Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing asymmetric response effect of behavioral intention to service quality in an integrated psychological decision-making process model of intercity bus passengers: a case of Taiwan

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study introduces the concept of loss aversion to consumer behavioral intention at the personal psychological level to develop an integrative structural equation model for analyzing traveler psychological decision making. In this model, the relationship between behavioral intention and service quality is a non-smooth function based on the theory of loss aversion. The expectation service quality in the SERVQUAL model proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (PZB) serves as a reference point. This model can be applied to analyze the effect of non-smooth response of behavioral intention to service quality in a traveler psychological decision-making process model. Intercity travel among cities in Taiwan is used as an empirical example. Data were gathered in cities in Taiwan via a questionnaire survey, and the model was tested using path analysis performed by LISREL. The empirical result shows that all causal relationships are statistically significant. Service quality loss influences repurchase intention more than does Service quality gain. Finally, this study concludes by discussing managerial implications and suggesting directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W.: Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103(3), 411–423 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, L.L.: Relationship marketing. In: Berry, L., Shostack, G.L., Upah, G.D. (eds.) Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago (1983)

  • Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H.: A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. J. Consum. Res. 17(4), 875–884 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, S.: The dominant-firm advantage in multiproduct industries: evidence from the US airline. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1237–1266 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M.: Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 76(2), 193–218 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, F., Goode, M., Mazanec, J., Moutinho, L.: LISREL and neural network modeling: two comparison studies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 6(4), 249–261 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desatnick, R.L., Detzel, D.H.: Managing to Keep the Customer: How to Achieve and Maintain Superior Customer Service Throughout the Organization. Revised edition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1993)

  • Dresner, M., Windle, R.: Airport dominance and yields in the US airline industry. Logist. Transport. Rev. 28(4), 319–339 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • ECMT: Regular Interurban Coach Services in Europe: Report of The 114th Round Table on Transport Economics. OECD, Paris (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation modles with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Birger, W.: Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis. J. Mark. Res. 24(November), 337–346 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C.: A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. J. Mark. 56(January), 6–21 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, L.: A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd. SAS Institute Inc (1998)

  • James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., Brett, J.M.: Causal Analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jen, W., Hu, K.C.: Application of perceived value model to identify factors affecting passengers’ repurchase intentions on city bus: a case of the Taipei metropolitan area. Transportation 30(3), 307–327 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L., Beatty, S.E.: Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services. J. Retail. 76(2), 259–274 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom D.: LISREL8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, C.H.: Services Marketing 4th edn. Prentice hall International (2000)

  • Mutti, J., Murai, Y.: Airline travel on the North Atlantic: is profitability possible? J. Transp. Econ. Policy 11(1), 395–414 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • Noko, S.M.: Frequent flyer programs and business travelers: an empirical investigation. Logist. Transport. Rev. 28(4), 395–414 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, M.: Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic perspective. Int J Hospitality Manage. 18(1), 67–82 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 49(Fall), 41–50 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality. J. Mark. 58, 111–124 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proussaloglou, K., Koppelman, F.: Air carrier demand: an analysis of market share determinants. Transportation 22, 371–388 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., Johnson, L.W.: Retail service quality and perceived value: a comparison of two models. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 4(1), 39–48 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, Y., Tyworth, J.E., Novack, R.A.: Airline market share and customer service quality: a reference-dependent model. Transport. Res. A 35, 773–788 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1039–1061 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, K.E., Ashford, N.: Carrier choices of air passengers in Pacific rim: using comparative analysis and complementary interpretation of revealed preference and stated preference data. Transport. Res. Rec. 1562, 1–7 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V.A.: Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52, 2–22 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the Chung De Cultural and Education Foundation for their support. The author also thanks three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Transportation Technology and Management, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan

    Jiun-Hung Lin & William Jen

  2. No. 530, Sec. 3, Jhong-Shan Road, Hukou Township, Hsin Chu County, 303, Taiwan

    Jiun-Hung Lin

  3. Department of Marketing, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Tzong-Ru Lee

Authors
  1. Jiun-Hung Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tzong-Ru Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Jen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiun-Hung Lin.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Part 1: Service quality scale

Directions:

Expectation of service level: Based on your experiences as a passenger of the intercity travel bus, please think about the ideal kind of bus service that would deliver excellent quality of bus service. In the “Expectation” column, please indicate the service level to which you think such an ideal bus service should posses the feather described by each of the statement listed below. Circling a “1” means that you think the service level of the ideal bus service in this feather should be “very low,” and circling a “5” means that you think the service level of the ideal bus service in this feather should be “very high.”

