the paradox of credence services how ... - drexel university...search-experience-credence framework...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Paradox of Credence Services
How does Service type Affect Loyalty?
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Drexel University
by
Komal S. Karani
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
September 2010
1
© Copyright 2010.
Komal S. Karani. All Rights Reserved.
ii
DEDICATIONS
To Sanjay, Heena and Lavina,
for making the journey as much fun as the destination,
and
To my parents,
for teaching me that quitting was never an option.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
So many people helped to make this dissertation possible.
First, I express my gratitude to my dissertation committee for their
unwavering support. Dr. Rolph Anderson and Dr. Michael Howley were
there for me at every step of the way from the beginning to the end of this
dissertation. Dr. Anderson is a scholar and a gentleman and from him I
learnt not just the basics of Marketing Research, but also to never lose
focus on things that really matter. His input was most valuable when I
faced choices. Dr. Howley went above and beyond the call of duty as he
put in long hours getting me over the finish line. He encouraged me to
keep going and kept pointing me in new directions when I was stuck. A
natural teacher and mentor, he never lost his patience even when going
over a methodology repeatedly. This dissertation would not have been
completed was it not for him.
I am grateful to Dr. Trina Andras not just for her support as a
committee member but also for her help as the head of the Department.
Her compassion and enthusiasm helped me stick it out through the long,
grueling PhD years.
I want to thank Dr. Srinivasan and Dr. Narayanan for their
assistance in completing this challenging study.
iv
I also want to add a special thank you to Ms. Kimberley Williams,
the administrative assistant, who is a miracle worker in the Marketing
Department.
Finally I want to thank my family, especially my mother-in-law who
made sure I could work on my PhD by taking on my duties herself. Her
generosity of time and spirit has played a large part in my achievements.
Thank you all.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedications ...................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................... x
ABSTRACT .................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................... 1
Research Contributions: .............................................................. 5
Study Overview: ......................................................................... 6
Organization of the Dissertation: ................................................. 6
Chapter 2: Background literature .................................................... 8
Service Quality: ........................................................................... 8
Relationship between service quality and loyalty: ..................... 10
Service Satisfaction: .................................................................. 11
Service Loyalty: ......................................................................... 12
Service type: ............................................................................. 15
Research Gaps: ........................................................................ 19
Conclusion: ............................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework ............................................... 21
vi
Conceptual Model ..................................................................... 21
Service Quality: ......................................................................... 22
Service Loyalty: ......................................................................... 23
Satisfaction ................................................................................ 23
Service Type: ............................................................................ 24
Hypotheses: .............................................................................. 26
Chapter 4: Methodology ................................................................ 33
Pilot Study ................................................................................. 33
Procedure for measuring the constructs: ................................... 34
Data Collection: ......................................................................... 34
Final Study: ............................................................................... 35
Analytical Requirements of the Theoretical Model .................... 35
Exploratory Data Analysis: ........................................................ 36
Confirmatory Data Analysis: ...................................................... 36
Total Effect Moderation Model: ................................................. 38
Model Estimation: ...................................................................... 40
Procedure: ................................................................................. 42
Conclusion ................................................................................ 43
Chapter 5: Results ........................................................................ 44
vii
Sample Description ................................................................... 44
Quality Measures ...................................................................... 45
Satisfaction Measures: .............................................................. 45
Loyalty Measures: ..................................................................... 46
Measurement and Hypotheses Testing: .................................... 46
Outcomes: ................................................................................. 47
Results for Service Type Moderation: ....................................... 52
Summary and Conclusion ......................................................... 53
Chapter 6: Implications and conclusion ........................................ 54
Quality as a predictor of Behavior ............................................. 55
Quality as a predictor of Satisfaction ......................................... 56
Satisfaction as a predictor of Loyalty ......................................... 56
Satisfaction or Quality? ............................................................. 57
Limitations ................................................................................. 59
Bibliography .................................................................................. 60
Appendix A: Figures ..................................................................... 75
Appendix B: Tables ....................................................................... 99
Appendix C: Sample SPSS REGRESSION and CNLR Syntax .. 107
AppendIx D: Questionnaire used for online survey ..................... 109
viii
VITA ............................................................................................ 126
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Measures ........................................................................ 99
Table 2: Hypotheses Tests ......................................................... 100
Table 3: Survey Items - Quality ................................................... 101
Table 4: Survey Items - Satisfaction ........................................... 102
Table 5: Survey Items - Loyalty .................................................. 103
Table 6: Coefficient Estimates .................................................... 104
Table 7: Simple Effects ............................................................... 105
Table 8: A summary of Hypotheses and Findings ...................... 106
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Existing Research .......................................................... 75
Figure 2: Proposed Model ............................................................. 76
Figure 3: Services Continuum ....................................................... 77
Figure 4: Normal Q-Q Plot of Quality ............................................ 78
Figure 5: Normal Q-Q Plot of Satisfaction ..................................... 79
Figure 6: Normal Q-Q Plot of Loyalty ............................................ 80
Figure 7: Simple Effects ................................................................ 81
Figure 8: Proposed Model showing Moderated Mediation ............ 82
Figure 9: Respondents by Gender ................................................ 83
Figure 10: DFBETA Satisfaction by Case Number ....................... 84
Figure 11: DFBETA Quality By Case Number .............................. 85
Figure 12: ANOVA for service quality by service type................... 86
Figure 13: Service Type Moderates the Quality-Loyalty Link ........ 87
Figure 14: ANOVA for Satisfaction by Service Type ..................... 88
Figure 15: Service type moderates the Quality-Satisfaction relation
................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 16: Service Type moderates the Satisfaction – Loyalty Link
................................................................................................................ 90
Figure 17: Simple Effects for Search Services .............................. 91
Figure 18: Simple Effects for Experience Services ....................... 92
Figure 19: Simple Effects for Credence Services ......................... 93
xi
Figure 20: Direct Effect ................................................................. 94
Figure 21: First Stage ................................................................... 95
Figure 22: Second Stage .............................................................. 96
Figure 23: Indirect Effect ............................................................... 97
Figure 24: Total Effect................................................................... 98
xii
ABSTRACT
The Paradox of Credence Services: How does Service Type affect Loyalty Komal S. Karani
Loyalty is a goal of any company aiming to be successful in the
market. While it is expected that good quality would lead to satisfaction
which in turn would result in loyalty, this relationship has not been so
simple. Repeated research in this area has come up with contradictory
results. Satisfaction measurement has not been a consistent predictor of
loyalty, neither has quality. As a result, companies interested in increasing
their loyal customer base face the dilemma of deciding if they can expect
to see any benefits from improving quality.
The purpose of this study is to better explain the relationship
between quality, satisfaction and loyalty by including service type in the
model. Service type classifies different services on the basis of ease of
evaluation. The study looks at the impact of service type on the different
relationships in the model, namely, quality to satisfaction, satisfaction to
loyalty and quality to loyalty. Next, the mediating effect of satisfaction
between quality and loyalty is examined. Finally, the study proposes that
service type moderates the mediation effect of satisfaction between quality
and loyalty.
xiii
This study examined perceptions of quality, satisfaction and loyalty
in consumers of three different services. These services were selected to
represent each of the service types: search, experience and credence.
The results provided strong support for the conceptual framework.
Service type was found to moderate the relationships between quality and
loyalty, satisfaction and loyalty but not between quality and satisfaction.
The mediation effect of satisfaction was indeed moderated by service
type. In credence services, as compared to other services, the relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty as well as quality and loyalty was
strongest. This is surprising since it has been believed that improving
quality in credence services does not bring any benefits. However this
research shows that while consumers may have difficulty evaluating
credence services, once they have made a judgment about its quality,
they can be the most loyal customers.
1
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
One of the fundamental assumptions of services marketing
research is that perceptions of service quality and customer satisfaction
will lead to subsequent loyalty. Loyalty research is a primary concern of
firms since businesses understand the profit impact of a loyal customer
base. Loyalty has the potential to increase customer profitability
(Kamakura et al. 2002; Reicheld and Sasser 1990; Reicheld and Teal
1996), accelerate company growth (Pritchard, Havitz, and Howard 1999),
and reduce firm risk (Buchanan and Gillies 1990). Also, the relative cost of
retaining a customer is substantially less than that of acquiring a new one
(Fornell and Wernerfelt 1987). In fact, customer retention is a better
predictor of profits than market share, scale, cost position or any of the
variables usually associated with competitive advantage (Reicheld 1996).
Loyalty therefore, has become a variable of major importance for services
marketing (Caruanna 2002; Raimondo, Miceli, and Costabile 2008;
Granefeld et al. 2011).
Considerable marketing research has been devoted to studying
different predictors of customer loyalty such as service quality and
satisfaction. Improving service quality has been accepted unquestioningly
by companies looking at improving their bottom-line. Similarly, it appears
logical to expect that satisfied customers would be more inclined to display
favorable behaviors such as spreading positive word of mouth,
2
repatronizing the business etc. Therefore, maximizing these two principles
is thought to lead to customer behaviors that benefit the firm (Gotlieb,
Grewal & Brown 1994, Gale 1994).
However, many well known scholars have pointed out that the link
between quality, satisfaction and loyalty is not easy to establish. The
relationship has been so inconsistent that some have even called
satisfaction measurement a ‗trap‘ and called for curtailing satisfaction
measurement efforts (Reichheld 1996). As Coyne (1989) points out,
―Investments in service are two-edged swords-they can create large
benefits, or they can be a massive waste of time, effort, and shareholders‘
money.‖
Given these findings, it is crucial that the effect of improving service
quality on consumers‘ behavior be clearly and precisely understood.
However the relationship has been found to be complex and nonlinear
with different research studies reporting conflicting results.
The role played by satisfaction in the chain of events leading from
improvements in service quality to higher loyalty on part of consumers is
also widely debated. Oliver claims that satisfaction is a fulfillment
response. However the relationship between service quality and
satisfaction has been the source of some controversy. While the more
cognitively-oriented service quality appraisals precede satisfaction (Cronin
& Taylor 1992), there have been conflicting results regarding the role of
satisfaction as a mediator between service quality and loyalty. One stream
3
of research found that satisfaction mediates between service quality and
loyalty (Gotlieb, Grewal & Brown 1994, Dabholkar, Shepherd & Thorpe
2000). A contrary viewpoint was put forward by other researchers who
found no mediation effect of satisfaction (Bansal and Taylor 1997).
The second research stream that is particularly important in the
service economy is how the service type affects customer evaluations.
While satisfaction and quality have been studied in detail, no research has
empirically tested if different types of services will influence buying
behavior. This seems plausible, considering that the purchase of different
types of services involves differing levels of risk and uncertainty. Strandvik
(1994) also pointed out that different services may have different quality
functions.
Another gap in marketing literature has been regarding the
conceptualization of service type. While previous research has used the
search-experience-credence framework (Darby & Karni 1973, Nelson
1970), recent research acknowledges that all products and services have
varying proportions of search, experience and credence attributes.
Search, experience and credence attributes reflect the ease of evaluation
of attributes at different points in the consumer decision process.
Search goods/services are those dominated by attributes about
which full information can be acquired before purchase, experience
goods/services are those that customers can evaluate after some
consumption, and credence goods/services are dominated by attributes
4
that the customer finds difficult to evaluate even after consumption. While
all goods/services can be placed on a continuum ranging from easy to
difficult to evaluate, their location on the continuum which depends on the
level of information asymmetry, marks them as search, experience or
credence goods/services. The difficulty of obtaining pre-purchase
information and knowledge increases as one moves from search-based to
credence-based services. The variability and non-standardized nature of
credence services lead to uncertainty about the actual cost and product
performance (Murray and Schlachter, 1990) and make it difficult for the
consumer to evaluate alternatives before a purchase. Services with a
higher proportion of credence attributes would present a greater challenge
to consumers and marketers alike.
There are two important areas of research that have not been
looked at together. The first one is the link between service quality,
satisfaction and subsequent consumer loyalty. The second one is the
demonstration that credence services differ from other types of services
and goods in important ways. Previous marketing research has only
separately examined these two areas.
The purpose of this dissertation is to study these links together by
examining how the service type affects perceived service quality and
subsequent satisfaction and loyalty. This dissertation also examines if
consumers evaluate service quality improvements in different types of
services differently. For example, evaluating credence services is a
5
specially challenging task for consumers. It could be very significant to be
able to predict how different services are evaluated so service providers
know how and where to invest their resources when trying to maximize
behavioral consequences for improvements in service quality.
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS:
In doing so, this dissertation makes the following contributions to
the literature:
To conceptualize the construct of ‗service type‘.
To empirically demonstrate how variations in service type
would change customer evaluations and behavior.
To extend previous research by showing how service type
affects the relationships between:
o Quality and Satisfaction
o Quality and Loyalty
o Satisfaction and Loyalty (Please see Fig. 1)
To examine if service type is a predictor of the role of
satisfaction as a mediator
To examine how service providers of credence services
should invest in improving service quality so as to achieve
maximum positive behavioral consequences
6
STUDY OVERVIEW:
This study uses a sample of actual consumers of three different
types of services. These services, range from easy to evaluate to difficult
or almost impossible to evaluate. Based on pretests and previous
research, online ticket selling website is selected as an example of a
search service. The experience service selected is a sit-down restaurant
while the credence service selected is getting dental work done. These
services were selected since a wide range of consumers spanning
different age and income groups have had a positive or negative
experience with at least one of these three services.
