82 Int. J. Mobile Communications, Vol. 17, No.

1, 2019

Customer retention to mobile telecommunication

service providers: the roles of perceived justice and
customer loyalty program

Nedra Bahri-Ammari*
Department of Marketing,
IHEC, Carthage, 2016, Tunisia
Email: nedrabahri@yahoo.fr
*Corresponding author

Anil Bilgihan
Department of Marketing,
Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA
Email: abilgihan@fau.edu

Abstract: In the past decade, the competition has increased in mobile

telecommunication services; moreover, a stagnating rate of diffusion suggests
that the market may have reached maturity. Thus, customer loyalty has become
an important area of research in the mobile telecommunication sector. The goal
of this current study is to offer and test a theoretical model of customer
retention in the mobile telecommunication context. To test the theoretical
model, a self-administrated questionnaire was developed and tested on a
sample of 400 customers. The results show that greater levels of satisfaction
toward loyalty program lead to greater customer retention. The satisfaction of
loyalty program positively impacts customer relationship satisfaction. The
mediating effect of relationship satisfaction is supported. Since the majority of
research on perceived justice focused on service recovery and complaint
outcomes, this framework provides empirical evidence on the direct and
indirect effect of procedural, distributive and interactional perceived justice
regarding loyalty programs as antecedents of relational satisfaction
loyalty/commitment and retention from a consumer’s perspective.

Keywords: mobile communication; loyalty programs; perceived justice;

satisfaction; retention; SEM; structural equation modelling; emerging economy
countries.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bahri-Ammari, N. and

Bilgihan, A. (2019) ‘Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service
providers: the roles of perceived justice and customer loyalty program’,
Int. J. Mobile Communications, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.82–107.

Biographical notes: Nedra Bahri-Ammari is an Associate Professor of

Marketing and responsible of the Research Master of Marketing at IHEC
of Carthage, Tunisia. Her researches include: business-to-customer and
business-to-business marketing, customer relationships management (CRM),
social-CRM, digital marketing, big data. She has published in international
peer-reviewed academic journals as: Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,

Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 83

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Journal of Research in

Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Management Research Review, International
Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management. She has
published book and chapters on CRM and loyalty strategy tourism and social
CRM.

Anil Bilgihan is an Assistant Professor at the Florida Atlantic University,

College of Business. He earned his PhD from Rosen College of Hospitality
Management, Master of Science degree from the University of Delaware in
Hospitality Information Management. His Bachelor of Science in Computer
Technology and Information Systems is from Bilkent University. He has
several academic publications in the area of e-commerce and Information
Systems. He serves on the editorial board of international journals.

1 Introduction

Supported by the rapid development of information and communication

technologies (ICTs) and increasing demand from customers, the paradigm of mobile
telecommunication services has shifted from voice centred communication to a
combination of high-speed data communication and multimedia (Kim et al., 2004).
In the past decade, more players came into the marketplace, therefore the competition is
increasing in the mobile telecommunication services. Moreover, a stagnating rate of
diffusion, indicated by a fall in the rate of increase in subscriber numbers, suggests that
the market may have reached maturity (Kim et al., 2004). Volatility in sales, cash flow,
and profits have been steadily increasing and among the major reasons for this rise are
increased competition and decreasing customer loyalty (Matzler et al., 2015).
Given the symptoms in the marketplace, telecommunication service companies
should develop customer-oriented strategies to survive. In such an environment, where
the number of subscribers is reaching a saturation point, creating and securing
new customers is not only difficult but also costly in terms of marketing (Kim et al.,
2004). Thus, trying to retain existing customers by nurturing customer loyalty is a
viable marketing strategy for mobile telecommunication service companies. Mobile
telecommunication service companies should leverage consumer lock-in to increase their
profits (Czajkowski and Sobolewski, 2016). In other words, the financial performance of
telecommunication service brands is determined largely by the adoption of customer
loyalty strategies, particularly in a competitive environment.
The entry of virtual mobile services that compete in low prices is also changing the
competition within the mobile services’ industry. These virtual services often enter into
mature saturated markets, attracting customers who are willing to their change operators
(Calvo-Porral and Lévy-Mangin, 2015). A market research reveals that the average cell
phone user switches carriers every 48 months to take advantage of the low cost and
benefits of signing on new contracts (Zoratti, 2012). Furthermore, 60% of mobile
phone users do not think their service provider cares about them. On the other side
of the coin, mobile service marketers also admit that they are not confident in their
knowledge of their customers (Zoratti, 2012). Therefore, loyalty programs may offer key
benefits to mobile service providers. Mobile telecommunication service providers
84 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

realised the importance of maintaining good relationships with their customers (Keropyan
and Gil-Lafuente, 2012).
Loyalty programs were the subject of several previous studies (e.g., Kandampully
et al., 2015; Pez, 2009; Gómez et al., 2006; Mimouni and Volle, 2006; Lewis, 2004;
Verhoef, 2003; Meyer-Waarden, 2007). Some studies have shown that loyalty programs
have a positive effect on customer satisfaction and commitment (Gómez et al., 2006;
Mimouni and Volle, 2003). Other studies have confirmed a positive impact on customer
loyalty and retention (Verhoef, 2003; Lewis, 2004). On the other hand, other frameworks
showed that the influence of such programs on behaviour loyalty is transient (e.g., Sharp
and Sharp, 1997) and loyalty program participants do not necessarily engage in an on-
going relationship with the firm. In many cases, customers feel frustrated and unfairly
treated because they fail to collect the promised rewards, misunderstand the procedures
or perceive a discriminatory interpersonal behaviour. Mobile telecommunication
companies are advised to invest efforts to seek solutions to keep their customers satisfied
and thus loyal to the company (Keropyan and Gil-Lafuente, 2012). Justice might offer
valuable outcomes for customer loyalty programs as it refers to the notion that an action
or decision is morally right. If a loyalty program is perceived as fair and just, it
potentially could increase customer loyalty.
The literature does not sufficiently consider the importance of perceived justice
as a condition of effectiveness of loyalty programs and a prerequisite of customer
loyalty and retention. A thumping majority of previous research in perceived justice has
been devoted to service recovery, switching behaviour and complaint process (e.g.,
Nikbin et al., 2012; Tax et al., 1998; Blodgett et al., 1993). The links between perceived
justice, satisfaction, commitment, and retention have received little attention in a
consumer service consumption context (Aurier and Siadou-Martin, 2007; Severt, 2006).
Having identified this gap, this research considers the role of perceived justice in a
context of customer loyalty program for mobile service providers.
Pez (2009) demonstrated the moderating effect of perceived justice in the link
between satisfaction with the loyalty programs and relationship satisfaction in the mobile
phone sector. In the context of healthcare public services, Vinagre and Neves (2010)
attempted to validate the impact of perceived justice and emotions on patient satisfaction.
Their results suggest the relevance of positive emotions, procedural and relational justice
in patients’ satisfaction process. In their framework, Aurier and Siadou-Martin (2007)
investigated the role of perceived justice components on the evaluation process in dining
consumption experiences. Their findings highlight both direct and indirect impacts of
satisfaction through perceived quality and a notable link with trust. However, the impact
on commitment was not supported.
A lack of agreement on the role of perceived justice in service experience literature
suggests further investigation to enhance the current empirical research and to assess the
role of perceived justice in an integrative relationship model. Moreover, only a few
studies investigate the role of perceived justice facets on consumer responses (e.g., Aurier
and Siadou-Martin, 2007). Considering this gap, the current research aims to examine the
role of perceived justice’s dimensions (i.e., procedural, distributive and interactional) and
satisfaction with a loyalty program in explaining the customer’s attitude and intention
behaviour namely relationship satisfaction, commitment/loyalty, and customer retention.
The first objective is to identify which justice component is more effective in predicting
consumer satisfaction and loyalty. The second objective is to reveal the complementarity
of perceived justice and satisfaction with the loyalty program in the retention process.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 85

