The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

Customer
Relational benefits and customer satisfaction in
satisfaction in retail banking retail banking
Arturo Molina
Department of Marketing, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 253
Cobertizo San Pedro Mártir, Toledo, Spain
David Martı́n-Consuegra
Department of Marketing, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ronda de Toledo,
Ciudad Real, Spain, and
Águeda Esteban
Department of Marketing, University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Cobertizo San Pedro Mártir, Toledo, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of relational benefits on customer
satisfaction in retail banking. This paper presents a causal model that identifies a connection between
the relational benefits achieved through a stable and long-term relationship with a given bank and
customer satisfaction with retail banking.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a theoretical framework regarding the relationship
between relational benefits and customer satisfaction, an empirical study using a sample of 204 bank
customers was conducted, and the theoretical model is tested. Multi-item indicators from prior studies
were employed to measure the constructs of interest, and the proposed relationships were tested using
structural equations modeling methods.
Findings – The results show that confidence benefits have a direct, positive effect on the satisfaction
of customers with their bank. However, special treatment benefits and social benefits did not have any
significant effects on satisfaction in a retail banking environment.
Research limitations/implications – This study was conducted in a retail banking setting, and
may not be generalized in other service sectors. It has also focused on the relationship between
relational benefits and satisfaction, while other factors that may have an influence on consumer
satisfaction have not been considered.
Practical implications – The findings suggest that banks can create customer satisfaction through
relational strategies that focus on building customer confidence. Therefore, frontline employees should
be committed to establishing and maintaining confidence benefits for customers.
Originality/value – Interest in the subjects of relational benefits and customer satisfaction has been
growing among marketing researchers and practitioners. The present study provides useful
information on the relationship between customer satisfaction and specific relational benefits in retail
banking.
Keywords Customer satisfaction, Banking, Relationship marketing, Spain
Paper type Research paper

Introduction International Journal of Bank

Many innovations have recently modified the concept of retail banking, due to new Marketing
Vol. 25 No. 4, 2007
forms of commercialization and distribution of financial services, as well as to the pp. 253-271
evolution of twenty-first century consumers (Verhoef et al., 2002; Sweeney and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
Morrison, 2004). DOI 10.1108/02652320710754033
IJBM The importance of this study is based on relationship marketing, service quality
25,4 and consumer satisfaction as key elements for the success of financial businesses
facing increasing competition and recent market changes. Although past studies
provide knowledge regarding the nature and importance of banking relationships from
a customer viewpoint (O’Loughlin et al., 2004), some questions remain unanswered.
Nowadays, most financial service providers trust that a conscientious customer service
254 will be more important for consumer satisfaction than lower prices in those activities
where there is a direct rapport between companies and consumers in particular.
The marketing literature has recognized the importance of developing and
maintaining enduring relationships with customers of service businesses
(Henning-Thurau et al., 2002). Also, a review of literature has revealed that studies
focusing on relationship marketing, service and satisfaction already exist (e.g. Oliver,
1981; Grönroos, 1990; Berry, 1995; Bitner, 1995; Bejou et al., 1998; Gwinner et al., 1998;
Mittal et al., 1999; Henning-Thurau et al., 2002; Jamal and Naser, 2002; Aldlaigan and
Buttle, 2005; Pont and McQuilken, 2005; Leverin and Liljander, 2006). Nevertheless,
there is a significant lack of practical and empirical works analyzing the actual
consequences for individual consumers of maintaining long-term relationships with
service providers. In addition, a review of the literature has also shown that there are
only a few studies which have dealt with business efforts to establish stable and
long-lasting relationships with consumers, as well as with the connection between
relational benefits and customer satisfaction which regular customers enjoy.
Furthermore, while Gwinner et al. (1998) call for causal research in the area of
relational benefits and in different contexts, there are but few empirical studies in retail
banking (Colgate et al., 2005; Martı́n-Consuegra et al., 2006). It is also remarkable that
there is no research on the relationship between relational benefits and customer
satisfaction in retail banking.
For these reasons, the central goals of this research are to empirically identify the
relational benefits customers receive as a result of engaging in long-term relational
exchanges with banks, to define the main components of satisfaction and to determine
what is the relationship between relational benefits and satisfaction in retail banking.
As a consequence, this paper describes the relationship between the two concepts
mentioned above: satisfaction and relational benefits. To be more precise, the purpose
of this article is to integrate the lines of research on relational benefits and satisfaction
in retail banking, the latter of which is conceived as a mediator between these relational
benefits and the main relationship marketing outcomes. To be precise, a path model is
proposed and tested. In order to do this, a previous analysis of the features of
relationship marketing and satisfaction as fundamental factors in financial services
exchanges is needed. In order to better understand the factors affecting the relationship
between relationship marketing and satisfaction, this research has analyzed it in a
concrete consumer sample. The relationship proposed has been tested applying a
multivariate analysis, as indicated by the review of the literature on retail banking,
relationship marketing and satisfaction.