The survey uses the retrospective recall technique to elicit
authentic responses of consumers to actual service experiences they may
have had in the past six months. Data is collected using an online survey.
ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION:
Chapter 1 has provided a brief overview of the conceptual
framework, research objectives and questions. Chapter 2 presents a
review of the relevant academic literature supporting the conceptual
framework. Chapter 3 provides an in-depth presentation of the theoretical
framework that guides the study leading to the development of a
conceptual model. After presenting and defining the relevant constructs,
theoretical support for the hypothesized relationships between constructs
is developed. Chapter 4 describes the pilot study and outlines the
research methodology used for data collection and data analysis. An
7
overview of the research design, a thorough description of the data
collection setting and procedures, and a delineation of the measures for
each of the constructs are included in this chapter. Chapter 5 presents the
results of the study. Chapter 6 provides a discussion of these results and
highlights the implications for managers and researchers. Finally,
directions for further research suggested by the findings conclude the
dissertation.
8
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND LITERATURE
This chapter reviews relevant literature that builds the theoretical
foundation for the proposed conceptual framework. In order, these are the
literatures on service quality, service satisfaction, the relation between
service quality and satisfaction, service loyalty, service type and research
gaps. The chapter concludes with a brief summary and conclusions.
SERVICE QUALITY:
We define service quality as a perception of superiority of service.
This corresponds almost exactly with that developed by Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry (1988) : ―a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the
superiority of the service.‖ They linked service quality to perception and
expectation as follows, ―Perceived quality is viewed as the degree and
direction of discrepancy between consumers‘ perceptions and
expectations.‖ Perceptions are defined as consumers‘ beliefs concerning
the service received or experienced. Expectations are the ―desires or
wants of consumers, i.e., what they feel a service provider should offer
rather than would offer (Parasuraman et al 1988).‖ This current
conceptualization of quality is as a function of the discrepancy or ‗gap‘
between what customers expect of a service and what they receive. The
gap model is one of the most widely accepted models in the industry as
well as the academia.
9
Improving service quality is generally viewed as an indispensable
element of every organization‘s success strategy. The consequences of
service quality have been studied in recent times (Cronin and Taylor,
1992; Boulding, Kalra & Zeithaml, 1993; Zeithaml, Berry &
Parasuraman,1996; Cronin, Brady & Hult 2000). Zeithaml, Berry &
Parasuraman, (1996) propose that favorable behavioral intentions are
indicated by a service provider‘s ability to get its customers to 1) say
positive things about them, 2) recommend them to other consumers, 3)
remain loyal to them 4) spend more with them, and 5) pay price
premiums.
Marketing literature differentiates between objective quality and
perceived quality (Dodds & Monroe, 1984; Garvin, 1983; Holbrook &
Corfman, 1985). Similar viewpoints were expressed by Maynes (1976)
who claimed that all quality evaluations are subjective, and that objective
quality does not exist. Zeithaml (1988) defined ―actual‖ (or ―objective‖)
quality to be (technical) superiority or excellence, and ―perceived‖ quality
as a consumer‘s perception of the objective quality. This definition of
actual quality seems to be close to the manufacturing conceptualization of
quality with emphasis on measurable standards such as ‗zero defect‘ or ‗6
σ‘. However, in marketing, particularly services marketing, so few
objective‘ features exist that perceptions play the major role in the
evaluation of services. Therefore consumer perceptions of quality are
10
clearly more important than the relatively objective superiority of
performance (Iacobucci, Grayson and Ostrom, 1994).
Olshavsky (1985) views quality as an overall evaluation, similar to
an attitude. Olson (1978) showed that customers may use informational
cues to develop beliefs about products and that task response such as
evaluation may be a direct function of these mediating beliefs.
Zeithaml et al (1990) proposed that service quality can be
conceptualized as the comparison of service expectations with actual
performance perceptions. They came up with the SERVQUAL instrument
which measures service quality as a function of the difference scores or
gaps between expectations and perceptions (P-E).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY AND LOYALTY:
Relationship between service quality and loyalty has been
inconsistent. In a study by Cronin and Taylor (1992) service quality did not
appear to have a significant (positive) effect on intentions to purchase
again, while Boulding et al. (1993) found positive relationships between
service quality and repurchase intentions and willingness to recommend.
Similarly, while the majority of studies show that service quality
influences loyalty only through satisfaction (Anderson and Sullivan 1993,
Gotlieb, Grewal and Brown 1994, Patterson and Spreng 1997, Roest and
Pieters 1997), some also suggest a direct effect (Boulding et al 1993,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1988, 1991, Taylor and Baker 1994,
Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman, 1996). To explain these inconsistent
11
relationships between service quality and loyalty, researchers have
proposed that the relationship is mediated by satisfaction.
SERVICE SATISFACTION:
Satisfaction has been extensively researched in the industry as well
as academia since the 1970s and continues to be relevant. Rust and
Oliver (1994) consider satisfaction to be a summarized cognitive and
affective reaction to a service incident. There has been considerable
debate as to whether customer satisfaction is an attitude or a relatively
transient consumption-specific construct, or whether it is an outcome or an
evaluation (Yi, 1990). This study agrees with the view that satisfaction is
an attitude. Krech, Cruthchfield & Ballachey (1962) defined attitudes as
―enduring systems of positive or negative evaluations, emotional feelings,
and pro or con action tendencies with respect to social objects‖, whereas
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined them as a ―learned predisposition to
respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to
a given object‖. Attitudes are thus assumed to be precursors to action.
One important area of interest in satisfaction research is the
relationship between pre purchase expectations and post purchase
satisfaction. Post purchase satisfaction‘s link to consumers‘ subsequent
behavior such as positive or negative word-of-mouth, repurchase,
complaining behavior makes it vital to organizations interested in retaining
their customers and improving loyalty.
12
Customer Satisfaction is described as a fulfillment response, a
judgment that a service provided a pleasurable level of consumption-
related fulfillment (Oliver 1993). Rust and Oliver (1994) called it a
summarized cognitive and affective reaction to a service incident.
Collective results from studies examining satisfaction in the
services context have been inconclusive (Voss et al, 1998). Although a
few studies found a positive expectations-perceived performance
association, an equal number found no significant association. One
possible reason for the mixed results is that none of the studies explicitly
looked at the moderating role of service type in post purchase satisfaction.
Churchill and Suprenant (1982) had previously suggested that the effect of
performance expectations on satisfaction might be moderated by the type
of product category under consideration. It appears logical to believe that
service types would have a similar effect.
SERVICE LOYALTY:
Loyalty has come a long way since initial research conducted in the
1960s and 1970s when it was measured by interpreting patterns of repeat
purchasing. Cunningham (1956) defined brand loyalty simply as ―the
proportion of purchases of a household devoted to the brand it purchased
most often.‖ The focus on behavior alone was emphasized by Tucker
(1964) in the following words, ―No consideration should be given to what
the subject thinks nor what goes on in his central nervous system, his
behavior is the full statement of what brand loyalty is.‖ Since then it has
13
been accepted that the behavioral perspective offers an inadequate
measure of loyalty. While the disposition to rebuy is an essential element
of loyalty (Gremler and Brown, 1996), it includes ‗happenstance‘ buying
(Jacoby 1969, 1971). Jones and Sasser (1995) define customer loyalty as
a feeling of attachment to or affection for a company‘s people, products, or
services. Dick and Basu (1994) supplement the behavioral approach with
the concept of relative attitude which reflects the degree to which the
customer‘s evaluation of one service dominates that of another. They
added that true loyalty only exists when repeat patronage is accompanied
by a high relative attitude. Thus the attitudinal component was added to
loyalty. Some examples of this would be willingness to recommend a
service provider to friends and family (Gremler and Brown, 1996). A third
component of loyalty is believed to be cognitive (Oliver 1996). Some
studies suggest loyalty to a brand or store means it comes up first in a
consumer‘s mind when the need for making a decision as to what to buy
or where to go arises (e.g., Bellenger et al. 1976; Newman and Werbel
1973), while others operationalize loyalty as a customer‘s ―first choice‖
among alternatives (e.g., Ostrowski, O‘Brien, and Gordon 1993). Similarly,
Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987, p. 19) argue that being committed to a
relational exchange virtually precludes considering other exchange
partners. Such customers ―have not ceased attending to alternatives, but
maintain their awareness of alternatives without ‗constant and frenetic
testing.‖ This suggests alternative organizations are not seriously
14
considered by truly loyal customers when subsequent purchases are
made, a viewpoint supported by other scholars (e.g., Dick and Basu 1994;
Reynolds, Darden, and Martin 1975). That is, a customer who is
considered extremely loyal does not actively seek out or consider other
firms from which to purchase.
Gremler and Brown (1996) pointed out that the concept of customer
loyalty also extends to service organizations who typically offer more
intangible products. However, scholars have called this ‗service loyalty‘ to
distinguish it from ‗brand loyalty‘ which deals with more with the loyalty
that customers display towards tangible products. Different researchers
have pointed out the distinctiveness of service quality summarized as
follows:
1. Service providers have the ability to create stronger loyalty
bonds with their clients than do suppliers of more tangible
goods (Czepiel and Gilmore 1987; Zeithaml 1981)
2. Loyalty is greater or more prevalent among service
consumers than among goods consumers (Snyder 1986;
Zeithaml 1981)
3. Services provide more opportunities for person-to-person
interactions (Czepiel and Gilmore 1987) which, in turn, often
provide opportunities for loyalty to develop (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry 1985; Surprenant and Solomon 1987)
15
4. Perceived risk is often greater when purchasing services
than goods (Murray 1991), providing an atmosphere more
likely to lead to customer loyalty since loyalty is often used
as a risk reducing device (Zeithaml 1981)
5. With some services, switching between providers may
involve certain barriers not present with brand switching for
goods (Zeithaml 1981).
Combining the behavioral, attitudinal and cognitive aspects,we
define service loyalty to a provider as preferring that provider to any other
comparable provider, repeatedly purchasing from that service provider
and to possess a positive attitude towards that provider. This parallels
Gremler and Brown (1996) definition of service loyalty as:
“The degree to which a customer exhibits repeat purchasing
behavior from a service provider, possesses a positive attitudinal
disposition toward the provider and considers using only this provider
when a need for this service exists”.
So, loyalty started out as an exclusively behavioral measure and
has now been expanded to have attitudinal as well as cognitive
components.
SERVICE TYPE:
While there are many different criteria to classify goods, Nelson
(1970) distinguished between products on a search versus experience
basis. His basis for this classification was the different levels of information
16
required to evaluate the utility of each option. This classification was
initially developed to help explain the notion that consumer information
about quality often has "profound effects upon the market structure of
consumer goods" (Nelson 1970, p. 311). Economists examined the role of
information and its links to advertising and search (Nelson, 1970, 1974;
Stigler 1961) addressing the fact that advertising is frequently affected by
consumer ignorance about quality differences among brands (Smith and
Bush 2000). Search attributes referred to attributes that can be evaluated
before purchase whereas potential purchases high in experience
attributes need to be consumed to make an evaluation. Darby & Karni
(1973) extended this framework by including credence-based goods. They
proposed that purchases high in credence attributes are those which
cannot be judged confidently by the consumer even after purchase and
consumption.
The Search, Experience and Credence (SEC) framework was
developed primarily for products. Services have higher proportion of
experience and credence attributes and therefore, consumers employ
different evaluation processes than those they use with products where
search attributes dominate. The SEC framework has since been adapted
for services marketing (Guiltinan, 1987; Ostrom and Iacobucci, 1995;
Zeithaml, 1981). Zeithaml (1981) argued that services are more difficult to
evaluate than goods. Goods, she proposed, have more search qualities
while services exhibit more experience and credence qualities due to their
17
unique characteristics -- intangibility, non-standardization and
inseparability.
Mitttal (1999) classifies the non- search ability of services, i.e. the
experience and credence attributes, as one of the five properties of
intangibility. Those services bearing more credence qualities are harder to
judge while services high in experience are in the middle of the continuum
in terms of evaluation difficulty. The purchase of a credence service is
riskier because consumers are not confident of their abilities to judge the
goodness of the service (Murray and Schlachter 1990). Studies also
indicate that intangibility increases the difficulty of evaluation. Perceived
risk, uncertainty and consequences of the decision, affects the extent of
search and information sought (Bauer 1960). Research has shown that
intangibility is positively correlated with perceived risk (De Ruyter,
Wetzels, and Kleijnen 2001; McDougall and Snetsinger 1990; Zeithaml &
Bitner 2000). Along the same line, Mitra, Reiss & Capella (1999) found
that the degree of perceived risk, measured in terms of five risk types
increased along a continuum from search to experience to credence
search purchases. They measured risk by using the five dimensions of
risk framework identified by Jacoby & Kaplan (1972) as listed below:
Financial
Performance
Physical
Social
18
Psychological risk.