This research is structured into four parts. First, it reviews the literature in this context
and then presents the conceptual framework of this research. Later, it proposes a
conceptual model of the determinants of retention and develops research hypotheses
based on theoretical foundations. Later we introduce the research methodology. The third
part concerns the testing of research hypotheses. Finally, we present the results of our
analysis and discuss their theoretical and managerial implications and offer future
research directions.
The next section introduces the justice theory and research constructs.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Justice theory

Justice theory is rooted in an idea that customers’ satisfaction and loyalty are
based on whether they felt that they were treated fairly, whether justice was done
(Murphy et al., 2015). The theory of justice has been investigated for over 35 years in
various contexts including marketing (e.g., Smith et al., 1999; Söderlund and Colliander,
2015; Tax et al., 1998) and information systems (e.g., Fu et al., 2015). The fundamental
notion of justice is consistent across disciplines which states that organisations’ actions
are assessed by customers and employees on the basis of fairness and they respond
according to their fairness perceptions (Wetsch, 2006).
The conceptual framework of the current research draws from the equity theory
(Adams, 1963), which hypothesises that judgements of equity and inequity is a result of
comparison between one’s self and others based on inputs (i.e., what a person perceives
to contribute) and outcomes (i.e., what a person gets out of an exchange). Later,
Greenberg (1987) presented the organisational justice theory, stems from the equity
theory. It posits how an employee judges the behaviour of the organisation and the
employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. Later, perceived justice has been treated
in several relationship marketing studies to explain the customer satisfaction process
(Pez, 2009; Aurier and Siadou-Martin, 2007). This construct is often adopted in
developing theories that deal with service failure occurrences (Sabadie, 2000; Tax et al.,
1998; Blodgett et al., 1993). Tax et al. (1998) considered that justice provides an
inclusive framework for understanding the complaint process from the beginning to the
end, hence the relevance of the phenomenon. The justice’s theory proposes to maintain
the same fairness to the parties involved in a business. This theory is based on the
assumption that the customer evaluates the fairness of an exchange partner on the
equality and between contributions and rewards value. The perceived justice is viewed as
a pledge of the continuity of partner’s relationship and then develops high customer
loyalty intentions. Despite the absence of the concept of relationship loyalty program in
marketing research, the significant part of studies has highlighted its effect on loyalty
(Tax et al., 1998; Smith et al., 1999). Many investigations deduced that the perceived
justice has a significant effect on positive and negative emotions of customers in case of a
service recovery (Helena Vinagre, and Neves, 2008; DeWitt et al., 2007).
The emotion was described by Bagozzi et al. (1999) as a state of mind preparation
resulting from cognitive evaluations of events or thoughts, which can result in specific
actions to affirm or confront that emotion. Justice is perceived as an antecedent to
customer trust, defined by Graf et al. (1999) as “waiting on the reliability of words,
86 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

promises, written or oral statements from another individual”. The majority of previous
research conceptualised perceived justice as a construct consisting of three dimensions
namely, distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice.

2.1.1 Distributive justice

According to Smith et al. (1999), distributive justice is the allocation of costs and benefits
in achieving equitable exchange relationships. This concept is based on an assessment
of the perceived fairness (equity that is the subject of two steps: Internal Equity and
External Equity) (Adams, 1963). The former is the assessment of customer investments
by reporting profits obtained following a performance. The latter is the consumer’s
comparison, following a service incident, of what he receives and firm contributions in
past direct experiences (e.g., deals offered by the company) and indirect ones (e.g., from
other customers). In other words, it is related to the perceived fairness of the outcome
(e.g., compensation, repairs, replacement).
In a context of loyalty programs, distributive justice is perceived when the difference
between delivered program rewards and assigned investments is acceptable. The
customer judges the equitability of gratifications distributions with regards to the
cumulated loyalty points and in comparison with recompenses received by other
customers (Ozcan and Sheinin, 2012; Pez, 2009).

2.1.2 Procedural justice

Blodgett et al. (1997) define procedural justice as “the perceived fairness of policies,
procedures, and criteria used by decision-makers to arrive at the outcome of a dispute or
negotiation”. Berry and Seiders (1998) represent this dimension as the way in which an
understanding of a claim is made or the way in which quality of service has been
received. This construct explains the methods used by the organisation to assign benefits
to individual’s structural characteristics of decision-making. A loyalty program is
considered as fair if the policies and procedures concerning admissibility conditions, time
validity, and use restrictions, etc. are transparent and equitable between customers.

2.1.3 Interactional justice

Interactional justice refers to the fairness of interpersonal treatment by service providers.
Folger and Cropanzano (1998) have divided this dimension into two components:
• the explanation of apology, justification and explanation of failures
• the effort provided by the company to find solutions to problems, and those who are
related to people during the procedure such as honesty, politeness, courtesy, and
empathy.
Interactional justice with a loyalty program refers to the provider’s effort to communicate
and explain the contractual bonds and to treat customers with respect and courtesy
without discrimination. This expertise, in the relationship marketing, explains that the
customer perceives the loyalty program just when he is satisfied with the program and
its relationship and the experience with the operator (Kuikka and Laukkanen, 2012; Hess
et al., 2011). These behaviour variables affect the customer retention.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 87

2.2 Satisfaction with the loyalty programs

Researchers have long established that loyal customers are imperative to a service firm
(Kandampully et al., 2015; Bowen and McCain, 2015). This research aims to extend our
present knowledge on customer loyalty with particular reference to loyalty programs and
how they could positively influence customer loyalty and retention. Customer loyalty has
become a strategic objective for many companies. In order to optimise performance,
companies have identified different strategies that lead to customer retention which is as
important if not more important than acquiring new customers.
Several researchers have focused on the effects of loyalty programs and their
efficiency. For instance, Pez (2009) focused on the impact of loyalty programs on
consumer satisfaction and behavioural responses generated by these programs. The
moderator effect of perceived justice on this relationship was also investigated showing
the significant effect of all dimensions. Gómez et al. (2006) showed that loyalty programs
affect the determinants of customer loyalty, namely: satisfaction, and brand commitment.
O’Brien and Jones (1995) showed that the loyalty program affects the behaviour, on one
hand, and reflects efficiency in the other hand. They highlight that loyalty programs
should first meet certain criteria including the monetary value of the reward, the
extensive range of rewards offered, easy access to the reward, and the reward utility.
Bahri-Ammari (2014a) analysed the effect of loyalty programs on consumer behaviour
through some variables (i.e., satisfaction, loyalty and Word of Mouth), and the results
showed that the program’s effect is not direct on loyalty and Word of Mouth, but through
satisfaction and especially relational dimensions.

2.3 Relational satisfaction

Relational satisfaction is an emotional state of the consumer which results from an
overall evaluation of its relationship with the company (De Wulf et al., 2001). It is a key
concept in the study of customer relational outcomes. Relational satisfaction reflects the
whole experiences of consumers and is regarded as the cumulative assessments of the
past experiences with the company through its products, services, and interactions
(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Mimouni and Volle, 2003; Najjar et al., 2011). The
transition from transactional marketing to relationship marketing does not only depend on
the satisfaction or dissatisfaction after a consumer transaction, but it depends on the
experiences made with the product or company (Nefzi, 2007). The research of Mimouni
and Volle (2003) focused on the service quality offered by the brand which influences the
consumer’s relational satisfaction after past experiences. Others advance that relational
satisfaction contributes to explain the behavioural loyalty (Tax et al., 1998; Chumpitaz
and Paparoidamis, 2007).

