Content uploaded by Zahir Osman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zahir Osman on May 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Marketing Practices - IJMP
ISSN: 2308-2755
Vol. 1, No.1 (January, 2013) 31-42
Indexing and Abstracting: Google Scholar, SSRN
*The material presented by the author(s) does not necessarily portray the viewpoint of the editors and the management of the Asian
Institute of Advance Research and Studies (AIARS). Any remaining errors or omissions rest solely with the author(s) of this paper.
Citation: Osman, Z., & Sentosa, I. (2013). Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of
Trust. International Journal of Marketing Practices, 1(1), 31-42.
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural
Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
Zahir Osman
Ilham Sentosa
Faculty of Business Management and Globalization
Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Malaysia
Email: zahiro@limkokwing.edu.my
Abstract
This study aims to examine the mediating effect understanding of trust on service quality
and customer loyalty relationship in Malaysia rural tourism. The model was developed
and later tested by adopting the Partial Least Square (PLS) procedure on data collected
from a survey that yielded 295 usable questionnaires. The findings showed that customer
satisfaction enhances trust in Malaysia rural tourism. It was also revealed that trust
partially mediates the relationship between service quality and customer loyalty. In future
more research needs to be carried out to explore the role of trust in Malaysia rural tourism
industry. It is important to do the study utilizing experimental design by capturing
longitudinal data in Malaysia rural tourism industry using robust measures. The findings
imply that the relationship between trust and profitability may dwell in trust’s influence
on customer loyalty, and that trust plays a crucial function within the Malaysia rural
tourism industry. This research is one of the first known attempts to use PLS to test a
mediation effect.
Keywords: Rural tourism; service quality; trust; customer loyalty.
1. Introduction
In today global economy, tourism is the one of the fastest growing sectors and need to give serious
attention. A strong growth catalyst that can generate higher multiplier effect, tourism plays a very important
role in the economy and stimulated the growth of other economy. In Malaysia, tourism is the third largest
industry in term of foreign exchange earnings after manufacturing and palm oil sector. Tourism sector
contributes about 7.9% to the GDP of Malaysia suggesting that the industry which is consider still new but
yet offer so much good potential for further and future growth. In 2011, the global tourism and travel sector
has generated USD 7 trillion in economic activities and this will offer more than 260 million jobs
opportunity (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2003). In 2011, Malaysia had been visited by more than 24.7 million
tourists which an increase of 0.4% from 2010 which was about 24.6 million tourists (Ministry of Tourism,
2011). In tourism industry, tourist’s is very important to ensure the customer will visit again the tourism
attraction after they experience it the first time. The concept of loyalty can be defined that a customer
would come back or continuously to utilize the same product or service from the same organization, make
business referrals, and directly or even indirectly offering strong word-of-mouth references and publicity
(Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998). Customers who are loyal not easily influenced or swayed by price
enticement from their competitors, and they often buy more compared to those who are not so loyal
customers (Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996). Conversely, service providers must not feel comfortable
because not all retained customers are satisfied ones and similarly not all of them can be always retained.
There are many factors for such manner of loyal customers. There are customers who will remain loyal
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
32 Vol. 1, No.1 (January 2013)
because the existing of high switching barriers or unavailability of real substitutes, whereas other customers
continue to be loyal since they are satisfied with the service offered. Some customers may remain loyal due
to high switching barriers or the lack of real substitutes, while others continue to be loyal because they are
satisfied with the services provided. The purpose of this paper to show the link of service quality, trust and
customer loyalty in Malaysia rural tourism market and to test the conceptual research model that connect,
service quality, trust and customer loyalty.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1 Service quality
Since Parasuraman et al. (1988) initiate the using of SERVQUAL with 22 item scale to measure service
quality, the model has been frequently use in across industries. The studies of Gowan et al. (2001),
Prabhakaran and Satya (2003); Straughan and Cooper (2002) and Zhao et al. (2002) applied the
SERVQUAL model as a measurement to gauge the service quality provided by the service provider.
