1 / 28

Reference Scales of Service Quality and Satisfaction Judgments: A Reconsideration and Research Agenda

Reference Scales of Service Quality and Satisfaction Judgments: A Reconsideration and Research Agenda. Stephen L. Vargo University of Maryland. Outline of Presentation. Implied Reference Scales--Models and Issues Partial results of three Studies of Reference Scale Organization

jase
Download Presentation

Reference Scales of Service Quality and Satisfaction Judgments: A Reconsideration and Research Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Reference Scales of Service Quality and Satisfaction Judgments: A Reconsideration and Research Agenda Stephen L. Vargo University of Maryland

  2. Outline of Presentation • Implied Reference Scales--Models and Issues • Partial results of three Studies of Reference Scale Organization • Research Implications and Directions

  3. The Research Domain • Reference Scale = The mental “ruler” used in making judgments about marketing phenomena (e.g., service encounters) • Satisfaction • Service-quality • Components: • Standard: A point on the reference scale that the consumer uses in the comparison of external stimuli • Categories (zones, latitudes): Similarly valenced ranges (latitudes) on a reference scale • associated with common (or similar) evaluative judgments (e.g., good or bad).

  4. a. Disconfirmation model (single standard) Positive Disconfirmation Negative Disconfirmation (-) (+) Implied Positive Latitude Implied Negative Latitude Expected b. Zone of tolerance model (multiple standard, bounded range) Negative Disconfirmation (Positive Disconfirmation ?) Latitude of acceptance (?) (-) (+) Zone of Tolerance Implied Negative Zone Minimum Tolerable Standard Desired Standard Implied Reference Scales

  5. Some Problems with Disconfirmation and Zone Models • What is appropriate single standard • e.g. expected, desired, deserved, or adequate performance (Bolton and Drew 1991; Boulding et al. 1993; Spreng and Mackoy 1996) • Nature of Standard (and therefore comparison) • e.g., “vector attribute” or “ideal point” (Teas 1993) • Expectations and perceptions not independent • “we see what we expect to see” (Pieters, Koelemeijer, and Roest 1996)

  6. Implied Reference Scales (2) Latitude model of social judgment theory (multiple standard, anchor-based) Latitude of objectionability Latitude of objectionability Latitude of acceptance (-) (+) Most acceptable Most Objectionable Latitude of Noncommitment

  7. Reference Scale Types and Issues • Major reference scale models • Single-standard comparison models—e.g., disconfirmation model (Oliver 1980 ) • Boundary-driven, zone models—e.g., zone of tolerance model (Parasuraman et al. 1994 ; Woodruff, et al 1983 ) • Anchor-based, latitude models—e.g., latitude of acceptance (Social judgment theory) (Anderson 1973; Miller 1977 ) • Issues • Nature of standards--boundaries vs. anchors • Related to vector attributes vs. “ideal points” • Relative role of alternative standards • Predicted expectations, normative expectations (should, deserve) desire, minimum tolerable • Dynamics of reference scales under varying conditions • e.g., prior positive or negative evaluation • e.g., changes under hi and low involvement conditions

  8. Study 1: Summary of Hypotheses • Consumers differentiate among standards—i.e., standards play different roles • Standards are not equivalent to latitude boundaries. • Standards consistently associated specific latitudes. • Existence of “hyperservice”—positively rated attribute dimension is evaluated “unacceptable” • Positive and negative behavioral intentions associated with positive and negative latitudes, respectively. • No behavioral intensions associated with neutral latitude.

  9. “Own Categories” Sample Statements: Friendliness • The waitperson tells you that you were wonderful customers (11). • The waitperson writes a personal note of thanks on the check (11). • The waitperson says: "Let me know when you have made up your mind" (6). • The waitperson touches you when talking to you (6). • The waitperson asks a lot of personal questions (6). • The waitperson points out the least expensive items on the menu (6). • The waitperson comments that your clothes are out of fashion (1). • The waitperson swears at you (1). Notes: Number (1-11) equals median placement in pre-test; Approximately 50 total statements. Also used serving response-time—separate instrument

  10. Category Cards:Waitperson Friendliness a. Waitperson Friendliness 1 2 3 6 4 5 7 8 11 10 9 Extremely Extremely Friendly Unfriendly b. Serving Response-time 1 2 3 6 4 5 7 8 11 10 9 Extremely Extremely Slow Fast

  11. “Own Categories” Procedures (1) • Respondents given scenario • Lunch with acquaintance in new, unknown family restaurant • Appearance, prices, quantity and quality of food were defined as “as expected” • Asked to sort statements about a dimension (e.g., friendliness, serving time ) according to similarity • Asked to identify: • Stack which represents most acceptable service level • All other stacks that represent acceptable service levels. • Stack that represents most undesirable service level • All other stacks that represent unacceptable service levels.