Mitra et al found that consumers not only encounter a higher
degree of financial risk in purchase of credence services, but also face a
higher degree of social and psychological risk when making such a
purchase. Consumers reduce perceived risk by either searching for more
information before a new purchase or reducing the cognitive burden and
continuing with the existing service provider.
Lynch and Schuler (1990) proposed that differing amounts of
credence, search and experience properties in services explain whether
cognitive or affective considerations are most salient. For services high in
credence properties, consumers typically do not have enough skill,
expertise or education to adequately evaluate the service. Instead they
may rely on other cues to evaluate it.
There have been two schools of thoughts regarding consumers‘
evaluations in the absence of tangible cues. The first one believes that
consumers examine heuristics in the absence of tangible cues. Some of
these heuristics are credentials, word-of-mouth reputation, halo effects
and generalizations. For instance, consumers utilize a service provider‘s
credentials and affiliations where possible. In case of services, this can
take the form of affiliation to a prestigious firm or membership of a relevant
group. At other times, consumers may rely on word-of-mouth reputation by
asking friends or credible sources to judge both experience and credence
attributes. Halo effects occur when consumers use the appearance of
19
professionals and paraphernalia as heuristics for judgments of
professionals‘ competence. Generalizations can be based on brand or
other cues.
The second school of thought takes a more holistic assessment of
how consumer perceptions lead to behavioral outcomes. In more
ambiguous services, consumers substitute perceptions with expectations
(Olshavsky and Kumar 2001). Since consumers cannot accurately
evaluate credence services, their prior expectations drive their evaluation
of a performance.
RESEARCH GAPS:
Services literature has long focused on the model linking service,
quality and loyalty. However competing research has looked at only the
direct effects of quality and satisfaction, or only considering one variable at
a time. Close evaluation of research shows little uniformity concerning
which of the variables or combination thereof directly affect consequence
measures (Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000).
Service quality‘s relationship with loyalty has been studied but with
inconsistent results. The exact nature of the relationship is still unknown.
Satisfaction measurement scores have also come under fire for their
questionable predictive ability (Gale 1997, Reichheld 1996). It has been
found that many customers who rated their satisfaction as ‗very satisfied‘
and their perceived quality as ‗excellent‘ still switched to a competitor. The
satisfaction-behavior link and/or quality-behavior link while being important
20
have been found to explain only about 30-50% of the variance (Rust,
Inman, Jia & Zahorik 1999). Another meta-analysis of customer
satisfaction research finds that satisfaction explains less than 25% of the
variance in repeat purchase (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Tse and
Wilton (1988) found that perceived performance exerts a direct influence
on satisfaction, in addition to influences from disconfirmation or
expectations. On the other hand, Anderson & Sullivan (1993) found that
expectations did not directly affect satisfaction. These inconsistent results
suggest that more research is required in this area to resolve these
questions.
CONCLUSION:
This chapter provided an overview of the key research streams that
are essential for developing the conceptual framework. First the chapter
reviewed the service quality literature. Besides looking at the work done
so far, this section also highlighted the inconsistencies in the research.
Next, satisfaction research was presented. Second, a synopsis of the
service type literature was presented. Finally, research gaps were pointed
out to emphasize the need for this research. The next chapter builds the
conceptual framework for this research.
21
CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Chapter 2 reviewed the relevant literature on service quality,
satisfaction, service loyalty and service type. The conceptual framework
developed in this chapter examines the role of service type on the
relationship between service quality, satisfaction and service loyalty.
Specifically, the framework focuses on the moderating role of service type
on the relationship between service quality, satisfaction and service
loyalty. Also of interest is the mediating role played by satisfaction
between service quality and service loyalty. Chapter 3 also provides an
overview of the conceptual framework guiding this study. Next a detailed
discussion of each element of the conceptual framework leads to the
statement of research hypotheses for empirical testing.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework for this study. This
model includes service type as a construct and its moderating effect.
Further, service type moderates the mediating effect of satisfaction
between service quality and service loyalty.
22
SERVICE QUALITY:
Service quality in Marketing literature usually refers to perceived
service quality (Bolton Drew 1991b, Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry
1985). Therefore, it is the Customer‘s assessment of the overall
excellence or superiority of the service (Zeithaml 1988). Additionally,
service quality has been linked to the concepts of perceptions and
expectations. ―Perceived quality is defined as the degree and direction of
discrepancy between consumers‘ expectations and perceptions‖
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988). Thus one of the most
commonly used scales of Service Quality, SERVQUAL measures an
individual‘s perceived quality of stimulus as Perceptions-Expectations.
Different scholars found problems associated with difference scores
including findings showing that the performance items on their own explain
more variance in service quality than difference scores (Babakus and
Boller, 1992; Cronin and Taylor 1992, 1994). Alternative service quality
models suggest measuring perceived quality directly. Cronin and Taylor
(1992, 1994) show empirically that the perception items in SERVQUAL
exhibit a stronger correlation with service Quality than the difference
scores computations. They found that the 22 individual performance scale
items that make up the SERVQUAL scale are well supported even while
questioning the veracity of the five distinct components. This research
agrees and uses the average of perception scores as a measure of
quality.
23
SERVICE LOYALTY:
Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman (1996) created a model of the
Behavioral consequences of service quality where they broadly split the
consequences into favorable and unfavorable behavioral intentions. By
integrating research findings and anecdotal evidence, they created a list of
specific favorable and unfavorable behavioral indicators. Out of the 13
items on their behavioral intentions scale, five items comprise the ‗loyalty
to company‘ factor. Taking a behavioral intentions perspective of loyalty
rather than a behavioral or repeat purchase perspective avoids confusing
spurious loyals—those who have a low relative attitude toward the
organization but are constrained to repeat purchase (Dick and Basu
1994)—with genuinely loyal customers (Bell, Auh and Smalley 2005).
The five items used to measure loyalty are:
Saying positive things about the company to others
Recommending the service or company to others
Encouraging friends and family to do business with the
company
Considering the company the first choice to buy services
Doing more business with the company in the next few
years.
These measures include items from all three dimensions of service
loyalty, namely behavioral, attitudinal and cognitive.
SATISFACTION
24
Satisfaction is a fulfillment response, a judgment that a product or
service provided a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment,
including levels of under or over-fulfillment (Oliver 1997).
Satisfaction as attitude has been considered to determine future
behavior. Attitudes are thus assumed to be precursors to action in the
attitude/behavior model where behavior is the dependent function
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Recent research indicates that there are
many mediators in this relationship; such as involvement (Zaichowsky,
1985; Celsi and Olson, 1988; Oliver et al, 1995), experience (Fazio &
Zanna, 1981; Shepherd, 1985), personality traits (Briggs, 1992). One
factor which has not been looked at so far is the mediating/moderating
effect of service type offering on this link.
SERVICE TYPE:
Nelson (1970) created the search-experience framework to which
Darby and Karni added credence attributes. Nelson coined the term
‗search qualities‘ to describe the qualities of a brand that ―the consumer
can determine by inspection prior to purchase‖ and ‗experience qualities‘
to refer to those that ―are not determined prior to purchase‖ (Nelson 1974).
Darby and Karni (1974) added the concept that some attributes cannot be
verified by the average consumer even after purchase and consumption.
They called these attributes the ‗credence qualities.‘
While the framework has been accepted in marketing, economics,
information sciences and other literatures, the operationalization has not
25
been easy. The most basic problem pinpointed by Ford, Smith and Sway
(1988) was that for the true experts about a product class, almost every
claim is a search claim while for the true novice, the same claims become
experience or credence claims. This is specially a problem for complex
goods such as electronics, automobiles etc. and services which are
heavily dependent on competence (the possession of required skills and
knowledge to perform the service) and security (freedom from danger, risk
or doubt).
Most researchers have attempted to get around this problem by
one or both of the following two methods. Some have used goods/services
identified by previous research as search, experience or credence. One of
the most exhaustive classification of this type has been Iacobucci (1992)‘s
ratings of search-experience-credence goods/services. Another proposed
method is Krishnan and Hartline (2001)‘s procedure to categorize these
goods/services. Participants are asked to indicate their ability, before
purchase and after purchase, to judge the performance of each
good/service. This research used Iacobucci‘s list and selected 4 different
services and pretested them through a pilot test. Based on the results, one
service was changed while another was dropped. Krishnan and Hartline‘s
procedure is also included in the final instrument as a manipulation check.
Another issue pointed out by recent research is that all
products/services involve a bundle of search, experience and credence
attributes (Alba et al. 1997; Lynch and Ariely 2000). For the purpose of
26
this research, we define search services as those for which the attributes
most important to service quality are generally discoverable without the
consumer interacting with the product. Experience services are those for
which the attributes associated with service quality are most discoverable
through experience with the service (Huang, Lurie & Mitra, 2009).
Likewise, credence services are those for which the attributes most
important to service quality are difficult to discover even after experience
with the service.
HYPOTHESES:
The relationship between service quality, satisfaction and service
loyalty are of particular interest since there is an implicit assumption that
improvement in perceptions of service quality and subsequent satisfaction
should result in favorable higher loyalty. However this relationship has
been complicated to demonstrate. Some studies indicate that service
quality influences behavior only through satisfaction (e.g. Anderson and
Sullivan, 1993; Gotlieb, Grewal and Brown, 1994) others argue for a direct
effect (Boulding et al 1993, Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman 1996). While
the exact nature may be unresolved, it is clear that service quality is an
important determinant of service loyalty (Cronin, Brady & Hult 2000). It has
also been proposed that perceptions of service quality affect feelings of
satisfaction which in turn influence future behavior (McDougall and
Levesque 2000). Therefore more research is needed to resolve these
discrepancies.
27
Anderson and Sullivan (1993) looked at two opposing theories
regarding the role of expectations on perceived product quality and how
ambiguity or ease of evaluation of quality moderates the effect. Previous
research has repeatedly proven the assimilation-contrast effect which
shows how perceived product quality is positively affected by expectations
(Anderson 1973, Oliver 1977). More specifically, if the difference between
expectations and perceived quality is small enough to fall within the
consumer‘s ‗latitude of acceptance‘ then perceived quality will tend to
move closer to expectations (Sherif and Hovland 1961). In related
research, Hoch and Ha (1986) found that if product quality is difficult to
judge, then assimilation is more likely to occur. Therefore as ambiguity
increases, perceived quality will equal expectations.
Decision making research has looked at loyalty and consumer
behavior from the information search perspective. Some researchers have
argued that information search involves both cognitive and physical effort
(Johnson 2003). A typical consumer choice task involves a set of
alternatives each described by some attributes or consequences. A
consumer may be fairly certain about some attributes but more uncertain
about others. The difficulty of choice problem faced by the consumer will
increase with increased uncertainty about the values of the attributes
(Bettman, Luce & Payne, 1998). Since credence services are associated
with higher levels of uncertainty and ambiguity, making consumer choices
28
such as switching will be perceived as more difficult in case of credence
services.
An alternative explanation for this can be in different levels of risk
associated with the different service types. Mitra, Reiss & Capella (1999)
found that the degree of perceived risk, measured in terms of five risk
types increased along a continuum from search service purchases to
experience service purchases to credence search purchases. Consumers
reduce perceived risk by either searching for more information before a
new purchase or reducing the cognitive burden and continuing with the
existing service provider. This also indicates that the relationship between
perceived quality and service loyalty will be affected by service type.
Therefore it is hypothesized that
H1: Service type moderates the relationship between service
quality and service loyalty
Satisfaction is a fulfillment response, a judgment that a product or
service provided a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.
Credence Services have the most ambiguous and difficult to evaluate
performance resulting in expected and actual performance being highly
related. The disparity between expected and perceived performance is
therefore hypothesized to be the smallest for credence services. Search
services, on the other end of spectrum are easiest to evaluate and will
show the highest disparity between expected and actual performance.
29
Disconfirmation is the difference between perceptions and
expectations. When perceived quality and expectations are equal or close
to equal, there is no disconfirmation. Since disconfirmation is a necessary
antecedent to satisfaction, different service types are expected to show
different levels of quality-satisfaction relationship.
An alternative hypothesis comes from research on the economics
of information (Stigler 1961, Nelson 1970). Nelson‘s classification of
search and experience goods suggests that since experience goods need
to be experienced for their quality to be evaluated, the probability of
disconfirmation of expectations arising is much higher as compared to
search goods/services. Credence Services have not been looked at in
that study.
This contradiction indicates that more research is required to find
out how service type influences perceptions of performance. Service
quality perceptions are an important determinant of customer satisfaction
(Cronin, Brady & Hult 2000), which leads to the next hypothesis:
H2: Service type moderates the relationship between service
quality and satisfaction.
Nelson‘s (1970, 1974) classification of search and experience
goods is based on consumers‘ ability to discover quality before purchase.
Although Nelson assumes that experience leads to certainty about quality
for experience goods, others argue that experience often provides
30
ambiguous information and thus consumers may remain uncertain about
quality even after gaining experience (Ha 1989).