However, there are many researchers opposed the use of SERVQUAL to measure service quality due to the
industry characteristics differences. Service quality as defined by Drucker (1991) as what the customer gets
out and is willing to pay for” rather than “what the supplier puts in. Therefore service quality frequently has
been conceptualized as the difference between the perceived services expected performance and perceived
service actual performance (Bloemer et al., 1999). This view also has been concurrent by other researchers
with regards to the definition of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988). In some earlier studies, service
quality has been defined to the extent where the service fulfills the needs or expectation of the customers
(Dotchin and Oakland, 1994). Zeithaml et al. (1996) has conceptualized service quality as the overall
impression of customers towards the service weakness or supremacy. Service quality frequently relies on
SERVQUAL instrument to gauge the service quality provided to the customers. The SERVQUAL scale
was developed in the marketing context and this was supported by the Marketing Science Institute
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). Previous research confirms that SERVQUAL instruments are applicable in
tourism industry (Yuan et al., 2005). Parasuraman et al. (1988) stated the five dimensions of service quality
are reliability, responsiveness, tangible, assurance and empathy. These dimensions have specific service
characteristic link to the expectation of customers
2.2 Trust
In the current study, trust has been defined as a tourists’ willingness to rely on tourist attraction operator’s
ability to deliver what has been promised and meet or exceed the expectation of the tourists which has been
built around of the knowledge about the tourist attraction. A trusted tourist attraction has a strong advantage
over the other tourist attraction which is an alternative in the tourist’s decision making process. In tourism
studies Loureiro and Gonzalez (2008) showed empirical evidence that tourists’ trust has a strong influence
on their loyalty toward rural lodging. According to Lau and Lee (1999) if one party has trust in another
party, it will produce positive behavioral intentions towards the other party. Trust has influence on
credibility and credibility will eventually has impact on the customer’s long-term orientation by decreasing
the risk perception linked to the opportunistic behavior of the business (Erdem et al., 2002; Ganesan, 1994).
To be specific, trust minimizes customer’s uncertainty feelings where customer feels at risk because they
know that they can rely on the service provider (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Gutierrez (2000)
describes trust the emotional security that made one party to think that another party is responsible and
concern about it. This gives the understanding that the former is ready to be at risk to the actions of the
second party regardless its ability to control the later.
2.3 Customer loyalty
The concept of customer loyalty has been researched for the past decades in business industries. Loyalty is
a commitment of current customer in respect to a particular store, brand and service provider, when there
are other alternatives that the current customer can choose for (Shankar et al., 2003). It forms positive
attitudes by producing repetitive purchasing behavior from time to time. There is a strong connection
customer loyalty and firm’s profit. Zeithaml et al. (1996) stated that previous researches look at customer
loyalty as being either attitudinal or behavioral. The behavioral perspective the customer is loyal as long as
they continue to purchase and use the goods or services (Woodside et al., 1989; Parasuraman et al., 1988;
Zeithaml et al., 1996). Reichheld (2003) suggested that the most superior evidence of the customer loyalty
Z. Osman & I. Sentosa
International Journal of Marketing Practices 33
is the proportion amount in percentage of current customers who are having lots of enthusiasm to
recommend a specific good or service to their friends. Whereas the attitudinal perspective, the current
customers have a feeling of belongings to a specific product or service or commitment of the current
customers towards a specific good or service. Baumann et al. (2005) found that Day (1969) had introduced
the concept of customer loyalty covering both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions forty years ago.
