Research Proposal
The Mediating Role of Perceived Justice on the relationship
between Service Quality & Customer Satisfaction moderated
by frequent use
Course: Management Information Systems
Course Instructor: Assistant Professor Khalid Dahleez
Student: VVVVV
Std No.: ZP00675
MBA Program
Business Administration Department
Faculty Of Commerce
The Islamic University of Gaza
April, 2014
Abstract
2
Introduction:
The competition between organizations in satisfying customers and providing
the best goods and services is at its peak. Even manufacturers who mainly
produce goods strive to provide additional services to retain existing and attract
new customers to stay competitive. Resent statistics (Olorunniwo, Hsu, & Udo,
2006) and (Brady & Cronin, 2002)cited different researches which show that
more than two thirds of the US economy is service-oriented. Similar
indications
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
The roots of service and goods quality were originated in the works of Juran,
Deming, Crospy, and many others. After the seminal and pioneering works of
those gurus, the direction was pointed to a collective understanding of the
quality of goods and services which was dominated by TQM.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
Justice and fairness of the decisions taken by organizations as well as the fare
treatment of customers drew the attention of the researchers in the last twenty
years. In their efforts to define and understand the different types of justice and
their effects to several outcomes, (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng,
2001) did a meta-analytic review of 25 years of relevant literature. They traced
the origin
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
(Namkung & Jang, 2009) cited previous literature reflecting the interest of
researchers in studying service quality as a tool for service evaluation and that
clemmer (1993) was the first
.
.
3
.
.
..
.
Thus, what is the role played by perceived justice in the relation between
service quality and customer satisfaction and which dimension of
organizational justice has the greatest effect on this relation?
.
.
..
.
.
In order to answer the previous questions the researcher constructs the model
shown in figure (1). This model draws on the previous work of (Brady &
Robertson, 2001)that tested the relationship between service quality and
satisfaction in different international context and found that service quality is
an antecedent of satisfaction and can better explain the variance i n behavioral
intentions.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
Therefore, based on previous discussion the objectives of this study will be as
follow:
1. Examine the effect of perceived justice dimensions on the relationship
between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions.
2. Identify the justice dimensions which have the maximum effect on
customer satisfaction.
3. Predict the correlation between the service quality dimensions and the
organizational justice dimensions.
4. Examine the moderating role of customers' previous experience
(frequent use) on the mediating relationship of expected justice between
service quality and customer satisfaction.
In conclusion, the current research is expected to advance understanding and
add more explanations on the effect of service quality on customer satisfaction
and behavioral intention by introducing perceived justice and previous
experience as mediating and moderating variables respectively.
.
.
.
4
..
.
Review of the Literature:
Quality of Service:
The conceptualization and measurement as well as the antecedents and
outcomes of service quality are still under debate from different researchers.
Despite the efforts and debates between researchers for more than twenty years,
as argued by (Brady & Cronin Jr, 2001), the
.
.
.
.
..
Customer Satisfaction & Behavioral Intention:
Academic research on customer satisfaction reports mixed results and findings
about both its antecedents and outcomes as argued by (Szymanski & Henard,
2001).
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Organizational Justice:
The field of organizational justice becomes an important topic and gains a lot
of attention in the last 30 years as mentioned by (Colquitt, 2001) who
differentiated between four categories of organizational justice. The focus
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
5
Model & Hypotheses Development:
As depicted in figure (1) the model will study
.
.
..
.
.
The following subsections shed more light on this model and discuss its
justifications and logical underpinnings as well as the development of research
hypotheses.
Service Quality, Satisfaction, & Behavioral Intentions:
.
.
..
.
.
.
Thus, based on the previous discussion it is proposed that:
H1. Service Quality is an antecedent to customer satisfaction and behavioral
intention.
H2.Service quality has both direct and indirect (through customer satisfaction)
effects on behavioral intentions.
.
.
..
.
Role of Perceived Justice:
The study of justice was mainly about equity and fairness perceptions in the
workplace and was linked to different outcomes such as job satisfaction, OCB,
and organizational commitment as was argued by (Colquitt, et al., 2001).
.
.
..
.
.
.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Perceived procedural justice mediates the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction.
6
H4. Perceived informational justice mediates the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction.
H5. Perceived distributional justice mediates the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction.
H6. Perceived interpersonal justice mediates the relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction.
H7. Perceived overall justice mediates the relationship between service quality
and customer satisfaction.
Role of Previous Experience (frequent customers):
.
.
..
.
For the purpose of this research, the researcher will refer to loyalty,
commitment, frequency of use, and strong-tie as frequent use of service and
propose that:
H8. Previous experience (frequent use of service) moderates the mediating
relationship of perceived justice between service quality and customer
satisfaction.
Methodology:
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
Study Design:
The researcher will use two different approaches to implement the current
research. First is a qualitative approach which will be done by arranging three
interviews and one focus group.
.
.
..
.
.
The researcher then will develop a questionnaire containing all modified
measures and some demographical data items. He will distribute copies of these
questionnaires to 50 respondents from the population as a pilot to test the
7
clarity and validity of the questionnaire, make some modifications, and
estimate required time to fill the questionnaire. A final revision and
modifications will be done.