Swan & Trawick (1979) speculated that ambiguity or clarity of
performance feedback may be a necessary condition that determines if
expectation is related to satisfaction. More specifically, if performance
feedback is ambiguous to the consumer, then it is likely that the consumer
will ‗misinterpret‘ the resulting performance in the direction of his
expectations. Therefore if expectation is high, performance will be judged
favorably. On the other hand if performance feedback is reasonably clear,
the judgment of performance would not be influenced by expectation and
based only on performance. When product (or service) performance is
ambiguous, expectations can influence perceived performance. Credence
services are the most difficult to evaluate, so prior expectations, especially
affective expectations influence evaluations (Olshavsky & Kumar 2001).
Credence services are the most ambiguous in terms of performance,
therefore consumers‘ expectations and perceived performance will be
closely related.
Consumers will try to reduce perceived risk by either searching for
more information before a new purchase or reducing the cognitive burden
by continuing with the existing provider.
Therefore,
H3: Service type moderates the relationship between
satisfaction and service loyalty.
31
While there is now a convergence of opinion that favorable service
quality perceptions lead to improved satisfaction, there are still conflicting
results on relationship of satisfaction to quality & loyalty. Two viewpoints
which exist are:
Satisfaction mediates between service quality and loyalty
(Gotlieb, Grewal & Brown 1994; Dabholkar, Shepherd &
Thorpe 2000)
No Mediation effect found (Bansal & Taylor 1997)
This study proposes that service type will moderate the mediating
effect of satisfaction.
Hoch and Ha (1986) proposed that if product quality is difficult to
judge, then assimilation is likely to occur. In case of credence services,
prior expectations influence the perceptions of quality received. Since
perceived quality is equal to expected quality, there is no disconfirmation
of expectation which is a necessary antecedent of satisfaction. Experience
goods need to be tried out or consumed for their quality to be evaluated;
therefore the probability of disconfirmation of expectations arising is much
higher as compared to search goods/services (Stigler 1961, Nelson 1970)
Therefore it is hypothesized that in case of search and experience
services, satisfaction plays a more important role in determining
subsequent behavior than in credence services
Hence:
32
H4: Service type moderates the Mediation effect of Satisfaction
between Service Quality and Loyalty.
33
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the pilot study, procedures for measuring
constructs, data collection, final study and analytical requirements of the
theoretical model.
PILOT STUDY
A pilot study was conducted to confirm the ability of customers to
recall satisfactory or dissatisfactory events from the past, gauge response
rates, ask questions to improve the conceptualization of the model and
test the ability of the survey instruments to measure the constructs.
Another important purpose was to carry out manipulation checks of the
service type contexts.
Three versions were created: Online book selling and buying
website (Search service), Haircutting Saloon (Experience service) and Car
servicing/ Dentist (Credence Service). The questionnaire measured
adequate and desired expectations, perceptions of service quality as well
as overall feelings towards the relevant service in terms of satisfaction and
overall disposition. Their loyalty scores were also measured.
Subjects were 60 Marketing students at a major Northeastern
University. To ensure relevancy and also minimize respondent fatigue,
students were asked to pick their choice of service questionnaire. To
create an anchor, students were asked to name the place where they
34
received the service. This was incorporated into part of the class work
resulting in high motivation and a 100% return rate. 60 Usable surveys
were obtained from the study.
Based on the results of the pilot study, minor changes were made
to the wording of the questionnaire. The search service was changed to
an online ticket selling service while the experience service was changed
to restaurant. Through follow-up interviews with the respondents, the
dentist was discovered to be a closer fit for the credence service.
PROCEDURE FOR MEASURING THE CONSTRUCTS:
Measures for the constructs were drawn from marketing literature
and are all established and well accepted. The SERVQUAL questionnaire
was used in the survey. Table 1 describes the sources for the scales. All
of these scales are measured with a 7-point Likert scale anchored at the
endpoints with strongly agree/strongly disagree with ‗neither agree nor
disagree‘ anchoring the middle position. The items were mean-centered
prior to creating the interaction terms. (Please see Table 1.)
DATA COLLECTION:
Data was collected using an online questionnaire. Each respondent
was given the option of selecting any one service out of the three. This
ensured high relevancy since respondents were only allowed to answer
questions regarding a service which they had actually used in the past six
months. The questionnaire was distributed via email and had a high
35
response rate (about 76%). Out of 514 respondents who were
approached, 399 turned in complete, usable surveys.
FINAL STUDY:
The final study was conducted online and took approximately 15
minutes to complete. An email was sent to students of three
undergraduate classes of Marketing introducing the research study and
offering extra credit for completing it. Each student was offered a choice of
answering questions in any one out of three possible blocks. Each block
represented a different service. Respondents were asked to answer
questions expressing their opinion about their recent experience with
either an online ticket buying website or restaurant or dentist. At the end of
the survey, respondents were asked to take a print out of the page which
stated that they had successfully completed the survey and take it to their
instructor for extra credit.
ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL
The dependent and independent variables are metric and
continuous. The relationships being examined involve one dependent
variable in a single relationship. Therefore multiple regression is the best
technique to analyze these relationships (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson &
Tatham 2009).
36
EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS:
Data was checked for missing values. Less than 2% cases had
missing values. They were dropped listwise at the time of regression. All
variables were checked for normality and were found to be acceptable.
(See Figure 6).
Checking the data for homoskedasticity, independence and
normality of residuals all supported the suitability of OLS Regression.
CONFIRMATORY DATA ANALYSIS:
The theoretical model introduced in Chapter 3 contains a mix of
moderation and mediation. OLS Regression is used to study the
moderating effects of service type on the relationships between quality,
satisfaction and loyalty. When studying tests of differences in mediation
across levels of the moderator variable, a concern was loss of power if I
split the data into 3 on the basis of service type to study the different
interactions. In addition to that, the equations contain products of
regression coefficients. Distribution of products is non normal even when
the variables constituting the product are normally distributed. In order to
estimate this series of equations, I needed an approach that allows for
bootstrapping to compensate for the non normalities arising due to product
forms of coefficients. Since raw data is available, bootstrapping is
considered the much better alternative to Sobel Test because it imposes
no distributional assumptions (Preacher and Hayes 2008)
37
The analytical approach that is able to meet these requirements is
the total effects model, commonly referred to as the moderated mediation
model. This model created by Edward and Lambert (2007) presents a
general analytical framework for combining moderation and mediation. It
integrates moderated regression analysis and path analysis. This
framework clarifies how moderator variables influence the paths that
constitute the direct, indirect, and total effects of mediated models. More
specifically, this model combines moderation of the first and second
stages of the indirect effect with moderation of the direct effect.
Mediation is said to occur when the causal effect of an independent
variable (X) on a dependent variable(Y) is transmitted by a mediator (M)
(Baron & Kenny 1986). Sometimes this mediation effect does not remain
constant across different contexts or groups. In other words, the strength
of the mediation effect may depend linearly upon the value of the
moderator (Preacher, Rucker and Hayes 2007). This is called moderated
mediation. Moderated mediation (James and Brett 1984) refers to
mediation models involving relations that require the addition of a
moderator for either the =f(X) or y=f (m) relations, or both‖ (p. 314).
Moderated mediation models attempt to explain both how and when a
given effect occurs (Frone, 1999). Formally, moderated mediation occurs
when the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of some
variable, or in other words, when mediation relations are contingent on the
level of a moderator. Specifically, this research looks at whether the
38
mediation effects of satisfaction between quality and loyalty varies
depending on the service type.
The proposed theoretical model is represented by the path diagram
in Figure 7.
TOTAL EFFECT MODERATION MODEL:
Moderation is first studied by a regression analysis in which the
dependent variable, loyalty, represented by ―Y‖ is regressed on the
independent variable, Quantity (X), the moderator variable: Service Type
(Z), and their product XZ as follows:
At the second step, this study examines whether Z moderates the
effects of X on M as shown in the regression equation below.
The coefficient of XZ (axz2) indicates the extent to which the
relationship between Quality (X) and Satisfaction (M) varies across
Service Type levels (Z).
Next to capture the moderating effects of Z on the relationship of X
and M with Y, the regression equation is given by:
This represents what is also called the Total Effect Moderation
Model (Edwards & Lambert 2007) since it combines the direct and indirect
39
effects. Substituting equation 2 into equation 3, we get the reduced form of
equation:
The reduced form of equation contains the terms Z2 and XZ2
indicating that the moderating effect of Z on the relationship between X
and Y depends on the value of Z.
Another way this can be represented is:
40
Equation 4 shows that Z affects the two paths that constitute the
indirect effect of X on Y as indicated by the term (ax2 + aXZ2Z)(bM3 + bMZ3Z)
as well as the path representing the direct affect of X on Y, which
corresponds to the term (bX3 + bXZ3Z). This equation also shows that Z
affects the intercept through bZ3Z, az2Z and bMZ3Z. Hence substituting
values of Z into equation 4 yields simple paths and effects that can be
analyzed & plotted to determine the form of moderating effect of Service
Type on direct, indirect and total effects of Quality on Loyalty.
MODEL ESTIMATION:
Estimation of this model uses reduced form equations which
contain products of regression coefficients. These equations are tested
with procedures that take into account sampling distributions of products
of random variables. One procedure is based on methods for deriving the
variance of the product of two random variables (Bohrnstedt &
Goldberger, 1969; Goodman, 1960), of which the Sobel (1982) approach
is perhaps the best known (MacKinnon et al., 2002). With this procedure,
the product of two regression coefficients is divided by the square root of
its estimated variance, and the resulting ratio is interpreted as a t statistic.
Although this procedure is useful, it relies on the assumption that the
sampling distribution of the product of two random variables is normal,
given that the procedure uses only the variance to represent the
distribution of the product. This assumption is tenuous because the
41
distribution of a product is nonnormal, even when the variables
constituting the product are normally distributed (Anderson, 1984).
The foregoing assumption can be relaxed with the bootstrap (Efron
& Tibshirani, 1993; Mooney & Duval, 1993; Stine, 1989). The bootstrap
generates a sampling distribution of the product of two regression
coefficients by repeatedly estimating the coefficients with bootstrap
samples, each of which contains N cases randomly sampled with
replacement from the original sample, in which N is the size of the original
sample. Coefficient estimates from each bootstrap sample are used to
compute the product, and these products are rank ordered to locate
percentile values that bound the desired confidence interval (e.g., the 2.5
and 97.5 percentiles for a 95% confidence interval). Confidence intervals
constructed in this manner should be adjusted for any difference between
the product from the full sample and the median of the products estimated
from the bootstrap samples, yielding a bias-corrected confidence interval
(Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Mooney & Duval, 1993; Stine, 1989).
1,000 bootstrap samples were used to accurately locate the upper
and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (Efron & Tibshirani,
1993; Mooney & Duval, 1993). Since the moderator, service type is a
categorical variable; it was dummy coded using two dummy variables d1
and d2. When service type is search, d1=1 and d2=0. For experience
service, d1=0 and d2=1. Since the baseline comparison service is
credence, it was coded as d1=0 and d2=0 (Aiken and West 1991). The
42
other continuous variables, namely, quality, satisfaction and loyalty were
mean-centered prior to analysis.
PROCEDURE:
The regression module was used to estimate coefficients for the full
sample, and the constrained nonlinear regression (CNLR) module was
used to estimate coefficients from 1,000 bootstrap samples. Unlike the
regression module, the CNLR module contains an algorithm that draws
bootstrap samples, estimates regression coefficients for each sample, and
writes the coefficients to an output file. I used the default loss function of
the CNLR module, which minimizes the sum of squared residuals, thereby
producing OLS coefficient estimates.
Expressions that contained products of coefficients, such as
indirect and total effects, were tested with biascorrected confidence
intervals based on the bootstrap coefficient estimates generated by the
CNLR module. These confidence intervals were constructed by opening
the SPSS output files, resaving them as Microsoft Excel files, and opening
these files with Excel 2003. Using Equation 4, formulas were written into
the Excel file to compute simple paths, indirect effects, and total effects at
selected levels of the moderator variables (0 and 1 for gender, one
standard deviation above and below the mean for centrality). These
formulas were applied to coefficient estimates from each bootstrap
sample, producing 1,000 estimates of each simple path, indirect effect,
and total effect.
43
Next the differences between each path and effect across different
service type were computed and were also applied to the 1,000 bootstrap
estimates. The Excel percentile function was used to locate the 2.5 and
97.5 percentiles of the paths and effects computed from the bootstrap
estimates, establishing the bounds of the 95% confidence interval. These
bounds were adjusted with formulas reported by Stine (1989, p. 277),
which were also written into the Excel file, to obtain bias-corrected
confidence intervals. These confidence intervals were used to test indirect
effects, total effects, and differences in these effects across levels of the
moderator variables such that, if the 95% confidence interval excluded 0,
the quantity being tested was declared statistically significant. (Please see
Table 2.)
CONCLUSION
This chapter described the pilot study, procedures for collecting
data, measuring constructs and the scales used. Chapter 5 provides the
results of the study.