Literature review
Relational benefits
The concept of relationship marketing has emerged within the field of services
marketing and industrial marketing in the last years of the twentieth century. One of
the most important contributions was Hunt’s (1993) proposal, which established that Customer
the fundamental element in marketing is the management of interactions, although a satisfaction in
decade earlier Berry (1983) had already proposed a formal definition of relationship
marketing as a strategy to attract, maintain and enhance customer relationships. retail banking
According to this approach, organizations should be more interested in keeping stable
relationships with their customers than in accumulating occasional exchanges (Beatty
et al., 1996). In addition, other research pointed out that companies can gain benefits by 255
keeping long-term customer relationships due to increased satisfaction (Parasuraman
et al., 1991; Shani and Chalasani, 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1993).
Relationship marketing nowadays is in a leading position in many company
strategic plans, as well as in many marketing research areas, as a consequence of the
total redefinition of the function of marketing, which many authors agree in
considering as the superseding of the transactional paradigm. Nevertheless, there are
few empirical works which have explored the motivations and benefits consumers get
from keeping a long-term relationship with a specific service provider (Sheth and
Parvatiyar, 1995; Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Gwinner et al., 1998; Reynolds and
Beatty, 1999; Henning-Thurau et al., 2002), even though it is obvious that, in practice,
such benefits are interpreted as advantages by consumers and their analysis may
render more efficient competitive strategies.
In recent decades, research into relationship marketing mainly concentrated on the
analysis of benefits gained by customer loyalty from the point of view of service
providers, and, in general, in the context of the relationships among companies. This
line of work produced a group of studies which examine the benefits obtained by
providers who have developed a collection of loyal customers through relationship
marketing. However, the revision of the literature on service marketing has facilitated
the identification and characterization of the diverse relational advantages consumers
obtain by being loyal to their providers, thus allowing for a classification of benefits
into three groups: confidence benefits, social benefits, and special treatment benefits
(Henning-Thurau et al., 2002).
In relation to this in particular, Bendapudi and Berry (1997) suggest four factors
(antecedents) that affect consumer receptivity when deciding whether to maintain the
connection with habitual providers: environmental, partner, customer, and interaction.
The effects of these antecedent variables on constraint-based relationship maintenance
are mediated by dependence on the relationship partner. Dependence and trust in the
relationship partner mediate the antecedent variables’ effects on dedication based
relationship maintenance. In order to facilitate the application of these factors to
service companies, Berry (1983) delineates the five strategic elements that relationship
marketing is based on: to develop a central element around which the stable
relationship with the customer is constructed, to personalize the relationship, to
increase the central element by offering extra benefits, to augment loyalty to the
provider through price fixation, and to make employees aware that they are
immediately responsible in front of customers. Moreover, the use of relationship
marketing in retail banking activities may have some advantages, for instance:
increased consumer loyalty, benefits for consumers as well as improved promotion of
complementary services.
Following this line, Gwinner et al. (1998) point out that motivated consumers who
maintain long-term relationships with their providers expect not only to receive good
IJBM service, but also additional benefits from maintaining that relationship (social benefits,
25,4 confidence and special treatment). Academic literature terms these “relational benefits”
(Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Dwyer et al., 1997; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). Gwinner
et al. (1998) define them as those benefits customers are likely to receive as a result of
engaging in long-term relationships with a service provider. Special treatment benefits
consist of an extensive range of benefits or economic advantages which come in the
256 form of first-rate levels of service, preferential treatment, special operation conditions
and time saving. These types of benefits are the principal motivation for the customer
to develop a long term relations with the service provider. Confidence benefits describe
a detailed combination of psychological benefits in relation to: trust in the marketer,
reduction in perceived operation risks and a decrease in anxiety. Finally, social benefits
are defined by benefits of a social nature which adopt the form of personal recognition
by employees in direct dealings, or the forging of links and social relationships, which
are gratifying for the customer. These types of benefits are especially relevant in those
service banks where a high level of interpersonal contact exists between customers and
employees. The influence of these benefits causes the customer to manifest his/her
loyalty more to the employee who provides the service rather than to the financial
entity in itself. In addition, Beatty et al. (1996) affirmed that these benefits received by
consumers can be classified in two main categories: functional and social benefits.
Functional benefits include confidence and special treatment benefits and social
benefits consist of the Gwinner et al. (1998) social benefits.
Three elements increase relational benefits in the relationship between consumers
and service providers: relationship with the trademark, interpersonal relationships,
and company relationships (San Martin, 2005). First, consumers expect specific
trademark characteristics (trust) and project their feelings onto the trademark (loyalty).
Second, in interpersonal relationships, it is important to consider the affective or
emotional component, which may create influential variables such as trust and
commitment. Finally, the level of relationships with the company is less intense. It is
particularly difficult, for instance, to separate the different relationship levels in the
case of financial businesses, because the establishment, the staff, and the services or
trademarks are all integrated into one unit.

Relationship marketing outcomes

It is at any rate remarkable that, in recent years, relationship marketing activities are
preferably evaluated in relation to business profitability. However, as business
profitability may be influenced by many other variables, it seems more appropriate to
define the concept of relationship marketing more specifically when attempting a
thorough approach. At least two key elements stand out in the literature of relationship
marketing: customer loyalty and word-of-mouth (Henning-Thurau et al., 2002; Wong
and Zhou, 2006). Loyalty concerns itself with purchase reiteration behavior and is
activated by company marketing activities. Loyalty is one of the primary phases of
relationship marketing and much research has focused on this concept, especially in
relation to profitability from a theoretical and empirical approach (Reichheld and Earl
Sasser, 1990; Payne and Rickard, 1997; Oliver, 1999). Positive word-of-mouth
communication, defined as all informal communications between a customer and
others concerning evaluations of goods or services, includes “relating pleasant, vivid,
or novel experiences; recommendations to others; and even conspicuous display”
(Anderson, 1998). Word-of-mouth communication is a powerful force in influencing Customer
future buying decisions, particularly when the service delivered is of high risk for the satisfaction in
customer; and it helps to attract new customers as relational partners to a company’s
offerings. Attracting new customers has been interpreted as part of the relationship retail banking
marketing concept by many proponents (Berry, 1983; Grönroos, 1990; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994).
For that reason, a key challenge is to identify and understand how managerially 257
controlled antecedent variables influence relationship marketing outcomes. In this
sense, Henning-Thurau et al. (2002) propose satisfaction as a mediator in the
relationship between relational benefits and the two outcomes mentioned above
(customer loyalty and word-of-mouth). Consumer satisfaction is a central element in
the marketing exchange process, because it undoubtedly contributes to service
providers’ success (Darian et al., 2001). Furthermore, satisfaction is one of the essential
factors to predict consumer behavior and, more specifically, purchase repetition. The
more consumers fulfill their expectations during the purchase or service use, the higher
the probability that consumers will repeat purchase establishment (Wong and Sohal,
2003). So, customer satisfaction is an essential factor in order to acquire loyal
customers who would also recommend their regular establishment to other customers.
The recognition that there are positive (although not perfect) links between satisfaction
in general, relationship satisfaction in particular and loyalty and word-of-mouth and
repurchase highlight the importance of identifying and explaining the conditions
under which satisfaction develops (Bejou et al., 1998). While the concept of customer
satisfaction consists of many factors, relational benefits may be the most directly
influential.

