Impact of culture on service quality: What we know and

what we need to learn

Evangelos Tsoukatos
Department of Finance and Insurance, TEI of Crete
P.O. Box 128, 72100, Agios Nikolaos,
Crete, GREECE
TEL. +30 (28410) 91202, tsoukat@staff.teicrete.gr

Abstract:
This study aims at presenting the current state of knowledge on the impact of culture
to service quality perceptions/expectations and shed light on issues that need to be
further researched. Existing studies on the interactions between culture and service
quality are thoroughly reviewed, different perspectives of studying these interactions
are discussed and future research challenges are pointed out. This study’s approach
and conclusions are of both managerial and academic value.

Keywords: Service Quality, SERVQUAL, Culture, Culture Typologies

1. Introduction
Services account for more than two thirds of the Global economy accounting for 72%
of the GDP of developed nations and a high GDP share in developing economies (The
World Bank, 2007). Beyond their own dynamism services have a wider impact on
economic growth providing support to other industries (Malhotra et al., 2005). Even
tangible products are, for the most part, “wrapped” in services to achieve market
acceptance. A rapidly growing ‘integrated manufacturing-services sector’ is evident
that includes ‘the complex of production and service activities involved in the
creation, production, and distribution of manufactured goods” (Pappas and Sheehan,
1998).
The literature provides ample evidence that service organizations are well aware that
service excellence can no longer be a matter of good will or a voluntary corporate
offering but rather a decisive competitive mechanism leading to market share growth,
productivity and economic performance. Service quality is the most researched area in
services marketing (Fisk et al., 1993) often at the expense of others (Malhotra et al.,
2005). However, research focuses on its consequences rather than its antecedents.
This is especially true regarding culture, as marketing research up to date is either
focused on mono-cultural service settings (Malhotra et al., 2005) or disregards culture
altogether as a variable. Yet, culture is bound to influence service quality perceptions
and, thus, be critical in optimizing the allocation of quality resources (Tsoukatos and
Rand, 2007).
Does the literature, up to date, provide enough evidence about culture’s impact on
service quality expectations/perceptions? Is there loose knowledge that we still need
to acquire? Unequivocally, the answers to these two questions are NO and YES
respectively. A recent literature search in the EBSCO database produced only 51
academic papers containing the terms “culture” or “cultural” and “service quality” or
“service expectations” or “service perceptions” in their title, of which only 27
considering culture at the national or individual levels (Table 1). The same search
produced 1,173 and 26,682 articles with the terms “service quality” and “culture” in
title respectively, indicating that despite the plethora of studies on service quality and

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1525902

culture it is only fair to assert that the interactions between culture and service quality
is a considerably under-researched area. Through thoroughly reviewing existing
studies this paper aims at presenting the current state of knowledge on the impact of
culture to service quality perceptions/expectations and shed light on issues that need
to be further researched.
Following this introductory section, the remainder of this paper is organized as
follows: In sections 2 and 3 the concepts of culture and service quality are discussed
in short, while section 4 is devoted to reviewing existing literature on the impact of
culture to service quality perceptions/expectations. Finally, section 5 presents a
summary of conclusions and directions for further research.
2. Culture
Tylor (1974) (first published in 1871) described culture as including “knowledge,
belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by
man as a member of society”. In 1980, Hofstede defined culture as “the collective
programming of the mind” while in UNESCO’s (2002) Universal Declaration on
Cultural Diversity, culture is considered as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material,
intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, that encompasses, in
addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems,
traditions and beliefs”.
Several levels of culture are considered: National Culture is described by Tayeb
(2003) as “a constant thread ... through our lives which makes us distinguishable
from others, especially those in other countries”. Though heterogeneous, national
culture contains enough common elements enabling the formation of a collective
identity (Browaeys and Price, 2002). Organizational Culture is regarded as the set of
common norms and behaviours of the members of an organization (Schein, 1999)
which is influenced by key personnel own cultural backgrounds (Browaeys and Price,
2002). Corporate Culture extends the notion of organizational culture to
organizations operating multi-nationally. It evolves as the common denominator of
local organizational or national cultures or both (Browaeys and Price, 2002).
However, the foundation of all aforementioned levels of culture rests upon Individual
Culture. The culture of any group of people is the common denominator of the
cultures of individuals forming the group under consideration (Adler, 2002). In any of
the above discussed levels, culture is a driver of people’s norms and actions. As such,
it is bound to be a fundamental aspect of domestic or international marketing
phenomena (Penaloza and Gilly, 1991).
Along the years, a number of typologies of national/individual culture appeared in the
literature, notably those of Kluckholm and Strodbeck (1961), Hall (1984), Hofstede
(1980, 1991), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) and House et al (2004), of
which the one proposed by Hofstede is prevailing in the literature. Kluckholm and
Strodbeck (1961) defined culture in terms of people’s perceptions of the environment,
relationships among people, own position in the world, basic human nature, use of
time and finally use of space. Hall (1984) proposed three dimensions of culture:
context (high/low), time (monochronic/polychronic) and space (high/low
territoriality), related to direct/indirect and explicit/implicit communication of
information, linear/cyclic perception of time and safeguarding/sharing space and
material ownership respectively. Hofstede (1980, 1991) defined culture across five
dimensions: Power Distance (accepting unequal distribution of power), Uncertainty
Avoidance (avoiding risk and ambiguities of everyday life),
Individualism/Collectivism (reflecting people’s attitude towards the group),
Masculinity/Femininity (the extent to which the roles of the two sexes are distinct in a