2.4 Loyalty/commitment
Customer commitment is a key construct in the development and maintenance
of relationship marketing (Nusair et al., 2013). It is considered as one of the dimensions
of relational quality. It is important to explain the nature of the relationship between the
exchange parties, because it does not only lead to the purchase decision but serves also to
establish a long-term relationship. Previous research has noted that the commitment
is a multidimensional concept, complex and is composed principally of calculative
88 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

commitment, normative commitment, continuity and loyalty commitment (or affective

commitment). Current research investigates the emotional dimension of loyalty or
commitment (loyalty commitment) because it seems the most appropriate and relevant
dimension in a relational context. The connotation of this dimension differs from one
study to another, some note as an ‘emotional commitment’ (Helena Vinagre, and Neves,
2008; Fullerton, 2003; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), others as a loyalty commitment
(Sweeney and Swait, 2008; Bansal et al., 2004). Affective commitment is viewed as the
most effective factor in predicting repurchasing behaviour and long-lasting relationships
(Belaid and Temessek Behi, 2011; Taylor et al., 2004).
However, others noted that even if the appointment of the affective dimension is
different from the commitment of fidelity, the senses are close, reflecting a psychological
attachment to a partner in a relationship (Gilliland and Bello, 2002; Geyskens et al.,
1996). Similarly, in an organisational context, Allen and Meyer (1990) have argued that
this concept has an emotional reaction characterised by a psychological attachment to an
organisation.
While some research has reported that there is a clear conceptual link between
affective commitment and loyalty, there were other empirical studies that have shown
mixed results (Bansal et al., 2004; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Fullerton, 2003). Some
researchers have also identified the affective commitment as an attachment to a partner,
experienced as a feeling of allegiance and loyalty, which reflects the desire to continue
and to maintain as long as possible the relationship between the partners (Kalleberg and
Reve, 1992).

2.5 Retention
Retention is defined as the way in which a company can keep its customers and maintain
its customer portfolio (Crie, 1996). Coviello and Brodie (2001) reported that retention is
a top priority for firms who practice relationship marketing and that is to stimulate the
movement of inactive customers and reactivating customer relationship with certain
actions. The study of Gilad et al. (2011) showed that retention plays the role of a
mediator between customer acquisition and financial performance. In fact, the acquisition
of new customers is five times more expensive than keeping and maintaining an existing
one (Peters, 1988).
In terms of profitability, retention lowers the cost of customer acquisition, increases
reduces management costs and increases profits per customer. With regards to
competitiveness, it creates a competitive advantage and differentiates the company from
their competitors. Becker et al. (2009) and Reinartz et al. (2004) report that retention is
related to the management strategy of CRM.
There is a positive relationship between the consumer retention and a company’s
future profits (Gilad et al., 2011). Furthermore, retention plays a mediating role between
consumer satisfaction and expected relationship benefits. Others confirm and add other
antecedents to retention such as trust and satisfaction (e.g., Reinartz and Kumar, 2000;
Bove and Johnson, 2006; Bahri-Ammari, 2014a). Marketers must tabulate on the
variables that positively affect retention and ensure the loyalty of their clients. This can
be achieved through a good treatment of the claims process and the process of contact
and relationship tracking (Lawrence and Buttle, 2006) using a loyalty program.
The next section introduces the conceptual model and develops research hypotheses.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 89

3 Conceptual model and hypotheses

Customer retention is of critical importance in the mobile services industry and therefore
it is vital to examine the factors that are antecedents to retention. Figure 1 displays a
theoretical model to understand why and how customers stay loyal to a mobile service
provider. The model describes how to form customer retention through perceived justice,
satisfaction with the loyalty program, relationship satisfaction and the effect of loyalty
commitment. The final outcome variable in the model is retention. The following sections
present and discuss the nature of the constructs of the model.

Figure 1 Conceptual model

3.1 Relationship between satisfaction with loyalty program and relational

satisfaction
The results of Pez (2009), confirming the study of Gómez et al. (2006), showed the
strong and positive relationship between satisfaction with the program and relationship
satisfaction. Sweeney and Swait (2008) and Bahri-Ammari (2014a), further confirmed
the relationship between these variables in the service sector. Once the customer is
satisfied with the loyalty program services and offered rewards, he or she will develop a
relational satisfaction that will help to explain his or her future behaviour with the brand.
Thus, we propose:
H1: Satisfaction with the mobile service loyalty program has a direct positive impact
on the relational satisfaction with the service provider.

3.2 Relationship between satisfaction with loyalty program and loyalty

commitment
The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty commitment is supported by several
studies (Sweeney and Swait, 2008). Satisfaction has a significant effect on future
intentions, trust and commitment (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Zeithaml et al., 1996;
Belaid and Temessek Behi, 2011). Similarly, Meyer et al. (2002), in their meta-analysis,
have shown that the overall satisfaction is strongly correlated with affective commitment,
and there is a significant relationship between satisfaction and commitment. In other
words, satisfaction with the loyalty program can strengthen loyalty commitment of
90 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

consumers. Also, research by Gómez et al. (2006) discussed the existence of a positive
and significant effect of loyalty programs on the commitment loyalty. Thus, the second
hypothesis was postulated:
H2: Satisfaction with the mobile service loyalty program has a direct positive impact
on the loyalty commitment to the service provider.

3.3 Relationship between satisfaction with loyalty program and retention

Bolton (1998) and Bolton et al. (2000) showed that satisfaction affects the consumer’s
retention. Earlier, Sharp and Sharp (1997) confirmed the significant impact of loyalty
programs on consumer’s retention. Lewis (2004) and Verhoef (2003) further highlight
that there is a significant effect of satisfaction with the loyalty program and retention. The
more consumers are satisfied with the loyalty program, the more they will be faithful to
the brand. Hence the following hypothesis was proposed:
H3: Satisfaction with the mobile service loyalty program has a direct positive impact
on the customer’s retention.

3.4 Relationship between perceived justice and relational satisfaction and

loyalty commitment
Several studies have emphasised the importance of justice to ensure customer satisfaction
(Oliver and Swan, 1989; Bitner et al., 1990; Bitner, 1995; Tax et al., 1998; Goodwin and
Ross, 1989). Customer satisfaction is directly and positively influenced by perceived
justice. This link has been also confirmed in the healthcare public service context by
Vinagre and Neves (2008) for the procedural and distributive justice. Oliver and Swan
(1989) affirm that perceived equity positively affects the relational satisfaction. Some
researchers specify that perceived justice have an effect on service quality, and heavily
support its effect on satisfaction (e.g., Aurier and Siadou-Martin, 2007). According to
Elamin (2012), procedural justice is a predictor of relational satisfaction in the workplace
context. Lemons and Jones (2001) argued that procedural justice in promotion decisions
affects commitment to the organisation. This allows us to move the following hypothesis
further supported by Goodwin and Ross (1989), Savard (2003) and Elamin (2012):
H4a. Procedural justice has a direct positive impact on relational satisfaction in the
mobile telecommunication context.
H4b. Procedural justice has a direct positive impact on loyalty/commitment in the
mobile telecommunication context.
According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), the loyalty with commitment depends on the
consumer’s and the company’s willingness to maintain a relationship over time. To be
committed, the consumer should perceive that the organisation is just when comparing
the expected rewards and the perceived performance. The perception of injustice
by the customer toward the operator will have a negative impact on the continuity of
the relationship. This relationship has been confirmed by previous work by demonstrating
the negative link between the justice evaluation and negative word of mouth (Nikbin
et al., 2012; Blodgett et al., 1997).
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 91

Elamin (2012) claims that the distributive justice is the best predictor of satisfaction
in a managerial system. Furthermore, research shows that distributive justice is an
antecedent of satisfaction in handling customer complaints (Goodwin and Ross, 1989;
Tax et al., 1998). When the consumer perceives that benefits provided by the company
are acceptable compared with investments such price, other expenses and psychological
efforts, the customer feels a fair treatment that enhances his or her relationship with
the service provider. In a similar vein, Consuegra et al. (2007) found that price fairness
(acceptability of price based on previous prices or competitor prices) is a powerful
predictor of satisfaction and loyalty.
A loyalty program is expected to reward the customers based on their transactions. In
a loyalty program context, the distributive justice is therefore based on fairness between
rewards given and customer transactional value. Customers will stay loyal to the mobile
service provider if the provider keeps its promises and be just to customers. Thus, we
expect positive relationships among perceived justice, relational satisfaction, and loyalty:
H5a. Distributive justice has a direct positive impact on relational satisfaction in the
mobile telecommunication context.
H5b. Distributive justice has a direct positive impact on commitment/loyalty in the
mobile telecommunication context.
Interactional justice is considered as a prominent determinant of relational satisfaction
after distributive justice and before procedural justice (Elamin, 2012). Vinagre and Neves
(2010) demonstrated the positive impact of interactional justice on satisfaction in the
healthcare services context. Aurier and Siadou-Martin (2007) failed to support the impact
of interactional perceived justice on commitment. However, Lacey and Sneath (2006)
state that interactional justice is particularly important because it offers benefits to both
company and consumer about the equity in exchange of information and communication
process. In the organisational context, Elamin (2012) showed that interactional justice
accounts for more variance on employee commitment than procedural or distributive
justice. Buengeler and Den Hartog (2015) claim that interactional justice can strengthen
the sense of belonging. We expect that interactional justice positively impacts both
relational satisfaction and commitment/loyalty in the mobile telecommunication services
context. Thus:
H6a. Interactional justice has a positive impact on relational satisfaction in the
mobile telecommunication context.
H6b. Interactional justice has a positive impact on commitment/loyalty in the mobile
telecommunication context.

