The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business (산경연구논집)

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Effect of Service Quality of Social Welfare Institutions on Customer Satisfaction, Reuse Intention, and Word-of-mouth Effect

  • Se Hui KIM (Department of Social Welfare, Dong-A Health University) ;
  • Eun ju OH (Department of Social Welfare, Dong-A Health University)
  • Received : 2024.10.21
  • Accepted : 2024.11.28
  • Published : 2024.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to empirically analyze the impact of service quality on customer satisfaction, reuse intention, and word-of-mouth effect in South Korean social welfare institutions. Given the rapid expansion of social welfare services since the 1980s, service quality and user perception have gained importance, but existing studies have primarily focused on customer demand with limited attention to the perception gap between service providers and users. Research Methodology: A survey was conducted with 175 users of welfare centers in Jeollanam-do. Service quality was measured across five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles. The collected data were analyzed using statistical methods, including correlation and regression analysis, to examine the relationships between service quality and customer satisfaction, reuse intention, and word-of-mouth effect. Results: The findings indicate that kindness, convenience, and tangibility have a significant impact on customer satisfaction, reuse intention, and the word-of-mouth effect. These dimensions of service quality were found to be more influential than others in shaping positive customer outcomes. Conclusion: This study provides actionable insights for improving service quality in social welfare institutions, demonstrating that enhancing specific aspects of service quality can lead to higher customer satisfaction, increased reuse intentions, and more favorable word-of-mouth.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the research grant of the KODISA Scholarship Foundation in 2024 and First author's master's thesis was revised and supplemented.

References

  1. Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378302000103
  2. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400206
  3. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(7), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600304
  4. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545-560. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0071
  5. Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784
  6. Gronroos, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service quality. Review of Business, 9(3), 34-39.
  7. Kim, G. S. (2008). New Amos 16.0 structural equation modeling analysis. Hanare Publishing.
  8. Newman, J. W., & Werbel, R. A. (1973). Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for major household appliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377301000410
  9. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
  10. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
  11. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000203