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1525902

society) and finally Long-Term Orientation (fostering virtues oriented towards future
rewards). Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), introduced seven dimensions of
culture: Universalism/Particularism (finding broad and general rules vs. finding
exceptions), Analyzing/Integrating (decomposing to find the detail vs. building the
big picture), Individualism/Communitarianism (fostering the rights of the individual
vs. fostering the rights of society), Inner-directed/Outer-directed (encouraging
thinking and personal judgement vs. seeking data in the outer world), Time as
sequence/Time as synchronisation (events seen one after another vs. events seen in
parallel), Achieved status/Ascribed status (gaining status through performance vs.
gaining status through other means, such as seniority) and Equality/Hierarchy (people
having equal status vs. people being superior to others). House et al (2004) defined
culture across nine dimensions: Assertiveness (being assertive, confrontational and
aggressive), Institutional Collectivism (encouraging and rewarding collective
distribution of resources and collective action), In-Group Collectivism (being proud
and loyal to organizations and families), Future Orientation (encouraging future-
oriented behaviours), Gender Egalitarianism (minimising gender inequality), Humane
Orientation (encouraging fairness and kindness to others), Performance Orientation
(rewarding innovation and performance), Power Distance (accepting power
differences and status privileges) and Uncertainty Avoidance (relying on norms and
strict rules to alleviate unpredictability of the future).
3. Service Quality-Service Quality Measurement
Due to services’ inherent characteristics the criteria for service excellence are far less
specific and more composite than those for tangible goods (Berry and Parasuraman,
1991). Along the lines of the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980)
customers evaluate services by comparing actual performance with their expectations
(Lewis and Booms, 1983). The result of this comparison is defined as perceived
service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). This implies that a) the exclusive
judges of service superiority/inferiority are customers (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991)
and b) services are evaluated not only by the outcome but also by the delivery process
and the service “peripherals” (Zeithaml et al., 1990; Zeithaml and Parasuraman,
2004).
Under the perspective of the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm, researchers adopt
either the Nordic (Grönroos, 1982, 1984) or the American model (Parasuraman et al.,
1988) of service quality with the latter dominating by far the literature. The Nordic
model (Gronroos, 1982, 1984) envisages services as products requiring the
involvement of customers in the production-consumption process. Through
“corporate image”, perceived service quality is influenced by both the core service
and the service process. The American model (Parasuraman et al., 1988) regards
service quality across five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy
and tangibles. Service quality is then measured in terms of a battery of twenty two
service attributes along the five dimensions, nicknamed SERVQUAL after its origins.
For each attribute service quality is the difference between perception and expectation
scores, provided by customers in identical Likert scales.
At a later stage, (Cronin Jr and Taylor, 1992) proposed performance only
measurement of service quality (SERVPERF) as statistically more sound and more
parsimonious than disconfirmation measurement (SERVQUAL). However, the latter
provides more detailed information on the causes of service superiority/inferiority, its
approach seems logical and straightforward to practitioners (Wisniewski, 2001) and,
despite being subjected to criticism (Kang and James, 2004) it is clearly prevailing in
the literature.
 Table 1. Reviewed Studies on the Impact of Culture to Service Quality Expectations/Perceptions
Setting/ Service Quality Culture Typology/
Authors/Year Cultures Findings/Implications/Proposals
Samples Determinants Determinants
(Malhotra et al., Reliability, Access, Economic and socio- Directions for further research are provided regarding the following hypotheses.
1994) Understanding cultural factors including
customers, Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Developed Economies Developing Economies
(Literature Study)
Responsiveness, dimensions. Emphasis on technology “breakthrough” service, Emphasis on personnel, “merely good”
Competence, Courtesy, timely response, continuous improvement and service, substantive response, improvement
Communication, proactive efforts. when possible, good recovery.
Credibility, Security High expectations, low tolerance for Higher tolerance levels, lower quality
and Tangibles. ineffectiveness. expectations
(Parasuraman et al., Respect for privacy and customers’ rights. Personal contact, emphasis on social norms.
1985)
Competent employees. Competent service firm.
Communicating detailed and complex Communicating basic information focusing
information. on social acceptance.
Emphasis on Relationship marketing Emphasis on tangibles and core service.

(Kettinger et al., Korea, Hong Kong, Information ISF/SERVQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Similar ISF-SERVQUAL structures between USA and Netherlands and between Korea and Honk
1995) USA and the Systems (Kettinger and Lee, Kong attributed to “Western” and “Asian” factor respectively.
Netherlands. Student samples 1995)
Similarities/dissimilarities discussed on the basis of Hofstede’s national characteristics, other social
factors and maturity/evolution levels of IS Technology. Different ISF quality measures in different
countries needed.
(Herbig and Mexico and USA Banks, high street SERVQUAL plus 28 Respondents’ Residence Mexicans give higher service quality scores. Most important for Mexicans: availability; product line;
Genestre, 1996) stores. additional items functioning as advertised; confidence in staff. For Americans personalized service and easy access.
General Speciality stores more reliable for Mexican interior-city respondents, promptness most important for
population USA/Mexican border-town respondents and peripheral benefits most important for US interior-town
samples from respondents.
Interior cities and
Border towns
(Winsted, 1997a) Japan and USA Food Services Authenticity, Caring, Individualism/Collectivis Rankings of Service Assessment Factors:
(Qualitative Study Industry Control, Courtesy, m, Harmony, Status
Formality, Consciousness, Role USA: Civility, Personalization, Remembering, Conversation, Congeniality, Delivery, Authenticity
and Survey) Student samples
Friendliness, Orientation, Empathy, Japan: Civility, Basics, Personalization, Conversation, Concern, Formality
Personalization and Privacy, Predictability,
Promptness Determinism, Time
Orientation,
Achievement Orientation
 Table 1. Reviewed Studies on the Impact of Culture to Service Quality Expectations/Perceptions
Setting/ Service Quality Culture Typology/
Authors/Year Cultures Findings/Implications/Proposals
Samples Determinants Determinants
(Winsted, 1997b) Japan and USA Same as in Winsted, Same as in Winsted, Hypotheses proposed for future research:
(Qualitative Study) 1997a 1997a Most
Service Cultural
Importa
Dimension Values
nt
Authenticity USA Harmony, Individualism, Privacy, Role Orientation
Caring Japan Empathy
Control USA Determinism, Predictability, Harmony
Courtesy Japan Harmony, Status
Formality Japan Predictability, Harmony, Privacy, Role Orientation, Status
Friendliness USA Privacy, Role Orientation, Status
Personalization USA Empathy, Individualism, Predictability, Role Orientation
Promptness Equally Time, Achievement Orientation