3.5 Relationship between relational satisfaction and commitment loyalty

(affective commitment)
Several researchers have shown that there is a strong and positive relationship between
relational satisfaction and commitment (Aurier and Siadou-Martin, 2007; Belaid and
Temessek Behi, 2011). In other words, consumers will be engaged on an emotional level
and will have a high behaviour of allegiances if they are satisfied with their relationships
with the company (Chumpitaz and Paparoidamis, 2007). Hence, we propose:
92 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

H7: Relational satisfaction has a direct positive impact on customers’

commitment/loyalty in the mobile telecommunication context.
As loyalty commitment and relational satisfaction reflect an emotional state, we suggest
that relational satisfaction is a better predictor than other evaluative judgements as quality
or satisfaction with the loyalty program. The consumer enjoyment of maintaining a
relationship with a partner (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999) is directly dependent on an
overall evaluation of customer-service provider relationship. Satisfaction with the loyalty
program can help the company to involve consumer to loyalty process (Uncles et al.,
2003; Omar et al., 2007); maximise the exchange of information about consumer’s
expectations (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Lacey and Sneath, 2006) and build customer loyalty
and retention. In their research, Chumpitaz and Paparoidamis (2007) stressed the
mediating effect of relationship satisfaction on loyalty. Considering the influence of
satisfaction with the loyalty program on the cumulative satisfaction and the high
predictability of relational satisfaction of loyalty commitment we propose the following
hypothesis:
H8: Satisfaction with mobile service loyalty program has an indirect impact on
commitment loyalty mediated by relational satisfaction in the mobile
telecommunication context.

3.6 Relationship between relational satisfaction and retention

Eriksson and Vaghult (2000) revealed that relationship satisfaction has a significant
positive effect on customer retention. Bahri-Ammari (2014a, 2014b) also highlights the
positive influence of relational satisfaction in explaining customer retention. Satisfaction
is the overall evaluation of the experience between the parties during the relationship
(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), therefore, it depends on the overall experience of the
customer with the company, which constitutes the relational satisfaction (Spreng et al.,
1996). Relational satisfaction also makes consumer retention easier (Bolton et al., 2000).
Consumption habit moderates the relationship between these two concepts (Jolley et al.,
2006). Higher relational satisfaction corresponds to higher customer retention. Therefore,
we propose the following hypothesis:
H9: Relational satisfaction has a direct positive impact on customer retention in the
mobile telecommunication context.

3.7 The relationship between loyalty commitment and retention

Loyalty is the willingness to anchor the business relationship in the long term by
establishing and developing a history and a common asset (Moulins, 1998). It evolves
from a vision based on satisfying needs to one based on the relationship, and which
is expressed by commitment and trust in the exchange (Bove and Johnson, 2006).
Hennig-Thurau (2004) and Morgan and Hunt (1994) reported the direct and positive
relationship between loyalty commitment and retention. As a result, we expect a positive
and direct relationship between these two constructs in the mobile telecommunication
service context. Hence, we propose the final hypothesis:
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 93

H10: Commitment loyalty has a direct positive impact on customer retention in the
mobile telecommunication context.
The next section discusses the data collection procedure and research method.

4 Research setting and sample

To confirm the proposed research model and test the research hypotheses, a self-
administrated questionnaire was developed and pretested with 10% of the sample to
check for degree of clarity and precision and to eliminate any bias related to
understanding questions. The finalised questionnaire administrated face-to-face to a total
of a convenience sample of 400 customers of multiple mobile phone companies who
subscribed a mobile service loyalty program. Data collection was done over a period
from the beginning of October 2015 until the early December 2015. The questionnaire
was administered to the target sample in front of the agencies of different operators in
malls and college campuses.
The choice of telecommunication industry in this framework is related to the vital
role of loyalty and retention in this service setting. Many experts have emphasised the
market maturity and the number and variety of competitive choices among service
providers. Following this, all types of service providers focus on customer retention as a
source of growth (Amdocs Market Insight & Strategy, 2011).1
The market operator in Tunisia consists of three operators with their market shares
(Ooredoo 45.7%, Tunisie Telecom 35.4%, and Orange Tunisie 19%). In Tunisia, the
working-age population represents (15 years and older) 76.3% of the total population.
The GDP per capita is equal to 9600 dollars (See Appendix).
A total of 309 complete and usable responses (after elimination of incomplete and
incoherent responses) were collected, with a response rate of 77%. This sample size
allows us to perform multiple data analysis (multivariate and SEM). An appropriate
sample size should be ten times the number of items used in the questionnaire (Jöreskog
and Sörbom, 1982). In this research, the sample size seems to be appropriate to conduct
SEM analysis (309 > 27 items multiplied by 10).

4.1 Measurements
All the measurement items were adopted from previous research to ensure validity
and reliability and adjusted to the research setting. All the items were measured on a
five-point Likert scale. Four items for interactional justice and four items for procedural
justice were adopted from Folger and Konovsky (1989) and Maxham and Netemeyer
(2002a, 2002b). Distributive justice was measured by four items developed by Maxham
and Netemeyer (2002a, 2002b). The three scales of perceived justice have a good
reliability with a Cronbach’s α which range from 0.90 to 0.93. Satisfaction toward
the loyalty program was measured with four items of O’Brien and Jones (1995) used by
Mimouni and Volle (2003). The Cronbach’s α of this scale is 0.70. To measure
relationship satisfaction, three items of Gremler and Gwinner (2000) were used
in this study, the reliability value is 0.830. Four items for commitment loyalty were
adopted from Kalleberg and Reve (1992) and Gilliland and Bello (2002) who reported a
94 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

Cronbach’s α of 0.860. Retention was measured with four items adapted from Zeithaml
et al. (1996) and Hennig-Thurau (2004).

5 Empirical findings

5.1 Sample profile

46% of respondents were male and 54% were female. In terms of age, the majority of
respondents (45%) were 25–44 years old, 38% were below 25 years and 17% were above
45 years. A total of 81% had attained a higher level of education.

5.2 Scale properties

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess the validity of the
measurement model. An initial diagnostic of the items on SPSS 17.0 showed that the
solutions are satisfactory for all scales adopted (explained variance ranged from 55% to
63% and the KMO ranged from 0.703 to 0.873). The Cronbach’s alpha (α) for each scale
over the acceptable value of 0.70. This result indicates the reliability of the instruments.
Then, a CFA on Lisrel 8.80 confirmed the goodness-of-fit of the measurement model.
As shown in Table 1, all the scales are one-dimensional and have an acceptable reliability
(Joreskog’s Rhô) and validity (Rhôvc).

Table 1 Scales’ reliability and validity

First order Second order

Scale reliability reliability Convergent
Construct properties (Cronbach’s α) (Joreskog’s Rhô) validity (Rhôvc)
Distributive justice 4 items 0.777 0.920 0.830
Procedural justice 3 items 0.751 0.740 0.660
Interactional justice 3 items 0.826 0.770 0.710
Relationship satisfaction 3 items 0.816 0.830 0.790
Satisfaction toward program 4 items 0.777 0.780 0.730
Loyalty commitment 4 items 0.788 0.870 0.820
Retention 4 items 0.782 0.800 0.750

The discriminant validity (see Table 2) was established by verifying that the shared
variance between the constructs it is lower than the average variances extracted (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981).