Customer satisfaction
During the last four decades, satisfaction has been considered as one of the most
important theoretical as well as practical issues for most marketers and customer
researchers (Jamal, 2004). However, no single definition of satisfaction has been
unanimously accepted by literature related to the matter. All definitions proposed,
however, agree that the concept of satisfaction implies the necessary presence of a goal
the consumer wants to achieve. According to Homburg et al. (2006), previous research
has recognized that both cognition (Oliver, 1980; Bearden and Teel, 1983; LaBarbera
and Mazursky, 1983; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988) and affect (Westbrook, 1987;
Westbrook and Oliver, 1991; Mano and Oliver, 1993) significantly predict satisfaction
judgments.
On one hand, within literature on services marketing, satisfaction has traditionally
been defined as a cognitive-based phenomenon (Westbrook, 1987). Cognition has been
studied mainly in terms of the expectations/disconfirmation paradigm; also known as
the confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm, which states that expectations originate
from the customer’s beliefs about the level of performance that a product/service would
provide (Oliver, 1980). Also, various models and theories that have been developed to
this end (Oliver, 1980; Swan and Trawick, 1980; Tse and Wilton, 1988; Anderson and
Sullivan, 1993; Patterson et al., 1997), indicate that customer satisfaction is related to
the size and direction of disconfirmation, which is defined as the difference between the
post-purchase and post-usage evaluation of the performance of the product/service and
the expectations held prior to the purchase (Sharma and Ojha, 2004).
IJBM On the other hand, other studies have recognized that the affect experienced during
25,4 the acquisition and consumption of the product or service can also have a significant
influence on satisfaction judgments (Homburg et al., 2006). The role affective
dimension in establishment evaluation has not been overlooked by research (Burns and
Neisner, 2006). Liljander and Strandvik (1997) suggest that satisfaction cannot be
completely understood without the study of its affective dimension. Dube-Rioux (1990)
258 points out that a consumer affective response can be used to predict satisfaction more
accurately than cognitive evaluation. In addition, Westbrook (1987) identified the
neglected role of affect in post-purchase satisfaction appraisals, which then resulted in
studies of the role of affect in service encounters as well as for the overall evaluation of
a service (e.g. Alford and Shrerell, 1996; Liljander and Strandvik, 1997; Matilla and
Wirtz, 2000; Schoefer and Ennew, 2005; Jiang and Wang, 2006).
To sum up, the review of the literature suggests that the most common component of
evaluation is previous expectations of the purchase experience by the consumer
(Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998). It can thus be stated that consumers are satisfied
when purchase results exceed their expectations, in accordance with the
“disconfirmatory paradigm” (Oliver, 1980). Each experience leads to an evaluation,
and an accompanying emotional reaction, by the customer. It is also necessary to point
out that consumer satisfaction can be attributed to various dimensions such as
satisfaction with the frontline employees, the core service or the organization in general
(Lewis and Soureli, 2006). This process may imply the construction of different
satisfaction dimensions (Westbrook, 1981; Anselmsson, 2006). To be more precise,
previous research in services directed at people and characterized by high customer
contact with individually customized service solutions has identified several dimensions
which effectively have a different influence on overall consumer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction within the context of retail banking

Banking is one of the many service industries, characterized by high customer contact
with individually customized service solutions, where customer satisfaction has been
an increasing focus of research. Levesque and McDougall (1996) point out that
customer satisfaction and retention are critical for retail banks. They investigate the
major determinants of customer satisfaction (service quality, service features,
customer complaint handling and situational factors), and future intentions in the retail
bank sector. Bloemer et al. (1998) investigate how image, perceived service quality and
satisfaction determine loyalty in a retail bank. Armstrong and Seng (2000) analyze the
determinants of customer satisfaction in the banking industry (transactional
paradigm, purchase intentions and fairness (equity). The study of Lassar et al.
(2000) examines the effects of service quality on customer satisfaction from two
distinct methodological perspectives – SERVQUAL and technical/functional quality.
Jamal and Naser (2002) suggest that customer satisfaction is based not only on the
judgment of customers towards the reliability of the delivered service, but also on
customers’ experiences with the service delivery process. Hence, they report
demographic differences (education and income levels) in the degree of customer
satisfaction. Therefore, customer satisfaction with retail banking is composed of a wide
variety of dimensions.
Overall consumer satisfaction thus reveals the general evaluation of the actions
carried out by a given business in relation to expectations accumulated after various
contact between the consumer and business (Bitner and Hubber, 1994). If customers Customer
perceived that they are obtaining additional benefits from their relationship with satisfaction in
establishment employees, their satisfaction level with the service provider will increase
(Beatty et al., 1996). Relational benefits can then be considered as an important factor retail banking
for satisfaction with financial businesses. Therefore, relational benefits meaning
special treatment, confidence and social benefits, which were identified by Gwinner
et al. (1998), would have a great influence on customer satisfaction with their habitual 259
establishments.
Likewise, research literature has considered trust as a factor with a great influence
on the degree of satisfaction at the level of the relationship between producers and
consumers through distribution channels (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Besides this, the
analysis of the role played by expectations in satisfaction evaluation leads to the
deduction that there is a positive relationship between the confidence relational benefit
and satisfaction (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Whereas Henning-Thurau et al. (2002)
found a non-significant relationship between special treatment and satisfaction, it is
logical to expect that the benefit of special treatment will have a great influence on
satisfaction within retail banking. This is due to the fact that special treatment
provided by a financial service provider can be perceived as a part of the overall
service, so that this benefit will increase customer satisfaction (Reynolds and Beatty,
1999). Equally, while Henning-Thurau et al. (2002) could not find a positive relationship
between social benefits and satisfaction, it is reasonable to anticipate that social
benefits could have a positive influence on satisfaction even though these benefits tend
to focus more on relationships than results. This is due to the importance attributed by
customers to social interaction with financial frontline employees more than to any
other relational benefits (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). Consequently, the main research
question of the study is to verify if there is a direct and positive relationship between
the above mentioned relational benefits and consumer satisfaction.