(Donthu and Yoo, USA, Canada, UK Banking SERVQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Overall expectations negatively related to Power Distance and Long Term Orientation and positively
1998) and India General (Parasuraman et al., to Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance. Responsiveness and Reliability expectations
population 1988) negatively related to Power Distance. Empathy and Assurance expectations positively related to
samples Individualism.

(Mok and UK, USA, Hotels SERVQUAL Western/Eastern Westerners have higher empathy expectations. Japanese have the lowest expectations for tangibles
Armstrong, 1998) Australia, Japan Hotel quests (Parasuraman et al., background and empathy. No significant differences in reliability, assurance and responsiveness.
and Taiwan. samples 1988)
(Espinoza, 1999) Quebec and Peru Supermarkets SERVPERF (Cronin Individualism/ The SQ metric more applicable to North American than to Latin American cultures.
General and Taylor, 1992) collectivism (Hofstede, Responsiveness most important for monochromic Quebecers, only fourth for polychromic
population 1980) Peruvians. Tangibles most important for Peruvians because their internal market had only recently
samples Monochronic/ shaped. Reliability equally valued.
polychronic (Hall, 1984)
(Mattila, 1999) Asians, Westerners Hotels Special five-item scale. High/Low context Leisure Hotel Guests: Westerners give higher ratings to individual service encounters and overall
Hotel quests (Price et al., 1995) communication (Hall, service quality attributed to higher Power Distance and Higher context of Asian cultures.
samples 1984) Business Hotel Guests: No differences found due to the goal directed behaviour of business guests,
High/Low Power leading them to focus on output rather than process.
distance (Hofstede, Both Groups: Expressed emotions better satisfaction indicators for Westerners.
1980)
(Stauss and Mang, USA, Japan and Airlines Critical Incident Critical incidents mostly among intra-cultural rather than inter-cultural encounters. Domestic
1999) Germany Passenger Technique customers less tolerant of poor quality.
Samples
 Table 1. Reviewed Studies on the Impact of Culture to Service Quality Expectations/Perceptions
Setting/ Service Quality Culture Typology/
Authors/Year Cultures Findings/Implications/Proposals
Samples Determinants Determinants
(Furrer et al., 2000) USA, China, Retail Banking SERVQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Contingency considered: service frequency, service employee gender, customer importance.
Taiwan, Korea, Student samples (Parasuraman et al., Customers clustered into five segments across nations.
Switzerland, other 1988) SERVQUAL
countries. Segment Cultural Profile
Profile

High PDI, COL and MAS.

Followers Most important assurance
Neutral UAV and LTO

Low PDI, high COL and

Balance Moderate importance to all dimensions
UAV, Medium-term
seekers but tangibles
orientation and neutral MAS.
Importance to reliability and
Self High IND, medium FEM, low
responsiveness, low importance to
confidents PDI, UAV and STO
assurance
Sensory High PDI and MAS, medium Extremely high importance to tangibles
seekers IND, low UAV and STO only
Functional High FEM, UAV and LTO, Very high importance to reliability and
analyzers medium IND and low PDI. responsiveness; moderate to empathy

