Exploring the differences between current and new members

Due to differences found between the results of the analyses conducted on current members and the analyses conducted on new members, it was deemed necessary to explore these differences between current and new members further. As such, Objective Six became necessary; to explain the differences found between current and new members resulting from Objective Five.

After combining both datasets, moderation effects were tested firstly, to see if the type of member (current or new) had an effect on the predictive efficacy of the independent variables on actual cancellation, however no significant interaction effects were found. Instead, to further investigate the differences, comparisons were made between current and new member’s ratings of each of the independent variables. Due to the unequal sample sizes (current=n=716, new= n=89), it was considered that the Mann Whitney U test was the most appropriate test. The details are below in Table 8.8.

As can be seen in Table 8.8, new members perceive the performance of overall service quality, service quality- bar/café, service quality- pool/spa, service quality –staff, brand distinctiveness, brand prestige, state anxiety (staff), state anxiety (members), social physique anxiety and external regulation to be significantly higher than current members do. Also, new members have a higher intention to cancel than do current members.

Conversely, new members rate perceived value for money, intention to use the club, rapport- staff, and intrinsic regulation as significantly lower than current members.

Table 8.8 Comparisons of current and new members’ ratings

_{Member type N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks MWU Z}

Overall perceived service quality Current 714 394.83 281908.50 26653.5** -2.481 New 89 459.52 40897.50 Total 803 Perceived service quality- bar/cafe Current 579 321.26 186010.00 18100** -3.393 New 81 396.54 32120.00 Total 660 Perceived service quality- pool/spa Current 635 348.41 221238.00 19308*** -4.297 New 85 450.85 38322.00 Total 720 Perceived service quality -staff Current 307 164.81 50597.50 3319.5* -2.266 New 29 207.53 6018.50 Total 336 Perceived value for money Current 655 378.47 247898.00 23927** -2.480 New 87 319.02 27755.00 Total 742 Brand distinctiveness Current 643 351.07 225737.00 18691*** -4.165 New 81 453.25 36713.00 Total 724

Brand prestige Current 642 356.70 229002.50 22599.5** -2.914

New 87 426.24 37082.50

Total 729

Intention to use Current 471 270.64 127472.50 11001.50* -2.530

New 58 219.18 12712.50

Total 529

Rapport- staff Current 640 374.55 239709.50 19170.5*** -4.282

New 84 270.72 22740.50 Total 724 State anxiety - staff Current 642 353.94 227232.00 20829*** -3.609 New 85 439.95 37396.00 Total 727 State anxiety- members Current 641 353.42 226544.50 20783.5*** -3.618 New 85 439.49 37356.50 Total 726 Social physique anxiety Current 640 353.41 226184.00 21064** -2.912 New 82 424.62 34819.00 Total 722 External regulation Current 640 354.22 226702.50 21582.5** -2.754 New 82 418.30 34300.50 Total 722 Intrinsic regulation Current 637 367.82 234299.50 23048.5* -2.237 New 85 314.16 26703.50 Total 722 Intention to cancel Current 629 352.52 221734.00 23599 23599.00* -1.962 New 84 390.56 32807.00 Total 713

8.5 Discussion

8.5.1 Predicting actual cancellation

The model that was developed to predict actual cancellation in the previous study (with intention to cancel and state anxiety (staff) was not verified in this study. Further, when trying to develop an alternative model that could predict actual cancellation of new members, none of the independent variables (including intention to cancel) were found to be predictive of actual cancellation. Thus, this study did not provide support for the intention-behaviour link in membership cancellation.

8.5.2 Predicting intention to cancel

The model that was developed to predict intention to cancel in the previous study (with intention to cancel and state anxiety (staff) was not validated in this study. Seven of the variables, at an individual level, predicted intention to cancel. However, their relative predictive efficacy when modelled together was explored. Again, as previously, composite variables of the predictors were made using the results of a factor analysis. Two factors were found to underpin the predictors of intention to cancel; internalised motivation, and perceived service quality and brand.

Internalised motivation

As was found in the previous chapter, all of the more autonomous self-determination factors (identified regulation, integrated regulation and intrinsic regulation) factored together. Given that the less autonomous self-determination factor external regulation factored separately, this supports the distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation.

Perceived service quality and brand

Similar to the findings of the previous chapter, perceived service quality and all of the brand identification variables factored together; brand attractiveness, brand distinctiveness, brand prestige and brand similarity. This suggests that the brand variables are an extension of the perceived service quality construct, as opposed to being separate. Perhaps if these brand variables are rated highly, this is seen as indicative of the club’s quality as opposed to being more indicative of a separate, more intrapersonal identification process.

After the composite variables had been created they were both included in a predictive model of intention to cancel.

However only perceived service quality and brand was found to be predictive in the final model. This finding does not support the findings from the previous chapter (whereby perceived service quality and brand was not predictive) but corroborates other studies which have found that perceived service quality is predictive of membership intentions (Alexandris et al, 2001, Alexandris et al, 2004, Dhurup et al, 2006, Murray & Howat, 2002, Pedragosa & Correia, 2009, Ferrand et al, 2010 and Wei et al, 2010). This study also supports the literature claiming that brand identification (Ahearne et al, 2005, Kuenzel & Halliday, 2010, Tuskej et al, 2011) are predictive of membership intentions, and more specifically provided support for brand identification using Bhattacharya and Sen’s (2003) suggested scales.

Similar to the previous chapter’s findings, this study does not support literature advocating the importance of perceived value for money in predicting retention (Cronin et al, 2000, McDougall & Levesque, 2000, Ferrand et al, 2010). Also, similar to the previous chapter’s findings, this study refutes the literature by Ferrand et al (2010) and Lin and Wu (2011), who found that perceived usage of a fitness club has a positive influence over intentions to continue membership. Also, this study does not support the notion of rapport being a predictor of loyalty (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000, Guenzi & Pelloni, 2004, Kim & Ok, 2010 and Macintosh, 2009). Finally, Leach et al’s (2008) scales of social identification were not found to be predictive.

Overall, regarding the prediction of intention to cancel, perceived service quality and brand, was the only predictive factor of intention to cancel for new members, contrary to the previous chapter’s findings which focused on current members,

8.5.3 State anxiety (staff)

Similar to the findings from the previous chapter, it was indicated that as state anxiety (staff) increases, then so does state anxiety (members), social physique anxiety, external regulation, and introjected regulation. These findings are similar to those of the previous chapter; suggesting that the anxiety predictors are highly correlated, and also that guilt- based motivation (introjected motivation) and being motivated solely by other people

(external regulation) are related with state anxiety (staff). However, unlike the previous chapter, in-group homogeneity was not found to be positively related.

Also similar to the previous chapter was the finding that as state anxiety (staff) increases, intrinsic regulation decrease. This again suggests that being self-motivated and motivated to use the fitness club solely by the anticipated pleasure of doing so, is associated with a decrease in state anxiety (staff). However, unlike the previous chapter, perceived value for money was not found to be negatively related to state anxiety (staff). Instead, however, identified regulation and intention to use the club were found to be negatively related to state anxiety.