Place Patronage Switching Intention Scale (PLSWINT)

Abstract

The Place Patronage Switching Intention Scale (PLSWINT) is a psychometric instrument designed to measure a consumer’s deliberate, conative intention to terminate their relationship with an incumbent service or leisure establishment (such as a dining establishment, social club, bar, or retail venue) in favor of an alternative competitive destination. Introduced and validated by Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) within the framework of retail service environments and environmental psychology, the instrument operates as a parsimonious, three-item unidimensional scale. Administered via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”), the scale explicitly captures the active, prospective behavioral intention to switch patronage rather than passive dissatisfaction or general attitudinal ambivalence. Methodologically, the scale demonstrates exceptional psychometric rigor, exhibiting robust internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s $\alpha ge .90$; Composite Reliability $> .90$), strong factor determinacy, high standardized loadings ($> .85$), and unambiguous convergent and discriminant validity relative to closely aligned constructs, including place attachment, place identity, place dependence, and service satisfaction. By capturing the pivotal transition state between psychological disengagement and actual customer defection, the PLSWINT provides behavioral researchers, servicescape architects, and marketing scholars with an empirical assessment tool to diagnose churn vulnerability, test push-pull-mooring migration models, and evaluate the defensive efficacy of place-based atmospheric and relational investments.

Keywords

Place patronage switching, switching intention, consumer defection, place attachment, retail service environment, servicescape, customer churn, conative loyalty, environmental psychology, psychometrics

Authors

The Place Patronage Switching Intention Scale was developed and validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers specializing in services marketing, customer experience management, and retail environment design:

• E. Deanne Brocato, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Debbie and Jerry Ivy College of Business, Iowa State University. Dr. Brocato’s research focuses on consumer behavior within experiential retail environments, place attachment, and service encounter dynamics.
• Julie Baker, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and River Oaks Foundation Faculty Fellow, Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University. An internationally recognized authority on retail store atmospherics, physical servicescapes, and nonverbal cues in service environments.
• Clay M. Voorhees, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Center for Services Leadership Research Faculty, Culverhouse College of Business, The University of Alabama (formerly at Michigan State University). Dr. Voorhees specializes in service design, customer relationship management (CRM), customer loyalty mechanics, and customer journey analytics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Place Patronage Switching Intention Scale is to quantify the immediate cognitive and behavioral predisposition of a consumer to defect from a specific, physical, place-bound service provider and reallocate their patronage toward a competitor. While traditional measures of consumer retention often rely on retrospective evaluations of customer satisfaction or abstract measures of brand loyalty, marketing literature has repeatedly illustrated the “satisfaction-loyalty disconnect”—a phenomenon where satisfied consumers nonetheless defect due to novelty seeking, competitive proximity, or weak environmental bonds. The PLSWINT was specifically engineered to address this gap by assessing the active, prospective conation of patronage abandonment.

In research contexts, the PLSWINT serves as a critical dependent variable in empirical models examining how physical environments (atmospherics, architectural design, ambient conditions, and social density) influence consumer stickiness. Because service firms—particularly “third places” like coffee shops, taverns, fitness centers, and entertainment complexes—depend heavily on repetitive, place-based visitation, measuring patronage switching intention allows investigators to assess the protective boundary conditions of environmental design. It provides a nuanced understanding of how constructs like place identity (the symbolic integration of a venue into an individual’s self-concept) and place dependence (the functional superiority of the venue relative to alternatives) insulate a firm against competitive poaching.

From an applied diagnostic and managerial perspective, the PLSWINT functions as an early warning metric for commercial churn. Customer relationship managers and retail analysts can administer the scale to identify micro-segments of consumers who, despite reporting acceptable levels of service quality, exhibit elevated behavioral inclinations to switch. This diagnostic precision enables organizations to deploy targeted retention strategies—such as customized loyalty rewards, physical servicescape modifications, or community-building initiatives—prior to irrevocable economic defection.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the PLSWINT is Place Patronage Switching Intention. Conceptually, this construct represents a consumer’s conscious, planful, and goal-directed decision to terminate repeated behavioral interactions with an established spatial service setting and substitute it with an alternative provider in the foreseeable future. Grounded in the conative phase of Oliver’s four-stage loyalty model, switching intention represents the inverse counterpart to brand resonance and behavioral retention.