2.4 Relationship between service quality and customer loyalty
Many researchers in various studies have studied the relationship between service quality and customer
loyalty. Al-Rousan et al. (2010) in their study on 322 hotel guests of hotel industry in Jordon, they found
that empathy, reliability, responsiveness, tangible and assurance significantly predict customer loyalty. The
similar result also found in Chen and Lee (2008) study when the revealed that service quality has strong
and significant relationship with customer loyalty in their International Logistic provider industry. Liang
(2008) study on 308 hotel guests of hotel industry in United Stated revealed that service quail has a positive
influence and significant relationship with customer loyalty. Clottey and Collier (2008) in their study of
972 retail customers of United States retail industry have found the strong statistical evidence that service
quality has a great influence where it positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty. Jamal
and Anatassiadou (2007) besides studying the relationship between service quality and customer
satisfaction in banking industry in Greece, they also study the relationship between service quality and
customer loyalty and they found their study that service quality has a strong impact and positively and
significantly related to customer loyalty in banking industry in Greece. Rizan (2010) has conducted a study
on 160 airline passengers of airline industry in Indonesia and has found that service quality has a strong
impact and positively and significantly related to service quality. Kheng et al. (2010) in their study on 238
bank customers in Malaysia have found that among the five dimensions used in service quality, tangible
has no significant impact on loyalty. Reliability is found to have positive relationship with customer
loyalty. Relationship between responsiveness and customer loyalty is insignificant. Empathy has significant
positive relationship with customer loyalty. There is significant relationship between assurance and
customer loyalty. In view of that we hypothesize:
H1: There is a positive relationship between service quality and customer loyalty
2.5 Relationship between service quality and trust
The elements of quality in service are expected to affect trust directly. This is because the elements of
service represent trust cue that convey the trustworthiness of the bank and the system. Gefen et al. (2000)
studied different determinants effect on trust and show that the service quality has a positive influence on
customer trust. Al-Dwairi and Kamala (2009) adopted integrity, ability, and quality services as attributes of
service quality in vendor business and demonstrated that service quality has a significant effect on customer
trust. Zha et al. (2006) in their study in e-commerce industry in China showed in their research that
dimensions service quality dimensions are significant predictive of trust. Su and Fan (2011) in their study
on rural tourism in China, found that service quality plays an important role and has a significant influence
on trust. Yeh and Li (2009) when conducting a study of m-commerce in China revealed that service quality
has a strong and positive impact in developing trust on m-commerce customers in m-commerce industry.
The same outcome was also found by Sahadev and Purani (2008) when they study the impact of service
quality on trust in e-commerce industry in India where they found that service quality has a strong
influence on trust and significantly correlated. Hazra and Srivastava (2009) also in their study of banking
industry in India found that the role of service quality in banking industry very crucial in strengthening the
trust of the customers. Their study shows that service quality has a strong and positive influence on trust
and significantly correlated. In Thailand Eakuru and Mat (2008) conducted a study in banking industry. In
their research, they study the relationship between service quality of the commercial banks in Thailand and
how it has an impact on bank customer trust. Their study revealed that service quality has a strong and
positive impact on bank customer trust and positively correlated. In view of that we hypothesize:
H2: There is a positive relationship between service quality and trust
2.6 Relationship between trust and customer loyalty
There are quite a number of researches have been done and found the importance of trust as an antecedent
to customer loyalty. Akbar and Parvez (2009) in their study on 302 Telecommunication customers in
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
34 Vol. 1, No.1 (January 2013)
Bangladesh telecommunication industry have revealed that trust has a strong impact and significantly and
positively correlated with customer loyalty. Liang (2008) has done a research on 308 Hotel guests in hotel
industry in United States has revealed the importance of trust in determining customer loyalty in hotel
industry. She found there is a strong impact of trust on customer loyalty where trust is significantly and
positively correlated. Luarn and Lin (2003) revealed the importance of trust as an antecedent to customer
loyalty in their study on 180 Tourists in Taiwan tourism industry. They found that trust has a stronger
relationship after commitment and customer satisfaction. The relationship is also positively and
significantly correlated. Horppu et al. (2008) in their study on 867 Website magazine consumer in Finland
have found that trust on the web site level are determinant of web site loyalty where the relationship is
positively and significantly correlated. Kassim and Abdullah (2010) in their study on 357 E-services
customer in Malaysia and Qatar e-commerce industry have revealed that trust has a strong influence on
customer loyalty where it is positively and significantly correlated. Ribbink et al. (2005) in their study on
350 online customers in Europe e-commerce industry have also found the importance and strong impact of
trust on customer loyalty. The relationship also shows the positive and significant relationship of both.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H3: There is a positive relationship between trust and customer loyalty
2.7 Relationship between service quality, trust and customer loyalty
Not many research studies have been done on the indirect relationship between service quality and
customer loyalty via trust. With regards to the rural tourism enterprises, rural tourists view their
consumption as “rewarding” and then bear trust. Many researches being done on the relationships between
service quality and tourist loyalty had been conducted without consensus. Some researchers suggest service
quality has a direct influence on customer loyalty e.g. Cronin et al. (2000) while some find indirect
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Spreng et al., 1996; Tam, 2000). In view of that, we hypothesize:
H4: There is a positive indirect relationship among service quality, trust and customer loyalty
3. Research methodology
3.1 Research model
Tourist attraction operators are keen to know how customer satisfaction can lead to customer trust and
eventually create customer loyalty for the tourists. The research applies the research model by a few
authors mostly Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Morgan and Hunt (1994). The conceptual model of this study
is illustrated in Figure 1.
