2 1.214 2 .607 p>.25 -.004 .007 .003

Testing for strong factorial invariance

Model 4 (strict factorial invariance) 12.079 11 .358 1.098 .015 .956 .996 .996

Model 4 VS Model 2
Testing for strict factorial invariance 1.458 3 .486 p>.75 -.005 .011 .006

Model 5 (elegant factorial invariance) 12.501 13 .406 1.042 .009 .954 .998 .998
Model 5 VS Model 2
Testing for elegant factorial invariance 1.959 4 .499 p>.75 .007 .013 .008

Appendix 3. Measurement Equivalence/Invariance for CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

construct (Excludes the “Feeling Variable”)
Model Comparison χ2 df P χ2/df RMSEA NFI TLI CFI Δχ2 Δdf Δχ2/Δdf P ΔNFI ΔTLI ΔCFI
Baseline 12.810 8 .119 1.601 .036 .966 .966 .986

Model 1 (configural invariance) 13.066 11 .289 1.188 .020 .965 .989 .994

Model 1 VS Baseline .256 3 .086 p>.95 -.001 .023 .008

Model 2 (weak factorial invariance) 17.911 14 .211 1.279 .025 .952 .984 .989

Model 2 VS Model 1 4.845 3 1.615 p>.25 -.013 -.005 -.005

Testing for weak factorial invariance

Model 3 (strong factorial invariance) 25.868 17 .077 1.522 .033 .930 .970 .975

Model 3 VS Model 2 7.957 3 2.652 p<.05 -.022 -.014 -.014

Testing for strong factorial invariance

Model 4 (strict factorial invariance) 26.243 18 .094 1.458 .031 .929 .974 .977

Model 4 VS Model 2
Testing for strict factorial invariance 8.332 4 2.081 p>.10 -.023 -.010 -.012

Model 5 (elegant factorial invariance) 28.836 20 .091 1.442 .031 .922 .975 .975

Model 5 VS Model 2
Testing for elegant factorial invariance 10.925 6 1.820 p>.10 -.030 .009 -.014

ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL

19
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1
 ASEAN MARKETING JOURNAL
20
June 2011 - Vol.III - No. 1