Methodology
The research process involved the following steps. First, a literature review was
undertaken to identify relational benefits and customer satisfaction dimensions in
retail banking. Second, the population and sampling procedure was established. Third,
a questionnaire was constructed. Finally, the methods of data collection and analyses
were determined.

Sample data
An empirical study was conducted in Spain in 2004. The population of the study was
bank customers in three large Spanish cities located in central Spain. A representative
sample was selected, taking into account the distribution of branches of the different
entities in each of the cities analyzed. Data was collected by using a convenience
sampling method. The questionnaire was administered by personal interview in bank
branches within normal banking hours. Respondents were asked to focus on the bank
they use most often, not necessarily the one in which the interview took place. A total
of 219 questionnaires were completed. However, in order to ensure that they were
customers who had an ongoing relationship with a particular bank, the interviewee
was asked to offer an evaluation of the said relationship on a five-point scale which
ranges between I have a very weak relationship with the bank to I have a very strong
IJBM relationship with the bank. Only those who had the minimum scoring of 3 on the scale
25,4 were included in the sample. The procedure resulted in a sample of 204 usable
questionnaires (6.85 per cent were eliminated) with regard to customer satisfaction and
the relational benefits the customers obtain from their relationship with the bank. The
sample size met the requirements suggested by Hair et al. (1999) that a sample size of
200 may be required to ensure appropriate use of maximum likelihood estimation, to
260 generate valid fit measures and to avoid drawing inaccurate inferences. In addition, the
sample was found to be well distributed in terms of demographic and other
background information. Moreover, the demographic and background information
data gathered in this study were compared with the population characteristics and the
background information of the cities where the study was conducted. No significant
differences were found for most of the variables.
An overview of the demographic profile of the respondents fairly represents all
bank customers in Spain. The sample is primarily in the “less than 44 years” age group
(56.9 per cent); male (58.3 per cent); married (49.5 per cent) and University educated
(62.8 per cent). In relation to the length of relationship with the financial supplier, more
than half of the respondents (59.1 per cent) have been with the same one for five years
or more. Thus, half of the sample (50.6 per cent) buys three or more products from these
multi-product financial institutions.

Measures
The design of the questionnaire was primarily based on multiple-item measurement
scales taken from previous research. Statements were adapted to suit the specific
characteristic of a banking study. The questionnaire was then translated into Spanish
and revised to better match a banking context. It included questions regarding
different related benefits, consumer satisfaction, the number and types of financial
products acquired, as well as the length, continuity and degree of relationship with the
financial entity.
In order to analyze the different related benefits, 14 items or statements were
included in the questionnaire. Most of them were taken and adapted for the purpose of
the study from Gwinner et al. (1998) because of its applicability to the service sector
and other studies in the field of relationship marketing and the marketing of financial
services (Beatty et al., 1996; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999; Martı́n-Consuegra et al., 2006).
The statements were composed of a series of aspects referring to possible benefits
perceived by the customer as a result of the maintenance of interactions and long-term
relationships with their habitual entity. These items were measured on a seven-point
Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
With regard to customer satisfaction with the bank, a multiple item scale was
developed based on customer satisfaction literature in general (i.e. Westbrook, 1981;
Westbrook and Oliver, 1991; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999; Anselmsson, 2006) and the
banking sector in particular (i.e. Levesque and McDougall, 1996; Ndubisi and Wah,
2005). Although some studies had used one statement to measure customer
satisfaction, most research in this field had included a multi-item scale to reflect its real
dimensionality. Therefore, retail banking satisfaction was measured with a scale
containing 20 seven-point Likert-scale items ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree.
 Before the questionnaire was distributed it was proof-read by two marketing Customer
academics and five professionals from the banking sector. Thus, the questionnaire was satisfaction in
pre-tested and, based on the debriefing of the pre-test respondents; minor changes were
made to improve the clarity and visual layout of the questionnaire. retail banking

Results
This section will provide results of the analysis on the variables described. This will be 261
followed by subsequent analyses of the relationship between relational benefits and
customer satisfaction with a bank. In addition to descriptive statistics, multivariate
analysis techniques were used in the data with the objective of contrasting the
relationship proposed and verify the possible results, in agreement with the objectives.