44
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
This chapter describes the results of the study and examines the
characteristics of the sample, the outcomes of the measurement model,
and the results of the structural relations and hypothesis testing. The
chapter closes with a brief summary of the results.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
An online survey was emailed to students at a large Northeastern
University. They were encouraged to answer it for extra credit. 399 usable
surveys were obtained. 84.14% of the respondents were in the 18-25
years age group. 85.17% were single while 4.35% were married with
children. 6.25% were married without children while the rest were living
with a partner. 53.71% of the respondents were male and 46.29% were
female which is reflective of the demographics of the University. While the
age of the respondents is skewed towards the younger demographics, the
respondents are all actual consumers of the services studied and they are
recalling actual satisfactory and dissatisfactory experiences. This makes
the results more generalizable than would have been otherwise.
These 399 responses were then examined for the appropriateness
of their usage in the study. Multivariate outliers were examined by using
45
the Difference in Fit Standardized Test (DFITS) as a global measure of
influence (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, and West 2003). All of the variables were
regressed onto case numbers and a scatterplot was generated. Cases
with inordinately high or low global influence, as measured by DFITS,
were examined. (Please see Figure 10)
QUALITY MEASURES
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and loadings for all
the construct indicators used in the analysis, excluding interaction terms.
All items are on a 1 to 7 Likert scale anchored at the endpoints with
strongly agree/strongly disagree with ‗neither agree nor disagree‘
anchoring the middle position. The standard deviations for the indicators
range from 1.277 to 1.5822 indicating a substantial amount of variance in
the responses.
Table 3 provides a catalogue of survey items.
The reliability statistics were high with Cronbach‘s Alpha of .939 for
the 16 items.
SATISFACTION MEASURES:
Satisfaction was also measured using a 3-item scale each of which
was measured on a 7 point Likert scale where 1 was strongly agree and 7
was strongly disagree. The 3 items showed means ranging from 2.20 to
2.26. Satisfaction was calculated as the mean of the 3 items.
Table 4 shows the survey items for Satisfaction. The 3 item
satisfaction scale loaded onto a single factor with high factor loadings
46
ranging from .955 to .960. Reliability scores were also high with
Cronbach‘s alpha of .946 for the 3 items.
LOYALTY MEASURES:
Loyalty was measured using a 5 item scale each of which was
measured on a 7 point Likert Scale where 1 was strongly agree while 7
was strongly disagree. 4 represented the middle anchor stating ‗neither
agree nor disagree.‘ The average of the 5 items was used to create a
composite loyalty measure. The Cronbach Alpha was .913.
MEASUREMENT AND HYPOTHESES TESTING:
This section formally tests the hypotheses developed in the
conceptual model regarding the role played by service type in the
relationships between service quality and satisfaction, service quality and
loyalty, satisfaction and loyalty. Finally, the complete model is tested for
the moderation by service type of the mediation by satisfaction. For each
hypothesis, the definition, operationalization, and descriptive statistics of
the relevant measure are briefly restated. The analysis and results for
each hypothesis test are then presented. Finally, each test concludes with
a statement of the outcome (supported, partially supported, or not
supported).
47
OUTCOMES:
H1: Service Type moderates the relationship between Service
Quality and Loyalty
Service Type is operationalized as either search, experience or
credence service depending on the ease of evaluation of the service.
There have been conflicting theories about why service type may
influence perceptions of quality though there has been no research which
looked at how service type would moderate the relationship between
service quality and service loyalty.
Perceptions of service quality were significantly different when
comparing credence services to experience or search services. Running a
one-way ANOVA to check for differences of means between groups
(service types) showed an F value of 25.35 at a significance level of
p<.000. For search services, service quality mean was 2.804 (sd=.937,
minimum=1, maximum=7). In case of experience services, the mean was
2.807 (sd= 1.005, minimum=1, maximum=7). For credence services, the
mean was 2.045 (sd=.871, minimum=1, maximum=7). The fact that
credence services showed significantly higher perceptions of quality is as
expected and as predicted by existing theory. Since the ambiguity
associated with credence services is the highest as compared to the other
services, consumers will perceive the received quality to be as per their
expectations. It seems logical to believe that any consumer who selects a
service expects to receive satisfactory service quality and that influences
his/her perceptions of the quality received. Interestingly post hoc analysis
48
did not show significant difference between search and experience
services for their perceptions of service quality. This issue is addressed in
the discussion and analysis section. (Please see Figure 12.)
The first hypothesis was tested by creating a 2-way interaction. The
interactions were calculated following the procedure described by Aiken
and West (1991). The independent variable, quality was mean centered
before calculating the interaction terms. Credence service type was
coded as the default comparison while experience and search services
were coded as dummy variables. Two interaction terms were created by
multiplying the mean centered quality measure by the two dummy
variables. The results were significant for both the interaction terms which
showed that credence services were significantly different from search
and experience service types when it came to the relationship between
service quality and loyalty.
Coefficient for SearchD1 X Service Quality is - .145 (p<.02).
Coefficient for ExperienceD2 X Service Quality is -.109
(p<.05).
The R2 value is .472 while the effect size (f2) is .894 both figures
indicating the strength of the model. (Please see Figure 13.)
Therefore, H1 is supported.
49
H2: Service Type moderates the relationship between quality
and satisfaction.
Satisfaction is operationalized as the average of a 3-item scale.
The 3 items measured happiness at having chosen the service, belief that
it was the right choice and overall satisfaction. The mean is 2.24 with a
minimum value of 1 and maximum of 7 (1=strongly agree, 7=strongly
disagree with 4 being a neutral anchor), s.d = 1.127. Running an ANOVA
to check for differences of means between the different service types
shows F value of 8.973 with a significance of .000. (Please see Figure 14.)
The hypothesis was tested by running an interaction following the
procedure outlined by Aiken and West. The independent variable, quality
was mean centered and interaction terms were created with the dummy
variables used to code service type. While quality was a significant
predictor of satisfaction, (p<.000) the interactions were not significant
predictors. Quality explained 43.5% of the variance while the model which
included the interactions explained about 45% of the variance. The effect
size was .818. Therefore this hypothesis is not supported.
This puts forth the interesting question about why is the relationship
between service quality and satisfaction not significantly moderated by
service type when ANOVA results for both quality and satisfaction with
service type as a factor are significant. This issue is addressed in the
discussion section. (Please see Figure 15.)
50
H3: Service Type moderates the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty.
Since prior expectations play an important role in satisfaction as
judged post experience especially in case of services with high ambiguity,
it is expected that credence services with their high levels of ambiguity will
have higher levels of satisfaction. Also, credence services are associated
with higher levels of risk. So to reduce the perceived risk, consumers will
reduce perceived risk by either searching for more information before a
new purchase or reducing the cognitive burden and continuing with the
existing service provider. This also indicates that loyalty will be affected
by service type.
The hypothesis that service type moderates the relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty is tested by running a regression with
interaction terms which were created by multiplying mean centered
satisfaction by the dummy variables created to code service type. The
results were significant when comparing credence services to search
services (p< .000) as well as when comparing credence services to
experience services (p<.000). The explained variance of the model was a
strong 66% with an effect size (f2) of 1.960. Thus the hypothesis is
supported. (Please see Figure 16.)
51
H4: Service type moderates the mediation effect of satisfaction
between service quality and loyalty.
The moderation of mediation effect is tested through the interaction
of service type by service quality. The procedure followed is as provided in
Edward and Lambert (2007). The model called ‗moderated mediation‘
occurs when mediation results are contingent on the level of a moderator.
Wegener and Fabrigar (2000) share James and Brett‘s (1984) definition:
―Moderated mediation could occur when a moderator _ IV interaction is
observed (because of differences in IV to mediator and/or mediator to DV
paths) or when no moderator _ IV interaction is observed (because
different mediators create the same magnitude of effect or a mediator
operates at some levels of the moderator but direct effects occur at other
levels)‖ (p. 437).
This model looks at the conditional indirect effect of a single causal
independent variable, service quality, on outcome variable, loyalty,
through a proposed mediator variable satisfaction, conditional on a
moderator, service type, of the path from quality to satisfaction and/or the
path from satisfaction to loyalty. It calculates the Sobel test for the
conditional indirect effect as well as percentile-based, bias-corrected, and
bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals for the
conditional indirect effect.
Regression results are reported in Table 1 and simple effects are
given in Table 2 including effects that represent the three paths of the
52
basic mediated model as well as the indirect and total effects of the model.
Models depicting simple paths are shown in Figures 15-17.
RESULTS FOR SERVICE TYPE MODERATION:
Coefficient estimates in Table 6 show that service type moderated
the path from quality to loyalty, satisfaction to loyalty but not the path from
quality to satisfaction. Table 7 summarizes these effects. Comparing these
effects for different service types, we find interesting results. When
credence services are compared to search services, in case of first stage
(quality to satisfaction), search services showed stronger effects. This was
reversed in case of second stage (satisfaction to loyalty) effects where
credence services showed stronger effects. Both these differences were
significant at p<.05. Direct effect (quality to loyalty) was not significant
(0.092-0.020=0.072, p>.05). However indirect effects and total effects
were both significant at p<.05 with credence services showing stronger
effects than search services.
Next, credence services were compared to experience services.
Credence and experience services were not significantly different for the
first stage as well as direct effect. However the second stage and indirect
effect were significantly greater for credence services (p<.05) leading to
an overall difference in total effects (.252-.097 = .155, p<.05)
Differences in these effects are depicted as simple slopes in
Figures 21-25. The moderating effects of service type are not sufficient to
produce a meaningful difference in slopes for the first stage. But the
53
difference in slopes for second stage is substantial enough to create an
overall difference for the indirect effects graph. Similarly, while the graph
for direct effects does not indicate significant difference in slopes, when
combined with indirect effects to produce total effects, credence services
are significantly stronger in the effects they show. Thus, service type
moderated the second stage (satisfaction to loyalty) and indirect effect
(quality to loyalty) and these differences were sufficient to produce a larger
total effect for credence services.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This chapter described the empirical findings of the study. Table 8
summarizes the hypotheses with the findings. The next chapter reviews
the implications of these findings for marketing theory and practice.
54
CHAPTER 6: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
This study is motivated by a desire to understand how the service
type affects service quality, satisfaction and subsequent loyalty of the
consumer. Improving loyalty is considered an important marketing as well
as strategic goal of almost every organization. The research in this area
has been plentiful but not sufficient since there are still gaps in our
understanding of the model. This research looks at the influence of
service type as classified by ease of evaluation on the different behaviors.
The results of this study suggest that service type does indeed influence
how consumers perceive quality and also how they arrive at judgments of
evaluations. Subsequent satisfaction was also influenced by service type.
The findings of this research suggest that organizations making
quality improvements hoping to improve satisfaction and loyalty ratings
need to know what service type their industry falls into. Service type can
help predict not only how consumers perceive those improvements and if
those improvements will even have the expected effect on satisfaction and
behavior. Information search perspective offers some insight into how
consumers evaluate different services and why differences exist. This
research builds on that and extends it to how service type could have
managerial implications.
55
QUALITY AS A PREDICTOR OF BEHAVIOR
Perceived quality was a significant predictor of loyalty in all service
types. However the slope was steepest in credence services. That is
interesting since credence services by their very definition are the most
difficult to evaluate for their quality. The findings of this research show that
while consumers may find it difficult to judge credence services, once they
have arrived at their judgments, they can be the most loyal consumers
showing all positive behaviors which organizations seek.
This has important implications for credence services such as
medical services where most consumers are overwhelmed by the
complexity of medical information available and therefore unable to feel
confident about evaluating the quality of care they receive. This leads to
anxiety when it comes to making decisions such as finding a new provider
or switching providers. Research so far has indicated that in credence
services the rate of switching has been the lowest. The findings of this
research show contrary results. While positive behavioral intentions
showed the highest rate of change for credence services, negative
behavior also showed the quickest rate of decline in case of credence
services. So for every unit of perceptible quality improvement, companies
can expect to see most reduction in complaining and switching behavior in
credence services. So, on one hand, organizations struggle with the fact
that their investments in improving credence service quality may be
wasted since consumers may never notice them. On the other, it is
credence services which provide the most cost-effective investment in
56
improving service quality. This opens up the avenue for further research,
namely, what aspects of service quality in credence services are the ones
that truly matter and are noticed by consumers.
QUALITY AS A PREDICTOR OF SATISFACTION
As expected, quality is a significant predictor of satisfaction.
Perceived quality was also significantly different for the three different
service types. However a surprising finding was that the relationship
between quality and satisfaction was not moderated by service type. This
seems to fit in with satisfaction‘s description as ‗a fulfillment response, a
judgment that a product or service provided a pleasurable level of
consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under or over-fulfillment
(Oliver 1997.)‘ Therefore once a consumer has gone through the process
of evaluating the quality and arriving at a judgment, the resulting feeling of
satisfaction is not dependent on the process which goes into the
evaluation.
SATISFACTION AS A PREDICTOR OF LOYALTY
Satisfaction was a significant predictor of behavior. Service type
played a moderating role in the relationship between satisfaction and
loyalty. So long as satisfaction was below a certain threshold (in this
case, the mean value), credence services showed the lowest loyalty
scores. However, once the threshold was crossed, consumers of
credence services were the most loyal as compared to other service
types. They were also the most vocal in terms of spreading positive word
57
of mouth and encouraging friends and families to frequent the business.