(Sultan and Simpson, USA and Europe Airlines SERVQUAL SERVQUAL’s value in multiple languages and international settings confirmed.
2000) Passengers (Parasuraman et al., Reliability most important for both groups followed by Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and
Samples 1988) Tangibles.
US respondents’ expectations higher compared to Europeans in most SERVQUAL’s items. US
respondents’ SQ perceptions in most items.
(Weiermair, 2000) Global, National Hospitality and Proposed cultural factors: Regional/National Culture of tourists, Regional/National Sub-culture of
(Literature Study) and Tourism tourists, Leisure culture of tourists, Regional/National Culture of service providers, Organizational
Regional/National culture of tourism enterprises
culture
(Imrie et al., 2002) Taiwanese residing No particular SERVQUAL Confucian Relational Four of the five SERVQUAL dimensions replicated in Taiwan. Empathy failed to capture the essence
(Qualitative Study) in Taiwan and New General (Parasuraman et al., Ethic, expressed in terms of relationship issues in Taiwanese market. The nature of interpersonal relations in Taiwanese life not
Zealand, New population 1988) of Sincerity, Politeness addressed by SERVQUAL. SERVQUAL cannot be globally used.
Zealanders residing samples and Generosity.
in Taiwan
(Tsikriktsis, 2002) North America, Web-Banking WEBQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) WEBQUAL dimensions expressed as functions of demographics and scores across Hofstede’s
South America, Services (Loiacono et al., 2000) dimensions of culture. Trust and responsiveness not influenced by culture. Culture significantly less
Western Europe, Student samples important in Web site quality expectations compared with traditional service quality expectations.
Eastern Europe, Only masculinity and long-term orientation affect users’ expectations of Web site quality whereas all
Southern Europe cultural dimensions affect traditional service quality expectations. Culture’s diminished impact on
and Australasia. Web site quality expectations attributed to lack of human interaction.
 Table 1. Reviewed Studies on the Impact of Culture to Service Quality Expectations/Perceptions
Setting/ Service Quality Culture Typology/
Authors/Year Cultures Findings/Implications/Proposals
Samples Determinants Determinants
(Ueltschy et al., 2004) Midwestern USA, Dental services SERVPERF (Cronin and In high performance situations US and French–Canadian respondents perceived greater quality than
Ontario and Quebec. Undergraduate Taylor, 1992) English Canadians. In low performance situations US and French–Canadian respondents perceived
students lower quality than English–Canadians. Ethnicity a powerful tool in targeting and segmenting markets.
Thirteen items Ethnicity most impacted service quality when performance and expectations were either both high or
appropriate for dental both low. French–Canadians more similar to US citizens than to English–Canadians.
services setting

(Laroche et al., 2004) U.S.A., Canada; Dental Services SERVPERF (Cronin Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Japanese report lower quality and satisfaction ratings when performance is high and higher
and Japan Student samples and Taylor, 1992) plus High/Low context satisfaction when performance is low than respondents from U.S.A and Canada. Japanese more
communication (Hall, conservative in evaluating service but less critical of inferior service. National culture provides
1984) valuable insights to firms striving to satisfy consumers in the global arena.
(Sigala and Cyprus, Iran, UK, Tourism and WEBQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Trust and responsiveness equally important to all Web users. Firms must provide high online trust
Sakellaridis, 2004) Greece, France, and Hospitality Web (Loiacono et al., 2000) and responsiveness. Because technical aspects and logistics more important to web consumers,
Italy. sites clarity, ease of use, technical support, return policies, and adequate shipping options are important.
Student samples High masculinity users put emphasis on easy Web site interaction and personalization, easy reading
and understanding and appealing online activities. Long-term oriented consumers appreciate unique,
creative, entertaining, and consistent with other media Web sites. Games, contests, bright colours,
and interactivity appeal to users with high power distance or long-term orientation.
(Raajpoot, 2004) Pakistan Banks, hospitals, PAKSERV, a Hofstede (1980, 1991) Individualists treat service providers as just other individuals and focus more on reliability. Expect to
retail, and customized for Pakistan dimensions of be treated formally and professionally. Collectivists more concerned with human elements of service,
insurance. SERVQUAL metric Individualism/Collectivis such as assurance and sincerity. Tangibles scored very high with collectivists. Formality recorded as
Twelve focus Reliability, Tangibility, m, Power Distance and the most desired dimension to customers with high power distance, followed by reliability. People
groups, 3 for each Sincerity, Formality, Uncertainty Avoidance with high uncertainty avoidance place emphasis on the human element (sincerity and assurance) and
of industries Personalization and tangibles.
selected. Assurance
(Malhotra et al., USA, India and Banking Reliability, Access, Economic and socio- Most Important for Developed Markets: Augmented services, Reliability and responsiveness,
2005) Philipinnes General Understanding cultural factors including Respecting personal privacy, Competent service employees, Communication focusing on higher
population customer, Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) order needs, Technology.
samples Responsiveness, dimensions. For Developing Markets: Core aspects of service, “merely good” service, Respecting social norms,
Competence, Courtesy, Competent organization, Communication targeting lower order needs, Personal contact and high
Communication, touch
Credibility, Security,
Tangibles
(Parasuraman et al.,
1985)
(Cunningham et al., USA, France, Various Physical Contact; Culture may be a strong determinant of evaluating services.
2006) Korea industries Inseparable/separable; Customers’ perceptions of service dissimilarities/similarities within their own cultures were examined
Student samples Riskiness; Switching; and across-cultures comparisons were made. Consistent perceptual maps produced..
Person/object;
Relationship; Service
delivery;
Customization;
Judgment;
 Table 1. Reviewed Studies on the Impact of Culture to Service Quality Expectations/Perceptions
Setting/ Service Quality Culture Typology/
Authors/Year Cultures Findings/Implications/Proposals
Samples Determinants Determinants
Convenience
(Lovelock, 1983)
(Buda et al., 2006) Kuwait, United Various SERVPERF (Cronin Nationality, Industry, Although customers from different cultures perceive service quality differently culture makes no
States and Saudi industries but and Taylor, 1992) Gender, Education difference to internal employees. Either customer service training programs across cultures are
Arabia mainly the homogeneous or customers’ cultural differences have no effect on companies’ perceptions of service
airlines and quality.
health services
sectors
Employees
samples
(Kee-Fu Tsang and Western, Eastern Tourism SERVQUAL items Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) High power distance Asians treat guest-contact employees as having lower social status and expect
Ap, 2007) Sample from related to the relational Power Distance high levels of service. Report lower ratings of relational quality than Westerners.
international quality (nine in total) Asians prefer the basic and practical aspects of service while Westerners prefer proactive aspects of
tourists visiting (Parasuraman et al., service. Western tourists seek service over and above basic service provision. Tourists coming from
Hong Kong 1988) similar cultural backgrounds are more critical in perceiving and judging service quality and
satisfaction.
(Tsoukatos and Domestic market Insurance Customized Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) An accurate prognosis of the relative importance of SQ dimensions to customers on the basis of their
Rand, 2007) study in Greece General SERVQUAL cultural characteristics provided; Reliability, followed by Responsiveness and Assurance (of equal
population (Tsoukatos and Rand, importance, Empathy and Tangibles. Culture may be used for market segmentation even in domestic
samples 2006) settings.