Exploratory phase
Before going deeper into the relationship between relation benefits and customer
satisfaction in retail banking, the fit of the scales in relation to the data was analyzed.
Although the scales have been widely used, no previous study has used them in a
banking context. Initially, the scales used in this study were factor analyzed to assess
their psychometric properties. Exploratory factoring was based on a principal
components analysis with a varimax rotation of 14 and 20 items that describe the
different relational benefits and customer satisfaction dimensions suggested by
literature, respectively. Before conducting the exploratory factor analysis, a test was
carried out to establish whether variables correlated to each other with the end aim of
finding out whether it was possible to carry out a factor analysis. According to
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (sig ¼ 0:000) relational benefits and satisfaction variables
correlated with each other respectively, which meant it was possible to perform a factor
analysis. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy
(score 0.883 and 0.905 respectively) indicated a practical level of common variance and
therefore factoring was appropriate.
The factors whose eigenvalues were greater than 1 were selected according to the
criteria developed by Kaiser (1958). In addition, only factor loadings greater than 0.5
were included in the analysis (Hair et al., 1999) and items with extractions lower than
0.5 were not included in the analysis.
The relational benefits principal components factor analysis showed the securing
of three factors. The three diverse types of relational benefits, identified in previous
literature, were in the following terms: 29.99 per cent the first factor, 26.42 per cent
the second and 18.18 per cent the third. In this way, 74.60 per cent of the variance is
obtained. According to literature (Gwinner et al., 1998; Patterson and Smith, 2001;
Henning-Thurau et al., 2002; Martı́n-Consuegra et al., 2006), the three dimensions
derived from the exploratory factor analysis were labeled “Special treatment
benefits” (STB), “Confidence benefits” (CB), and “Social benefits” (SB). Six items
were loaded on the first dimension (STB), the second dimension (CB) consisted of
four items, and four items were loaded on the third one (SB). Thereafter, one item
from the second factor with significant cross loadings across all three factors were
dropped (Hair et al., 1999).
In addition, with regard to customer satisfaction a principal axis factoring with
Varimax-rotation was the extraction technique employed. The resulting factor
structure consisted of three factors. In this regard, only 57.58 per cent of the variance
IJBM was obtained, although it allowed for the clear identification of three customer
25,4 satisfaction dimensions. Eight items loaded on the first dimension with a variance of
24.22 per cent, the second dimension with seven items contributed a variance of 19.53
per cent, and the third one with five items contributed 13.84 per cent variance. After
that, three items with marginally significant loadings and significant cross loadings
across all three factors were dropped (Hair et al., 1999). According to a review of the
262 literature on this subject (e.g. Oliver, 1980; Westbrook, 1981; Levesque and McDougall,
1996; Lassar et al., 2000; Anselmsson, 2006), the three dimensions derived from the
exploratory factor analysis were labeled “Frontline employee satisfaction” (FES),
“Accessibility” (A), and “Service policy satisfaction” (SPS).

Confirmatory phase
Next, an assessment of the relational benefits and consumer satisfaction scales for
unidimensionality and internal consistency was conducted. Confirmatory factor
analyses were used to test relational benefits and consumer satisfaction dimensions
were identified respectively. The measures were then analyzed for reliability and
validity following the main guidelines offered by Hair et al. (1999) At this point, items
that did not load at 0.4 or above on any factor were excluded.
According to the previous analysis and following the procedure suggested by
Gerbing and Anderson (1988) the optimum relational benefits and satisfaction
confirmatory factor analysis were estimated, and saturated in three critical
dimensions, respectively, corresponding to those which were identified previously
(see Tables I and II). Four customer satisfaction statements were excluded due to low
loadings. The resulting factor structure and model fit was excellent. All indicators were
above their recommended minimum figures (Hair et al., 1999).

Loadings Cronbach’s Composite

Item (t-value) alpha reliability AVE

Special treatment benefits (STB) 0.92 0.91 0.66

RB1 Quicker service 0.93 (11.920)
RB2 Priority treatment in queues 0.86 (11.285)
RB4 Levels of first-rate services 0.77 (10.224)
RB3 They offered me special services 0.72 (9.410)
RB6 More advantageous special treatment 0.68 (10.257)
RB5 Better interest rates 0.71 (11.419)
Social benefits (SB) 0.92 0.91 0.73
RB14 The staff know me 0.92 (17.520)
RB12 Familiar with the employees 0.85 (15.658)
RB13 They know my name 0.86 (15.885)
RB11 Friendship with the employees 0.77 (13.427)
Confidence benefits (CB) 0.83 0.84 0.64
RB10 Clear and reasonable offering of services 0.85 (11.987)
RB9 Work well done 0.62 (9.256)
Table I. RB7 Greater confidence, correct functioning 0.90 (13.751)
Assessment of relational
benefits Notes: Chi-square ¼ 168:576 with 56 degrees of freedom (p ¼ 0:00), NFI ¼ 0:917, CFI ¼ 0:942,
uni-dimensionality RMSEA ¼ 0:1, NNFI ¼ 0:920
 Customer
Loadings Cronbach’s Composite
Item (t-value) alpha reliability AVE satisfaction in
Frontline employee satisfaction (FES) 0.88 0.88 0.52
retail banking
S1 Friendliness and politeness of employee 0.63 (7.857)
S2 Accuracy of employee 0.70 (8.354)
S3 Number of frontline employees available 0.69 (8.165) 263
S5 Time dedicated to each client 0.76 (8.779)
S6 Individual attention 0.78 (8.951)
S18 Find best options for each client 0.69 (8.190)
S15 The helpfulness of bank employee 0.75 (8.664)
Accessibility (A) 0.80 0.78 0.55
S16 Location 0.76 (9.317)
S8 Not crowded 0.56 (7.459)
S14 Business hours 0.87 (10.587)
Service policy (SP) 0.81 0.82 0.60
S19 Quantity and variety of services 0.84 (9.625)
S20 Additional services 0.81 (9.525)
S17 Service prestige 0.67 (7.857) Table II.
Assessment of customer
Notes: Chi-square ¼ 124:683 with 58 degrees of freedom (p ¼ 0:00), NFI ¼ 0:903, CFI ¼ 0:945, satisfaction
RMSEA ¼ 0:07, NNFI ¼ 0:926 uni-dimensionality

Internal consistency was assessed by means of the Cronbach alpha coefficient. The
coefficient alphas of each dimension exceed the threshold value because all are above
0.7. Using the criterion set forth by Hair et al. (1999) an examination was carried out to
establish whether the average variance extracted and the composite reliability for the
measures was greater than 0.5 and 0.7 respectively. The average variance extracted
and composite reliabilities in all cases exceed the respective threshold values (Bagozzi
and Yi, 1988), which provide evidence of convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988). Discriminant validity was tested between all constructs according to Fornell and
Larcker’s (1981) recommendations and confirmed for all pairs of constructs. To sum
up, the data show satisfactory empirical support for our conceptualization of the
constructs of relational benefits and consumer satisfaction.
Overall, Table III presents means, standard deviations, the number of indicators,
and correlations among the constructs according to their final operationalization.