3.2 Methodology
Survey instrument was developed by extensively reviewing literatures in order to identify scales adopted in
the past studies which are having strong reliability and validity. The preliminary draft of the survey
questionnaire was tested by reviewing and interview with tourism professional, business professionals and
academicians where they were asked to provide comments and suggestions to improve the survey clarity
and precision. The survey then was fine tuned based on the feedback obtained. A pilot study conducted
and assessed. The results were evaluated to make sure there was no systematic bias in the survey
questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was utilized from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Local and
foreign tourists who have visited the rural tourism spot in Malaysia at least once were the main
respondents. A total of 410 rural tourism spot tourists were requested to complete a questionnaire that
contained measures of the construct. Out of the 410 distributed questionnaires, 329 were returned. This
made up the response rate of 80.24%. In view of that, the rate of response is sufficient for SEM analysis.
The Mahalanobis distance was determined based on a total of 31 observed variables. The criterion of
p<0.01 and critical value of χ2= 86.40 is applied. The test conducted identified 34 cases with Mahalanobis
value (D2) above 86.40. The mahalanobis analysis successfully identified the multivariate outliers which
were deleted permanently, leaving 295 datasets to be used for further analysis. To examine the relationships
among the main constructs by adopting the partial least squares (PLS) technique, SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et
al., 2005) was applied to evaluate the measurement model and structural model. PLS analysis was selected
because it can assess all paths simultaneously (Gefen et al., 2000) and does not need a large sample size
(Gefen and Straub, 2005). To examine the relationships, all measurement items were standardized and
missing values were substituted by sample means to test validity, reliability, and statistical power. The
Z. Osman & I. Sentosa
International Journal of Marketing Practices 35
bootstrapping technique was utilized, which estimates the estimator sampling distribution by re-sampling
with substitution from the original sample (Moore and Mccabe, 2005), to obtain more consistent results.
The subsamples size to perform the bootstrapping technique followed the propositions in Efron and
Tibshirani (1998).
4. Findings
4.1 Measurement model
Figure 1 demonstrates on the whole results for the hypothesized model. A good model fit in PLS is present
when there are significant path coefficients, acceptable R2 values, and good construct reliability (Gefen et
al., 2000). The model predictability reflected by the values of R2, is another strength vital determinant of
the model (Chin, 1998b). For the evaluation of reliability, composite reliability and average variance
extracted (AVE), shown in Table 2 are the two major measurements utilized in this research. Composite
reliability does not presume that all indicators are equally weighted (Chin, 1998a) which suggests that
composite reliability may be more suitable to assess reliability. Composite reliability is proposed to be
greater than 0.7 (Barclay et al., 1995; Fornell and Bookstein, 1981). The other measurement, AVE,
indicates the variance amount that a construct confines from its indicators relative to the amount due to
measurement error (Chin, 1998a). For the first-order factor, the proposed minimal critical value for AVE is
0.5 (Hu et al., 2004). The composite reliability and AVE values shown in Table 2 are looked to achieve
these requirements.
Convergent validity is items in a scale ability to come or load together as a single construct. It is gauged by
examining each loading for each block of indicators. The standardized loadings should be larger than 0.7,
suggesting that the indicators share more variance with their respective latent variable than with error
variance. A lower bound of 0.50 may be adequate (Chin, 1998a). Table 3 presents a list of standardized
loadings for each construct, and it is seen that they are higher than acceptable minimum values. For second-
order constructs, convergent validity is instituted by having path coefficients that are significant, and larger
than 0.7, between each first-order construct and the corresponding second-order construct (Fornell and
Bookstein, 1981). The entire path coefficients in this study are statistically significant and larger than 0.5.
Discriminant validity signifies how well individual item factor connects to its hypothesized construct
comparatively to others (Kerlinger, 1973). Discriminant validity is approximated via:
cross-loadings; and
the relationship between correlations among first-order constructs and the square roots of AVE
(Chin, 1998b; Fornell and Bookstein, 1981).
