Does Multidimensional Service Quality Generate Sustainable Use Intention for Facebook?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Service Quality
2.2. Hypotheses
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Instrument Development
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Evaluation of Common Method Bias
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Measurement Model Assessment
4.2. Structural Model Assessment
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jang, Y.T.; Chang, S.E.; Chen, P.A. Exploring social networking sites for facilitating multi-channel retailing. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2015, 74, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.E.; Liu, A.Y.; Shen, W.C. User trust in social networking services: A comparison of Facebook and LinkedIn. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Hsieh, J.P.A.; Song, B. Understanding user satisfaction with instant messaging: An empirical study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Int. 2012, 28, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide. 2018. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/ (accessed on 3 February 2018).
- Zhao, L.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chau, P.Y.K. Assessing the effects of service quality and justice on customer satisfaction and the continuance intention of mobile value-added services: An empirical test of a multidimensional model. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 52, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikou, S.; Bouwman, H. Ubiquitous use of mobile social network services. Telemat. Inform. 2014, 31, 422–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lien, C.H.; Cao, Y.; Zhou, X. Service quality, satisfaction, stickiness and usage intentions: An exploratory evaluation in the context of WeChat services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowatsch, T.; Maass, W. In-store consumer behavior: How mobile recommendation agents influence usage intentions, product purchases, and store preferences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boehmer, J.; Lacy, S. Sport news on facebook: The relationship between interactivity and readers’ browsing behavior. Int. J. Sport Commun. 2014, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.S.; Lee, E.S. The relationships among Needs for Self-expression, SNS’s Social Function and Continued Use Intention of SNS Users. Korea Logist. Rev. 2017, 27, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Jeong, E.S. An Exploratory Study on Social Network Services in the Context of Web 2.0 Period. Manag. Inf. Syst. Rev. 2010, 29, 143–167. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wang, B. A multidimensional and hierarchical model of mobile service quality. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2009, 8, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haruna, B.; Kiran, K.; Tahira, M. Modeling web-based library service quality and user loyalty in the context of a developing country. Electron. Libr. 2017, 35, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemes, M.D.; Gan, C.; Ren, M. Synthesizing the effects of service quality, value, and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the motel industry: An empirical analysis. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2011, 35, 530–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.C.; Yen, D.C.; Hwang, M.I. Factors influencing the continuance intention to the usage of Web 2.0: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 933–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Yeh, R.K.-J.; Chen, C.; Tsydypov, Z. What drives electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites? Perspective of social capital and self-determination. Telemat. Informat. 2016, 33, 1034–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gronroos, C.A. Service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur. J. Mark. 1984, 18, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12–40. [Google Scholar]
- Dyke, T.P.V.; Kappelman, L.A.; Prybutok, V.R. Measuring information systems service quality: Concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. MIS Q. 1997, 21, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buttle, F. Review, Critique, Research Agenda. Eur. J. Mark. 1996, 30, 8–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, J.J.; Taylor, S.A. Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulthard, L.J.M. Measuring Service Quality: A Review and Critique of Research Using SERVQUAL. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2004, 46, 479–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rust, R.; Oliver, R.L. Service Quality: Insights and Managerial Implications from the Frontier; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Dabholkar, P.A.; Thorpe, D.I.; Rentz, J.O. A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1996, 24, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caro, L.M.; Garcia, J.A.M. Developing a multidimensional and hierarchical service quality model for the travel agency industry. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 706–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olorunniwo, F.; Hsu, M.K. A typology analysis of service quality, customer satisfaction and customer behavioral intentions in mass services. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2006, 16, 106–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.M.; Oh, J.Y. Employee emotional response toward healthcare organization’s service recovery efforts and its influences on service recovery performance. Serv. Bus. 2012, 6, 297–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Zhu, J.; Zhou, M. How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual selfidentity, group competition climate, and customer service performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 100, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, E.S.; Chen, L.S. Forming relationship commitments to online communities: The role of social motivations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 570–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, T.K.H.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Shi, N.; Lee, M.K.O.; Lee, Z.W.Y. An Empirical Examination of Continuance Intention of Social Networking Sites. Pac. Asia J. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 2016, 8, 69–90. [Google Scholar]
- Ellison, N.B.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. The Benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Knowledge Sharing Among Tourists via Social Media Social Network Sites. J. Comput. Med. Commun. 2007, 12, 1143–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Guo, L.; Hu, M.; Liu, W. Influence of customer engagement with company social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, S.D. A Scale of Consumer Engagement. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kuo, Y.F.; Wu, C.M.; Deng, W.J. The relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2009, 25, 887–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, K.Y.; Lu, H.P. Intention of Continue Using Facebook Fan Pages from the Perspective of Social Capital Theory. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gupta, P.; Harris, J. How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 63, 1041–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaniotakis, I.E.; Lymperopoulos, C. Service quality effect on satisfaction and word of mouth in the health care industry. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2009, 19, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gounaris, S.; Dimitriadis, S.; Stathakapolos, V. An examination of the effects of service quality and satisfaction on consumers’ behavioral intentions in e-shoping. J. Serv. Mark. 2010, 24, 142–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, S.S.; Anderson, R.; Ponnavolu, K. Customer loyalty in e-commerce: An explanation of its antecedents and consequences. J. Retail. 2002, 78, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelb, B.D.; Sundaram, S. Adapting to word of mouse. Bus. Horiz. 2002, 45, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig, T.T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet. J. Int. Mark. 2004, 18, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeitham, V.A.; Berry, L.L. Perceived service quality as a customer-based performance measure: An empirical examination of organizational barriers using an extended service quality model. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1991, 30, 335–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.B.; Li, Y.N.; Wu, B.; Li, D.J. How WeChat can retain users: Roles of network externalities, social interaction ties, and perceived values in building continuance intention. J. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carmines, E.G.; Zeller, R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment (17); Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Doll, J.W.; Xia, W.; Torkzadeh, G. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q. 1994, 18, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
Constructs | Items | |
---|---|---|
Outcome quality Lien et al. [7], Lu et al. [12] | OQ1 | I can save considerable time and effort with Facebook communication. |
OQ2 | Facebook delivers information very quickly. | |
OQ3 | Facebook provides important information. | |
OQ4 | Facebook tries to give me a good experience. | |
Environment quality Lien et al. [7], Lu et al. [12] | EQ1 | Facebook display is easy to use. |
EQ3 | Facebook provides useful ‘emotional expression’ icons. | |
EQ4 | Facebook provides useful supporting tools (e.g., photo and message sharing). | |
EQ5 | I would say Facebook’s interface design is creative. | |
Social quality Zhang et al. [45] | SQ1 | Facebook brings my friends and family together. |
SQ2 | Facebook helps to strengthen my network with other people. | |
SQ4 | Facebook is helpful for maintaining social relationships. | |
Interaction quality Lien et al. [7], Lu et al. [12] | IQ2 | Facebook authorities are very friendly. |
IQ3 | Facebook authorities are willing to solve my problems. | |
IQ4 | Facebook is able to answer my questions thoroughly. | |
IQ5 | Overall, Facebook interaction/chatting quality is good. | |
Word-of-mouth Chen et al. [17], Henning et al. [43] | WOM2 | I have many good things to say about Facebook services. |
WOM3 | I would say positive things about Facebook. | |
WOM4 | I recommend use of Facebook among peers and relatives. | |
WOM5 | I am ready to tell other people that I use Facebook. | |
Satisfaction Zhang et al. [45] | SAT1 | I feel satisfied using Facebook. |
SAT2 | I feel pleasant using Facebook. | |
SAT3 | I feel enjoyment using Facebook. | |
SAT4 | Facebook has met my expectations. | |
Sustainable use intention Zhang et al. [45] | INT1 | I will use Facebook in the future. |
INT3 | I would use Facebook more than any other networks. | |
INT4 | I would visit Facebook as often as I can. | |
INT5 | I usually open Facebook when I am online. |