Mean Standard deviation Number of items STB SB CB FES A SP

STB 4.286 1.425 6 1.000

SB 2.811 1.725 4 0.553 1.000
CB 4.556 1.2591 3 0.386 0.576 1.000
FES 5.139 1.114 7 0.064 0.135 0.343 1.000 Table III.
A 5.027 1.141 3 0.083 0.198 0.356 0.373 1.000 Integrative model
SP 4.694 1.084 3 0.062 0.087 0.390 0.443 0.505 1.000 statistics
IJBM Relational benefits and customer satisfaction model paths
25,4 The proposed relationship was tested simultaneously using structural equation
modeling (SEM). This technique allows the existing causal relationships between
relational benefits (special treatment, confidence and social benefits) and customer
satisfaction in retail banking to be assessed. The measurement scales used for each
concept are the result of the evaluation process described. In particular, the model
264 paths were estimated using EQS 6.1 following the recommendations of Bentler (1995)
and Byrne (1994). The standardized path coefficients of the structural model as
estimated by EQS are given in Figure 1. There are several tests to ascertain whether an
SEM model fits the observed data. The chi-square statistic provides a measurement of
how well the model fits the data. Therefore, chi-square was used to test the relationship
proposed. In addition to chi-square test and its associated p-values, the comparative fit
index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the non-normed fit index (NNFI), and the root
mean square residuals (RMR), are used as tests of model fit. The overall fit of
measurement model are Chi square ¼ 15:466 (p ¼ 0:48), comparative fit index
½CFI
¼ 1:000, normed fit index ½NFI
¼ 0:983, non-normed fit index ½NNFI
¼ 1:004,
and root mean square residual ½RMR
¼ 0:044. Bentler (1995) indicates that CFI, NFI
and NNFI values of above 0.9 suggest adequate fit. In addition, RMR were lower than
0.08 (Hair et al., 1999). As illustrated in Figure 1, the global goodness-of-fit statistics
indicate the structural model represents the data structure well. In the examination of
the relationship between the relational benefits identified and customer satisfaction,
only one construct was found to have a significant direct impact. Standardized
parameter estimates for the model are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Path diagram of
integrative model results
The results are quite similar to those obtained from a wide variety of service providers Customer
by Henning-Thurau et al. (2002). As predicted in the proposed relationship, confident satisfaction in
benefits had positive and significant influences on satisfaction (b ¼ 0:646, p , 0:01).
Contrary to the proposed relationship, the influences of special treatment (b ¼ 20:070) retail banking
and social benefits (b ¼ 0:144) on satisfaction are not significant. The results support
confidence benefits having a significant and strong impact on customer satisfaction,
whereas satisfaction is not significantly influenced by either social or special treatment 265
benefits. For this reason, the results presented in Figure 1 attest to the significance of
confidence benefits as one of the retail banking customer satisfaction antecedents. The
magnitude of the significant positive correlation confidence benefits coefficient shown
in Figure 1, offers partial support for the relationship proposed. Overall, it can be
suggested that only the confidence benefits derived from maintaining a stable
relationship with a bank have an important and positive effect on retail banking
customer satisfaction. In this regard, it could therefore be assumed that the efforts of
financial institutions to discover and offer to consumers adequate confidence benefits,
and even social benefits, generate a higher value to the relationship with the bank,
which directly affects customer satisfaction.