  12. “Own Categories” Procedures (2) • Asked to identify • Stacks that represent the service levels they would expect, desire, deserve, find minimally tolerable • Stacks they would associate with various behavioral intentions: • Positive and negative word-of-mouth (tell friends) • Leave • Complain • Repeat patronage

  13. a. Waitperson Friendliness Noncommitment Objectionability (Hyperservice) Acceptance Objectionability (-) (+) Most Acceptable Deserved Most Objectionable Minimum Tolerable Expected Desired b. Serving Response Time Noncommitment Objectionability (Hyperservice) Acceptance Objectionability (-) (+) Most Acceptable Deserved Most Objectionable Minimum Tolerable Expected Desired Average Reference Scale Organization

  14. Research Findings: Placement of Standards and Behavioral Intentions • “Expected” (Expect/Deserve) and “Desired” (Desire/Most acceptable) service standards associated with LA • Do not serve as boundaries • Minimum tolerable associated with LNC • not lower bound of LA • Strong evidence of “hyperservice” • Negative behavioral intentions associated with LO • Positive behavioral intentions associated with LA

  15. Study 2: Focus Group • Purpose • Elaboration and enrichment of quantitative study • Exploratory • Approach • Think about and discuss good and bad restaurant experiences • Think about and discuss meaning of standards (e.g., desired, ideal, expected, etc.) • Place standards on two “rulers”—acceptable/unacceptable & friendly/unfriendly—and discuss • Watch video employing subset of statements from card sort • List and number behaviors • Position numbers on rulers (friendliness and acceptability/unacceptability) • Discuss likely responses to behaviors

  16. Study 2: Focus Group: Outcomes • Fairly consistent ordering of standards • Some tendency to equate expected/deserved & desired/ideal • Tendency to group—stack (or “would have stacked if I knew I could”)--behaviors • A lot of support (verbal & on scale) for “hyperservice” • e.g., flirting is extremely friendly, but unacceptable • Some evidence of different RS organ. Under different conditions • Importance (involvement) • Previous evaluation/relationship

  17. Typical Mapping of Reference Scales a. Attribute Dimension Minimum Tolerable 16 Expected & Deserved Ideal Desired 11 17 2 12 Extremely Unfriendly 10 Extremely Friendly 9 13 6 7 4 1 15 8 14 3 5 a. Evaluative Dimension 15 14 Desired Minimum Tolerable Ideal Expected & Deserved 7 17 9 13 12 Extremely Unacceptable 10 Extremely Acceptable 4 2 6 8 1 11 5 16 3 # #15 = waitperson gave phone # #14 = waitperson sat down when friend left table = Respondent-observed restaurant behavior from video

  18. Study 3: Experiment • Purpose • Investigate impact of relationship/branding on reference scales • Differences in reference scales for restaurant with prior positive brand evaluation vs. new restaurant • Hypotheses--With prior, positive brand relationship: • Decreased latitude of objectionability • Increased latitude of non-commitment • No change in latitude of acceptance • Shift of positive BI from LA only to LA and LNC • Method • “Electronic” Card sort • “Branded” scenario assigned to half the respondents • Restaurant is new but recognize brand as part of favorite chain • Outcomes • Hypotheses generally supported (significance and trends) • Both LA and LO decreased • BI associate with both LA and LNC for Branded condition

  19. Study 3: Comparison of Unbranded and Branded Reference Scales

  20. Study 3: Comparison of Behavioral Intentions

  21. Extensions and Research Agenda • Synthesis • Simultaneous influence of multiple standards • Sorting out the “latitudes” and “zones” in marketing literature • Adds depth to Social Judgment model • Role of minimum tolerable—”adaptation level” • Explanation of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers • Distributions of expectations, desires • “Six Sigma” • Other evaluative reference scales—price • International Issues • Cross cultural differences in reference scales • Reference scale as index of acculturation

  22. Latitude Relationships Latitude of Non-Acceptability Composite Latitudes Latitude of Tolerance L of O Latitude of Objectionability (intolerance) Latitude of Non- commitment (indifference) Latitude of Acceptance L of N Primary Latitudes (-) (+) Hyperactivity Latitude Anchors

  23. Latitude Profiles of Service Dimensions

  24. Evaluative Distributions Distribution of Desirability Distribution of Expectations Distribution of objectionability Distribution of objectionability (-) (+) Expected Desired Most Objectionable Latitude of Noncommitment Partially based on Rust, Roland T. et al, (1999) “What You Don’t Know About Customer-Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation Distributions, Marketing Science” 18 (1), 77-92.

  25. Implications of Distributions Distribution of Expectations Distribution of Desirability (+) Desire D Expect “Relationship” ↑as D ↓ or, more precisely, Ideal Relationship = Distribution of expectations within distributions of desirability Six Sigma = 99.9998 % of performance within Latitude of Acceptability

  26. Other Directions • Evaluative reference scales in price research • “altitude of price acceptance” • Cultural Issues • Cultural differences in reference scales • Satisfiers and dissatisfiers as bases for local vs. global • Reference scales as indices of acculturation

  27. Management Implications • Managing the service-encounter • Not sufficient to know what consumer wants • Must know what consumer finds objectionable • Too much service (hyperservice”) may be more harmful than too little • Managing the evaluation process • Competitive advantage through expectations management • Can not manage positive latitudes only • May be more important to manage LO and LNC

  28. Implied Management Strategies

More Related