Perception of service level: The same set of statements relates to your perception of the intercity bus service you take this time. For each statement, please indicate the service level of this bus service you perceived in the “Perception” column. Circling a “1” means that you think the service level of this bus service you take in this feather is “very low,” and circling a “5” means that you think the service level of this bus service in this feather is “very high.”

Latent variable

Manifest variable

SQ-LOSS

SQ-GAIN

 

Expectation

Perception

Service quality (SQ)

V1

V5

Interaction with passengers (6 items)

   1. Drivers appreciate the safety of passengers when they get on/off the vehicle

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   2. Drivers are polite and friendly to communicate with passengers

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   3. Drivers drive smoothly, and his road craft is fine

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   4. Drivers drive on right route and never fail to stop when passengers want to get on

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   5. The company deals with accidents quickly and reasonably

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   6. The company deals with passengers’ opinions and complaints sufficiently

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

V2

V6

Tangible service equipment (6 items)

   7. Companies provide safe and brand new vehicles

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   8. Vehicles are clean inside

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   9. Noise on the vehicle isn’t too loud

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   10. The equipment in the vehicle satisfies passengers’ needs

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   11.The air conditioning is very comfortable

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   12. The stop’s layout is fine

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

V3

V7

Convenience of services (5 items)

   13. The places of stops or stations are proper and convenient

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   14. The transshipping on the network is convenient

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   15. The information about routes is marked clearly

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   16. The company will have notification on the cars in short time when the routes and schedule are changed

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   17.The company will correct the information at stops or stations in short time when the routes and schedule are changed

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

V4

V8

Operating management support (3 items)

   18. I don’t have to worry that there is no bus

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   19. I have to wait for the bus coming for a long time

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

   20. The bus company dispatches buses according to the schedule

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Part 2: Other scales

Directions:

Based on your experience of taking this intercity bus service this time, please CIRCLE a number that best identifies your feelings about each feature listed below. Circling a “1” means that you “strongly disagree” that feature in this travel, and a “5” means that you “strongly agree” that feature in this travel. You may circle any of the numbers in the middle that show how strong your feelings are. There are no right or wrong answers.

Latent variable

Manifest variable

Strongly disagree↔Strongly agree

Perceived non-monetary price (PNMP)

V9

It isn’t convenient for me to reach stations from my departure place

1 2 3 4 5

V10

Time to wait for the arrival isn’t appropriate

1 2 3 4 5

V11

The travel time isn’t appropriate

1 2 3 4 5

Perceived monetary price (PMP)

V12

The fare is too expensive to me

1 2 3 4 5

V13

The fare is unreasonable with this level of service

1 2 3 4 5

V14

The fare is unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5

Attractiveness of alternative modes (AAM)

V15

If I need to change bus companies, there are other good bus companies to choose from

1 2 3 4 5

V16

I would probably be happy with the services of another bus company

1 2 3 4 5

V17

Compared to this bus company, there are other bus companies with which I would probably be equally or more satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Perceived benefits (PB)

V18

The schedule and routes satisfy customers’ needs

1 2 3 4 5

V19

Customers are served well

1 2 3 4 5

V20

The service is better than expected

1 2 3 4 5

Perceived costs (PC)

V21

The price is lower than expected (reverse coding)

1 2 3 4 5

V22

Costs (time, money and psychic) are reasonable (reverse coding)

1 2 3 4 5

V23

It is acceptable to pay the price (reverse coding)

1 2 3 4 5

Perceived value (PV)

V24

The service offered is valuable

1 2 3 4 5

V25

The service based on certain price is acceptable

1 2 3 4 5

V26

It is worthier to ride the bus than the other vehicles

1 2 3 4 5

Repurchase intention (RI)

V27

There is a possibility for me to ride again

1 2 3 4 5

V28

There is a possibility for me to ride the same vehicle with the same costs

1 2 3 4 5

V29

There is a possibility for me to ride the same vehicle with the same ticket price

1 2 3 4 5

V30

There is a willingness for me to ride again

1 2 3 4 5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, JH., Lee, TR. & Jen, W. Assessing asymmetric response effect of behavioral intention to service quality in an integrated psychological decision-making process model of intercity bus passengers: a case of Taiwan. Transportation 35, 129–144 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9139-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-007-9139-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation