E-Service Quality of E-Tailors on E-Repurchase Intention: A Comprehensive Literature Review

The rapid growth of electronic commerce has transformed the nature of service delivery, shifting customer interactions from traditional face-to-face encounters to technology-mediated environments. As competition intensifies and switching costs remain low in online markets, understanding the determinants of e-repurchase intention has become a strategic priority for e-retailers. This study examines the development of the concept of e-service quality and its influence on e-repurchase intention by synthesizing prior theoretical and empirical literature. Drawing on the E-S-QUAL and E-RecS-QUAL frameworks, e-service quality is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising efficiency, fulfillment, system availability, privacy, responsiveness, compensation, and contact. The review highlights that superior e-service quality enhances customer confidence, reduces perceived risk, and fosters trust and satisfaction, which collectively strengthens customers’ intentions to repurchase from the same e-retailer. Furthermore, the literature suggests that service recovery dimensions play a critical role in mitigating dissatisfaction and sustaining long-term customer relationships following service failures. By consolidating key service quality dimensions and their behavioral outcomes, this review provides a strong theoretical foundation for examining e-repurchase intention in online contexts. The study justifies the adoption of the E-S-QUAL model as an appropriate and comprehensive measurement framework for investigating customer retention in e-commerce settings.

• E-Service Quality
• E-Repurchase Intention
• E-S-QUAL
• E-RecS-QUAL

1. Development of the Concept of E-Service Quality and Influence on E-Repurchase Intention

Service quality has long been recognized as a critical determinant of customer behavior, particularly customer retention and loyalty. This study defined an E-Tailor as an online retail entity that sells products directly to consumers via digital platforms, including websites or mobile applications ([48]). This review encompasses broad e-retail contexts instead of industry-specific sectors and includes both website and app-based service settings ([4]). Marketplace intermediaries, such as multi-vendor platforms, are included when the primary focus of research is the service quality provided via the platform interface, rather than on individual vendors ([36]). This delineation of boundaries guarantees conceptual coherence in the analysis of e-service quality and its impact on e-repurchase intention ([31]).

In consumer markets, customers are more inclined to remain with their existing service providers when they perceive superior service quality ([46]; [27]; [20]). However, the concept of quality itself is inherently abstract and multidimensional, encompassing perceived value, conformance to standards, and the ability to meet or exceed customer expectations ([46]; [26]; [20]). Within marketing services, quality is predominantly viewed from the customer’s perspective and is therefore referred to as perceived service quality ([46]; [29]). This perception emerges from a comparison between customers’ expectations prior to service consumption and their actual experience during service delivery ([30]; [12]).

2. Review Method

This study employs a structured narrative literature review methodology to integrate existing studies on e-service quality and e-repurchase intention ([40]). A thorough investigation was performed across prominent academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, utilizing keyword combinations such as “e-service quality,” “E-S-QUAL,” “E-RecS-QUAL,” “online service quality,” “repurchase intention,” “customer retention,” and “e-commerce.” The inclusion criteria were restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications published in English that offered empirical or theoretical insights into e-service quality aspects and investigated behavioral outcomes including satisfaction, trust, loyalty, perceived risk, or repurchase intention. Studies that concentrated solely on conventional offline service environments, non-scholarly publications, and pieces devoid of conceptual significance to e-service quality assessment were omitted. The screening method entailed the examination of titles, abstracts, and theoretical congruence with the study’s conceptual framework. Significant attention was placed on foundational scale-development research ([31]) and extensively cited empirical and meta-analytic investigations ([4]). This systematic and open process improves the rigor, comprehensiveness, and replicability of the review according to accepted literature review standards ([32]).

3. Transition from Traditional Service Quality to E-Service Quality

Traditional service quality has been defined as an overall attitude or judgment regarding a service’s superiority ([30]). Models such as SERVQUAL and SERVPERF dominated early service quality research, focusing primarily on face-to-face interactions between service providers and customers. However, with the rapid expansion of electronic commerce, service delivery increasingly occurs through digital interfaces, fundamentally altering the nature of service encounters. The absence of direct interpersonal interaction in online environments has led scholars to argue that electronic services may represent a less efficient relational experience compared to traditional services ([47]). Nevertheless, this technological mediation has also created opportunities for firms to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and convenience.

Electronic service quality (e-service quality) extends the traditional service quality concept to online contexts. [48] define e-service quality as the extent to which a website facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing, and delivery of products and services. Similarly, [36] conceptualizes e-service quality as customers’ overall evaluation of the excellence of online service delivery. These definitions emphasize both functional system performance and customer perceptions, highlighting that e-service quality is not limited to website design alone but encompasses the entire online service experience.

4. Dimensions and Measurement of E-Service Quality

Since the early 2000s, considerable scholarly attention has been devoted to identifying and measuring the dimensions of e-service quality. Early website evaluation models such as WebQual ([24]) and SITEQUAL ([45]) primarily focused on usability, design, processing speed, and security. While these scales contributed valuable insights, critics argue that they inadequately capture the full-service experience, particularly post-purchase activities such as order fulfillment and problem resolution.

In response to these limitations, [42] developed the eTailQ scale, which includes website design, reliability/fulfillment, privacy/security, and customer service. This scale marked a significant advancement by integrating both transactional and relational elements of online service delivery. Their findings underscore that accurate product representation, timely delivery, and effective customer support play a crucial role in shaping customer evaluations of online retailers.

Among the various models proposed, the E-S-QUAL framework developed by [31] has emerged as one of the most widely accepted and empirically validated measures of e-service quality. The E-S-QUAL scale comprises four core dimensions: efficiency, fulfillment, system availability, and privacy. Efficiency reflects the ease and speed of website usage, fulfillment captures the accuracy of service promises and delivery performance, system availability refers to the technical functioning of the website, and privacy relates to the protection of customer information. These dimensions collectively represent routine online service experiences.

In empirical applications, recovery dimensions must be measured conditionally. E-RecS-QUAL requirements are best administered to respondents who have encountered service failures ([31]). Alternatively, recovery dimensions can be conceptualized as overarching anticipations of problem-solving proficiency ([15]). Researchers must synchronize the measuring context with the respondent’s experience to prevent construct-context discrepancies and the inflating of recovery effects. Additionally, the E-RecS-QUAL scale addresses service recovery aspects and includes responsiveness, compensation, and contact. This recovery dimension is particularly relevant in online contexts where service failures can significantly influence customer perceptions and future behavioral intentions. Scholars argue that effective service recovery can mitigate dissatisfaction and even strengthen customer relationships if handled appropriately ([31]).

4.1. Efficiency

Efficiency is identified as a core dimension of e-service quality by [31] and is defined as the ease and speed with which users can access and utilize a website. This dimension encompasses three critical elements: accessibility, usability, and processing speed. Prior studies confirm that websites perceived as easy to use and convenient significantly enhance users’ perceptions of overall service quality and reuse intentions ([37]; [19]). [10] similarly include ease of use as a key determinant of perceived electronic service quality, alongside information quality and technical performance. Empirical evidence further supports the importance of efficiency across diverse service settings. [35] identify ease of use and reliability as the most influential factors in customer evaluations of self-service technologies, while [22] demonstrate that ease of use is among the most critical determinants of perceived e-service quality in online travel services. Collectively, these findings suggest that efficient website design reduces cognitive effort, enhances perceived control, and fosters positive online experiences, thereby increasing customers’ intentions to repurchase.

4.2. Fulfillment

Fulfillment refers to the extent to which an online service provider delivers on its promises regarding product availability, accurate order processing, and timely delivery ([31]; [22]). This dimension reflects the operational reliability of e-retailers and plays a central role in building customer confidence. Accurate information about product availability and delivery timelines significantly influences trust formation and repeat purchase intentions ([22]). [7] conceptualize fulfillment as “order management,” incorporating precise delivery commitments, smooth transaction processing, and flexibility in modifying or postponing orders. Failure in fulfillment not only leads to dissatisfaction but also increases perceived risk in online transactions. Consequently, consistent fulfillment performance is a decisive factor in strengthening customers’ willingness to engage in future purchases.

4.3. System Availability

System availability refers to the technical functioning of a website and its ability to operate reliably without crashes, errors, or delays ([31]). Since online services are entirely dependent on technological infrastructure, system availability becomes a prerequisite for service evaluation. Customers expect websites to load quickly, remain stable during transactions, and be accessible at all times. From a quality assessment perspective, users implicitly evaluate service quality by observing whether the website responds appropriately to inputs and maintains uninterrupted functionality. Technical failures, such as slow loading times or system breakdowns, can significantly undermine customer confidence and discourage repeat usage, regardless of the quality of other service attributes.

4.4. Privacy

Privacy is a critical dimension of e-service quality due to the extensive personal and financial information required in online transactions. [48] define privacy as the protection of customers’ personal data and the assurance that such information is not shared without consent. Security, closely related to privacy, refers to safeguarding users against fraud, identity theft, and financial misuse ([5]). [31] conceptualize privacy/security as the degree to which customers trust that a website is secure against unauthorized access and data disclosure. Security concerns remain a major barrier to online shopping adoption ([6]; [22]). Therefore, strong privacy protections not only enhance perceived service quality but also reduce perceived risk, directly influencing customers repurchase intentions.

4.5. Responsiveness

Responsiveness becomes particularly salient when customers encounter problems or require assistance. [22] define responsiveness as the promptness and effectiveness with which e-service providers respond to customer inquiries through digital channels. Key indicators include availability of contact information, timely responses, adequate response time, and efficient problem resolution. [31] position responsiveness as a recovery-related dimension, relevant primarily when service failures occur. [38] further emphasizes that responsiveness reflects genuine concern for customers and significantly contributes to post-failure satisfaction. Effective responsiveness reassures customers, mitigates dissatisfaction, and increases the likelihood of continued engagement with the e-retailer.

4.6. Compensation

Compensation represents the extent to which online service providers reimburse customers for service failures such as incorrect deliveries, delayed shipments, or system outages ([31]). Customers generally expect fair compensation when technological or operational failures occur. Such compensation may include refunds, return shipping coverage, or replacement of incorrect items ([2]). The manner in which compensation is handled plays a critical role in restoring customer trust. Effective compensation strategies can transform negative experiences into opportunities for strengthening relationships, thereby positively influencing customer confidence and repurchase intention.

4.7. Contact

Contact refers to the availability of human assistance through telephone or online communication channels ([31]). The ability to reach a real customer service representative enhances customers’ sense of security and reduces uncertainty in online transactions. This dimension is particularly important when automated systems fail to address complex issues. [28] demonstrate that personalized attention and supportive staff attitudes significantly improve user satisfaction in electronic service environments. Hence, accessible and responsive contact mechanisms reinforce trust and encourage customers to continue purchasing from the same online service provider.

5. E-Service Quality and E-Repurchase Intention

Repurchase intention is widely recognized as a critical determinant of long-term success in competitive service industries ([14]; [13]). It reflects a customer’s propensity to engage in repeat purchasing based on prior experiences and preferences ([43]). Given the high costs associated with customer acquisition, firms increasingly focus on retaining existing customers through strategies that enhance repurchase intention ([34]; [25]). In online markets, repurchase intention is particularly vital due to intense competition and low switching costs ([16]; [41]). Customers’ ability to evaluate e-vendors over time makes repurchase intention a strong indicator of perceived service quality and trustworthiness.

E-repurchase intention refers to a customer’s willingness to engage in repeat online purchasing from the same e-retailer. Prior research consistently demonstrates that e-service quality is a key antecedent of e-repurchase intention, often mediated by customer satisfaction, trust, and perceived value ([21]; [44]). High levels of efficiency, reliable fulfillment, and robust privacy protections enhance customer confidence in online platforms, thereby reducing perceived risk and increasing the likelihood of repeat purchases. [21] further highlight that trust and responsiveness are particularly influential in shaping repurchase intentions in online environments. As online transactions involve greater uncertainty and information asymmetry, customers rely heavily on system reliability and service responsiveness to form trust. Consequently, superior e-service quality not only improves immediate satisfaction but also fosters long-term relational outcomes such as loyalty and repeat purchasing behavior. From a strategic perspective, e-service quality has become a critical competitive weapon in highly saturated digital markets. As switching costs for online consumers are relatively low, even minor deficiencies in service quality can lead to customer defection. Therefore, sustained improvements in e-service quality are essential for enhancing e-repurchase intention and achieving long-term competitive advantage.

6. Conceptual Synthesis

The examined literature consistently demonstrates that e-service quality affects e-repurchase intention both directly and indirectly via mediating factors such as satisfaction, trust, and perceived risk ([1]; [33]). Efficiency diminishes cognitive exertion and improves perceived ease of use, thereby augmenting satisfaction and trust ([11]). Fulfilment improves perceptions of reliability and diminishes uncertainty, so it immediately strengthens trust and perceived value ([18]). System availability indicates technical proficiency and mitigates perceived risk in digital transactions ([4]). Privacy protects client information and substantially reduces perceived risk, hence enhancing trust ([33]). The dimensions of the recovery function are distinct. Trust restoration and post-failure satisfaction are primarily influenced by responsiveness, recompense, and communication ([15]). Recent investigations affirm that satisfaction and trust function as sequential mediators between e-service quality and continuance intention ([39]; [9]).

