Purpose -The purpose of this study is to identity cognitive and affective determinants of customer loyalty towards e-mail services, including interrelationships, and to understand the process by which the cognitive and affective antecedents influence customer loyalty. Design/methodology/approach -An online survey was conducted to gather data from Gmail users. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Findings -Results indicate electronic service quality and e-trust (cognitive) impact customer loyalty through affective variables like emotions, satisfaction, e-trust (affective) and affective commitment. Results also indicate that e-mail service providers who intend to build long term relationships with their customers will benefit by investing in emotional factors along with cognitive factors. Research limitations/implications -A predominantly male audience responded to the research query based on one e-mail service setting. Based on the responses, it was determined that e-mail service providers can benefit by building emotional bonds with customers. Enhancing consumption emotions leads to development of emotional bonds and customer loyalty. Originality/value -Much of the extant literature has examined the role played by cognitive antecedent variables in determining e-loyalty. Studies that researched the role of affective variables are scant. This paper is unique in that it examines both cognitive and affective variables in determining e-loyalty. This study differs from other studies in that it uses antecedents such as emotions, affective commitment, and e-trust (affective) to determine customer loyalty toward e-mail services. Interrelationships among the antecedents were also explored.
Purpose -This paper aims to investigate what sources of information consumers are utilizing when they are selecting physicians, and if there are any differences in the types of sources they evaluate when searching for information for themselves versus searching for someone else (e.g. loved ones). Design/methodology/approach -Focus groups and personal interviews were conducted based on a convenience sampling approach. Findings -Consumers no longer depend on subjective sources such as word of mouth (WOM), but also look at objective internet sources. When searching for information for somebody else, consumers refer to more sources and prefer objective sources of information, such as the internet. When searching for loved ones, consumers spend more time and effort as they want to give the best possible advice.Research limitations/implications -The study focused only on baby-boomers. Hence, the results may not be extended to other segments. Hospitals and other not-for-profit groups providing health care information should make attempts to provide information about physicians' services on the internet. Health care marketers should recognize that searching for information for self versus searching for loved ones is not similar. Originality/value -Health care marketers can begin investigating the necessary means of how consumers are searching for information for self versus searching for loved ones. They should put in place mechanisms to identify whether a consumer is searching for information for self or for somebody else. Consumers are now referring to the internet-based information sources and not just WOM.
The internet has become an important source of information for healthcare services. The reasons for consumers' decision not to use the internet as an information source still need further investigation in order to fully understand the processes that consumers experience during this decision-making period (Rha, Montalto,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.