Conversely, when they were dissatisfied beyond a certain threshold, they
were the most likely to carry out negative behaviors such as complaining
to external or internal agencies and even switching.
This is an interesting find since previous research has indicated
that credence service consumers are generally reluctant to carry out
negative behaviors because of the multiple factors of uncertainty about the
current provider as well as the greater effort required to select another
provider. The findings here show that contrary to that belief, consumers of
credence services, once they have crossed a certain threshold in
dissatisfaction, are the most likely to carry out negative actions such as
sue the practitioner.
SATISFACTION OR QUALITY?
A significant finding was that satisfaction was a far stronger
predictor of loyalty than was perceived quality. This finding held true for all
three service types. This is very important since it indicates improving
service quality may not be the most efficient way of seeing quick changes
in positive behavior. While perceived quality is a major antecedent to
satisfaction, there is obviously more to satisfaction. It has been proposed
that service quality is a simpler cognitive construct while satisfaction is
more complex with both cognitive and affective components (Bitner 1990,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1988.) While it has been long speculated
that consumers find it more difficult, or even find themselves unable, to
58
evaluate service quality, this research shows that is indeed the case.
This may point to a crucial distinguishing factor between services and
goods when it comes to evaluating quality.
This research also looked at the role satisfaction plays in the model
since previous results have been conflicting. The findings showed that not
only is satisfaction a mediator between quality and behavior, but the
mediation is moderated by the service type. Therefore, in credence
services, the mediation effect seen was least, indicating that satisfaction
explains only part of the variance in the model. It has been often said that
partial mediation is merely an indication that more research needs to be
carried out to find the undiscovered mediators. This opens up interesting
avenues for research in credence services to identify these other variables
that may explain the relationship between quality and loyalty.
The managerial implications of this are interesting as well as
challenging. On one hand, it indicates that when it comes to services, it is
not enough to ―Build a better (i.e. improved quality) mousetrap, and the
world will beat a path to your door." Consumers are either unable to
appreciate or don‘t care for much of what passes for ‗service quality‘
improvements. Another implication may be that satisfaction has more
antecedents than have been previously acknowledged. It may be more
fruitful to carry out research into how satisfaction can be improved in
services to be able to better predict how to improve positive behavior.
59
Similarly, satisfaction was found to be a partial mediator between
quality and loyalty while it was a complete mediator in search services.
This shows that for simpler evaluations, consumers make the leap from
perceived quality to satisfaction easily. However, when it comes to
complex valuations, there are other variables besides satisfaction which
intervene between quality and loyalty. Value and trust are two possible
mediators which deserve to be looked at, though there may be more.
LIMITATIONS
Like any research, this has its limitations. There is a possibility that
the extra credit led to high involvement on part of the students. Also
retrospective recall sometimes encourages bias towards highly satisfying
and dissatisfying incidents. The links between satisfaction and loyalty are
not always discernible. Dissatisfaction with a single transaction may not
cause the customer to switch loyalties just as a single satisfying
transaction is unlikely to lead to new loyalty.
It is important to acknowledge that other variables such as value,
sacrifice etc could be predictors of loyalty as well. They were deliberately
not included in this model since the focus here is on the relationship
between quality, satisfaction and behavior. This way respondent fatigue
was avoided and a clean, controlled research model was created. These
can be avenues for future research.
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
2. Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer and Stacy Wood (1997), ―Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces,‖ The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 38-53
3. Anderson Rolph E. (1973) ―Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effects of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance,‖ Journal of Marketing Research, 10, pp 38-44
4. Anderson, E. W., and M. W. Sullivan (1993) ―The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms.‖ Marketing Science 12, pp. 125-143.
5. Bansal H.S and S. Taylor (1997), ―Investigating the Relationship Between Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Switching Intentions‖ Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 20, pp 304-313.
6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182
7. Bauer, R.A. (1960), Consumer Behavior as Risk-taking. Dynamic Marketing for a ChangingWorld, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 389-98.
61
8. Bell Simon, Seigyoung Auh and Karen Smalley (2005) "Customer Relationship Dynamics: Service Quality and Customer Loyalty in the Context of Varying Levels of Customer Expertise and Switching Costs" Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33: pp 169-183
9. Berry L.L. & Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing through Quality, Free Press, New York, NY.
10. Berry, L.L, Parasuraman, A (1993), ―Building a new academic field – the case of services marketing‖, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 pp 13-60
11. Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Re- sponses," Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82.
12. Bloch Peter H. & Marsha L. Richins (1983), ―A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions,‖ Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No.3. (Summer), pp 69-81
13. Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991a), "A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes," Journal of Marketing, 55 (January), 1-9.
14. Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991b), "A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 375-84.
15. Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A.Zeithaml (1993). "A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality:From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions," Journal of Marketing Reseurch, 30 (February), pp7-37.
62
16. Brogowicz, Andrew A., Linda M. Delene, David M. Lyth (1990), ―A Synthesised Service Quality Model with Managerial Applications,‖ Journal of Service Management, Vol. 1, 1, pp. 27-45.
17. Brown, S.W. & T.A. Swartz(1989) A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, 53, pp. 92-98.
18. Buzzell, Robert D. and Bradley T. Gale (19871, The PlMS Principles. New York: The Free Press.
19. Celsi, Richard and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210-224.
20. Churchill, Gilbert and Carol Suprenant (1982), ―An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction,‖ Journal of Marketing Reearch, 19 (November), pp 491-504.
21. Coyne, K. (1989), "Beyond service fads, meaningful strategies for the real world", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 pp.69-76.
22. Coyne, Kevin P. (1989), "Beyond Service Fads: Meaningful Strategies for the Real World," Sloan Management review, (Summer), pp 69-76
23. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr.; M.K. Brady & G.T.M Hult (2000) ―Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments‖ Journal of retailing, Vol. 76 pp., 193 - 216.
24. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr.; Steven A. Taylor (1992) ―Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension‖ Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 3. pp. 55-68.
63
25. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr.; Steven A. Taylor (1994) ―SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations Measurement of Service Quality,‖ The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan.), pp. 125-131
26. Dabholkar, P.A (1995), ―Contingency framework for predicting causality between customer satisfaction and service quality,‖ in Sujan, M. and Kardes, F. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.22, pp. 101-8
27. Dabholkar, P.A, C.D. Shepherd & D. Thorpe (2000), ―A comprehensive framework for service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study‖ Journal of Retailing, Vol 76, 2, pp 139-173
28. Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973) , ``Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud‘‘, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 6, April, pp. 67-88.
29. De Ruyter Ko, Martin Wetzels, and Mirella Kleijnen (2001), ―Customer adoption of e-service: an experimental study,‖ International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12, 2, pp. 184-207.
30. Dodds, William B. and Kent B. Monroe (1984), "The Effect of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Evaluations", in Advances in Consumer Research, vol 12, Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 85-90.
31. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 161-202). New York: Academic Press.
64
32. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). ―Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An Introduction to theory and research‖ Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
33. Ford, Gary, Darlene Smith and John Swasy (1990) "Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses From Economics of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (Mar) 433-441.
34. Gale, B. (1997) ―Customer satisfaction - relative competitors - is where it's at. (Strong evidence that superior quality drives the bottom line and shareholder value.)‖ Marketing and Research Today, Feb pp39-53
35.
36. Gale, Bradley (1992). "Monitoring Customer Satisfaction and Market-Perceived Quality," American Marketing Association Worth Repeating Series, Number 922CSO I. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
37. Garvin, David A. (1983), ―Quality on the Line,‖ Harvard Business Review, 61(September-October), pp. 65-73
38. Gotlieb, Jerry B.; Grewal, Dhruv; Brown, Stephen W. (1994). ―Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: Complementary or divergent constructs?‖ Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 79(6), Dec, pp. 875-885
39. Grapentine T. (1998), ―The History and Future of Service Quality Assessment,‖ Marketing Research A Magazine of Management & Applications 10 (4), 1998, pp. 5–20.
40. Gremler, D.D, Brown, S.W. (1996), "Service loyalty: its nature, importance and implications", in Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W, Johnston, R, Scheuing, E.E. (Eds),Proceedings American Marketing Association, pp.171-80.
65
41. Gronroos, Christian (1990), Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Com- petition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
42. Guiltinan, Joseph P. ―The Price Bundling of Services: A Normative Framework.‖ Journal of Marketing, Vol 51(April), pp 74-85
43. Ha, Y.-W. S. J. H. (1989). "Ambiguity, Processing Strategy and Advertising-Evidence Interactions." Journal of Consumer Research 16(December): 354-60.
44. Hair, Joseph, Bill Black, Barry Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, (2009), ―Multivariate Data Analysis 7th E‖ Prentice Hall
45. Hayes, A.F (2009). ―Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millenium.‖ Communications Monographs, Volume 76 Issue 4, December pp. 408-420
46. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 627-660
47. Holbrook, M. and Corfman,K. (1985). ―Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again.‖ In J.Jacoby and J. Olson (Eds.) Perceived Quality. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 31-51.
48. Huang, Peng, Nicholas H. Lurie, and Sabyasachi Mitra (2009), ―Searching for Experience on the Web: An Empirical Examination of Consumer Behavior for Search and Experience Goods,‖ Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 55-69.
66
49. Iacobucci, Dawn (1992), "An Empirical Examination of Some Basic Tenets in Services: Goods-Services Continua" in Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 1, eds. Teresa Swartz, David Bowen, and Stephen Brown. JAI Press, Inc. Greenwich, CT, p. 23-52.
50. Iacobucci, Dawn, Amy Ostrom and Kent Grayson (1995), "Distinguishing Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: The Voice of the Customer," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 277-303.
51. Jacoby, J., and Kaplan, L. (1972). The components of perceived risk. Paper presented at the Proceedings 3rd Annual Conference Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL.
52. James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). ―Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation‖. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 69, No. 2, 307-321
53. Johnson, E. J., Steven Bellman, & Gerald Lohse (2003). "Cognitive Lock-in and the Power law of Practice." Journal of Marketing 67(April): 62-75.
54. Johnston, Robert,(1995) ―The Zone of Tolerance, Exploring the relationship between service transactions and satisfaction with the overall service‖, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 6, No. 2, pp. 46-61
55. Kennedy J.R. and Thirkell, P.C. (1988), ―An Extended Perspective on the Antecedents of Satisfaction,‖ Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 1, 2-9
56. Kretch, D., Crutchfield, R., & Ballachey, E. (1962), ―Individual in society‖ New York: McGraw-Hill
67
57. Krishnan, B. C., & Hartline, M. D. (2001). ―Brand equity: Is it more important in services?‖ Journal of Services Marketing, 15 (5): 328-342.
58. LaBarbera, Priscilla A. and David Mazursky,(1983) ―A Longitudinal Assessment of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the Cognitive Process,‖ Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Nov.), pp. 393-404
59. LaTour, Stephen A. and Nancy C.Peat (1979), ―Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Consumer Satisfaction Research,‖ Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 6, William F. Wilkie, ed, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp31-37
60. Liljander, V & Strandvik, T (1993), ―Estimating Zones of Tolerance in Perceived Service Quality and Perceived Service Value‖, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 4, No. 2, pp. 6-28
61. Lynch, James and Drue Schuler (1990), "Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Hospital Services From an Economics of Information Perspective," Journal of Health Care Marketing, 10 (June) 24-28.
62. Lynch, John G. and Dan Ariely (2000), ―Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution,‖ Marketing Science, 19(1), 83-103.
63. Maute, Manfred F. and William R. Forrester, Jr. (1991). ―The Effect of Attribute Qualities on Consumer Decision Making: A Causal Model of External Information Search.‖ Journal of Economic Psychology 12 (December), pp 643-66
68
64. Maynes, E. Scott (1976), ―The Concept and Measurement of Product Quality,‖ Household Production and Consumption, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.pp. 529-584
65. McDougall, Gordon H.G. and Douglas W. Snetsinger (1990), ―The Intangibility of Services: Measurement and Competitive Perspectives,‖ Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.4, 4, pp. 27-40
66. McDougall, Gordon H.G. and Terrence Levesque (2000), ―Customer Satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation‖, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14, 5, pp 392-410
67. Miller, J.A., (1977) ―Studying Satisfaction, Modifying Models, Eliciting Expectations, Posing Problems, and Making Meaningful Measurements‖, in Hunt, K. (Eds), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Report No. 77-103, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp 72-91 Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
68. Mitra, K., Reiss, M. C., and Capella, L., M. (1999). ―An examination of perceived risk, information search, experience and credence services‖. The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(3), 208-228.
69. Mittal, Banwari (1999), ―The Advertising of Services: Meeting the Challenge of Intangibility," Journal of Services Research, 2 (Aug.) 98-116.
70. Mittal, V. Kamakura, W. A.(2001), ―Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics‖ Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38; PART 1, pages 131-142
69
71. Murray, K.B., and J.L. Schlachter. (1990), ―The Impact of Services versus Goods on Consumers' Assessment of Perceived Risk and Variability‖. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, pp51-65
72. Nelson, P. (1970), ``Information and consumer behavior ‘‘, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78, March-April, pp. 311-29.