Various moderating variables may affect the intensity of the correlations between e-service quality and e-repurchase intention. Customer experience and habitual behavior enhance the influence of satisfaction on repurchase intention, especially in ongoing scenarios ([3]). Product involvement may influence the effects of privacy and fulfilment, particularly in high-risk transactions ([18]). Perceived risk enhances the significance of system availability and security ([33]). Cultural context shapes the meanings of trust and responsiveness ([8]). Recent data indicate that mobile interface quality and AI-driven personalization may serve as contextual modifiers in digital commerce settings ([17]; [39]). Future empirical studies should explicitly examine these moderating influences to strengthen model consistency. The literature clearly indicates that e-service quality is a multidimensional construct that extends beyond website aesthetics to include fulfillment reliability, system performance, privacy, and effective service recovery. While earlier models provided fragmented assessments of online service quality, the E-S-QUAL and E-RecS-QUAL frameworks offer a comprehensive and theoretically grounded approach suitable for examining customer behavioral outcomes such as e-repurchase intention. Given the strong empirical link between e-service quality and repeat purchasing behavior, adopting E-S-QUAL as the primary measurement scale is well-justified for the present study.

7. Research Implications

7.1. Theoretical Implications

This review enhances theoretical understanding by amalgamating core and recovery e-service quality elements into a cohesive behavioral framework based on trust theory and expectation-confirmation theory ([3]). The study improves conceptual clarity in elucidating e-repurchase intention by directly correlating variables with mediators such as trust, satisfaction, and perceived risk ([33]). Differentiating routine service experiences from recovery contexts enhances construct validity ([31]).

7.2. Managerial Implications

For e-tailers, investments in website efficiency, fulfilment accuracy, and privacy protection are essential for establishing trust and mitigating perceived risk ([4]). Effective service recovery strategies can transform service failures into opportunities for enhancing relationships ([15]). Ongoing assessment of technical performance and consumer input is crucial in digital markets with low switching costs ([1]).

8. Conclusion

E-service quality has transformed into a multidimensional, technology-mediated concept that expands upon the previous SERVQUAL framework ([30]). The E-S-QUAL and E-RecS-QUAL frameworks offer a solid basis for comprehending how online service quality influences satisfaction, trust, perceived risk, and repurchase intention ([31]). Continuous enhancement in both fundamental and recovery aspects is crucial for enduring client retention in competitive digital landscapes.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor for their invaluable guidance, continuous support, and constructive feedback throughout the research process. Their academic insight and encouragement were instrumental in shaping and strengthening this study.

References

1.. Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E‐Satisfaction and E‐Loyalty: A Contingency Framework. Psychology&Marketing,20, 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10063 10.1002/mar.10063https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10063 Anderson, R. Srinivasan, S. 2003 10.1002/mar.10063

2.. Ataburo, H., Agbola, F. W., & Issahaku, H. (2017). Modelling Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Intention in Online Shopping. International Journal of Business and Management, 12,1-14. Ataburo, H. Agbola, F. Issahaku, H. 2017

3.. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MISQuarterly,25, 351-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921 10.2307/3250921https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921 Bhattacherjee, A. 2001 10.2307/3250921

4.. Blut, M. (2016). E-service Quality: Development of a Hierarchical Model. JournalofRetailing,92, 500-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.09.002 10.1016/j.jretai.2016.09.002https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.09.002 Blut, M. 2016 10.1016/j.jretai.2016.09.002

5.. Collier, J. E., & Bienstock, C. C. (2006). Measuring Service Quality in E-Retailing. JournalofServiceResearch,8, 260-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670505278867 10.1177/1094670505278867https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670505278867 Collier, J. Bienstock, C. 2006 10.1177/1094670505278867

6.. Cox, J., & Dale, B. G. (2001). Service Quality and E‐commerce: An Exploratory Analysis. ManagingServiceQuality,11, 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520110387257 10.1108/09604520110387257https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520110387257 Cox, J. Dale, B. 2001 10.1108/09604520110387257

7.. Cristobal, E., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2007). Perceived E-Service Quality (PeSQ): Measurement Validation and Effects on Consumer Satisfaction and Web Site Loyalty. Managing Service Quality, 17, 317-340. Cristobal, E. 2007