5.3 Hypotheses testing and study results

The two–step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was used.
The First step was performed to ensure the validity of the measurement model (CFA).
Then, a path analysis was used to test the hypothetical causal relations of the research
model. The values of the indices show an acceptable fit between the empirical and
theoretical model (RMSEA = 0073; SRMR = 0.066; χ²/df = 2.638; CFI = 0.96;
GFI = 0.82; AGFI = 0.86; NFI = 0.94).
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 95

Table 2 Discriminant validity

Satisfaction
Distributive Procedural Interactional Relationship toward loyalty Loyalty
justice justice justice satisfaction program commitment Retention
Distributive 1
justice
Procedural 0.658 1
justice
Interactional 0.401 0.458 1
justice
Relationship 0.525 0.540 0.441 1
satisfaction
Satisfaction 0.540 0.446 0.317 0.607 1
toward loyalty
program
Loyalty 0.659 0.456 0.461 0.539 0.446 1
commitment
Retention 0.571 0.491 0.350 0.454 0.407 0.491 1

In order to test the research hypotheses, the standardised estimates and the significance of
t-test were examined for each path. The model tested nine hypotheses by introducing
satisfaction toward the program, procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional
justice as explanatory variables and relationship satisfaction, loyalty/commitment and
retention as dependent variables (see Figure 2). The predictors contributed significantly
to the model by explaining 50% of the variance of relationship satisfaction, 63% of the
variance of loyalty/engagement and 66% of the variance of retention.
Satisfaction toward program is significantly and positively related to relational
satisfaction (H1) and retention (H3) (see Table 3). However, the results do not support
H2. The three components of perceived justice contribute differently to relationship
satisfaction and loyalty/engagement. Interactional justice perception leads to a higher
satisfaction within the service provider relationship (H6a) and a higher commitment
loyalty (H6b). Procedural and distributive justice do not contribute significantly to the
variance of relationship satisfaction and commitment/loyalty at the level p < 0.05.
However, procedural justice positively influences loyalty/commitment (H4b) at the level
of p < 0.1. Path coefficients clearly reveal that higher relationship satisfaction leads to
higher loyalty toward the service provider (H7). However, retention is not directly and
significantly predicted by relational satisfaction (H9). Finally, commitment loyalty to the
service provider influences positively customer retention (H10).
In order to validate the mediating effect (H8), we used the mediation test
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). Four conditions were examined between the
independent variable (IV) the mediating variable (MV) and the dependent variable (DV):
• satisfaction toward program (IV) significantly impacts loyalty (DV)
• satisfaction toward program (IV) significantly impacts relationship satisfaction (MV)
• relationship satisfaction (MV) significantly affects loyalty (DV) when satisfaction
toward program is introduced as an independent variable (IV)
96 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

• mediation is complete if the impact of satisfaction toward the program (IV) ceases to
be significant when the link between relationship satisfaction (MV) and loyalty (DV)
is introduced.

Figure 2 Structural results (see online version for colours)

Table 3 Results synthesis

Path coefficients and

student test
Hypothesis Structural path (level 5%) Hypothesis testing
H1 Satprog→ReSat 0.46 (5.78) Supported
H2 Satprog→Loyalty/commitment –0.08 (–1.02) Not supported
H3 Satprog→Retent 0.27 (3.69) Supported
H4a Projust→ReSat 0.06 (0.46) Not supported
H4b Projust→Loyalty/commitment 0.22 (1.97) Supported*
H5a Distjust→ReSat 0.19 (1.42) Not supported
H5b Distjust→Loyalty/commitment 0.17 (1.34) Not supported
H6a Interjust→ReSat 0.15 (2.04) Supported
H6b Interjust→ Loyalty/commitment 0.21 ( 2.93) Supported
H7 ReSat→ Loyalty/commitment 0.42 (4.93) Supported
H8 ReSat→Retent 0.08 ( 0.78) Not supported
H9 Loyalty/commitment →Retent 0.59 (7.17) Supported
*The hypothesis is supported at 0.1 level (p-value). Student test exceeds 1.96.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 97

Table 4 illustrates that the four conditions are satisfied with a good model fit. In other
words, the mediator effect of relationship satisfaction is supported. To assess the
significance of the mediating effect, the Sobel2 test is used (Sobel, 1982) by introducing
the unstandardised coefficients and standard error of the model 4. The results indicate
that the indirect effect of satisfaction toward the program and loyalty/commitment is
significant (Z = 4.937; p = 0.0000). Thus, relationship satisfaction (MV) exerts a
complete mediation between satisfaction toward the program (IV) and commitment
loyalty (DV).
The next section discusses research findings and provides implications for concluding
remarks.

Table 4 Mediator effect

Path coefficient/
Model Structural path p value Goodness of fit
Model 1 Satprog→Loyalty/commitment 0.64 (7.35) IFI = 0.97 CFI = 0.97
RMSEA = 0.087
chi-deux = 43,17 ddl = 13
Model 2 Satprog→ReSat 0.92 (6.91) IFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99
RMSEA = 0.057
chi-deux = 16,13 ddl = 8
Model 3 Satprog→ReSat 0.63 (7.45) IFI = 0.98 CFI = 0.98
ReSat→Loyalty /commitment 0.68 (9.31) RMSEA = 0.073
chi-deuxv86,45 ddl = 33
Model 4 Satprog→ReSat 0.63 (7.45) IFI = 0.98 CFI = 0.98
ReSat→Loyalty/commitment 0.64 (9.31) RMSEA = 0.074
Satprog→Loyalty/commitment 0.05 (0.58) chi-deux = 86,59 ddl = 32

6 Discussion, conclusion, and implications

The aim of this research was to examine how perceived justice’s dimensions (i.e.,
procedural, distributive and interactional) and satisfaction with the loyalty program
contribute to explaining service relationship outcomes, namely relational satisfaction,
commitment loyalty, and retention. As expected, greater levels of satisfaction toward
loyalty program lead to greater customer retention. This result corroborates those of
Sweeney and Swait (2008), Verhoef (2003) and Garbarino and Johnson (1999) which
supports the notion that a satisfying loyalty program reduces probability of switching
behaviours and forces customers to stay with the service provider. We also verify that
loyalty commitment is a better predictor of retention as illustrated by Hennig-Thurau
(2004) and Morgan and Hunt (1994).
Findings also indicate that satisfaction toward loyalty program positively impacts
customer’s relational satisfaction. This result supports the research of Pez (2009) and
Gómez et al. (2006). Customers who consider that the loyalty program is efficient and
provide adequate rewards are more likely to evaluate their relationship with the mobile
service provider positively. This finding illustrates that customer loyalty programs that
98 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