Discussion and implications

The main objective of this paper was to analyze the relationship between relational
benefits and consumer satisfaction after a service has been rendered through retail
banking. To be more precise, the analysis has focused on the relationship between
customers and their regular banks. Since relational benefits, as an overall relationship
value provision system, influence expectations, the considerable impact of those on
customer satisfaction is logical. Also, the theoretical approach to each of these concepts
and their empirical application to financial business thereafter have proved this
objective.
Results in this research lead to some relevant conclusions. First of all, the results of
the study of relational benefits confirm those obtained by Gwinner et al. (1998) in a
variety of services, and Martı́n-Consuegra et al. (2006) in retail banking. In addition,
they are similar to those yielded by other research, although such works have generally
centred on a wide variety of services (Patterson and Smith, 2001; Henning-Thurau et al.,
2002). The relational benefits identified in these works for the service sector can also be
applied to retail banking, as this paper has demonstrated. Consequently, due to the
current situation of retail banking and to the importance of relationship marketing for
its development, it is essential to include a consumer perspective in the analysis of this
relationship. Also, the results from the empirical analysis suggest three dimensions of
the construct of customer satisfaction in retail banking. Its components are based on
the evaluation of experiences by the consumers in the bank. Consequently, customer
satisfaction in financial businesses depends on the service policy satisfaction, on
accessibility, and on the frontline employee satisfaction.
The use of a causal model has facilitated information about the relationship between
relational benefits and satisfaction. This research has empirically validated the
relationship between relational benefits and the satisfaction of a customer with his/her
regular bank. Even though some previous works had centered on relational benefits,
only the studies by Reynolds and Beatty (1999) in retailing, Henning-Thurau et al.
(2002) in a wide variety of services and Marzo et al. (2004) in retail clothing store
IJBM establishments, had tried to prove the relationship between relational benefits and
25,4 satisfaction. These studies had focused on one kind of business establishment or a
wide variety of services. Contrarily, the present research has promoted the analysis of
this relationship in retail banking.
This study has established, however, that, even if special treatment, confidence and
social benefits are all present in retail banking, only bank confidence seems to be of
266 definitive importance. In this sense, this paper coincides with the results from reviewed
research (Henning-Thurau et al., 2002), so it reinforces the premise that trust and
confidence in good service rendered by a given bank is the key to a good long-term
relationship between this establishment and its customers.
Considering the results obtained here, it is possible to affirm that relational benefits
are a predicting element of satisfaction when a service is rendered directly by the
financial service provider to the final consumer. Consequently, this research presents a
theoretical contribution because it proposes a conceptual model for the analysis of the
influence of relational benefits on satisfaction. In this theoretical framework, this model
integrates three kinds of relational benefits which could affect the dimensions of
consumer satisfaction.
In interpreting the results of this study, a number of limitations must be considered.
From a theoretical point of view, the framework of this research is restricted to its own
objectives. This study has pondered the relationship between relational benefits and
satisfaction, while other antecedents or consequences of consumer satisfaction have not
been considered. This research and the model it proposes have been devised as a basis for
future studies. From a methodological perspective, the results from this study can only be
generalized for banks and financial services providers, due to the fact that it has only been
applied to these businesses. Furthermore, different segments of customers might exist
with regard to their relational preferences (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999; Henning-Thurau
et al., 2002). Future researches may wish to explore the moderating relationship of
consumer relational preferences. In developing a more extensive framework, a model that
incorporates the consequences of customer satisfaction in retail banking, that is, loyalty
and word-of-mouth, will also provide timely and important contributions to marketing
knowledge. In addition, larger sample size may get significant results for those proposed
relationships that were non-significant. It is probable that the non-significant results for
some of the path coefficients may be due to the sample size.
Some suggestions can be made after considering the results from this study. An
indication as to how bank management can gain direction from this study becomes
evident when the findings are considered in conjunction with the competitive
advantage concept. First, financial businesses are advised to apply relationship
marketing in order to enhance the number of regular and satisfied customers. Second,
it is necessary for top managers to establish the most important dimensions of
customer satisfaction in retail banking. Third, the relatively strong relationship
demonstrated between confidence benefits and customer satisfaction may lead the
management of a financial service to think that it is more beneficial to focus on trust or
confidence than it is on special treatment benefits (better interest rates). Finally, due to
the fact that financial businesses are heterogeneous, presenting a wide variety of sizes
and forms, it is desirable that further research should be made and that it concentrates
on analyzing the relationship between the two concepts used in this study, and the
degree or intensity of this relationship.
 To conclude, the information provided by this research can be better used when Customer
designing marketing strategies for financial businesses. Banks need to continue their satisfaction in
basic strategy of maintaining a stable and close relationship with their customers in
order to improve customer satisfaction. retail banking