8.. Cyr, D. (2008). Modeling Web Site Design across Cultures: Relationships to Trust, Satisfaction, and E-Loyalty. JournalofManagementInformationSystems,24, 47-72. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222240402 10.2753/mis0742-1222240402https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222240402 Cyr, D. Trust, S 2008 10.2753/mis0742-1222240402

9.. Fang, Y. H., Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. (2014). Understanding Customers’ Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions. Internet Research, 24,94-114. Fang, Y. Chiu, C. Wang, E. 2014

10.. Fassnacht, M., & Koese, I. (2006). Quality of Electronic Services: Conceptualizing and Testing a Hierarchical Model. Journal of Service Research, 9,19-37. Fassnacht, M. Koese, I. 2006

11.. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MISQuarterly,27, 51-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519 10.2307/30036519https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519 Gefen, D. Karahanna, E. Straub, D. 2003 10.2307/30036519

12.. Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications. EuropeanJournalofMarketing,18, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000004784 10.1108/eum0000000004784https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000004784 1984 10.1108/eum0000000004784

13.. Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The Effects of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention. JournalofMarketing,69, 210-218. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.210 10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.210https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.210 Gustafsson, A. Johnson, M. Roos, I. Satisfaction, R 2005 10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.210

14.. Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customer Repurchase Intention: A General Structural Equation Model. European Journal of Marketing, 37,1762-1800. Hellier, P. Geursen, G. Carr, R. Rickard, J. 2003

15.. Holloway, B. B., & Beatty, S. E. (2003). Service Failure in Online Retailing. JournalofServiceResearch,6, 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670503254288 10.1177/1094670503254288https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670503254288 Holloway, B. Beatty, S. 2003 10.1177/1094670503254288

16.. Hsu, M. H., Chang, C. M., & Chuang, L. W. (2015). Understanding the Determinants of Online Repeat Purchase Intention and Moderating Role of Habit. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,22, 59-67. Hsu, M. Chang, C. Chuang, L. 2015

17.. Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). Engaged to a Robot? The Role of AI in Service. JournalofServiceResearch,24, 30-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520902266 10.1177/1094670520902266https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520902266 Huang, M. Rust, R. 2021 10.1177/1094670520902266

18.. Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents. DecisionSupportSystems,44, 544-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001 Kim, D. Ferrin, D. Rao, H. Trust, P 2008 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001

19.. Kim-Soon, N., Rahman, A., & Visvalingam, L. (2014). SERVQUAL: Can It Be Used to Differentiate Guest’s Perception of Service Quality of 3 Star from a 4 Star Hotel. InternationalBusinessResearch,7, 37-47. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n7p37 10.5539/ibr.v7n7p37https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n7p37 Kim-Soon, N. Rahman, A. Visvalingam, L. 2014 10.5539/ibr.v7n7p37

20.. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing Management (14th ed.). Pearson Education. Kotler, P. Keller, K. 2012

21.. Lee, G. G., & Lin, H. F. (2005). Customer Perceptions of E‐Service Quality in Online Shopping. InternationalJournalofRetail&DistributionManagement,33, 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581485 10.1108/09590550510581485https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581485 Lee, G. Lin, H. 2005 10.1108/09590550510581485

22.. Li, H., & Suomi, R. (2009). A Proposed Scale for Measuring E-Service Quality. InternationalJournal of U-and E-Service, Science and Technology, 2,1-10. Li, H. Suomi, R. E-Service, S 2009

23.. Li, Y., Tan, C. H., Xu, H., & Teo, H. H. (2009). Open Source Software Adoption: Motivations of Adopters and Motivations of Non-Adopters. ACM SIGMIS Database, 40, 46-67. Li, Y. Tan, C. Xu, H. Teo, H. 2009

24.. Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002). WebQualTM: A Measure of Website Quality. In American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference (pp. 1-71). Loiacono, E. Watson, R. Goodhue, D. 2002

25.. Namukasa, J. (2013). The Influence of Airline Service Quality on Passenger Satisfaction and Loyalty. TheTQMJournal,25, 520-532. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-11-2012-0092 10.1108/tqm-11-2012-0092https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-11-2012-0092 Namukasa, J. 2013 10.1108/tqm-11-2012-0092

26.. Olsen, S. O. (2002). Comparative Evaluation and the Relationship between Quality, Satisfaction, and Repurchase Loyalty. JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,30, 240-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302303005 10.1177/0092070302303005https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302303005 Olsen, S. Quality, S 2002 10.1177/0092070302303005