Characteristics (N = 307) | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 173 | 56.4 |
Female | 134 | 43.6 |
Age group (years) | ||
Under 18 | 01 | 0.30 |
18–21 | 43 | 14.0 |
22–25 | 131 | 42.0 |
26–30 | 62 | 20.0 |
Over 30 | 70 | 22.8 |
Facebook usage per day | ||
Less than 20 min | 18 | 5.80 |
20–40 min | 56 | 18.3 |
40–60 min | 92 | 30.0 |
More than 60 min | 141 | 45.9 |
Facebook experience (years) | ||
1–2 years | 16 | 5.21 |
2–3 years | 20 | 6.50 |
More than 3 years | 271 | 88.3 |
Occupation | ||
Government employee | 47 | 15.3 |
Private employee | 91 | 29.6 |
Business | 22 | 7.20 |
Student | 139 | 42.0 |
Other | 18 | 5.90 |
Measurement Construct | Item | Standardized Factor Loadings | p | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | Composite Reliability (CR) | Cronbach’s Alpha (α) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome quality | 0.55 | 0.83 | 0.82 | |||
(GFI = 0.969, CFI = 0.963, NFI = 0.959) | OQ1 | 0.657 | *** | |||
OQ2 | 0.779 | *** | ||||
OQ3 | 0.797 | *** | ||||
OQ4 | 0.725 | |||||
Environment quality | 0.50 | 0.80 | 0.79 | |||
(GFI = 0.994, CFI = 0.993, NFI = 0.990) | EQ1 | 0.746 | *** | |||
EQ3 | 0.750 | *** | ||||
EQ4 | 0.696 | *** | ||||
EQ5 | 0.638 | |||||
Social quality | 0.51 | 0.75 | 0.74 | |||
(GFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00) | SQ1 | 0.727 | *** | |||
SQ2 | 0.794 | *** | ||||
SQ4 | 0.598 | |||||
Interaction quality | 0.52 | 0.81 | 0.80 | |||
(GFI = 0.992, CFI = 0.992, NFI = 0.987) | IQ2 | 0.701 | *** | |||
IQ3 | 0.811 | *** | ||||
IQ4 | 0.761 | *** | ||||
IQ5 | 0.602 | |||||
Word-of-mouth | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.80 | |||
(GFI = 0.978, CFI = 0.973, NFI = 0.968) | WOM2 | 0.763 | *** | |||
WOM3 | 0.765 | *** | ||||
WOM4 | 0.757 | *** | ||||
WOM5 | 0.605 | |||||
Satisfaction | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.84 | |||
(GFI = 0.995, CFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.994) | SAT1 | 0.824 | *** | |||
SAT2 | 0.876 | *** | ||||
SAT3 | 0.730 | *** | ||||
SAT4 | 0.657 | |||||
Sustainable use intention | 0.52 | 0.81 | 0.81 | |||
(GFI = 0.983, CFI = 0.980, NFI = 0.976) | INT1 | 0.770 | *** | |||
INT3 | 0.667 | *** | ||||
INT4 | 0.640 | *** | ||||
INT5 | 0.787 |
Mean | Std. Deviation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | VIF | Tolerance | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Outcome quality | 3.85 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 2.23 | 0.44 | |||||||||
2. Environment quality | 3.89 | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.71 | 1.95 | 0.51 | ||||||||
3. Social quality | 4.09 | 0.73 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 1.37 | 0.73 | |||||||
4. Interaction quality | 3.33 | 0.77 | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.72 | 1.32 | 0.75 | ||||||
5. Word-of-mouth | 3.62 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.73 | 2.20 | 0.45 | |||||
6. Satisfaction | 3.71 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.68 | 0.78 | 2.14 | 0.46 | ||||
7. Sustainable use | 3.85 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.72 | |||||
Indices | Model Fit Obtained Value | Recommended Value | References | |||||||||||
CMIN/df | 1.965 | <3 | Hair et al. [48] | |||||||||||
CFI | 0.928 | ≥0.90 | Hair et al. [48] | |||||||||||
GFI | 0.876 | ≥0.80 | Doll et al. [49] | |||||||||||
AGFI | 0.844 | ≥0.80 | Doll et al. [49] | |||||||||||
NFI | 0.864 | ≥0.90 | Hair et al. [48] | |||||||||||
TLI | 0.916 | ≥0.90 | Hair et al. [48] | |||||||||||
IFI | 0.929 | ≥0.90 | Hair et al. [48] | |||||||||||
RMSEA | 0.056 | ≤0.08 | Browne and Cudeck [50] |
Hypothesized Paths | Estimate | S.E. | p | Hypothesis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interaction quality | ---> | Satisfaction | 0.133 | 0.048 | ** | H1a-Accepted |
Environment quality | ---> | Satisfaction | 0.288 | 0.058 | *** | H1b-Accepted |
Social quality | ---> | Satisfaction | 0.095 | 0.053 | ** | H1c-Accepted |
Outcome quality | ---> | Satisfaction | 0.274 | 0.061 | *** | H1d-Accepted |
Interaction quality | ---> | WOM | 0.172 | 0.042 | *** | H2a-Accepted |
Environment quality | ---> | WOM | 0.038 | 0.052 | 0.483 | H2b-Rejected |
Social quality | ---> | WOM | 0.033 | 0.045 | 0.465 | H2c-Rejected |
Outcome quality | ---> | WOM | 0.201 | 0.054 | *** | H2d-Accepted |
Satisfaction | ---> | Sustainable use | 0.536 | 0.054 | *** | H3a-Accepted |
Satisfaction | ---> | WOM | 0.473 | 0.049 | *** | H3b-Accepted |
WOM | ---> | Sustainable use | 0.255 | 0.055 | *** | H4-Accepted |
Customer satisfaction 40% WOM communication 55% Sustainable use intention 54% Model fit indices: CFI = 0.972, GFI = 0.973, AGFI = 0.812, NFI = 0.968, and IFI = 0.972 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hossain, M.A.; Kim, M. Does Multidimensional Service Quality Generate Sustainable Use Intention for Facebook? Sustainability 2018, 10, 2283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072283
Hossain MA, Kim M. Does Multidimensional Service Quality Generate Sustainable Use Intention for Facebook? Sustainability. 2018; 10(7):2283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072283
Chicago/Turabian StyleHossain, Md. Alamgir, and Minho Kim. 2018. "Does Multidimensional Service Quality Generate Sustainable Use Intention for Facebook?" Sustainability 10, no. 7: 2283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072283
APA StyleHossain, M. A., & Kim, M. (2018). Does Multidimensional Service Quality Generate Sustainable Use Intention for Facebook? Sustainability, 10(7), 2283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072283