are simple to enrol and use, and offer various options when exchanging points increase
overall customer satisfaction. On the other hand, the second research hypothesis, H2, was
not supported. Satisfaction toward loyalty program does not directly influence loyalty
commitment to the service provider. This could be due to the mediating role of
relationship satisfaction. In fact, customer satisfaction toward the program seems to
influence relationship satisfaction, which is highly associated with commitment loyalty.
This is in line with Chumpitaz and Paparoidamis (2007) who suggest that commitment
loyalty and relational satisfaction are two related relationship constructs. This seems to be
the case in the mobile telecommunication context.
The empirical analysis has yielded some interesting results regarding the effect of
perceived justice dimensions. It appears that only the interactional dimension of
perceived justice is related to all the dependent variables of the model. Contrary to
previous studies, current research does not entirely support the effects of procedural and
distributive justice on relationship satisfaction and loyalty commitment (Goodwin and
Ross, 1989; Savard, 2003; Elamin, 2012). However, similar results also have been found
in Aurier and Siadou-Martin (2007)’s study.
The interactional justice in a loyalty program deals with the fairness of employee’s
treatment and the quality of communication about the contractual bonds and the
categories of rewards. The customers’ evaluation of the service provider is connected
with the interpersonal behaviour of the employees in terms of courtesy, respect, integrity,
and politeness. This finding provides further support to Aurier and Siadou-Martin’s study
(2007) which demonstrates the positive effect of interactional justice on interaction
quality. Similar inferences could be drawn from the research of Bitner et al. (1990),
Blodgett et al. (1993, 1997) and Elamin (2012). The perception of a fair interpersonal
behaviour during the service delivery not only increases customer satisfaction but also
enhances customer’s affective commitment and the customer’s intention to remain with
the mobile service brand.
The ‘fairness’ of service provided procedures at the different stages of service
delivery seems to have no direct effect on relationship satisfaction but it is an antecedent
of affective commitment (H4b supported at p < 0.1). Implementing equitable rules,
accurate information about prices, loyalty programs, and complaint management or
commercial assistance consistency could help service providers to enhance customer
loyalty.
In this study, the fairness of the provider’s outcomes did not enhance the likelihood of
relationship satisfaction and loyalty commitment. The equitability of input/output ratio
appears to be less important in relationship outcomes regarding procedural and
interactional fairness (Aggarwal and Larrick, 2012). In other contexts, the research found
a significant impact of distributive justice on switching behaviour (Nikbin et al., 2012)
and quality outcome (Aurier and Siadou-Martin, 2007). Distributive justice does not
seem to be relevant in the mobile service industry as a pledge of customer satisfaction
and loyalty, probably due to the price competition between service providers.
However, it is still important to consider that we surveyed only one emerging economy
country. Customers expect to receive fair service with regard to what they spend
(M Distjust = 3.19). Interactional justice seems to be the most relevant dimension in
customer-mobile service provider relationships. On the other hand, both procedural and
distributive justices are not good predictors of dependent variables portrayed in the
research model. It could be argued that equitable procedures and outcomes distribution
may be irrelevant if the customer-provider interaction is perceived as fair (Söderlund and
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 99

Colliander, 2015). Moreover, in the mobile telecommunication industry, it is common

that customers get commercial favours, rewards and agreement rules by SMS, email, app
notifications or on their online account.
This study offers new theoretical and empirical contributions. The first is related to
the main dimensions describing the loyalty programs in terms of perceived justice and
their implication in a relationship model. The second contribution is related to the
consequences of this link on the loyalty commitment and customer retention, which has
not been discussed in the studies of Pez (2009) and Tax et al. (1998). The third is to
account for the complementarity between satisfaction and perceived justice within loyalty
programs. This research demonstrates that a satisfactory loyalty program does not
necessarily lead to a loyal customer, but it’s a prerequisite for a pleasing cumulative
service experience. In such experience, customers should mainly feel the ‘fairness’ of
contact employees’ treatment and be satisfied with the loyalty program.
The most important finding of this research is that consumers care more about the
interactional justice component of a loyalty program. This means dignity and respect are
the key elements of a loyalty program. Managers of mobile phone services should
reconsider the value of interpersonal communication within the contractual bonds of the
program. Customers also expect service employee’s assistance to facilitate rewards
deliverance and a clear communication about the restrictions and benefits of the program.
Mobile phone service providers should not underestimate the importance of providing a
prompt solution to loyalty program’s failure to deliver its promises. The feeling of
interpersonal fairness is a pledge for the continuity of customer/service provider
relationship. Procedural justice appears to be relevant to customer commitment and call
managers’ attention to the necessity of establishing transparent and unambiguous
procedures (Aggarwal and Larrick, 2012). Loyalty programs which present complex
admissibility conditions and requirements to obtain the rewards (number of points, time
validity, and requested the amount of consumption are perceived as unfair and could
drive customer relationship rupture. To enhance their competitiveness, in a struggling
market, mobile phone services have to be more creative in their marketing strategies
regarding the nature of loyalty gratifications. If fairness of rewards distribution seems to
not matter to customers this is probably due to a ‘me too’ strategy of the operators. The
prices, the loyalty rewards and the basis of the loyalty programs (cumulating points
proportionally to phoning consumption) should be more distinctive to limit service
switching behaviour and create greater satisfaction, commitment, and retention.
Customer loyalty is a key concept in services marketing scholarship (Kandampully
et al., 2015; Toufaily et al., 2013). It is also among the most enduring assets possessed
by a company. Creating and maintaining customer loyalty is an important goal for the
practitioners (Pan et al., 2012), because, theoretically, loyal customers exhibit attachment
and commitment toward the company, and are not easily attracted to competitors’
offerings (So et al., 2013). However, recent market research shows that mobile phone
users are not loyal to their service carriers. Mobile subscribers think that their operators
don’t care about or know them. Against this backdrop, we proposed loyalty program as a
remedy to mobile service providers. Our research model shows that satisfaction with a
loyalty program increases overall relationship satisfaction and customer retention. While
this is not surprising news for the practitioners, we still recommend them to survey their
customers about their loyalty programs. Also, mobile service providers could gain
insights from other service industries that specialise in loyalty programs such as airlines
and hotels. Mobile telecommunication companies would potentially benefit vastly from
100 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

loyalty programs that increase customer retention. Customer retention via loyalty is a
crucial business strategy that telecommunication companies should adopt.

7 Limitations and future research

As limitations, this research was carried out in the mobile telecommunication context in
an emerging economy country, which limits the generalisation of the results to other
areas. Therefore, research conclusions cannot be applied to all emerging countries. In this
framework, cultural variables and social norms are not controlled and it may be relevant
to understand the study’s results concerning the effect of relational satisfaction on
retention. We offer several future research paths. Future research involving data
collection in other countries may offer important information for comparing cultural
differences in mobile service provider loyalty. We also suggest future research deploy
other widely used models such as the two-dimensional Kano model in the mobile
telecommunication industry to better understand the satisfiers of loyalty programs. The
Kano Model (Kano et al., 1984) has been widely utilised across various service industries
to identify the most influential service attributes to satisfactory consumption experiences
(Busacca and Padula, 2005; Zhang and Cole, 2016).
The research model could be tested in different service settings (e.g., retail, financial
services, hotels, casinos, and entertainment services). We also suggest the integration of
new variables such as trust and switching costs in future studies. Trust mediates the
relationship between perceived justice and loyalty (DeWitt et al., 2007) thus integrating
trust and risk to the model may yield to better model fit indices. Future research also
could investigate in depth the disparity of the impact of the three components of
perceived justice. Does distributive justice account for more for the variance of
relationship outcomes in collective cultures vs. individualistic ones? Do personality traits
of customers moderate the perception of perceived justice? And does the effect of
perceived justice vary across product categories? Finally, future studies may investigate
the model in different contexts such as hotel/airline loyalty programs.

References
Adams, J.S. (1963) ‘Towards an understanding of inequity’, The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp.422–436.
Aggarwal, P. and Larrick, R.P. (2012) ‘When consumers care about being treated fairly:
the interaction of relationship norms and fairness norms’, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 22, pp.114–127.
Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990) ‘The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp.1–18.
Amdocs Market Insight & Strategy (2011) From Retention to Loyalty, Available at:
http://www.amdocs.com/Vision/Documents/Retention-Loyalty-Survey-Summary.pdf
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.411–423.
Aurier, P. and Siadou-Martin, B. (2007) ‘Perceived justice and consumption experience
evaluations: a qualitative and experimental investigation’, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.450–471.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 101

Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Prashanth, U.N. (1999), ‘The role of emotions in marketing’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.184–206.
Bahri-Ammari, N. (2014a) ‘The role of Loyalty Program (LP) in establishing brand attachment and
word-of-mouth intentions: an empirical investigation in the mobile sector’, International
Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management (IJCRMM), Vol. 5, No. 3,
July–September, pp.49–68.
Bahri-Ammari, N. (2014b) ‘Customer relationship management et fidélisation des clients : Cas
d’entreprises pharmaceutiques en Tunisie’, ÈDITIONS UNIVERSITAIRES EUROPÈNNES,
ISBN 978-3-8417-3512-6, 219.
Bansal, H.P., Irving, P.G. and Taylor, S. (2004) ‘A three-component model of customer
commitment to service providers’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32,
No. 3, pp.234–250.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp.1173–1182.
Becker, J.U., Goetz, G. and Sönke, A. (2009) ‘The impact of technological and organizational
implementation of CRM on customer acquisition, maintenance, and retention’, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.207–215.
Belaid, S. and Temessek Behi, A. (2011) ‘The role attachment in building consumer-brand
relationships: an empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context’, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.37–47.
Berry, L.L. and Seiders, K (1998) ‘Service fairness: what it is and why it matters’, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 12, pp.8–20.
Bitner, M.J. (1995) ‘Building service relationships: it’s all about promises’, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, Fall, pp.246–251.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990) ‘The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp.71–84.
Blodgett, J.G., Granbois, D.H. and Walters, R.G. (1993) ‘The effects of perceived justice on
complainants’ negative word-of-mouth behavior and repatronage intentions’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp.399–428.
Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997) ‘The effects of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice on post complaint behavior’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, pp.185–210.
Bolton, R.N. (1998) ‘A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a
continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction’, Marketing Science, Vol. 17, Winter,
pp.45–65.
Bolton, R.N., Kannan, P.K. and Bramlett, M.D. (2000) ‘Implications of loyalty program
membership and service experiences for customer retention and value’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, Winter, pp.95–108.
Bove, L.L. and Johnson, L.W. (2006) ‘Customer loyalty to one service worker: should it be
discouraged?’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23, March, pp.79–91.
Bowen, J.T. and Chen McCain, S.L. (2015) ‘Transitioning loyalty programs: a commentary on
“The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction’, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.415–430.
Buengeler, C. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2015) ‘National diversity and team performance:
the moderating role of interactional justice climate’, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.831–855.
Busacca, B. and Padula, G. (2005) ‘Understanding the relationship between attribute performance
and overall satisfaction: theory, measurement and implications’, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.543–561.
102 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

Calvo-Porral, C. and Lévy-Mangin, J.P. (2015) ‘Switching behavior and customer satisfaction in
mobile services: analyzing virtual and traditional operators’, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 49, pp.532–540.
Chumpitaz, R.C. and Paparoidamis, N.G. (2007) ‘Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust,
commitment and business-to-business loyalty’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41,
No. 7, pp.836–867.
Consuegra, D.M., Molina, A. and Esteban, A. (2007) ‘An integrated model of price, satisfaction
and loyalty: an empirical analysis in the service sector’, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp.459–468.
Coviello, N.E. and Brodie, R.J. (2001) ’Contemporary marketing practices of consumer and
business-to-business firms: how different are they?’, The Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Santa Barbara, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.380–400.
Crie, D. (1996) ‘Rétention de clientèle et fidélité des clients’, Décisions Marketing, No. 7,
Janvier–Avril, pp.25–30.
Czajkowski, M. and Sobolewski, M. (2016) ‘How much do switching costs and local network
effects contribute to consumer lock-in in mobile telephony?’, Telecommunications Policy,
Vol. 40, No. 9, pp.855–869.
De Wulf, K., Oderkerken-Schröder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001) ‘Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65,
October, pp.33–50.
DeWitt, T., Doan, T.N. and Roger, M. (2007) ‘ Exploring customer loyalty following service
recovery: the mediating effects of trust and emotions’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp.269–281.
Elamin, A.M. (2012) ‘Perceived organizational justice and work-related attitudes: a study of
Employees’, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.71–88.
Eriksson, K.L. and Vaghult, A. (2000) ‘Customer retention, purchasing behavior and
relationship substance in professional services’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29,
pp.363–372.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998) Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989) ‘Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp.115–130.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, February,
pp.39–50.
Fu, J.R., Ju, P.H. and Hsu, C.W. (2015) ‘Understanding why consumers engage in electronic
word-of-mouth communication: perspectives from theory of planned behavior and justice
theory’, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp.616–630.
Fullerton, G. (2003) ‘When does commitment lead to loyalty?’, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.333–344.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999) ‘The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment
in customer relationships’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2, April, pp.70–87.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.B., Scheer, L. and Kumar, N. (1996) ‘The effects of trust and
interdependence on relationship commitment: a trans-Atlantic study’, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, pp.303–317.
Gilad, L., Simpson, A. and Talmor, E. (2011) ‘Do customer acquisition cost, retention and usage
matter to firm performance and valuation?’, European Accounting Association Annual
Meeting, Vol. 38, Nos. 3–4, pp.334–363.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 103

Gilliland, D. and Bello, D. (2002) ‘Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect of calculative
and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.24–43.
Gómez, G.B., Arranz, G.A. and Cillán, J.G. (2006) ‘The role of loyalty programs in behavioral and
affective loyalty’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp.387–396.
Goodwin, C. and Ross, I. (1989) ‘Salient dimensions of perceived fairness in resolution of service
complaints’, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
Vol. 2, pp.87–92.
Graf, P., Perrien, J. and Ricard, L. (1999) ‘La confiance : son statut et sa valeur normative’, 15ième
Congrès de l’Association Française de Marketing, Strasbourg.
Greenberg, J. (1987) ‘A taxonomy of organizational justice theories’, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.9–22.
Gremler, D. and Gwinner, K. (2000) ‘Customer-employee rapport in service relationships’,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.82–104.
Helena Vinagre, M. and Neves, J. (2008) ‘The influence of service quality and patients’ emotions
on satisfaction’, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.87–103.
Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004) ‘Customer orientation of service employees its impact on customer
satisfaction, commitment, and retention’, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.460–478.
Hess, J., Story, J. and Danes, J. (2011) ‘A three stage model of consumer relationship investment’,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.14–26.
Jolley, B., Mizerski, R. and Doina, O. (2006) ‘How habit and satisfaction affects player retention
for online gambling’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp.770–777.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1982) ‘Recent developments in structural equation modeling’,
Journal of Marketing Research, pp.404–416.
Kalleberg, A.L. and Reve, T. (1992) ‘Contracts and commitment: economic and sociological
perspectives on employment relations’, Human Relations, Vol. 45, September, pp.1103–1131.
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015) ‘Customer loyalty: a review and future
directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry’, International Journal of
Contemporary and Hospitality Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.379–414.
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984) ‘Attractive quality and must-be quality’,
Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.147–156.
Keropyan, A. and Gil-Lafuente, A.M. (2012) ‘Customer loyalty programs to sustain consumer
fidelity in mobile telecommunication market’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39,
No. 12, pp.11269–11275.
Kim, M.K., Park, M.C. and Jeong, D.H. (2004) ‘The effects of customer satisfaction and
switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services’,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.145–159.
Kuikka, A. and Laukkanen, T. (2012) ‘Brand Loyalty and the role of hedonic value’, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp.529–537.
Lacey, R. and Sneath, Z.J. (2006) ‘Customer loyalty programs: are they fairs to consumer’, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp.458–464.
Lawrence, A. and Buttle, F. (2006) ‘Customer retention management processes a quantitative
study’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, Nos. 1–2, pp.83–99.
Lemons, M.A. and Jones, C.A. (2001) ‘Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using
perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment’, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.268–281.
Lewis, M. (2004) ‘The influence of loyalty programs and short-term promotions on customer
retention’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.281–292.
104 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