73. Nelson, Phillip (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, 81 (J/A), 729-54.
74. Newman, J. W., & Werbel, R. A. (1973). ―Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for major household appliances.‖ Journal of Marketing Research, 404-409.
75. Oliva, Terence A., Richard L. Oliver, and William O. Bearden (1995), "The Relationships Among Consumer Satisfaction, Involvement, and Product Performance: A Catastrophe Theory Application," Behavioral Science, 40 (April), 104-132.
76. Oliver, R. L. (1993). "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service Satisfaction: Compatible Goals, Different Concepts." Advances in Services Marketing and Management 2: 65-85.
77. Olshavsky, Richard W. (1985), ―Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective,‖ In Perceived Quality ed. J.Jacoby and J.Olson, pp. 3-29, Lexington
78. Olshavsky, Richard W. and Anand Kumar (2001), ―Revealing The Actual Role of Expectations in Consumer Satisfaction with Experience and Credence Goods,‖ Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 14, 60-73.
70
79. Ostrom, A. and Iacobucci , D. (1995), ``Consumer trade-off s and the evaluation of services‘‘, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, January, pp. 17-28.
80. Parasuraman, A., Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1991), ―Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale,‖ Journal of Retailing, 67 (Winter), pp 420-50
81. Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1985), ―A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research.‖ Journal of Marketing 49(4) pp. 41-50.
82. Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry,(1988), ―SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality,‖ Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), pp 12-40
83. Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml (1990), "An Empirical Examination of Relationships in an Extended Service Quality Model," Marketing Science Institute Research Program Series, (December), Report No. 90-122.
84. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1994), "Alternative Scales for Measuring Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria," Journal of Retailing, (Fall), pp. 201-30.
85. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1994), "Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Future Research," Journal of Marketing, (January), pp. 111-24.
86. Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), ―Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services‖, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
71
87. Phillips, Lynn W; Dae R. Chang; Robert D. Buzzell (1983), ―Product Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses‖ Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 2. (Spring), pp. 26-43.
88. Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J., Deibler, S.L. (1995), "Consumers‘ emotional responses to service encounters", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.34-63
89. Reichheld FF (1996), ―Learning from Customer Defections‖ Harvard Business Review, 74, (March-April), pp. 56-69.
90. Reichheld, F. F. (1996): ―The loyalty effect: the hidden force behind growth, profits, and lasting value‖, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
91. Roest , Henk and Rik Pieters (1997), ―The nomological net of perceived service quality,‖ International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 8, 4, pp. 336-351
92. Rust, Roland T. and Richard L. Oliver. (1994). ―Service Quality: Insights and Managerial Implications from the Frontier.‖ Pp. 1–19 in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver (Eds.). New York: Sage Publications, Inc.
93. Rust, Roland T., Anthony J. Zahorik & Timothy L. Keiningham (1995), ―Return on Quality (ROQ): Making Service Quality Financially Accountable,‖ Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr.), pp. 58-70
94. Rust, Roland T., J. Jeffrey Inman, Jianmin Jia & Anthony J. Zahorik (1999), ―What You Don‘t Know About Customer-Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation Distributions,‖ Marketing Science, Vol 18., No 1, pp 77-92
72
95. Singh, Jagdip (1988), ―Consumer Complaint Intentions and Behavior: Definitional and Taxonomical Issues,‖ Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 93-107
96. Smith, R. and Bush, A. J. (2000) ―Toward Developing a Measure of Search, Experience and Credence Qualities for Products and Services‖ Southwestern Marketing ssociation, San Antonio, Texas, March 15-18. http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2000/swma/00swma194.htm
97. Spreng, Richard A. and Robert D. Mackoy (1996), "An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction," Journal of Retailing, 72:2, 201-214.
98. Strandvik (1994), ―Tolerance Zones in Perceived Service Quality‖, Publications of the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.
99. Szymanski, David and David H. Henard,( 2001), ―Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,‖ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, No. 1, 16-35 (2001)
100. Taylor, S. A., and T. L. Baker (1994) ―An Assessment of the Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers' Purchase Intentions.‖ Journal of Retailing, 70, pp 163-178.
101. Teas, R. K. (1993), ―Expectations, performance evaluation and consumer‘s perceptions of quality‖, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 pp. 18-34
102. Teas, R. Kenneth & Thomas E. DeCarlo (2004), ―An Examination and Extension of the Zone-of-Tolerance Model: A Comparison to performance-based Models of perceived Quality‖, Journal of Services Research, Feb; 6, 3; pp 272-286
73
103. Tse David K. and Peter C. Wilton(1988), ―Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension‖ Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May), pp. 204-212
104. Voss, G. B., A. Parasuraman, & Dhruv Grewal (1998). "The Roles of Price, Performance, and Expectations in Determining Satisfaction in Service Exchanges." Journal of Marketing 62(October): 46-61.
105. Woodruff Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte; Roger L. Jenkins, (1983)―Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms‖Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, No. 3. (Aug.), pp. 296-304.
106. Yi, Youjae (1990), "A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction," in Review of Marketing 1990, ed. Valarie A. Zeithaml, Chicago; American Marketing Association, 68-123.
107. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
108. Zeeman, E.C. (1977). ―Catastrophe theory‖ Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
109. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1981), ―How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ between Goods and Services,‖ in Marketing of Services, James Donnelly and William George, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp 186-190
110. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), ―Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence,‖ Journal of Marketing, 52(3), pp 2-22
111. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1993), "The nature and determinants of customer expectations of
74
service", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No.1, pp.1-12.
112. Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996), "The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality," Journal of Marketing, (April), pp. 31-46.
113. Zeithaml Valarie A. & Mary Jo Bitner (2000) ―Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm‖, McGraw-Hill, Boston
75
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
SATISFACTION
LOYALTY QUALITY
1
?
Figure 1: Existing Research
76
SATISFACTION
LOYALTY QUALITY H
1
H
2 H
3
H
4
Figure 2: Proposed Model
SERVICE TYPE
77
10
search experience credence
•Easily evaluated before
purchase
•Easily verifiable claims
•Low risk
•Typically less expensive
•More price sensitive
•Typically less
interpersonal
•Less Customization
•Almost impossible to
evaluate even after
purchase
•Difficult to verify
claims
•High risk
•Typically more
expensive
•Less Price Sensitive
•Typically more
interpersonal
•More customization
•Can be evaluated after
consumption
•Claims verifiable after
purchase and use
•Most services by their
nature have high
experiential attributes
•Ex: Hotel room stay,
haircut
Figure 3: Services Continuum
78
Figure 4: Normal Q-Q Plot of Quality
79
Figure 5: Normal Q-Q Plot of Satisfaction
80
Figure 6: Normal Q-Q Plot of Loyalty
81
Figure 7: Simple Effects
82
Figure 8: Proposed Model showing Moderated Mediation
83
Figure 9: Respondents by Gender
84
Figure 10: DFBETA Satisfaction by Case Number
85
Figure 11: DFBETA Quality By Case Number
86
Figure 12: ANOVA for service quality by service type
87
Figure 13: Service Type Moderates the Quality-Loyalty Link
-2
-1
0
1
2
Low HighLoya
lty
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
Service Type moderates the Quality-Loyalty link
88
Figure 14: ANOVA for Satisfaction by Service Type
89
Figure 15: Service type moderates the Quality-Satisfaction relation
90
Figure 16: Service Type moderates the Satisfaction – Loyalty Link
91
A. Search Services
Figure 17: Simple Effects for Search Services
Indirect Effect for Search Services is product of first and second
stages, ie .885*.210 = .186
Total Effect = Sum of direct and indirect effect ie .020 + .186 =.206
.210
.020
.885
92
B. Experience Services
Figure 18: Simple Effects for Experience Services
Indirect Effect for Experience Services is product of first and
second stages, ie .240*.305 = .073
Total Effect = Sum of direct and indirect effect ie .024 + .073 = .097
.240 .305
.024
93
C. Credence Services
Figure 19: Simple Effects for Credence Services
Indirect Effect for Credence Services is product of first and second
stages, ie .349*.458 = .160
Total Effect = Sum of direct and indirect effect ie .160 + .092 = .252
.349 .458
.092
94
Figure 20: Direct Effect
0
0.5
1
1.5
Low High
Loya
lty
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
95
Figure 21: First Stage
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Low High
Sati
sfac
tio
n
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
96
Figure 22: Second Stage
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Low High
Loya
lty
Satisfaction
Credence
Experience
Search
97
Figure 23: Indirect Effect
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Low High
Loya
lty
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
98
Figure 24: Total Effect
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Low High
Loya
lty
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
99
APPENDIX B: TABLES
Table 1: Measures Construct Measure Adapted From
Received Service Quality
The average of received service quality on all 5 quality dimensions
Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1994)
Satisfaction The average of a 3 item satisfaction
scale Oliver (1980)
Loyalty The average of a 5 item scale
measuring consumer behavior intentions
Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1996)
SearchD1
Dummy variable indicating service type “1” if service type is Online
ticket site (search) “0” otherwise
Manipulation
ExperienceD2
Dummy variable indicating service type “1” if service type is restaurant
(experience) “0” otherwise
Manipulation
100
Table 2: Hypotheses Tests
Hypothesis Hypothesized relationship
Statistical Test
H1: Service Type moderates the relationship between Service Quality and Loyalty
Moderation γ qr1>0
H2: Service Type moderates the relationship between Quality and Satisfaction
Moderation αqr1>0
H3: Service Type moderates the relationship between Satisfaction and Loyalty
Moderation βrs2 > 0 & βrq2>0
H4: Service Type Moderates the Mediation of Satisfaction between Quality and Loyalty
Moderation of Mediation
βq2>0 & βs2 >0& βrq2>0 & βrs2 >0
101
Table 3: Survey Items - Quality
Variable Mean Statistic
Std. Statistic
Q1 Prompt Service 5.18 1.345
Q2 Caring Employees 5.11 1.358
Q3 Providing Service On Time 5.37 1.306
Q4 Visually Appealing Materials 5.00 1.467
Q5 Employees who have Customers‘ Best Interest at heart
5.09 1.426
Q6 Willingness to Help customers 5.28 1.449
Q7 Maintaining Error Free Records 5.63 1.422
Q8 Keeping customers informed about when services will be performed
5.35 1.481
Q9 Providing services as promised 5.70 1.285
Q10 Knowledgeable employees 5.48 1.370
Q11 Dependability in handling customers service problems
5.36 1.309
Q12 Readiness to respond to customers‘ requests 5.42 1.341
Q13 Performing services right the first time 5.72 1.390
Q14 Giving customers individual attention 5.14 1.575
Q15 Modern Equipment 5.55 1.331
Q16 Making customers feel safe in their transactions 5.92 1.255
102
Table 4: Survey Items - Satisfaction
Variable Mean Std.
Deviation
I am Happy about my decision to go to this_____ (service provider)
2.20 1.194
I believe I did the right thing when I selected this _____ (service provider)
2.28 1.148
Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this _____ (service provider)
2.24 1.208
Satisfaction (Calculated) 2.24 1.125
103
Table 5: Survey Items - Loyalty
Variable Mean Std.
Deviation
Based on your overall experience with this service provider, how likely are you to
Visit this service provider More 2.23 1.284
Say positive things about the provider to other people 2.49 1.353
Recommend the provider to someone who seeks your advice
2.43 1.349
Encourage friends and relatives to go to this provider 2.65 1.433
Consider this provider your first choice in future 2.82 1.586
104
Table 6: Coefficient Estimates
Variable Value
ax1 0.664
az11 0.057
az12 -0.14
axz11 0.221
axz12 0.042
R2 0.45
bx3 0.092
bm3 0.458
bz31 0.541
bz32 0.347
bxz31 -0.072
bxz32 -0.068
bmz31 -0.248
bmz32 -0.153
R2 0.666
105
Table 7: Simple Effects
Moderator Quality Satisfaction
Satisfaction Loyalty
Direct Effect Quality Loyalty
Indirect Effect Quality Loyalty
Total Effect Sum of Direct and Indirect Effect
Search Service
0.204 0.210 0.020 0.043 0.063
Experience Service
0.240 0.305 0.024 0.073 0.097
Credence Service
0.349 0.458 0.092 0.160 0.252
Diff-1 (Cred-Search) 0.145 0.248 0.072 0.117 0.189
Diff-2 (Cred-Exp) 0.109 0.153 0.068 0.087 0.155
106
Table 8: A summary of Hypotheses and Findings
Hypothesis Findings
H1 : Service Type moderates the relationship between service quality and loyalty
Supported
H2: Service type moderates the relationship between service quality and satisfaction
Not Supported
H3: Service Type moderates the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty
Supported
H4: Service Type moderates the mediation effect of satisfaction between service quality and loyalty
Supported
107
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE SPSS REGRESSION AND CNLR SYNTAX
The following SPSS syntax produces results for quality (qual_c) as
the independent variable, satisfaction (sat_c) as the mediator variable,
loyalty (loyalty) as the outcome variable, and service type (servtype) as
the moderator variable. All continuous variables are mean-centered, as
indicated by the letter c in the variable names. Interactions which are
products of a variable (ex. Quality) and a dummy variable representing
service type are given names which concatenate the independent variable
as well as the service type such as InterQualSearch. Regression results
for Equations 2 and 3 are produced by the REGRESSION procedure, and
bootstrap estimates are generated by the constrained nonlinear
regression (CNLR) procedure. The CNLR syntax should specify the same
random number seed (e.g., 54321) for Equations 2 and 3 in the SET lines
and use coefficient estimates from the REGRESSION procedure as
starting values in the MODEL PROGRAM line.