The construct encompasses three critical psychological dimensions captured across its parsimonious item structure:

• Prospective Planfulness: Captures the deliberate cognitive trajectory and temporal imminence of defection. Rather than reflecting an impulsive or situational departure, the construct measures an explicit, planned trajectory to abandon the focal venue (“In the near future, I plan to switch…”).
• Comparative Substitution: Measures the active cognitive prioritization of an alternative place over the incumbent venue (“I intend to visit a different [place type] rather than [place name]…”). This dimension directly assesses the competitive displacement of the focal firm within the consumer’s evoked set.
• Cognitive Exclusivity and Resistance to Alternatives (Reverse Dimension): Evaluates the degree of cognitive locking or behavioral allegiance that inhibits the consumer from entertaining competitive options (“I have no intention of switching…”). When reverse-coded, this item gauges the erosion of protective cognitive barriers that normally shield established service relationships.

Importantly, place patronage switching intention differs from generic brand switching. Place-bound patronage involves spatial, geographic, and physical sensory investments. When a consumer switches a physical venue, they do not merely substitute a transactional product; they abandon a localized sensory ecosystem, disrupt habituated spatial routines, and forfeit place-dependent social relationships. The PLSWINT uniquely isolates this spatial-relational rupture.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture supporting the PLSWINT integrates three complementary paradigms: Sense of Place Theory from environmental psychology, the Servicescape Framework from services marketing, and the Push-Pull-Mooring (PPM) Migration Model from behavioral geography.

1. Sense of Place and Environmental Psychology

Environmental psychologists (e.g., Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977; Low & Altman, 1992) posited that undifferentiated physical spaces transform into meaningful “places” through human interaction, emotional investment, and cognitive attribution. Brocato et al. (2015) operationalized this theory within retail environments, defining place attachment as a multidimensional construct comprising place identity, place dependence, and social bonding. Under this theoretical framework, switching intention represents the systemic collapse or absence of place attachment. When a service setting fails to foster place identity (self-definition via the space) or place dependence (functional uniqueness), the psychological costs of leaving diminish, driving switching intention upward.

2. Bitner’s Servicescape Model

Bitner’s (1992) servicescape model establishes that environmental stimuli (ambient conditions, spatial layout, functionality, signs, symbols, and artifacts) evoke holistic internal cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses. These internal states systematically dictate approach or avoidance behaviors. Approach behaviors manifest as patronage longevity, spending, and commitment; avoidance behaviors culminate in customer exit and switching. The PLSWINT operationalizes the ultimate terminal avoidance response within the servicescape stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) paradigm.

3. Push-Pull-Mooring (PPM) Migration Theory

Originally adapted from human geography by Bansal, Taylor, and St. James (2005), the PPM framework conceptualizes consumer switching as a form of geographical migration. “Push” factors represent negative attributes of the incumbent venue (e.g., crowding, physical deterioration, poor service); “Pull” factors represent attractive qualities of rival venues; and “Mooring” factors represent personal, cultural, or psychological anchors (e.g., place attachment, switching costs) that inhibit departure. The PLSWINT directly quantifies the outcome of this dynamic equilibrium: when push and pull forces overcome personal mooring anchors, patronage switching intention escalates.

Validity

Empirical assessment of the PLSWINT demonstrates rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity across diverse service contexts, including commercial hospitality (e.g., bars, clubs, lounges) and experiential retail environments.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether scale items correlate strongly with the theoretical construct they are intended to measure. In the empirical validation conducted by Brocato et al. (2015), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that all three standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) were statistically significant ($p < .001$) and exceeded the rigorous threshold of .80 (ranging from .86 to .95). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) comfortably exceeded the recommended .50 benchmark (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), consistently exceeding .75 across cross-validation samples. This confirms that the scale items capture substantial variance from the underlying switching construct rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

To confirm that patronage switching intention is distinct from related relational and attitudinal constructs, Brocato et al. applied the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loading checks. Discriminant validity was fully established because the square root of the AVE for the PLSWINT exceeded the highest bivariate correlation between switching intention and any other latent variable in the model—including Place Identity, Place Dependence, Nature Bonding, Overall Satisfaction, and Word-of-Mouth intentions. Specifically, switching intention exhibited strong negative correlations with place attachment dimensions ($r = -.45$ to $-.68$) and satisfaction ($r = -.52$), yet factor correlation confidence intervals never encompassed unity ($\pm 1.0$), proving that switching is conceptually distinct from the mere inverse of satisfaction.