The cross-loadings demonstrated in Table 5 display adequate discriminant validity levels for each
construct. Each item factor in the bold value of Table 5 demonstrates strong loading values to the
corresponding latent construct and low loading values to other constructs. The link between AVE square
roots values and the correlations among first-order latent constructs hold the similar conclusion. In Table 4,
it is clearly indicated that the square roots of AVE (bold numbers in diagonal) are higher than the
correlations among the constructs (off-diagonal values).
4.2 Structural model
Firstly, the first model was presented with direct path from service quality to trust and satisfaction to
loyalty. Both links were significant at the 0.000 level with the path coefficients of 0.722 and 0.736
respectively. At this point no indirect effect was hypothesized or evaluated. (Table 6)
Then, the second model was presented with trust plays a mediating role between satisfaction and loyalty
(refer to table 7). The two distinct models were made based on Baron and Kenny (1986) four-step
technique to assess the mediating effect. The two models had:
1) a direct path from service quality to trust
2) a direct path from service quality to loyalty
3) a direct path from trust to loyalty
4) a direct path from service quality to loyalty, and an indirect path from service quality to trust
and then from trust to loyalty.
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
36 Vol. 1, No.1 (January 2013)
Mediation is said to be existed when the direct path coefficient between the independent variable and
dependent variable is decreases when the indirect path through the mediator is established in the model.
The direct path is assessed without the intervention of mediator and with the intervention of mediator. The
direct path standardized beta was 0.722 and change to 0.439 after the introduction of trust as a mediator.
The amount of the decrease of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty accounted by the mediator
was 0.283 which represent 39.2% of the direct effect.
The mediation effect significance was measured by using PROCESS by Hayes (2012) with the application
of bootstrapping technique where the specific model in question with both direct and indirect paths
included and execute N bootstrap re-sampling and explicitly compute the product of direct paths that form
the indirect path being assessed. Then, the significance of the mediating effect can be ascertained by
observing either percentile bootstrap or bias corrected bootstrap which has been shown to have the least
biased confidence intervals, greatest power to detect nonzero effects and contrasts, and the most accurate
overall Type I error (Williams and MacKinnon, 2008) . The result extracted from PROCESS shows that the
indirect effect of service quality to loyalty with the present of trust as a mediating factor is significant at
p<.000 where the lower level confidence level (LLCL) is 0.320 and upper level confidence level (ULCL) is
0.566 (Table 8). The indirect effect is significantly different from zero at p<.000 (two tailed). With 95%
confidence that, because zero is not within this interval, zero is not likely a value for the indirect effect of
service quality on loyalty. The true indirect effect is estimated lies between 0.320 and 0.566. Therefore, the
indirect path service quality to trust and from trust to loyalty was 0.736 * 0.384 = 0.283. The confidence
interval level provided by PROSESS was between 0.320 and 0.566, p<.000. This shows that the partial
mediation effect present. Therefore, all the hypotheses are supported (Table 9).
The paths were analyzed in order to assess the effect size ( f2) to differentiate the path that contribute in
explaining the dependent variable to which they are attached. Chin (1998b) explains that the R2 for each
latent variable (LV) can be an opening point when evaluating PLS for the structured model, since
explanation of the PLS is similar to that of a traditional regression. The author also suggests that the change
in the R2 can be investigated to see whether the impact of a specific independent LV on a dependent LV is
extensive. Following Chin’s (1998b) recommendation, effect size can be calculated as:
Where R2 included and R2 excluded are the R2 provided on the dependent LV, when the predictor LV is
used or omitted from the structural equation, respectively. The f2 of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 can be translated as
a predictor LV having a small, medium, or large effect at the structural level (Table 7).
The Q-square (Q2) for the structural model which imply the predictive relevance of the model is acceptable
which is 0.811 (Table 7). Q-square for the structural model is to gauge how fit the observations produced
by the model and to assess its parameters. If the value of Q² > 0, it signifies that the model has predictive
relevance; on the other hand, if the value of Q² < 0, it signifies that the model is having predictive relevance
deficiency. This shows that the ability of the Partial Least Model to demonstrate the model is 81.1%.
Therefore, only 18.9% of other factors are not observable to describe this effect. Therefore it can be
concluded that the model can be used appropriately. The predictive measure for the block becomes:
5. Discussion and conclusion
The main purpose of this research is to establish an understanding of the mediating effect of customer trust
on service quality and customer loyalty relationship in Malaysia rural tourism industry. This research is to
develop probable causal relationship among the variables which are service quality, trust and customer
loyalty. Based on this, a review from the previous study in the area of service quality, trust and customer
loyalty was performed. From the initial findings of academic studies, the model was constructed and it’s
found that service quality has a positive and significant direct effect on trust. Also from the same model, it
f2 = R2 included – R2 excluded
1 – R2Included
Q2 = 1 – (1 – R12) (1 – R22) ... (1- Rp2)
Z. Osman & I. Sentosa
International Journal of Marketing Practices 37
was found that service quality has a positive and significant direct effect on customer loyalty. Then, the
mediating relationship was introduced in the model where trust was introduced as a mediator in service
quality and customer loyalty relationship. Theoretically, it is not easy to justify the superiority of any
model, so empirical testing was performed. This study proposed model to empirically test and to confirm
that are positive direct relationship among service quality, trust and customer loyalty. In order to achieve
this objective, the PLS technique data analysis was adopted. There are a few points that need to be
observed. Firstly, the most accepted relationship between service quality and trust is authenticated. The
path coefficient of direct relationship between the service quality and trust is 0.736 and is significant.
Secondly, the most accepted theory that link service quality and customer loyalty also well supported with
the path coefficient of direct relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is 0.722 and
is significant. Thirdly, this research is to empirically analyze the proposed mediating effect of trust on
service quality and customer loyalty relationship. The amount of the relationship between customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty accounted by the mediator was (0.722-0.439) = 0.283, which represents
39.2 percent of the direct effect. In view of that, it is concluded that trust is partially mediates the
relationship between service quality and customer loyalty. Based on the above findings, it is concluded that
trust plays a role as mediator and has mediating affect on service quality and customer loyalty relationship
in Malaysia rural tourism industry.
The research findings suggest that customer’s trust among rural tourism tourists can be improved and
enhanced by focusing on factors that can enhance service quality. On the other hand, rural tourism tourists’
loyalty can be strengthened and enhanced by raising the level of trust among rural tourism tourists.
Eventually, customers’ trust among rural tourism tourists should play an important factor to increase rural
tourism operators’ profit. This research highlights the belief that customers’ trust plays a crucial role in
Malaysia rural tourism industry. It puts frontward one probable the elusive link causal explanation between
customers’ trust and profitability of the business.
References
Akbar, M. M., & Parvez, N. (2009). Impact of service quality, trust, and customer satisfaction on customer
loyalty. ABAC Journal, 29(1), 24-38.
Al-Dwairi, R. M. & Kamala, M. A. (2009). An integrated trust model for business-to consumer (b2c) e-
commerce: integrating trust with the technology acceptance model. International Conference on Cyber
Worlds, 351-356.
Al-Rousan, Ramzi, M., & Mohamed, B. (2010). Customer loyalty and the impacts of service quality: The
case of five star hotels in Jordan. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(13), 886-892.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfactions
for firms, Marketing Science, 12(2), 125-143.
Baldinger, A., & Rubinson, J. (1996). Brand loyalty: The link between attitude and behavior. Journal of
Advertising research, 2, 84-97.
Barclay, D., Thompson, R., and Higgins, C. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modeling: personal computer adoption and use an illustration. Technology Studies 2(2), 285-309.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological-
research – conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Baumann, C., Burton, S., & Elliott, G. (2005). Determinants of customer loyalty and share of wallet in
retail banking. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 9(3), 231-248.
Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K., & Wetzels. M. (1999). Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty: A
multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12), 1082-1106.
Bowen, J., & Shoemaker, S. (1998). Loyalty: a strategic commitment, Cornell and Restaurant and
Administration Quarterly, 39, 12-25.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 31-39.
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
38 Vol. 1, No.1 (January 2013)
Chen, C. H., & Lee, H. Y. (2008). Empirical analysis of the customer loyalty problem in the international
logistics market. WSEAS Transaction on Business Economics, 4(5), 113-123.
Chin W.W. (1998a). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-15.
Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in Marcoulides,
G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ: Mahwah.
Clottey, T. A., & Collier, D. A. (2008). Drivers of customer loyalty in a retail store environment. Journal of
Service Science, 1(1), 35-47.
Cronin Jr., J. J., Brady, M. K. & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on customer behavioural intentions in service environments, Journal of Retailing, 76, 193-218.
Day, G. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 29–35.
