General Switching Cost Burden

What it measures

Ten seven-point Likert-type items measure the perceived overall burden of switching service providers, encompassing time, money, effort, and emotional costs. Items were compiled from multiple studies all tracing to Ping (1993) and have been used in banking, telecommunications, and retailing contexts. The compilation covers items used by five different research teams that each adapted the original scale for consumer services.

Response format

7-point Likert (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)

Scale items

• On the whole, I would spend a lot of time and money to switch from my __________.
• Generally speaking, the costs in time, money, effort, and grief to switch from my __________ would be high.
• Overall, I would spend a lot and lose a lot if I switched from my __________.
• Considering everything, the costs to stop doing business with my __________ and start up with a new __________ would be high.
• All things considered, I would lose a lot in changing service providers.
• Generally speaking, the costs in time, effort, and grief to switch service providers would be high.
• It is very easy to switch service providers. (r)
• In general, it would be a hassle changing __________.
• It would take a lot of time and effort changing __________.
• For me, the costs in time, money, and effort to switch __________ are high.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Items 1–4 used by Bansal, Irving, and Taylor (2004) and Bansal, Taylor, and James (2005); items 5–7 used by Bougie, Pieters, and Zeelenberg (2003); items 8–10 used by Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds (2000) and Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2000). All versions trace to Ping (1993). Blanks should be filled with a generic descriptor of the service provider type. Alphas ranging from .89 to .92 across studies.

Citation

Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 234–250.

Keywords