(Kueh and Voon, Domestic market Full service SERVQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) Power distance negatively correlated with all service quality dimensions. UAV and LTO positively
2007) study in Malaysia restaurants (Parasuraman et al., correlated with all service quality dimensions. No significant relationships for IND and MAS.
Student samples 1988) Generation Y customers in Asia are low in PDI and high in UAV and LTO. Service expectations
high in all quality dimensions.
(Zhu et al., 2007) Domestic market Hospitality LODGSERV (Knutson Triandis’s (1995) HC > HI > VC >VI indicating higher collectivistic tendencies, more horizontal than vertical.
study in Mainland Services et al., 1990) cultural tendencies Only horizontal cultural tendencies positively related to service quality perceptions.
China Sample from horizontal individualism
(HI), horizontal Since HC focuses on equality, individuals with horizontal cultural tendencies believe everyone is
Chinese tourists equal and service providers are not subordinate. Hence, tend to rate staff members and the service they
collectivism (HC),
vertical individualism provide higher.
(VI) and vertical
collectivism (VC)

(Dash et al., 2009) India and Canada Banking SERVQUAL Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) At the country level Hofstede’s dimensions significantly influence tangibles and reliability; but not
Corporate (Parasuraman et al., individualism and power responsiveness, empathy or assurance, for both Canadian and Indian samples. Service quality
customers samples 1988) distance expectations depend on personal rather than national cultural orientation. Low IND customers attach
more importance to assurance and empathy, whereas low PDI customers expect more reliability and
responsiveness. High PDI customers attach more importance to tangibles. The ideal unit of analysis
should be sub-cultures within a country rather than countries themselves.
4. Reviewing the Literature on Culture’s Impact on Service Quality
This study’s objectives are achieved through extensively reviewing the twenty seven
published studies examining the impact of national/individual culture on service
quality, already referred to in the introductory section, under the following
viewpoints: Employed Service Quality Models, Employed Culture Typologies and
Empirical Findings.
4.1. Employed Service Quality Models
Service quality perceptions are by definition assessed on an individual basis and the
SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) metric seems to have gained wide
researchers’ acceptance. Twenty out of the twenty seven studies reviewed (Table 1.)
employed SERVQUAL or some variation of it, either in its original expectancy
disconfirmation or its performance only format. From the remaining seven studies,
Tsikriktsis (2002) and Sigala and Sakellaridis (2004) employed the web-specific
WEBQUAL (Loiacono et al., 2000), Winsted (1997a, 1997b) proposed a scale of her
own, Mattila (1999) used a leisure-industry-specific five items scale introduced by
Price et al. (1995), Stauss and Mang (1999) examined service quality by employing
the critical incidents technique and Cunningham et al. (2006) looked into service
quality through a nine-dimension model proposed by Lovelock (1983).
There is no doubt about the need of academia to construct and test various models in
its quest to enhance understanding of service quality dynamics. On the other hand,
managers would prefer generalized service quality models capable of being used as
widely as possible. Such models would improve benchmarking within and across
industries and cultures as well as through time. However, much research effort is still
needed in order to conclude to a universally applicable service quality model. It seems
that SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) has the potential to provide the basic
building blocks, the skeleton as Carman (1990) has put it, towards this end.
4.2. Employed Culture Typologies
With regard to culture, Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) typology prevails among the twenty-
seven studies reviewed (Table 1), as indeed in the literature. Eleven studies (those of
Kettinger et al., 1995; Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000; Tsikriktsis, 2002;
Sigala and Sakellaridis, 2004; Raajpoot, 2004; Kee-Fu Tsang and Ap, 2007; Kueh and
Voon, 2007; Tsoukatos and Rand, 2007; Zhu et al., 2007; Dash et al., 2009)
considered culture in terms of Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) model and examined the
impact of all or some of its dimensions on service quality. Seven other studies
employed mixed models including some or all of Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) dimensions
(Malhotra et al., 1994; Winsted, 1997a&b; Espinoza, 1999; Mattila, 1999; Laroche et
al., 2004; Malhotra et al., 2005). The remaining nine studies examined the impact of
culture on service quality in terms of general western/eastern background (Mok and
Armstrong, 1998), place of residence (Herbig and Genestre, 1996; Imrie et al., 2002)
or nationality (Stauss and Mang, 1999; Sultan and Simpson, 2000; Weiermair, 2000;
Ueltchey et al., 2004; Buda et al., 2006; Cunningham et al., 2006). Other prominent
taxonomies of culture do not appear in the reviewed studies with the exception of
Hall’s (1984) context orientation, appearing in the studies of Mattila (1999) and
Laroche et al. (2004), and time orientation in the studies of Winsted (1997a, b) and
Espinoza (1999).
The argument about the need for a generalized service quality model capable of being
used as widely as possible also applies to culture typologies. It seems, however, that
Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) model is gaining momentum as regards researcher’s
acceptance and has the potential to become the universal standard that will lead to
comparability of research findings in various settings across the Globe. However,
research on whether this model is an adequate reflection of the current cultural reality
is still far from being conclusive.
4.3. Empirical Findings
As regards empirical findings on the impact of culture on service quality
perceptions/expectations the reviewed studies can be organised under the following
three headings: Nation equals Culture, National Culture and Individual Culture.
4.3.1. Nation equals Culture
Under this heading the words nation and culture are regarded as alternative
expressions of the same concept while no attempt is made to explain differences