Dotchin, J. A., & Oakland, J. S. (1994). Total quality management in services: Understanding and
classifying services. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 11(3), 9-26.
Drucker, P. (1991). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. Louisiana: Louisiana State
University Press
Eakuru, N., & Mat, N. (2008). The application of structural equation modeling (SEM) in determining the
antecedents of customer loyalty in banks in south Thailand. The Business Review, Cambridge, 10(2), 129-
139.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1998). An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall.
Erdem, T., Louviere, J., & Swait, J. (2002). The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 1-19.
Fornell, C. & Bookstein, F. L. (1981). A comparative analysis of two structural equation models: LISREL
and PLS applied to market data, in Fornell, C. (Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis, Praeger,
New York, 289-324.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing ,58, 1-19.
Gefen, D., and Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and
annotated example. Communications of the AIS, 16(5), 91-109.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines
for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-77.
Goeldner, C.R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). Tourism – Principles, practices, philosophies, 9th ed., Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Gowan, M., Seymour, S., Ibarreche, C., & Lackey, C. (2001). Service quality in a public agency: Same
expectations but different perceptions by employees, managers, and customers. Journal of Quality
Management, 6(1), 275-291.
Grönroos, C. (2001). The perceived service quality concept – a mistake?. Managing Service Quality, 11(3),
150 – 152.
Gutierrez, S. M. S. (2000). La relacion confianza-compromiso.Propuesta de un modelo explicativo,
Unpublished thesis, University of Burgos.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hazra, S. G., & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2009). Impact of service quality on customer loyalty, commitment and
trust in the Indian banking sector. ICFAI Journal of Marketing Management, 3(3&4), 75-95.
Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A., & Ellonen, H. K. (2008). Online satisfaction, trust and
loyalty, and the impact of the offline parent brand, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 403-
413.
Z. Osman & I. Sentosa
International Journal of Marketing Practices 39
Hu, X., Lin, Z., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2004). Hope or hype: On the viability of escrow services as
trusted third parties in online auction environments. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 236-249.
Jamal, A., & Anatassadou, K. (2007). Investigating the effects of service quality dimensions and expertise
on loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 398-420.
Kassim, N., & Abdullah, N. A. (2010). The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer
satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings: A cross cultural analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, 22(3), 351-371.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and
Winston.
Kheng, L. L., Mahamad, O., Ramayah, T., & Mosahab, R. (2010). The impact of service quality on
customer Loyalty: A study of banks in Penang, Malaysia. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(2),
57-66.
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of
Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341-370.
Liang, D. (2008). The determining factors of customer loyalty for luxury hotels in US. The Journal of
International Management Studies, 3(2), 167-175.
Loureiro, S., & Gonzalez, F. (2008). The importance of quality, satisfaction, trust, and image in relation to
rural tourist loyalty. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 117-136.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H. H. (2003). A customer loyalty model for e-service context, Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 4(4), 156-167.
Ministry of Tourism, (2011), Tourism Malaysia annual report, pp. 23.
Moore, D. S., & Mccabe, G. P. (2005). Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. W.H. Freeman, New
York.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of
Marketing,58(3), 20-38.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 29- 40.
Prabhakaran, S., & Satya, S, (2003). An insight into Service Attributes in Banking Sector. Journal of
Services Research, 3(1), 157-169.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 485-491.
Ribbink, D., Van Riel, A., & Semeijn, J. (2005). Policy decisions and modal choice: An example from the
European Union, Transportation Journal, 44(1), 33-44.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta, Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de
Rizan, M. (2010). Analysis of service quality and customer satisfaction and its influence on customer
loyalty. Oxford Business & Economics Conference.
Sahadev, S., & Purani, K. (2008), Modeling the consequences of e-service quality. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 26(6), 605-620.
Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and
offline encounters. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2), 153-175
Spreng, R. A.,Mackenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A reexamination of the determinants
consumer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15-32.
Straughan, R. D., & Cooper, M. J. (2002). Managing internal markets: A conceptual framework adapted
from SERVQUAL. The Marketing Review, 2(3), 253-265.
Su, L. & Fan, X. (2011). A Study on the relationships between service quality, satisfaction, trust and
loyalty among rural tourism. Paper presented at 8th International Conference on Service Systems and
Service Management, Tianjin.
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
40 Vol. 1, No.1 (January 2013)
Tam, J. L. M., (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on
behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 6(4), 31-43.
Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing
indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23-51.
Woodside, A, G., Frey, L. L., & Daly, R. T. (1989). Linking service quality, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intention, Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9,5-17.
Yeh, Y. S. & Li, Y. M. (2009). Building trust in m-commerce: Contributions from quality and satisfaction.
Online Information Review,33(6), 1066-1086.
Yuan, J., Cai, L.A., Morrison, A. M., & Linton, S. (2005). An analysis of wine festival 6 attendees’
motivations: A synergy of wine, travel and special events? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1), 41-58.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality.
Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.
Zha J., Ju, F., & Wang, L. (2006). Customer satisfaction in E-commerce: An exploration of its antecedents
and consequences, International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 540-544.
Zhao, X., Bai, C., & Hui, Y. V. (2002). An empirical assessment and application of SERVQUAL in a
mainland Chinese department store. Total Quality Management, 13, 241-254.
Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Hypothesized model structure and results
Z. Osman & I. Sentosa
International Journal of Marketing Practices 41
Table 1: Operationalization of Variables
Service Quality
the difference between customer expectations regarding a
service to be received and perceptions of the service being
received
Grönroos (2001)
Customer Trust
Actual customer’s belief in receiving the service promised by
the provider and a demonstration of the confidence of the
customer in exchange of partner reliability and integrity
Morgan and Hunt (1994)
Customer Loyalty
The mind-set of the customers who hold favorable attitudes
toward a company, commit to repurchase the company’s
product/service, and recommend the product/service to others
Zeithaml et al. (1996)
Table 2: Construct reliability and validity
AVE
AVE
SQUARE
ROOT
CR
R SQUARE
CROMBACH”S
ALPHA
COMMUNALITY
LOY
0.753
0.868
0.901
0.588
0.834
0.753
SQ
0.740
0.860
0.934
0.00
0.912
0.740
TRU
0.727
0.852
0.888
0.541
0.812
0.727
Table 3: Convergent validity (item loading)
Construct
Factor
Loading
Service Quality
MASSU
0.891***
MEMP
0.894***
MREL
0.839***
MRES
0.867***
MTAN
0.806***
Trust
TRU1
0.856***
TRU3
0.875***
TRU4
0.825***
Customer Loyalty
LOY1
0.886***
LOY3
0.908***
LOY4
0.806***
Note: Significant at: * * *0.05 levels
Table 4: AVE square root and correlations among latent variables
Constructs
LOY
SQ
TRU
LOY
0.868
SQ
0.722
0.860
TRU
0.707
0.736
0.852
Table 5: Cross-loading among variables
LOY
SQ
TRU
LOY1
0.886
0.649
0.654
LOY3
0.908
0.624
0.616
LOY4
0.806
0.603
0.567
MASSU
0.611
0.891
0.679
MEMP
0.668
0.894
0.673
Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Rural Tourism: A Mediating Effect of Trust
42 Vol. 1, No.1 (January 2013)
MREL
0.599
0.839
0.577
MRES
0.619
0.867
0.604
MTAN
0.607
0.808
0.629
TRU1
0.642
0.665
0.856
TRU3
0.582
0.642
0.875
TRU4
0.580
0.569
0.825
Table 6: Direct effect model
Path Coefficient
t-value
SQ – LOY
0.722
12.701
SQ – TRU
0.736
14.768
T-values are significant at p<0.000
Table 7: Indirect effect model
Path Coefficient
t-value
f2
Q2
SQ – LOY
0.439
4.164
0.214
0.811
SQ – TRU
0.736
14.845
1.179
TRU – LOY
0.384
3.586
0.214
T-values are significant at p<0.000
Table 8: Indirect effect significance test
Indirect
Effect
Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot ULCI
Trust
0.451
0.061
0.320
0.566
Table 9: Hypotheses result
Hypothesizes Relationship
Path Coefficient
p-value
Conclusion
H1
There is a positive relationship between
service quality and customer loyalty
0.722
0.00
Supported
H2
There is a positive relationship between
service quality and trust
0.736
0.00
Supported
H3
There is a positive relationship between
customer trust and customer loyalty
0.384
0.00
Supported
H4
There is a positive indirect relationship
between service quality and customer
loyalty via trust
0.451
0.00
Supported