Matzler, K., Strobl, A., Thurner, N. and Füller, J. (2015) ‘Switching experience, customer
satisfaction, and switching costs in the ICT industry’, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.117–136.
Maxham, J. and Netemeyer, R. (2002a) ‘A longitudinal study of complaining customers’
evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66,
No. 4, pp.57–71.
Maxham, J.G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002b) ‘Modeling customer perceptions of complaint
handling over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 78, pp.239–252.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002) ‘Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp.20–52.
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2007) ‘The effects of loyalty programs on customer lifetime duration and
share of wallet’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp.223–236.
Mimouni, A. and Volle, P. (2003) ‘Bénéfices perçus de la fidélisation et qualité relationnelle : une
application exploratoire au secteur du transport aérien’, Actes du 19ème congrès International
de l’AFM, Gammarth-Tunis, 9 et 10 Mai, pp.1–28.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994) ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, Juillet, pp.20–38.
Moulins, J.L. (1998) ‘Etat de fidélité et relation de fidélité : Eléments de réflexion pour une
nouvelle approche de l’échange’, Décision Marketing, Vol. 13, pp.67–73.
Murphy, K., Bilgihan, A., Kubickova, M. and Boseo, M. (2015) ‘There is no ‘I’in recovery:
managements’ perspective of service recovery’, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.303–322.
Najjar, H., Najar, C. and Zaiem, I. (2011) ‘The impact of satisfaction on consumer confidence to
retail companies, Journal of Global Management Research, Vol. 7, pp.55–65.
Nefzi, A. (2007) ‘La relation entre la perception de la qualité et la fidélité :une application à la
distribution des parfums et cosmétiques en France’, Xème Colloque Etienne THIL (2007),
Institut de Gestion – Université de La Rochelle.
Nikbin, D., Ishak, I. and Marimuthu, M. (2012) ‘Perceived justice in service recovery and
switching intention evidence from Malaysian mobile telecommunication industry’,
Management Research Review, Vol. 35, Nos. 3–4, pp.309–325.
Nusair, K., Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F. and Cobanoglu, C. (2013) ‘Generation Y travelers’
commitment to online social network websites’, Tourism Management, Vol. 35, pp.13–22.
O’Brien, L. and Jones, C. (1995) ‘Do rewards really create loyalty’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28,
No. 4, pp.130–130.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989) ‘Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction
in transactions: a field survey approach’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp.21–35.
Omar, N.A., Musa, R. and Nazri, M.A. (2007) ‘Program perceived value and program satisfaction
influences on store loyalty’, Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, Vol. 9, No. 3,
pp.355–378.
Ozcan, T. and Sheinin, D.A. (2012) ‘Effects of complete products on consumer judgments’,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp.499–507.
Pan, Y., Sheng, S. and Xie, F.T. (2012) ‘Antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical synthesis
and reexamination’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.150–158.
Peters, T. (1988) Thriving on Chaos, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Pez, V. (2009) ‘La justice perçue comme condition d’efficacité des programmes de fidélité : une
double étude quantitative et qualitative’, Centre de recherche Université Paris Dauphine,
DMSP-DRM, pp.1–20.
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 105

Reinartz, W., Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2004) ‘The customer relationship management process:
its measurement and impact on performance’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLI,
August, pp.293–305.
Reinartz, W.J. and Kumar, V. (2000) ‘On the profitability of long-life customers in a
noncontractual setting: an empirical investigation and implications for marketing’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp.17–35.
Sabadie, W. (2000) ‘Les apports des théories de la justice au marketing des services’, Actes du
Congrès International de L’Association Française du Marketing, Montréal, pp.133–147.
Savard, M. (2003) ‘Les effets modérateurs de la participation et de la justice sur la relation plainte
et satisfaction en B-to-B’, Cahier de recherche, Vol.1, No. 3, ISSN: 1181-9383.
Severt, D.E. (2006) ‘An investigation of perceived justices and customer satisfaction’,
in Chen, J.S. (Ed.): Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. 2, pp.275–290.
Sharp, B. and Sharp, A. (1997) ‘Loyalty programs and their impact on repeat-purchase loyalty
patterns’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.473–486.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999) ‘A model of customer satisfaction with service
encounters involving failure and recovery’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, No. 3,
pp. 356–369.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2013) ‘The influence of customer brand
identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development’, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp.31–41.
Sobel, M.E. (1982) ‘Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models’, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13, pp.290–312.
Söderlund, M. and Colliander, J. (2015) ‘Loyalty program rewards and their impact on perceived
justice, customer satisfaction, and repatronize intentions’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 25, pp.47–57.
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996) ‘A re-examination of the determinants
of consumer satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp.15–32.
Sweeney, J. and Swait, J. (2008) ‘The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty’, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15, pp.179–193.
Tax, S.T., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998) ‘Customer evaluations of service
complaint experiences implications for relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62,
April, pp.60–76.
Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004) ‘The importance of Brand equity to consumer
loyalty’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.217–227.
Toufaily, E., Ricard, L. and Perrien, J. (2013) ‘Customer loyalty to a commercial website:
descriptive meta-analysis of the empirical literature and proposal of an integrative model’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 9, pp.1436–1447.
Uncles, M.D., Dowling, G.R. and Hammond, K. (2003) ‘Customer loyalty and customer loyalty
programs’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.294–316.
Verhoef, P.C. (2003) ‘Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on
customer retention and customer share development’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, October,
pp.30–45.
Vinagre, H. and Neves, J. (2010) ‘Emotional predictors of consumer's satisfaction with healthcare
public services’, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 23, No. 2,
pp.209–227.
Wetsch, L.R. (2006) ‘Trust, satisfaction and loyalty in customer relationship management:
an application of justice theory’, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 4, Nos. 3–4,
pp.29–42.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996) ‘The behavioral consequences of service
quality’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 31–46.
106 N. Bahri-Ammari and A. Bilgihan

Zhang, Y. and Cole, S. T. (2016) ‘Dimensions of lodging guest satisfaction among guests with
mobility challenges: a mixed-method analysis of web-based texts’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 53, pp.13–27.
Zoratti, S. (2012) A Lesson in Loyalty from Mobile Phone Subscribers, CMO.by Adobe,
Available at: http://www.cmo.com/articles/2012/9/17/a-lesson-in-loyalty-from-mobile-phone-
subscribers.html

Notes
1
http://www.amdocs.com/Vision/Documents/Retention-Loyalty-Survey-Summary.pdf
2
Sobel test equation: z-value = a*b/SQRT(b2*sa2 + a2*sb2). a represent the unstandardised
regression coefficient between IV and MV; b is the unstandardised regression coefficient between
MV and DV. Sa and Sb are the standard error of a and b. The Sobel test is conducted by using the
program available at: http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm

Appendix: Items
Variables Items
Perceived Justice • This operator showed great efforts to provide me what I deserve the
(Maxham and rewards.
Netemeyer, 2002a,
2002b) • The results of the loyalty program that I received from this operator
was fair given the time.
Distributive justice
• The results and awards obtained were as good and fair compared to
other customers.
• The rewards were more than reasonable.
Procedural justice • Despite the strong demand this operator happened to answer quickly
and fairly.
• I feel that this operator replied in due time.
• I think my operator has adopted policies and equitable practices to
reward me.
• Regarding its policies and procedures, this operator showed me a fair
loyalty program.
Interactional justice • The staff (customer service) of this operator treated me in a courteous
manner.
• In their effort to reward me, the staff (customer service) of this
operator showed me a real interest in trying to be fair.
• The staff tried to hear me out to identify my needs for awards.
• To reward me, this operator tried to take my opinion.
Satisfaction toward • The benefits of the program are interesting.
loyalty program
(O’Brien and Jones, • There has a variety of offers related to the exchange of points.
1995) • The program is simple to use.
• I made the wrong choice by deciding to be a regular customer of this
operator (*) (reversed item).
 Customer retention to mobile telecommunication service providers 107

Appendix: Items (continued)

Variables Items
Relational satisfaction: • Overall, I am satisfied with my relationship with this operator.
(Gremler and Gwinner,
2000) • Overall, my experience with this operator is good.
• I have often been disappointed by that operator services (*) (reversed
item).
Loyalty/commitment: • Our loyalty to this operator is a major reason we continue to work with
(Kalleberg and Reve, it.
1992)
• We want to be associated with this operator because of our allegiance.
• We intend to continue with this operator because we feel they are “part
of the family”.
• We feel that we need to continue our relationship with this operator.
Retention: • In the future, I'll buy most products from this operator.
(Zeithaml et al., 1996;
Hennig-Thurau, 2004) • I am a loyal customer of this operator.
• I feel that I should continue my relationship with this operator.
• This operator is my first choice when it comes to buying other
products.

Appendix: Market characteristics

Working age (15 years
Operators Share of mobile market and older) GDP per capita
OOREDOO 45.6% 76.3% 9600$
TUNISIE TELECOM 35.4%
ORANGE TUNISIE 19%
Total 100%