under the light of established typologies of culture; the two terms are literally used
interchangeably. In view of the above, studies under this heading can only be
descriptive with very limited, if not at all, generalizing power as not proposing
justifications of findings. A common denominator of all studies is comparing service
quality expectations/perceptions of US against non-US respondents. Regarding
service quality US customers are found to be more demanding than Latinos (Herbig
and Genestre, 1996) and Europeans (Sultan and Simpson, 2000), less demanding than
English Canadians but equally demanding to French Canadians (Ueltchey et al.,
2004). We have also learned that westerners are more demanding than customers with
eastern background (Mok and Armstrong, 1998) while domestic customers are less
tolerant of poor service than international customers (Stauss and Mang, 1999).
Imrie et al. (2002) showed that SERVQUAL needs to be restructured in order to
extend its capabilities to grasp cultural differences while Buda et al. (2006) presented
evidence that although customers’ perceptions of service quality depend on culture no
culture-based differences in perceiving service quality exist among service employees
indicating the lack of cultural awareness of organizations.
However, these studies provide no social or cultural justifications of their findings
and/or specific service attributes in which reported differences exist. The examination
of all these issues is relegated to future research.
4.3.2. National Culture Perspective
This research stream attempts to explain service quality expectations/perceptions
under the light of established cultural models, some times in conjunction with
additional socio-economic factors, while considering culture at the national level.
Central is the notion of Asian/Western factor. Asian cultures exhibit higher Power
Distance, Collectivism and Long-Term Orientation and lower Uncertainty
Avoidance than Western Societies (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). Furthermore, Asian
societies are more “high context” than Western societies (Hall, 1984).
In view of the above the Asian factor reflects conservatism in evaluating service
quality in conjunction with unwillingness to openly express criticism when service
delivery is poor. The Asian factor is, moreover, associated with lower Empathy
expectations and, as a result of extraordinary long-term orientation, tolerance of poor
service delivery (Assurance, Responsiveness) provided that Reliability expectations
are met (Kettinger et al., 1995; Winsted, 1997a and b; Matilla, 1997; Laroche et al.,
2004).
As regards differences between Latinos and Anglo-Saxons, Espinoza (1999) found
that monochromic Quebecers value Responsiveness more than polychromic
Peruvians while Reliability is equally valued between the two nations. He interpreted
these differences under the light of differences in Time Orientation (Hall, 1984) and
Power Distance (Hofstede, 1980) between the two nations. Last but not least,
customers in developed economies are more demanding and putting emphasis on
augmented services while in developing markets “merely good” service is adequate
provided that social norms are respected (Maholtra et al., 2005).
The disadvantage of the national culture perspective is twofold. First, indexes of
national cultural characteristics initially presented some decades ago and not
adjusted since may not reflect accurately current social dynamics and between
nations cultural distance (Tihanyi et al., 2005). There is growing evidence
(Tsoukatos and Rand, 2007) that existing indexes should be revised and constantly
monitored in order to keep up with current cultural trends. Second, not taking into
account the inherent heterogeneity of national culture may lead to systematic errors
(Farley and Lehmann, 1994) as a result of disregarding the cultural characteristics of
individuals and the possible existence of sub-cultures.
Hence, despite having more generalising power than those under the previous
perspective (see 4.3.1), reported findings can only serve as general guidelines that
lack the potential of reflecting the consequences of culture’s heterogeneity.
4.3.3. Individual Culture Perspective
The reported drawbacks of the first two perspectives led to a relatively more recent
research stream that, while conforming to existing cultural typologies, considers
culture at the level of individuals. In this respect Donthu and Yoo (1998) examined
the relationships between certain of Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) dimensions to overall
and across certain SERVQUAL dimensions customers’ service quality expectations
in an international sample. Established differences were associated with individuals’
cultural similarity/dissimilarity rather than nationality. Beyond confirming Donthu’s
and Yoo’s (1998) findings, Furrer et al. (2000) proposed the segmentation of
international markets in five segments each with it’s own cultural profile, on the
basis of Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) taxonomy, and preferences across SERVQUAL’s
dimensions. Tsikriktsis (2002) and Sigala and Sakellaridis (2004) combined
demographics and culture to express web-users’ scores across the WEBQUAL
(Loiacono et al., 2000) dimensions as a function of their demographic
characteristics, including nationality, and scores across Hofstede’s (1980, 1991)
dimensions.
Disassociating culture from nation was also applied in domestic markets. In 2004
Raajpot examined the impact of Individualism, Power Distance and Uncertainty
Avoidance across the dimensions of service quality in the banking industry of
Pakistan. Tsoukatos and Rand (2007) offered an accurate prognosis of the relative
importance of SQ dimensions to customers on the basis of their cultural
characteristics in Greek insurance. A similar approach was followed by Kueh and
Voon (2007) in the restaurant industry of Malaysia, Zhu et al. (2007) in the
hospitality industry of mainland China and Dash et al. (2009) in the banking
industries of India and Canada. Al these studies proved that even domestic markets
can be culturally segmented; a direct reference to the notion of cub-culture.
Overall, the advantages of the individual culture perspective are two-fold: First, it
provides specific and focused results in contrast to the previously discussed
perspectives that often provide no more than rules of thumb. Second, it can be
applied to both international and domestic settings, even in the most ethnically solid
societies (e.g. the Greek).