Nomological and Predictive Validity

Nomological validity was demonstrated through structural equation modeling (SEM). As theoretically predicted by environmental psychology and relationship marketing models, the PLSWINT was negatively predicted by multidimensional place attachment ($eta = -.34, p < .01$) and positively driven by perceived crowding and environmental dissatisfaction. Furthermore, elevated PLSWINT scores significantly predicted negative downstream behaviors, including drastic reductions in share of wallet, diminished willingness to pay a price premium, and actual behavioral defection measured longitudinally.

Reliability

The reliability of the PLSWINT has been comprehensively established using multiple internal consistency and scale reliability metrics across validation samples:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($\alpha$): Across initial scale development studies and field replications, the scale’s internal consistency reliability consistently ranges between .89 and .94. These values comfortably exceed the standard psychometric threshold of .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for established measurement instruments, indicating high domain homogeneity without problematic redundancy.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling assessments confirm a Composite Reliability coefficient ranging between .90 and .95. Because CR does not assume equal factor loadings across items (avoiding the tau-equivalence assumption required by Cronbach’s alpha), it provides a robust affirmation of scale reliability.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The AVE consistently surpasses .75, signifying that over 75% of the variance captured by the indicators is accounted for by the underlying latent switching construct.
• Test-Retest Stability: In longitudinal test-retest assessments across a two-week interval in stable service settings, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) exceeded .82, verifying that the instrument captures stable behavioral intentions rather than fleeting emotional fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the PLSWINT was rigorously tested through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results

In structural evaluations using Maximum Likelihood estimation within structural equation modeling software (e.g., AMOS, LISREL, Mplus), the single-factor model specifying all three items loading onto a solitary “Place Patronage Switching Intention” latent variable demonstrated an exceptional fit to empirical data. Because a three-indicator factor model is just-identified ($df = 0$), the scale was evaluated within larger measurement models alongside related retail place constructs. The overall measurement model displayed outstanding fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $> .98$ (exceeding the standard $.95$ cutoff for excellent fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $> .97$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $< .05$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.032, .068]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $< .03$

Standardized Item Loadings

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across empirical retail samples demonstrated strong psychometric saturation:

• Item 1 (“In the near future, I plan to switch…”): $\lambda \approx .92 – .95$
• Item 2 (“I intend to visit a different…”): $\lambda \approx .90 – .94$
• Item 3 (Reverse) (“I have no intention of switching…”): $\lambda \approx .84 – .88$

All item loadings were statistically significant at $p < .001$. Residual variances were small, and error covariances between items were constrained to zero without degrading model fit, confirming unidimensionality.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Place Patronage Switching Intention Scale
• Acronym: PLSWINT
• Construct Measured: Consumer intention to discontinue visits to a focal physical service place and migrate patronage to a competitor
• Authors: E. Deanne Brocato, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees
• Publication Year: 2015
• Target Population: Adult consumers, patrons of physical retail establishments, service venues, hospitality spaces, bars, clubs, dining facilities, and leisure environments
• Scale Dimensionality: Unidimensional (single latent factor)
• Number of Items: 3 items
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire (paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted web interview [CAWI], or mobile survey)
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)
• Scoring and Transformation:
  • Item 1 and Item 2 are directly scored on a 1–7 scale.
  • Item 3 is reverse-scored prior to aggregation: $\text{Item } 3_{\text{reversed}} = 8 – \text{Item } 3_{\text{raw}}$.
  • The overall scale score is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the three items: $\text{PLSWINT Score} = \frac{\text{Item 1} + \text{Item 2} + (8 – \text{Item 3})}{3}$.
  • Higher aggregate scores represent higher behavioral intention to defect/switch away from the focal establishment; lower scores denote strong patronage commitment and retention.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Place Patronage Switching Intention Scale was published in 2015 in the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Volume 43, Issue 2, pages 200–220). The research article and underlying measurement scales are copyrighted by the Academy of Marketing Science and published by Springer Science+Business Media.

Under academic fair use principles, researchers and university scholars are generally permitted to use, administer, and adapt the scale items for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical training, and scientific investigation without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is cited. For commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, or fee-for-service consulting engagements, practitioners should consult Springer Nature’s permissions portal or contact the lead authors regarding formal licensing.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Bansal, H. S., & Taylor, S. F. (1999). The service provider switching model (SPSM): A model of consumer switching behavior in the services industry. Journal of Service Research, 2(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467059922007
• Bansal, H. S., Taylor, S. F., & St. James, Y. (2005). “Migrating” to new service providers: Toward a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304267928
• Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600205
• Brocato, E. D., Baker, J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2015). Creating consumer attachment to retail service firms through sense of place. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0394-4
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900206
• Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_1
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s105
• Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8
• Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
• Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
• 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

Items of the Scale