The COMPUTE PRED and CNLR lines specify the independent
and dependent variables, respectively. Each OUTFILE produces 1,001
rows of coefficient estimates, the first containing estimates from the full
sample and the remaining rows containing estimates from the 1,000
bootstrap samples. The CNLR syntax requires SPSS version 14.0.2 or
later.
* REGRESSION syntax for Equation 2
108
SET RNG=MT MTINDEX=54321 .
MODEL PROGRAM a02= .025 aX2=.664 aZ21=.057 aZ22=-.140
aXZ21=.221 aXZ22=.042.
COMPUTE PRED = a02 + aX2*Qual_c + aZ21*SearchD1 +
aZ22*ExprD2 + aXZ21* InterQualSearch + aXZ52*InterQualExprnc.
CNLR Sat_c
/OUTFILE='C:\Users\Documents\Dissert\May3\FXOutput.SAV'
/BOOTSTRAP=1000 .
.
* REGRESSION syntax for Equation 20.
SET RNG=MT MTINDEX=54321 .
MODEL PROGRAM b020= .498 bX20=.092 bM20=.458 bZ21=.541
bZ22=.347 bXZ21=-.072 bXZ22 = .347 bMZ21=-.248 bMZ22=-.153.
COMPUTE PRED = b020 + bX20*Qual_c + bM20*Sat_c +
bZ21*SearchD1 +bZ22*ExprD2 + bXZ21*InterQualSearch +
bXZ22*InterQualExprnc + bMZ21*InterSatSearch +
bMZ22*InterSatExprnc .
CNLR Loyalty
/OUTFILE='C:\Documents\Dissert\May3\FXOutput.SAV'
/BOOTSTRAP=1000.
109
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR ONLINE SURVEY
Thank you for your participation in this survey.
I am a student studying satisfaction with service businesses
and appreciate your help. Please answer all of the following questions to the best of your ability. Submission of this survey will
be considered your consent to participate.
Please complete the survey in a single sitting. It should take no more than 10-12 minutes of your time.
If you are a student completing this survey for extra credit, please enter the ID code you have been given. If not, please enter 0.
Please enter the name of the country where you currently reside.
Block 1 In the past 6 months, have you purchased tickets at a ball game or
theater online?
o Yes o No
We would like to compare the ticket selling service to your
expectations. Please do not evaluate the theater or ballpark. Please think about the two different levels of expectations defined
below and the actual service you received:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: The lowest level of adequate service
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL: The level of service you wanted
RECEIVED SERVICE LEVEL: The service you actually received For the following questions, please indicate your minimum service
level in the first column, your desired service level in the second column and your perception of the service you received in the third column.
Please evaluate the ticket selling service When it comes to
Minimum Service Level
Desired Service Level
Received Service Level
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
1. Prompt service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
110
2. Caring Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. On-Time Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Visually appealing materials associated with the service (e.g. clear seating chart to select our choice of seats)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Having your best interest at heart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Willingness to help you
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Error-free records
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Kept you informed about when services will be performed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Provided Services as promised
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Knowledgeable Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Dependability in handling any service problems
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ready to respond to requests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Performed the service right the first time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Gave you individual attention
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Modern Equipment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Made you feel safe in my transactions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by the ticket selling service?
Very Good Good Fair Neither Good nor Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
18. Thinking about your ticket service overall, please rate the value you feel you get for your money.
Very Good Good Fair Neither Good nor
Poor Bad Very Bad
111
Bad
19. Based on your overall experience with the ticket service, please indicate how likely you are to take the following actions
Very
Likely Likely
Somewhat
Likely Undecided
Somewhat
Unlikely Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
Do more business with this ticket service in the next few years
Do less business with this ticket service in the next few years
Take some of your business to a competitor that offers better prices
Continue to do business with this ticket service even if prices increase somewhat
Pay a higher price than what competitors charge for the benefits you currently receive from this service
Switch to a competitor if you experience a problem with this service
Complain to other consumers if
112
you experience a problem with this service
Complain to the ticket service‘s employees if you experience a problem with the service
Complain to external agencies, such as the Better Business Bureau, if you experience a problem with the service
Say positive things about the ticket service to other people
Recommend the service to someone who seeks your advice
Encourage friends and relatives to do business with this service
Consider this service your first choice to buy tickets in the future
20. I am happy about my decision to go to this ticket service.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
21. I believe I did the right thing when I selected this ticket service.
113
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
22. Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this ticket service.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
23. I was able to judge the performance of this ticket selling service even before I tried it.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
24. I was able to judge the performance of this ticket selling service only after I had tried it.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
25. Have you had a problem with any of your transactions with this ticket service
o Yes o No.
26. If Yes, was it resolved to your satisfaction?
o Yes o No.
114
The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your answers will be combined with others and will be kept strictly confidential.
27. How long have you been buying tickets from this ticket service? o Less than 1 year o 1 year but less than 2 years o 2 years but less than 3 years o 3 years but less than 5 years o 5 years or more
28. What is your current status?
o Single, never married o Married without children o Married with children o Divorced o Separated o Widowed o Living w/ partner
29. How old are you? o 18 – 25 o 26 – 34 o 35 – 54 o 55 – 64
30. What is your gender?
o Male o Female
115
Block 2 In the past 6 months, have you been to a sit down restaurant? By
sit-down we mean a restaurant where a waiter/waitress takes your order at the table and then serves you?
o Yes o No
We would like to compare the restaurant service to your
expectations. Please think about the two different levels of expectations defined
below and the actual service you received:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: The lowest level of adequate service
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL: The level of service you wanted
RECEIVED SERVICE LEVEL: The service you actually received For the following questions, please indicate your minimum service
level in the first column, your desired service level in the second column and your perception of the service you received in the third column.
Please evaluate the restaurant service When it comes to
Minimum Service Level
Desired Service Level
Received Service Level
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
1. Prompt service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Caring Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. On-Time Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Visually appealing materials associated with the service (e.g. menus with pictures of the entrees)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Having your best interest at heart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Willingness to help you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Error-free records 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Kept you informed about when services will be performed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Provided Services as promised 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Knowledgeable Employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Dependability in handling any service problems
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ready to respond to requests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Performed the service right the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
116
first time
14. Gave you individual attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Modern Equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Made you feel safe in my transactions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by the
restaurant service?
Very Good Good Fair Neither Good nor Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
18. Thinking about the restaurant service overall, please rate the value you
feel you get for your money.
Very Good Good Fair Neither Good nor Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
19. Based on your overall experience with the restaurant, please indicate how likely you are to take the following actions
Very Likely
Likely Somewhat Likely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Somewhat Unlikely
Unlikely Very Unlikely
Dine more at this restaurant in the next few years
Dine less at this restaurant in the next few years
Take some of your business to a competitor restaurant that offers better prices
Continue to visit this restaurant even if prices increase somewhat
Pay a higher price than what competitors charge for the dining experience you currently receive from this service
Switch to a competitor if you experience a problem with this restaurant
Complain to other
117
consumers if you experience a problem with this restaurant
Complain to the restaurant‘s employees if you experience a problem with the service
Complain to eternal agencies, such as the Better Business Bureau, if you experience a problem with the restaurant
Say positive things about the restaurant to other people
Recommend the restaurant to someone who seeks your advice
Encourage friends and relatives to visit this restaurant
Consider this restaurant your first choice to dine out in the future
20. I am happy about my decision to go to visit this restaurant.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
21. I believe I did the right thing when I selected this restaurant.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
22. Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this restaurant.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
23. I was able to judge the performance of this restaurant service even before I tried it.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
118
24. I was able to judge the performance of this restaurant service only after I had tried it.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
25. I found it difficult to judge the performance of this restaurant service
even after having tried it.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
26. Have you had a problem with any of your transactions with this restaurant
o Yes o No.
27. If Yes, was it resolved to your satisfaction?
o Yes o No.
The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your
answers will be combined with others and will be kept strictly confidential.
28. How long have you been visiting this restaurant? o Less than 1 year o 1 year but less than 2 years o 2 years but less than 3 years o 3 years but less than 5 years o 5 years or more
29. What is your current status?
o Single, never married o Married without children o Married with children
119
o Divorced o Separated o Widowed o Living w/ partner
30. How old are you?
o 18 – 25 o 26 – 34 o 35 – 54 o 55 – 64
31. What is your gender?
o Male o Female
120
Block 3 Have you had an appointment with a dentist in the past 6 months?
o Yes o No
We would like to compare the dentist's service to your expectations.
Please think about the two different levels of expectations defined below and the actual service you received:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: The lowest level of adequate service
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL: The level of service you wanted
RECEIVED SERVICE LEVEL: The service you actually received For the following questions, please indicate your minimum service
level in the first column, your desired service level in the second column and your perception of the service you received in the third column.
Please evaluate dentist's service When it comes to
Minimum Service Level
Desired Service Level
Received Service Level
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
1. Prompt service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Caring Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. On-Time Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Visually appealing materials associated with the service (e.g. photos, brochures)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Having your best interest at heart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Willingness to help you
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Error-free records
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Kept you informed about when services will be performed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Provided Services as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
121
promised
10. Knowledgeable Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Dependability in handling any service problems
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ready to respond to requests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Performed the service right the first time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Gave you individual attention
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Modern Equipment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Made you feel safe in my transactions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by your
dentist?
Very Good Good Fair Neither Good nor Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
18. Thinking about your dentist's service overall, please rate the value you feel you get for your money.
Very Good Good Fair Neither Good nor Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
19. Based on your overall experience with the dentist, please indicate how likely you are to take the following actions
Very Likely
Likely Somewhat Likely
Neither Likely nor Unlikely
Somewhat Unlikely
Unlikely Very Unlikely
Visit this dentist
122
more in the next few years
Visit this dentist less in the next few years
Take some of your business to a competitor that offers better prices
Continue to do business with this dentist if his/her prices increase somewhat
Pay a higher price than what competitors charge for the benefits you currently receive from your current dentist
Switch to a competitor if you experience a problem with your dentist's service
Complain to other consumers if you experience a problem with this dentist's service
Complain to the dentist's employees if you experience a problem with his/her service
Complain to external agencies, such
123
as the Better Business Bureau, if you experience a problem with the dentist's service
Say positive things about the dentist to other people
Recommend the dentist to someone who seeks your advice
Encourage friends and relatives to go to this dentist
Consider this dentist your first choice to get any dental work in future
20. I am happy about my decision to go to this dentist.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
21. I believe I did the right thing when I selected this dentist.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
22. Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this dentist.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
124
23. I was able to judge the performance of this dentist before having had a
treatment.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
24. I was able to judge the performance of this dentist after having had a
treatment.
Strongly Agree
Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
25. Did your insurance cover all or most of the expenses of this visit?
o I do not have dental insurance o Yes o No. I have insurance but I paid all or most of the expenses out of
the pocket
26. Have you had a problem with any of your transactions with this dentist
o Yes o No.
27. If Yes, was it resolved to your satisfaction?
o Yes o No.
The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your answers will be combined with others and will be kept strictly confidential.
28. How long have you been visiting this dentist? o Less than 1 year o 1 year but less than 2 years o 2 years but less than 3 years o 3 years but less than 5 years o 5 years or more
125
29. What is your current status?
o Single, never married o Married without children o Married with children o Divorced o Separated o Widowed o Living w/ partner
30. How old are you?
o 18 – 25 o 26 – 34 o 35 – 54 o 55 – 64
31. What is your gender?
o Male o Female
126
VITA
Komal Karani is currently an assistant professor of Marketing at Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas. Her research interests include services marketing, satisfaction and quality, aging consumers and consumer behavior. She has published on these issues in conference proceedings such as Academy of Marketing Science.
E D U C A T I O N
Ph.D:. LeBow College of Business Drexel University, 2010
M.B.A: M.L. Sukhadia College of Business
Udaipur University, Rajasthan India, 1998 B.S: Maharani‘s College
Rajasthan University, India, 1996
R E S E A R C H I N T E R E S T S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N S
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
1. Komal Gyani Karani & Katherine Fraccastoro (2010): “Resistance to Brand Switching : The elderly consumer” A study looking at quality of life and its impact on elderly consumers. Presented at International Business and Economics Research division of the Clute conference in Las Vegas. This paper was awarded the “Best paper at the session.”
2. Komal Gyani Karani (2006), “The Price is right! Or is it? A study of price as a measure of information and its effect on the consumer’s decision making process.” Presented at the 2006 AMS Annual Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Published in Conference Proceedings in abstract form.
3. Komal Gyani Karani (2007), “Brand Switching and the elderly
consumer.” Presented at the 2007 AMS Annual Conference, Miami, Florida. Published in Conference Proceedings in abstract form.