However, an issue still unresolved is individual measurement of culture. Although
culture refers to society at large, the most prominent typologies were based on values
and relations in the work-place (e.g. Hofstede, 1980, 1991; House et al., 2004) and
proposed research instruments that may lack the ability to grasp the full extend of
current societal dynamics. Although, instruments measuring the cultural
characteristics of individuals on the basis on values and relations in the wider social
environment (Taras, 2006) have been proposed there is still much research needed
towards this end.
5. Conclusions
The idea that culture affects service quality perceptions/expectations, which in turn
influence customer satisfaction, loyalty and business performance, has gained wide
acceptance in both the academia and practice. However, the current level of
knowledge is still at an early state of development. Facing the challenge of reducing
existing knowledge gaps is left for future research.
What we already know is very little compared to what we still need to learn. Existing
knowledge, under the “Nation equals Culture” and “National Culture”
perspectives, consists of general guidelines and rules of thumb. The “Individual
Culture” perspective is clearly more promising in that it can provide specific and
focused findings, accounts for the inherent heterogeneity of national culture and can
be extended to domestic and international settings.
Issues in need of further research include service quality conceptualization and
measurement as well as culture typology and measurement, and revisiting - and then
on constantly monitoring - existing cultural indexes of nations and regions.
As regards the conceptualization and measurement of service quality, the
SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) model in its expectations disconfirmation
format promises wide researchers’ and practitioners’ acceptance, especially if future
research proposes an inventory of, major industries-specific, service attributes that
will “dress” the generalized SERVQUAL skeleton as and when needed to facilitate
benchmarking.
Between existing typologies of culture, Hofstede’s (1980) model has gained wide
acceptance and prevails in the management literature despite a considerable amount
of criticism addressed to it on a number of accounts (Jones, 2007). Criticism includes
the work values only/one company approach of Hofstede’s (1980) original study and
claims that the study may be too old to be of any current value. It is now time for a
thorough re-examination of Hofstede’s (1980) typology on the basis of current social
dynamics. This is a major challenge that future research needs to face. The proposed
study will revise the, now outdated, cultural indexing of countries and regions, used
in studies under the “National Culture” approach. Once revised this indexing should
be constantly monitored in order to continuously reflect Global cultural trends. Last
but not least, future research must work towards proposing a universally accepted
research instrument for individual cultural measurement. Such an instrument will
facilitate benchmarking in studies undertaken under the “Individual Culture”
approach.
Overall, the issue of examining the interactions between culture and service quality
is of considerable importance for both the academia and practice. However, reported
unresolved issues create significant challenges that future researchers need to deal
with.
Reference List
Adler, N.J. (2002), International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, 4th Edn,
Ogio: South Western Thomson Learning.
Berry, L. L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services. Competing through
Quality, The Free Press, New York.
Browaeys, M-J. and Price, R. (2008), Understanding Cross-Cultural Management,
Pearson Education Limited, UK
Buda, R., Sengupta, K., Elsayed-Elkhouly, S. (2006), “Employee and Organizational
Perspectives of Service Quality: A Cross-cultural Study in Kuwait, United States and
Saudi Arabia”, International Journal of Management, 23(3):430-435
Carman, J. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the
SERVQUAL Dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, 66(1):33 – 55
Cronin Jr, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992), “Measuring Service Quality: A
reexamination and Extension”, Journal of Marketing, 56:55-68.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E., Lee, M. and Ulaga, W. (2006), “Customer
perceptions of service dimensions: cross-cultural analysis and perspective”,
International Marketing Review, 23(2):192-210.
Dash, S., Bruning, E., and Acharya, M. (2009), “The effect of power distance and
individualism on service quality expectations in banking: A two-country individual-
and national-cultural comparison”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(5):
336-358
Donthu, N. and Yoo, B. (1998), “Cultural Influences on Service Quality
Expectations”, Journal of Service Research, 1(2):178-186.
Espinoza, M. M. (1999), “Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service
quality measure: A comparative study between Quebec and Peru”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(5):449-461.
Fisk, R. F., Brown, S. W., and Bitner, M. J. (1993), “Tracking the evolution of
services marketing literature”, Journal of Retailing, 69:61-103.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The Relationships between
Culture and Service Quality Perceptions: Basis for Cross-Cultural Market
Segmentation and Resource Allocation”, Journal of Service Research, 2(4):355-371.
Grönroos, C. (1982), Strategic management and marketing in the service sector.
Helsingfors: Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications”,
European Journal of Marketing, 18(4):36-44
Herbig, P. and Genestre, A. (1996), “An examination of the cross-cultural differences
in service quality: the example of Mexico and the USA”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 13(3):43-53.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980), Culture's Consequences, International Differences in Work-
related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G.H. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, P. (2004), Culture,
Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Imrie, B. C., Cadogan, J. W., and McNaughton, R. (2002), “The Service Quality
Construct on a Global Stage”, Managing Service Quality, 12(1), 10-18.
Kang, G.-D. and James, J. (2004), “Service quality dimensions: an examination of
