Path analysis of perceived service quality, satisfaction and loyalty in Greek insurance
Open accessAbstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to investigate the path service quality → customer satisfaction → loyalty, at the level of constructs, drawing from the Greek insurance industry. Design/methodology/approach A SERVQUAL type service‐quality instrument is developed for Greek insurance. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses are used to determine the scale's dimensionality. Path analysis is utilized to examine a model linking service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty at the level of constructs' individual determinants. Findings SERVQUAL's dimensionality is not confirmed. A non‐tangibles, tangibles structure exists in Greek insurance. “Tangibles” does not affect customer satisfaction while WOM is an antecedent of repurchasing intentions. Satisfaction does not directly influence the latter. Research limitations/implications This study suffers the limitation that it tests the fit of the model within the limits of a single service industry. Another limitation is availability sampling. However, the satisfactory fit of the estimated model allows for the study to be a reliable comparison basis for future research. Practical implications Insurance managers may use GIQUAL for measuring the quality of insurance services offered. They must improve the intangible rather than the tangible elements of service and direct their support mechanisms towards developing customers willing to engage in positive WOM. The proposed model can be used to provide comparable findings acro…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Life insurance services are highly intangible.
“Durvasula et al. (2004); Tsoukatos and Rand (2006) described life insurance services are highly intangible.”
From The Antecedents of Customer Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation in Life Insurance Context (2013) · cites this paper as Tsoukatos and Rand (2006)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 81 · Cited by 263
- Authors
- Tsoukatos, E., & Rand, G. K.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- Venue
- Managing Service Quality: An International Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2006-09-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 501-519
- ISSN
- 0960-4529 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084695140
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 9.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Managing Service Quality (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Keywords
- perceived service quality, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, insurance industry, SERVQUAL, word of mouth, repurchase intention, tangibles, intangibles, service quality measurement scale, path analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review