Population and Sample:
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
Investigative Techniques:
The researcher will use three different techniques. The first two are qualitative
techniques namely: interviews and focus group and the third is a questionnaire.
.
.
..
The questionnaire will include four parts. The first
.
.
..
.
Instrument development:
As discussed in previous sections there is more than one instrument to measure
the constructs in the study. The convention is to adopt a suitable instrument and
modify it to suit the purpose of the study as was done by (Cronin Jr, et al.,
2000), (Dabholkar, et al., 2000), and (Olorunniwo, et al., 2006). Recent
.
.
.
.
.
.
The researcher will adopt justice measures provided by (Colquitt, 2001) to test
the four dimensions of justice.
.
.
.
8
Measure of procedural justice includes items such as "have those p rocedures
been applied consistently?".
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
Data Collection:
The researcher will arrange and do the interviews by his own to assure the
complete
.
..
.
.
Data Analysis Plan:
The researcher will use different types of statistics in order to fulfill the goals
of the research. Descriptive statistics indicating
.
.
..
After that the researcher will use SEM to analyze and test the relationships
between all constructs and the model fit. The use of SEM is better than other
methods because it accounts for measurement errors
.
.
..
.
.
Ethical Considerations:
The topic of justice and fairness is very sensitive in his nature. Adding to this
the sensitivity of the issues related to fairness in financial issues such as loans
and psychological conflicts and problems. All information
.
.
..
.
9
Bias:
Two types of bias concerns are related to this research, one is the use of the
self-report measure which raises common method concerns while filling the
questionnaire from respondents' side.
.
.
.
.
Assumptions:
There are many assumptions which the researcher takes for granted when doing
his research. Some of them are related to the respondents, some
.
.
..
.
Limitations:
The research has some types of limitations. One limitation is related to doing
the research for DSA only which may affect respondents” judgment
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
10
References:
Aguinis, H., & Gottfredson, R. (2010). Best practice recommendations for estimating
interaction effects using moderated multiple regression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(6), 776-786.
Ambrose, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in
organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of applied psychology,
94(2), 491-500.
Aurier, P., & Siadou-Martin, B. (2007). Perceived justice and consumption experience
evaluations: A qualitative and experimental investigation. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 18(5), 450-471.
Brady, M., & Cronin, J. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: a
replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 17-31.
Brady, M., Cronin, J., & Brand, R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service
quality: a replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 17-31.
Brady, M., & Cronin Jr, J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
service quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Brady, M., & Robertson, C. (2001). Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role
of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study. Journal of
Business Research, 51(1), 53-60.
Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct
validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Colquitt, J., Conlon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors
Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 1-10.
Cronin Jr, J., Brady, M., & Hult, G. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value,
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments.
Journal of retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
Dabholkar, P., & Overby, J. (2005). Linking process and outcome to service quality
and customer satisfaction evaluations: An investigation of real estate agent service.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(1), 10-27.
Dabholkar, P., Shepherd, C., & Thorpe, D. (2000). A comprehensive framework for
service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues
through a longitudinal study. Journal of retailing, 76(2), 139-173.
Holbrook Jr, R., & Kulik, C. (2001). Customer perceptions of justice in service
transactions: the effects of strong and weak ties. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22(7), 743-757.
Kanning, U., & Bergmann, N. (2009). Predictors of customer satisfaction: testing the
classical paradigms. Managing Service Quality, 19(4), 377-390.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). The effects of interactional fairness on satisfaction
and behavioral intentions: Mature versus non-mature customers. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 397-405.
Namkung, Y., Jang, S., Almanza, B., & Ismail, J. (2009). Identifying the underlying
structure of perceived service fairness in restaurants. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(4), 375-392.
Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M., & Udo, G. (2006). Service quality, customer satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions in the service factory. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(1),
59-72.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 4150.
11
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of retailing, 64,
12-40.
Smith, A., Bolton, R., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with
service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research,
36(3), 356-372.
Szymanski, D., & Henard, D. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta -analysis of the
empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
12
Appendices:
SERVPERF Measure:
# Item
1. Up-to-date equipment
2. Should do as promised
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
1
2
3
4
2
3
5
6
7
Justice Dimensions:
# Item
Procedural Justice
1. Have you been able to express your views and feelings during
these procedures?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Have you been able to appeal the outcome arrived at by those procedures?
7. Have those procedure upheld ethical and normal standards?
Distributive Justice
1. Does your outcome reflect the effort you have put into your work?
2.
3.
4.
Interpersonal Justice
1.
2.
3.
4. Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments?
Informational Justice
1. Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communications with you?
2. Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?
3.
4.
5.
Overall Justice
1. Overall, I am treated fairly by the organization
1
4
5
6
7
13
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In general, I can count on this organization to be fair
Most of the workers who work here would say they are often
treated unfairly.
Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions:
# Item
Customer Satisfaction
1. Overall, I am satisfied with my () experience at this organization
2.
3.
Behavioral Intentions
1.
2.
3. I would say positive things about this organization to others
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14