reference scales of service quality and satisfaction judgments: a reconsideration and research...
TRANSCRIPT
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
• Research Implications and Directions
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).
Implied Reference Scalesa. Disconfirmation model (single standard)
Negative Disconfirmation Positive Disconfirmation
Implied Positive Latitude
(-) (+)
Implied Negative Latitude
Expected
b. Zone of tolerance model (multiple standard, bounded range)
Negative Disconfirmation Latitude of acceptance
Zone of Tolerance
(-) (+)
(Positive Disconfirmation ?)
Implied Negative Zone
Minimum TolerableStandard
DesiredStandard
(?)
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)
Implied Reference Scales (2)
Latitude of objectionability Latitude of acceptance
MostObjectionable
Most acceptable
Latitude of Noncommitment
(-) (+)
Latitude of objectionability
Latitude model of social judgment theory (multiple standard, anchor-based)
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
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.
“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
Category Cards:Waitperson Friendliness
1ExtremelyFriendly
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Extremely
Unfriendly
1ExtremelySlow
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11ExtremelyFast
a. Waitperson Friendliness
b. Serving Response-time
“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.
“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
Average Reference Scale Organization
Objectionability Acceptance
MostObjectionable
Most Acceptable
Noncommitment
(-) (+)
Objectionability(Hyperservice)
Minimum TolerableDeserved
DesiredExpected
b. Serving Response Time
Objectionability Acceptance
MostObjectionable
Most Acceptable
Noncommitment
(-) (+)
Objectionability(Hyperservice)
Minimum TolerableDeserved
DesiredExpected
a. Waitperson Friendliness
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
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
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
Typical Mapping of Reference Scales
Extremely
UnfriendlyExtremely
Friendly
17
6 4
11
7
16
12
9 13 1 8 1510
5 3 14
2
Extremely
UnacceptableExtremely
Acceptable
17
6
14
13
11
712
24 8 1
15
10
5 3
9
16
IdealDesired
Expected & Deserved
Minimum Tolerable
IdealDesiredExpected & Deserved
Minimum Tolerable
# = Respondent-observed restaurant behavior from video #15 = waitperson gave phone ##14 = waitperson sat down when friend left table
a. Attribute Dimension
a. Evaluative Dimension
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
Study 3: Comparison of Unbranded and Branded Reference Scales
Tests of Mean Differences Among Latitude Measures
MeasureMean
(Branded)
Mean (unbrand
ed) Difference t-value p Sig
Latitude of rejection (size) 3.00 4.06 -1.06 -2.45 0.017 Y
Latitude of acceptance (size) 3.07 4.11 -1.04 -2.25 0.027 Y
Latitude of non-commit. (size) 4.32 2.17 2.15 2.73 0.008 Y
Density of lat. of accept 12.68 14.86 -2.17 -1.15 0.252 N
Density of lat. of object 16.44 22.49 -6.05 -2.72 0.008 Y
Density of lat. of non-commit 25.88 17.66 8.22 2.38 0.020 Y
Minimum tolerable position 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 N
Frequency Distributions Of Behavioral Intentions By Latitude
Variable Latitude Branded Unbranded Χ2 df p<.05
Freq Percent Freq Percent
RETURN Acceptability 63 62.38 71 78.89 9.96 2 yes
Objectionability 4 3.96 6 6.67
Noncommitment 34 33.66 13 14.44
Study 3: Comparison of Behavioral Intentions
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
Latitude Relationships
Latitude of Objectionability(intolerance)
Latitude of Acceptance
Latitude of Tolerance
(-) (+)
Composite Latitudes
Latitude Anchors
Latitude of Non-Acceptability
PrimaryLatitudes
Latitude of Non- commitment(indifference)
L of NL of O
Hyperactivity
Latitude of noncommitment
Latitude of rejection
Latitude of acceptanceMost objectionable
position
M o s t a c c e p ta b lep o s i ti o n
Neutrals (e.g., food presentation)
(-) (+)
Latitude of noncommitment
Latitude of rejection
Latitude of acceptanceMost objectionable
position
M os t ac ce ptab lepo si tio n
Criticals (e.g., quality of food)
(-) (+)
Latitude of noncommitment
Latitude of rejection
Latitude of acceptanceMost objectionable
position
M o s t a c c e p ta b lep o s i ti o n
Satisfiers (e.g., large serving portions)
(-) (+)
Latitude of noncommitment
Latitude of rejection
Latitude of acceptanceMost objectionable
position
M o s t a c c e p ta b lep o s i ti o n
Dissatisfiers (e.g., Parking at restaurant)
(-) (+)
Latitude Profiles of Service Dimensions
Evaluative Distributions
Distribution of objectionability
Distribution of Expectations
MostObjectionable
Desired
Latitude of Noncommitment
(-) (+)
Distribution ofobjectionability
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.
Expected
Distribution of Desirability
Implications of DistributionsDistribution of Expectations
Distribution of Desirability
(+)
“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
DExpect Desire
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
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
Implied Management StrategiesModel Strategy Description
Disconfirmation Lower Standard “Don’t expect much and we will make you happy”
Zone of Tolerance Lower Adequate Increase Desired
“Want much but accept much less”
Social Judgment (SJI)
Raise Expectations
“We give you what you desire and deserve”