27.. Ostrowski, P. L., O’Brien, T. V., & Gordon, G. L. (1993). Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in the Commercial Airline Industry. JournalofTravelResearch,32, 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303200203 10.1177/004728759303200203https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303200203 Ostrowski, P. Brien, T. Gordon, G. 1993 10.1177/004728759303200203

28.. Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-Dimensional Students’ Evaluation of E-Learning Systems in the Higher Education Context. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 128-144. Ozkan, S. Koseler, R. 2009

29.. Palmer, A. (2008). Principles of Services Marketing (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Palmer, A. 2008

30.. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64,12-40. Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. 1988

31.. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-QUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality. JournalofServiceResearch,7, 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156 10.1177/1094670504271156https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156 Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Malhotra, A. 2005 10.1177/1094670504271156

32.. Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The Art of Writing Literature Review. International Business Review, 29, Article 101717. Paul, J. Criado, A. 2020 101717

33.. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7,101-134. Pavlou, P. 2003

34.. Reichheld, F. F., & Teal, T. (1996). The Loyalty Effect. Harvard Business School Press. Reichheld, F. Teal, T. 1996

35.. Reinders, M. J., Dabholkar, P. A., & Frambach, R. T. (2007). Consequences of Forcing Consumers to Use Technology-Based Self-Service. Journal of Service Research, 9, 253-268. Reinders, M. Dabholkar, P. Frambach, R. 2007

36.. Santos, J. (2003). E‐Service Quality: A Model of Virtual Service Quality Dimensions. ManagingServiceQuality:AnInternationalJournal,13, 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520310476490 10.1108/09604520310476490https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520310476490 Santos, J. 2003 10.1108/09604520310476490

37.. Sohn, C., & Tadisina, S. K. (2008). Development of E-Service Quality Measure for Internet-Based Financial Institutions. TotalQualityManagement&BusinessExcellence,19, 903-918. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802224412 10.1080/14783360802224412https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802224412 Sohn, C. Tadisina, S. 2008 10.1080/14783360802224412

38.. Swaid, S. I. (2008). Moderating Effects of Perceived Risk on the Relationship between E-Service Quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15,497-506. Swaid, S. Quality, S 2008

39.. Tandon, U., Kiran, R., & Sah, A. N. (2020). The Influence of Website Functionality, Drivers, and Perceived Risk on Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, Article 101908. Tandon, U. Kiran, R. Sah, A. Functionality, D 2020 101908

40.. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Systematic Reviews. British Journal of Management,14, 207-222. Tranfield, D. Denyer, D. Smart, P. 2003

41.. Wang, Y., Po Lo, H., Chi, R., & Yang, Y. (2004). An Integrated Framework for Customer Value and Customer-Relationship-Management Performance. Managing Service Quality, 14, 169-182. Wang, Y. Lo, H. Chi, R. Yang, Y. 2004

42.. Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). ETailQ: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting Etail Quality. JournalofRetailing,79, 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(03)00034-4 10.1016/s0022-4359(03)00034-4https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(03)00034-4 Wolfinbarger, M. Gilly, M. Dimensionalizing, M 2003 4359 03 10.1016/s0022-4359(03)00034-4

43.. Yang, K., Kim, H. M., Min, J., & Hernandez-Calderon, A. (2017). Effects of Retailers’ Service Quality and Legitimacy on Behavioral Intention: The Role of Emotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,36, 49-59. Yang, K. Kim, H. Min, J. Hernandez-Calderon, A. 2017

44.. Yarimoglu, E. K. (2014). A Review on Dimensions of Service Quality Models. Journal of Marketing Management, 2,79-93. Yarimoglu, E. 2014

45.. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a Scale to Measure the Perceived Quality of an Internet Shopping Site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2, 31-45. Yoo, B. Donthu, N. 2001

46.. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. JournalofMarketing,52, 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302 10.1177/002224298805200302https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302 Zeithaml, V. Price, Q 1988 10.1177/002224298805200302

47.. Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of Customers: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,28, 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281007 10.1177/0092070300281007https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281007 Zeithaml, V. Quality, P 2000 10.1177/0092070300281007

48.. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). Service Quality Delivery through Web Sites: A Critical Review of Extant Knowledge. JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,30, 362-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236911 10.1177/009207002236911https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236911 Zeithaml, V. Parasuraman, A. Malhotra, A. 2002 10.1177/009207002236911