Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
were in the age of 20 to 30 then followed by the
respondents that were in age of 31-40 that contrib-
uted 30.8 percent.
The respondents in the age of 41 to 50 and 51 to
60 contributed to the same percent ages which were
13 percent respectively. The rest of the respondents
were above the age of 60 or below 20 (4.1% and
0.6% accordingly). Almost half (47.9%) of them
stayed at the five stars hotel for holiday purposes.
Other than that, the respondents who stayed for
the purpose of business contributed 45.0 percent.
Bootstrap analysis was used to assess the medi-
tational model of Satisfaction as a mediator of the
relationship between Customer Loyalty Attributes
(Perceived value, Attachment, Familiarity) and
Behavioural Loyalty. To prove the mediating effect
from the variables, the 95 percent bootstrap con-
fidence interval for the indirect effect must not
include zero which means if there is zero value, “0”
between the interval which are lower and upper, it
indicates the mediator does not mediate between
independent and dependent variable and was not
significant.
In this analysis, Satisfaction does mediate the
effect of Customer Loyalty Attributes on Behav-
ioural Loyalty. The analysis for each dimensions
showed Satisfaction does mediates between Per-
ceived Value and Attachment on Behavioural
Loyalty. However, it does not mediate between
Familiarity on Behavioural Loyalty. As can be seen
in Table 1, when customer loyalty attributes was
controlled, both indirect and direct effects were
significant. The mean of indirect effect from the
analysis was positive and significant (a x b
relationship (a = 0.268) while holding constant for
customer loyalty attributes, the high level of satis-
faction will indicate positivity of behavioural loy-
alty (b = 0.478).
When perceived value was controlled, the mean
of indirect effect from the bootstrap analysis was
positive and significant (a x b = 0.229), with a 95%
bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval
excluding zero (0.148 to 0.321). In the direct path,
the respondents who indicated high level of per-
ceived value were more likely to have satisfaction
relationship (a = 0.471) while holding constant
for perceived value, the respondents who had high
level of satisfaction will more likely lead to the
behavioural loyalty (b = 0.489). In the direct effect
path (c′ = .059), the satisfaction relationship was
not significant and the respondents with high level
of perceived value were less likely to have behav-
ioural loyalty.
Whereby, when attachment was controlled,
both indirect and direct effects were significant.
The mean of indirect effect from the analysis was
positive and significant (a x b = 0.140), with a 95%
bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval
excluding zero (.071 to 0.221) and the direct effect
c (0.140) was significant (p < .05). The respondents
who had high level of attachment were more likely
to have satisfaction relationship (a = 0.288) while
holding constant for attachment, the high level of
satisfaction will indicate positivity of behavioural
loyalty (b = 0.489).
On the other hand, when familiarity was con-
trolled, the mean of indirect effect from the
bootstrap analysis was significant (a x b = .005).
However, with a 95 percent bias corrected the
accelerated confidence interval was insignificant
as the interval was including zero (-.046 to .053).
This model showed that familiarity cannot stand
alone to lead to the behavioural loyalty as familiar-
0.128),
with a 95% bias corrected and accelerated confi-
dence interval excluding zero (.078 to 0.167) and
the direct effect c' (0.10) was significant (p
=
. 001).
The respondents who had high level of customer
loyalty were more likely to have satisfaction
<
Table 1.
Summary of mediation result (5,000 bootstrap samples,
N
=
169).
Independent
Variable (IV)
Mediating
Variable (M)
Dependent
Variable (DV)
Effect
Of IV on M (a)
Effect of
M on DV (b)
Direct
Effects
(c′)
Indirect
Effect
(a*b)
95% CI
for a*b
Total
Effects
(c)
Customer
Loyalty
Attributes
Satisfaction
Behavioural
Loyalty
.27**
.49**
.10**
.128*
.078,
.167
.228**
Perceived
Value
Satisfaction
Behavioural
Loyalty
.47**
.49**
.059
.229*
.148,
.321
.289**
Attachment
Satisfaction
Behavioural
Loyalty
.29**
.49**
.13**
.140*
.071,
.221
.266**
Familiarity
Satisfaction
Behavioural
Loyalty
.005
.49**
.102*
.005*
−.046,
.053
.104*
IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable; M, mediator. In both analyses, the effects of the other independent
variables were controlled for **p.001, *p.05.
Note
: 95% CI for a*b is significant if zero is not included in the interval.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search