References
Aldlaigan, A. and Buttle, F. (2005), “Beyond satisfaction: customer attachment to retail banks”, 267
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 349-59.
Alford, B.L. and Shrerell, D.L. (1996), “The role of affect in consumer satisfaction judgments of
credence-based services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Anderson, E.W. (1998), “Customer satisfaction and word of mouth”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 1, May, pp. 5-17.
Anderson, E.W. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, January, pp. 42-58.
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-43.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), “Customer loyalty and complex services: the impact
of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customer with varying
degrees of service expertise”, International journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Anselmsson, J. (2006), “Sources of customer satisfaction with shopping malls: a comparative
study of different customer segments”, International Review of Retailing, Distribution and
Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 115-38.
Armstrong, R.W. and Seng, T.B. (2000), “Corporate-customer satisfaction in the banking
industry of Singapore”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 97-111.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, Spring, pp. 74-94.
Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and
complaints reports”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, February, pp. 21-8.
Beatty, S.E., Mayer, M., Coleman, J.E., Reynolds, K.E. and Lee, J. (1996), “Customer-sales
associate retail relationships”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 223-47.
Bejou, D., Ennew, C.T. and Palmer, A. (1998), “Trust, ethics and relationship satisfaction”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 170-5.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), “Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with
service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Bentler, P.M. (1995), EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual, BMDP Statistical Software,
Los Angeles.
Berry, L.L. (1983), “Relationship marketing”, in Berry, L.L., Shostack, G.L. and Upah, G. (Eds),
Emerging Perspectives Services Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 25-8.
Berry, L.L. (1995), “Relationship marketing of services-growing interest, emerging perspectives”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-45.
Bitner, M.J. (1995), “Building service relationships: it’s all about promises”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 246-51.
IJBM Bitner, M.J. and Hubber, A.R. (1994), “Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus
quality”, in Rust, R.R. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and
25,4 Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 311-29.
Bloemer, J., De Ruyter, K. and Peeters, P. (1998), “Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: the
complex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 276-86.
268 Burns, D.J. and Neisner, L. (2006), “Customer satisfaction in a retail setting: the contribution of
emotion”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 49-56.
Byrne, B.M. (1994), Structural Equations Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Colgate, M., Buchanan-Oliver, M. and Elmsly, R. (2005), “Relationship benefits in an internet
environment”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 426-36.
Darian, J.C., Tucci, L.A. and Wiman, A.R. (2001), “Perceived salesperson service attributes and
retail patronage intentions”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 29 Nos 4/5, pp. 205-13.
Dube-Rioux, L. (1990), “Power of affective reports in predicting satisfaction judgments”,
in Goldberg, M., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 17,
pp. 571-6.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1997), “Developing buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25, May, pp. 186-92.
Grönroos, C. (1990), “Relationship approach to marketing in service context: the marketing and
organizational behaviour interface”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20, January,
pp. 3-11.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Relational benefits in services industries:
the customer’s perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 101-14.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1999), Multivariate Analysis, Prentice
Hall, New York, NY.
Henning-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-47.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N. and Hoyer, W.D. (2006), “The role of cognition and affect in the
formation of customer satisfaction: a dynamic perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70,
July, pp. 21-31.
Hunt, S.D. (1993), “General theories and the fundamental explananda of marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47, fall, pp. 9-17.
Jamal, A. (2004), “Retail banking and customer behaviour: a study of self concept, satisfaction
and technology usage”, International Review of Retailing, Distribution and Consumer
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 357-79.
Jamal, A. and Naser, K. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and retail banking: an assessment of some Customer
of the key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 146-60. satisfaction in
Jiang, Y. and Wang, C.L. (2006), “The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction: retail banking
the moderation of service contexts”, The Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 211-8.
Kaiser, H.F. (1958), “The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis”, 269
Psychometrika, No. 23, pp. 187-200.
LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. (1983), “A longitudinal assessment of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the dynamic aspect of the cognitive process”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 393-404.
Lassar, W.M., Manolis, C. and Winsor, R.D. (2000), “Service quality perspectives and satisfaction
in private banking”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 244-71.
Leverin, A. and Liljander, V. (2006), “Does relationship marketing improve customer relationship
satisfaction and loyalty?”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 232-51.
Levesque, T. and McDougall, G.H.G. (1996), “Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 12-20.
Lewis, B.R. and Soureli, M. (2006), “The antecedents of consumer loyalty in retail banking”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5, February, pp. 15-31.
Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1997), “Emotions in service satisfaction”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 148-69.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeling and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,
pp. 451-67.
Martı́n-Consuegra, D., Molina, A. and Esteban, A. (2006), “The customer’s perspective on
relational benefits in banking activities”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 98-108.
Marzo, M., Pedraja, M. and Rivera, M.P. (2004), “The benefits of relationship marketing for the
consumer and for the fashion retailers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 425-36.
Matilla, A. and Wirtz, J. (2000), “The role of preconsumption affect in post-purchase evaluation of
services”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 587-605.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P. and Tsiros, M. (1999), “Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions over time: a consumption system approach”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 88-101.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.
Ndubisi, N.O. and Wah, C.K. (2005), “Factorial and discriminant analyses of the underpinnings of
relationship marketing and customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 542-57.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-9.
Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail setting”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-49.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, Special issue,
pp. 33-44.
IJBM Oliver, R.L. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1988), “Response determinants in satisfaction judgments”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 495-507.
25,4
O’Loughlin, D., Szmigin, I. and Turnbull, P. (2004), “From relationships to experiences in retail
financial services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 522-39.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), “Understanding customer expectations
of service”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, spring, pp. 39-48.
270 Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T. (2001), “Realationship benefits in service industries: a replication in
a Southeast Asian Context”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 425-33.
Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), “Modelling the determinants of customer
satisfaction for business-to-business professional services”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Payne, A. and Rickard, J. (1997), “Relationship marketing, customer retention and firm
profitability”, Working Paper, Cranfield School of Management, Bedford.
Pont, M. and McQuilken, L. (2005), “An empirical investigation of customer satisfaction and
loyalty across two divergent bank segments”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 344-59.
Reichheld, F.F. and Earl Sasser, W. Jr (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, September-October, pp. 105-11.
Reynolds, K.E. and Beatty, S. (1999), “Customer benefits and company consequences of
customer-salesperson relationships in retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 11-32.
San Martin, S. (2005), “Consumer-retailer from a multi-level perspective”, Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 93-116.
Schoefer, K. and Ennew, C. (2005), “The impact of perceived justice on consumers’ emotional
responses to service complaint experiences”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19
No. 5, pp. 261-70.
Shani, D. and Chalasani, S. (1992), “Exploiting niches using relationship marketing”, Journal of
Service Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 43-52.
Sharma, N. and Ojha, S. (2004), “Measuring service performance in mobile communication”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 109-28.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents
and consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-71.
Swan, J.E. and Trawick, I.F. (1980), “Inferred and perceived disconfirmation in consumer
satisfaction”, Advances in Consumer Research, pp. 97-100.
Sweeney, A. and Morrison, M. (2004), “Clicks vs bricks: internet-facilitated relationships in
financial services”, International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 350-70.
Szymanski, D.A. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Tse, D.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1988), “Models of customer satisfaction formation: an extension”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 204-12.
Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P.H. and Donkers, B. (2002), “Changing perceptions and changing
behavior in customer relationships”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 121-34.
Westbrook, R.A. (1981), “Sources of consumer satisfaction with retail outlets”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 68-85.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987), “Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-purchase Customer
processes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 258-70.
Westbrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.L. (1991), “The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns
satisfaction in
and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 84-91. retail banking
Wong, A. and Sohal, A. (2003), “A critical incident approach to the examination of customer
relationship management in a retail chain: an exploratory study”, Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 248-62. 271
Wong, A. and Zhou, L. (2006), “Determinants and outcomes of relationship quality: a conceptual
model and empirical investigation”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 81-96.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993), “The nature and determinants of
customer expectations of service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 1-12.

About the authors

Arturo Molina is an Associate Professor in the Marketing Department. His research interests are
focused on services, retailing, relationship marketing and image tourism. He has published
several journal articles and papers for international and national conferences. He has spent
several research periods at European, North American and Canadian Universities. Arturo Molina
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: Arturo.Molina@uclm.es
David Martı́n-Consuegra is an Associate Professor in the Marketing Department. His
research interests are centered on market orientation, customer relationship, financial services
and tourism. He has published several journal articles and papers for international and national
conferences. He has spent several research periods at European and North American
Universities.
Águeda Esteban is a Professor of Marketing. She is head of the Marketing Department. She
has a particular research interest in the marketing of the tourist services. She has published
numerous journal articles, conference papers and books, including Principios de Marketing
(Marketing Principles) and La Investigación de Marketing en España (Marketing Research in
Spain).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints