Based on the team literature review, a hypothesis can be drawn that: The main reasons why customers switching service providers in a tourism-based encounter is either due to the pricing matters, the initial failure, and non-committal of the firm to address the initial failure problem. In formulating the null hypothesis, the researcher needs to develop an alternative hypothesis that will be accepted if the collected data values are significantly unattainable within the null hypothesis. The articulate formulation of the null has inferences to the alternative hypothesis.
In the case of Swanson and Hsu (2009), a null hypothesis can be stated: The only reason for customer switching service providers is due to the pricing, initial failure, and failure to address the initial failure. After formulating the null hypothesis, the researcher should ascertain the significance level of the data obtained. The null hypothesis is only reliable if it can ascertain the probability of the information set in certain parameters from it. In this case, there are other parameters that lead to customer switching service providers which have to be considered:
The benefits accruing to establishing a long-term clientele are recognized by marketers since no-returning clients are foregone business opportunities. There are various reasons for customer defection apart from the above reasons and the company should understand the reason why its clients do not return to nurture a zero defection culture of customers (Swanson &Hsu, 2009). There will be variations in future outcomes on whether the customer would repurchase from the firm. This depends on the customer experiences in the previous encounters. A customer may be satisfied with one recovery transaction but the initial transactions were dissatisfying. The past transactions with the service provider will have a ripple effect on the current transactions, and a single satisfying transaction cannot lead to customer repurchase.
Another parameter to consider is testing the null hypothesis is the effect of customer’s causal implications on customer’s attitude towards a particular service provider. According to the attribution theory, a client’s attitudes, decisions, and emotions are influenced by the client’s judgments on cause and effect correlation. Other factors can be attributed to customers switching service providers including national cultural diversity, different perceptions of the service recovery plan.
If the data observed contradicts the estimation of the null hypothesis, it can be concluded that the null hypothesis is false, or the occurrence observed had a minimal significance level. This gives the researcher high confidence level in the falsity of the null hypothesis that can be improved by doing many observations as possible. Nevertheless, accepting the alternative hypothesis only leads the researcher to a difference in observed constants; it does not validate the theory is estimated if such a variation is valid because the difference is a result of outlying factors not assumed by the principle.
If the null hypothesis is rejected and the study did not have an alternative hypothesis then the whole study is void. The null hypothesis uses a series of deductive and inductive processes to ensure that there are no flaws in the hypothesis. Let’s say if the significance tests indicate a 95 percent likelihood that the outcome is not within the confidence interval of the null hypothesis, then assumed to be false and rejected while the alternative hypothesis is accepted.
Formulating, analyzing, and deciding on the null hypotheses involve methodological consistency using the falsification method of scientific discovery. Nevertheless, issues on how to handle the high power of empirical testing to ascertain differences in samples with wide scope have resulted in proposals for re-inventing the null hypothesis. In the draft questionnaire, the hypothesis in consideration is to determine who, (i.e. the service company, service employee, or I (the customer)) was responsible for causing the initial service problem. The hypothesis will be expressed empirically by using the critical incident technique (CIT) (Swanson & Hsu 2009). This will involve using defined procedures to collect findings on a certain tendency or variable, to report and evaluate attributes of the customers. The critical incidents are collected from various sources through questionnaires or interviews. These are the questions to be inquired:
The interviewees are asked to recall incidents when they were ever dissatisfied by a service, and whether a recovery effort was made, and if it was satisfying or dissatisfying. The participants should make inferences on the effect and what might have caused the initial service failure. The participants are asked whether the service provider responded to the initial service provider and if action was taken to rectify the problem.
The participants were asked if they have switched service providers and if they have the reason why they switched and if not why. The participants were asked if they have discussed the matter with anyone, that is, family, service provider’s management or employees, friends, or acquaintances. The participants are also asked about their demographic position, age, gender, educational background, and income status. Similar incidents are classified into the ‘recovery group’, ‘initial failure group’, and ‘response to initial failure group’.
The client perceived recovery methods are classified using the recovery classes and the incident forms are grouped into the other groups. This is used to determine the dependability of the categories formed. In the case of any differences in responses, they were allocated through the majority rule method.
References
Swanson, S. & Hsu, M. (2009). Critical Incidents in Tourism: Failure, recovery, customer switching, and word-of –mouth behaviors. Journal of travel & Tourism Marketing. 180-194.