Gronroos's service quality model”, Managing Service Quality, 14(4), 266-277.
Kee-Fu Tsang, N. and Ap, J. (2007), “Tourists’ Perceptions of Relational Quality
Service Attributes: A Cross-Cultural Study”, Journal of Travel Research; 45:355
Kettinger, W. J. and Lee, C. C. (1995), “Exploring a "gap" model of information
services quality”, Information Resources Management Journal, 8(3):5-16.
Kettinger, W. J., Lee, C. C., and Lee, S. (1995), “Global Measures of Information
Service Quality: A Cross-National Study”, Decision Sciences, 26(5), 569-588.
Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C., Yokoyoma, F. (1990), "LODGSERV: a service
quality index for the lodging industry", Hospitality Research Journal, Special Issue,
14(2):227-284.
Kueh, K. and Voon, B. H. (2007), “Culture and service quality expectations”,
Managing Service Quality, 17:656-680.
Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L. C., Abe, S., Cleeveland, M. and Yannopoulos, P. P. (2004),
“Service Quality Perceptions and Customer Satisfaction: Evaluating the Role of
Culture”, Journal of International Marketing, 12(3), 58-85.
Lewis, R. C. and Booms, B. H. (1983), “The Marketing Aspects of Service Quality” .
In L.L.Berry, G. Shostack, and G. Upah (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Services
Marketing (pp. 99-107). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., and Goodhue, D. L. (2000), “WebQual: A Website
Quality Instrument”, University of Georgia. Working Paper.
Lovelock, C. H. (1983), “Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights”,
Journal of Marketing, 47:9-20.
Malhotra, N. K., Ulgado, F. M., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I. B. (1994), “International
services marketing, a comparative evaluation of the dimensions of service quality
between developed and developing countries”, International Marketing Review,
11(2):5-15.
Malhotra, N. K., Ulgado, F. M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005),
“Dimensions of service quality in developed and developing economies: multi-
country cross-cultural comparisons”, International Marketing Review, 22(3):256-278.
Mattila, A. S. (1999), “The Role of Culture and Purchase Motivation in Service
Encounter Evaluations”, The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5):376-393.
Mok, C. and Armstrong, R. W. (1998), “Expectations for hotel service quality: Do
they differ from culture to culture?”, Journal of Vacation Marketing. 4(4):381-391.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November):460-469
Pappas, N. and Sheehan, P. (1998), “The new manufacturing: linkages between
production and service activities”, In P.Sheehan and G. Tegart (Eds.), Working for the
Future (pp. 127-155). Melbourne: 34 Victoria : University Press.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1985), “A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing,
49(Fall):41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-
Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of
Retailing, 64 (Spring):12-40
Penaloza, L.N. and Gilly, M.C. (1991), “Responding to Diversity: Marketing
Graduate Business Education to Hispanics”, Journal of Marketing Education, 13
(Spring):-13.
Raajpoot, N. (2004), “Reconceptualizing Service Encounter Quality in a Non-Western
Context”, Journal of Service Research, 7:181-201
Schein, E.H. (1999), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, San Fransisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass
Sigala, M. and Sakellaridis, O. (2004), “Web Users' Cultural Profiles and E-service
Quality: Internationalization Implications for Tourism WEB Sites”, Information
Technology and Tourism, 7:13-22.
Stauss, B. and Mang, P. (1999), “Culture shocks in inter-cultural service
encounters?”, Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5):329-346.
Sultan, F. and Simpson, M. C. (2000), “International service variants: airline
passenger expectations and perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Services
Marketing, 14(3):188-216.
Tayeb, M. (2003), International Management, Harlow: Pearson Education.
The World Bank, D. D. G. (2007). World Development Indicators Online.
http://go.worldbank.org/3JU2HA60D0) (On-line).
Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D.A. and Russell, C.J. (2005) “The effect of cultural distance on
entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-
analysis”, Journal of International Business Studies, 36:1–14.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture:
Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London
Tsikriktsis, N. (2002), “Does Culture Influence Web Site Quality Expectations? An
Empirical Study”, Journal of Service Research, 5(2 ):101-112.
Tsoukatos, E. and Rand, G.K. (2006), “Path Analysis of Perceived Service Quality,
Satisfaction and Loyalty in Greek Insurance”, Managing Service Quality, 16(5):501-
519
Tsoukatos, E. and Rand, G. K. (2007), “Cultural Influences on Service Quality and
Customer Satisfaction: Evidence from Greek Insurance”, Managing Service Quality,
17(4), 467-485.
Tylor, E.B. (1974), Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology,
philosophy, religion, art, and custom, (First Published in 1871), New York: Gordon
Press.
Ueltschy, L. C., Laroche, M., Tamiliac, R.D. and Yannopoulos, P. (2004), “Cross-
cultural invariance of measures of satisfaction and service quality”, Journal of
Business Research, 57:901– 912
UNESCO (2002). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Available at
http://www.unesco.org/education/imld_2002/unversal_decla.shtml
Weiermair, K. (2000), “Tourists' perceptions towards and satisfaction with service
quality in the cross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism
management”, Managing Service Quality, 10(6):397-409.
Winsted, K. F. (1997a), “Service Encounter Expectations: A Cross-Cultural Analysis,
Journal of Transnational Management Development, 2(4):5-32.
Winsted, K. F. (1997b), “The service experience in two cultures: A behavioural
perspective”, Journal of Retailing, 73(3):337-360.
Wisniewski, M. (2001), “Using SERVQUAL to access customer satisfaction with
public sector services”, Managing Service Quality, 11(6):380-388.
Zeithaml, V. A. and Parasuraman, A. (2004), Service Quality. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service.
Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Zhu, T., Cole, S-T., and Card, J.A. (2007), “The Association of Tourists' Cultural
Tendencies and Their Perceived Service Quality of a Chinese Travel Agency”,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 22(2):1 - 13