Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reassessment of Expectations As A Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications For Further Research
Reassessment of Expectations As A Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications For Further Research
Berry
Reassessment of Expectations as a
Comparison Standard in Measuring
Service Quality: Implications for
Further Research
The authors respond to concerns raised by Cronin and Taylor (1992) and Teas (1993) about the SERVQUAL in-
strument and the perceptions-minus-expectations specification invoked by it to operationalize service quality. After
demonstrating that the validity and alleged severity of many of those concerns are questionable, they offer a set of
research directions for addressing unresolved issues and adding to the understanding of service quality
assessment.
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 58 (January 1994), 111-124 Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard / 111
also seems to discount prior conceptual work in the SQ lit- believe that this distinction may need to be revised, particu-
erature (Gronroos 1982; Lehtinen and Lehtinen 1982; Sas- larly because some recent studies (Reidenbach and Sandifer-
ser, Olsen, and Wyckoff 1978) as well as more recent re- Smallwood 1990; Woodside, Frey, and Daly 1989) have
search (Bolton and Drew 1991a, b; ZBP 1991) that sup- modeled SQ as an antecedent of CS.
ports the disconfirmation of expectations conceptualization In the research implications section, we propose and dis-
of SQ. Bolton and Drew (199lb, p. 383), in an empirical cuss an integrative framework that attempts to reconcile the
study cited by C&T, conclude: differing viewpoints about the distinction, and the direction
Consistent with prior exploratory research concerning ser- of causality, between CS and SQ. Here we wish to point
vice quality, a key determinant of overall service quality out an apparent misinterpretation by C&T of our published
is the gap between performance and expectations (i.e., dis- work (PZB 1985, 1988). Specifically, in PZB (1985) we do
confirmation). For residential customers, perceived tele- not discuss the relationship between SQ and CS, and in
phone service quality depended on the disconfirmation trig- PZB (1988) we argue in favor of the "CS leads to SQ" hy-
gered by perceived changes in existing service or changes
pothesis. Therefore, we are surprised by C&T' s attributing
in service providers. . . . It is interesting to note that dis-
confirmation explains a larger proportion of the variance to us the opposite view by stating (p. 56) ''PZB (1985,
in service quality than performance. 1988) proposed that higher levels of perceived SQ result in
increased CS" and by referring to (p. 62) "the effects hy-
Therefore, C&T' s use of the same Bolton and Drew article pothesized by PZB (1985, 1988) [that] SQ is an antecedent
as support for their claim (p. 56) that ''the marketing litera- of CS." Moreover, as we discuss in the next section,
ture appears to offer considerable support for the superior- C&T' s empirical findings do not seem to warrant their con-
ity of simple performance-based measures of service qual- clusion (p. 64) that "perceived service quality in fact leads
ity" is surprising and questionable. Moreover, a second ci- to satisfaction as proposed by PZB (1985, 1988)."
tation that C&T offer to support this contention-Mazis,
rypes of comparison norms in assessing CS and SQ. In
Ahtola, and Klippel (1975)-is an article that neither dealt
critiquing the perceptions-minus-expectations conceptualiza-
with service quality nor tested performance-based measures
tion of SERVQUAL, C&T raise the issue of appropriate
against measures incorporating expectations.
comparison standards against which perceptions are to be
There is strong theoretical support for the general no-
compared (p. 56):
tion that customer assessments of stimuli invariably occur
relative to some norm. As far back as Helson (1964), adap- [PZB] state that in measuring perceived service quality
tation-level theory held that individuals perceive stimuli the level of comparison is what a consumer should ex-
only in relation to an adapted standard. More recently, pect, whereas in measures of satisfaction the appropriate
Kahneman and Miller (1986) provide additional theoretical comparison is what a consumer would expect. However,
such a differentiation appears to be inconsistent with
and empirical support for norms as standards against which Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins' (1983) suggestion that ex-
performance is compared and can be measured. pectations should be based on experience norms-what
Attitude formation versus attitude measurement. The em- consumers should expect from a given service provider
pirical, longitudinal studies (e.g., Bolton and Drew 1991a, given their experience with that specific type of service
organization.
b; Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Oliver 1980) that C&T
cite to support their arguments focus on the roles of expec- Though the first sentence in this quote is consistent with the
tations, performance, and disconfirmation in the formation distinction we have made between comparison norms in as-
of attitudes. However, the relevance of those arguments for sessing SQ and CS, the next sentence seems to imply that
raising concerns about SERVQUAL is moot because the in- the debate over norms has been resolved, the consensus
strument is designed merely to measure perceived SQ-an being that the "experience-based norms" of Woodruff, Ca-
attitude level-at a given point in time, regardless of the pro- dotte, and Jenkins ( 1983) are the appropriate frame of refer-
cess by which it was formed. SERVQUAL is a tool to ob- ence in CS assessment. We believe that such an inference is
tain a reading of the attitude level, not a statement about unwarranted because conceptualizations more recent than
how the level was developed. Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins (1983) suggest that CS as-
Relationship between CS and SQ. An important issue sessment could involve more than one comparison norm
raised by C&T (as well as Teas) is the nature of the link be- (Forbes, Tse, and Taylor 1986; Oliver 1985; Tse and Wil-
tween CS and SQ. This is a complex issue characterized by ton 1988; Wilton and Nicosia 1986). Cadotte, Woodruff,
confusion about the distinction between the two constructs and Jenkins (1987) themselves have stated (p. 313) that
as well as the causal direction of their relationship. SQ re- "additional work is needed to refine and expand the concep-
searchers (e.g., Carman 1990; PZB 1988) in the past have tualization of norms as standards.'' Our own recent re-
distinguished between the two according to the level at search on customers' service expectations (ZBP 1991, a pub-
which they are measured: CS is a transaction-specific assess- lication that C&T cite) identifies two different comparison
ment (consistent with the CS/D literature) whereas SQ is a norms for SQ assessment: desired service (the level of ser-
global assessment (consistent with the SQ literature). On vice a customer believes can and should be delivered) and
the basis of this distinction, SQ researchers have posited adequate service (the level of service the customer consid-
that an accumulation of transaction-specific assessments ers acceptable).
leads to a global assessment (i.e., the direction of causality Our point is that the issue of comparison norms and
is from CS to SQ). However, on careful reflection, we now their interpretation has not yet been resolved fully. Though
SQ:~_/ _PJ
tion that E ::;; I, the absolute value of the E - I difference
(the second component in equation 1's right side) is equiv-
-A--
interpreted as the classic ideal point (i.e., EJ = IJ) =-l[jP-Ij+(E-1)]
= -1 [jP - Ij] - (E - I)
SQ ~I,_ _ PJ
Furthermore, when P ::;; I, IP - II is equivalent to -(P - I),
and the equation for MQ simplifies to
MQ =-1 [-(P-I)]-(E-1)
=(P-I)-(E-1)
Case C: Attribute j is a classic ideal-point attribute and EJ is
interpreted as the feasible ideal point (i.e., EJ < IJ) =P-E
where
It depicts customers' global impressions about a firm stem-
ming from an aggregation of transaction experiences. We D Ii = l if j is a vector attribute, or if it is a classic ideal point
posit global impressions to be multifaceted, consisting of attribute and Pi $Ii;
customers' overall satisfaction with the firm as well as their = 0 otherwise.
overall perceptions of the firm's service quality, product 0 2 . = 1 if j is a classic ideal point attribute and Ei is inter-
quality, and price. This framework, in addition to capturing j preted as the classic ideal point (i.e., Ei =I) and Pi >Ii;
the notion that the SQ and CS constructs can be examined = 0 otherwise.
at both transaction-specific and global levels, is consistent 0 3 . = 1 if j is a classic ideal point attribute and Ei is inter-
with the "satisfaction (with specific transactions) leads to j preted as the feasible ideal point (i.e., Ei < 1i) and Pi >
Ii;
overall quality perceptions'' school of thought embraced by
= 0 otherwise.
service quality researchers (e.g., Bitner 1990; Bolton and
Drew 1991a, b; Carman 1990). The term "transaction" in Operationalizing this specification has implications for
this framework can be used to represent an entire service ep- data collection and analysis in SQ research. Specifically, in
isode (e.g., a visit to a fitness center or barber shop) or dis- addition to obtaining data on customers' perceptions (Pi)
crete components of a lengthy interaction between a cus- and comparison standards (Ii and/or Ei), one should ascer-
REFERENCES
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1982), "Some Meth- tigation Into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction,'' Jour-
ods for Respecifying Measurement Models to Obtain Unidimen- nal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 491-504.
sional Construct Measurement," Journal of Marketing Re- Cronin, J. Joseph, Jr. and Steven A. Taylor (1992), "Measuring Ser-
search, 19 (November), 453-60. vice Quality: A Reexamination and Extension," Journal of
Babakus, Emin and Gregory W. Boller (1992), "An Empirical As- Marketing, 56 (July), 55-68.
sessment of the SERVQUAL Scale," Journal of Business Re- Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1993), "Customer Satisfaction and Ser-
search, 24, 253-68. vice Quality: Two Constructs or One?" in Enhancing Knowl-
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1982), "A Field Investigation of Causal Re- edge Development in Marketing, Vol. 4, David W. Cravens
lations Among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions, and Behavior," and Peter R. Dickson, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 562-84. Association, 10-18.
- - - and Youjae Yi (1988), "On the Evaluation of Structural Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991),
Equation Models,'' Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- "The Effects of Price, Brand and Store Information on Buyers'
ence, 16 (Spring), 74-79. Product Evaluations,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (Au-
---and (1991), "Multitrait-Multimethod Matri- gust), 307-19.
ces in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Forbes, J.D., David K. Tse, and Shirley Taylor (1986), "Toward a
17 (March), 426-39. Model of Consumer Post-Choice Response Behavior," in Ad-
Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: The Ef- vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard L. Lutz, ed.
fects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses,'' Jour- Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
nal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82. Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), "An Updated
Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991a), "A Longitudinal Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimension-
Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Atti- ality and Its Assessment," Journal of Marketing Research, 15
tudes," Journal of Marketing, 55 (January), 1-9. (May), 186-92.
---and (199lb), "A Multistage Model of Custom- Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978), "Conjoint Analysis in
ers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value," Journal of Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Con-
Consumer Research, 17 (March), 375-84. sumer Research, 5 (September), 103-23.
Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. ---and (1990), "Conjoint Analysis in Marketing:
Zeithaml (1993), "A Dynamic Process Model of Service Qual- New Developments With Implications for Research and Prac-
ity: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions," Journal of tice," Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 3-19.
Marketing Research, 30 (February), 7-27. Green, S.B., R. Lissitz, and S. Mulaik (1977), "Limitations of
Brown, Tom J., Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., and J. Paul Peter (1993), Coefficient Alpha as an Index of Test Unidimensionality,'' Edu-
"Improving the Measurement of Service Quality," Journal of cational and Psychological Measurement, 37 (Winter), 827-
Retailing, 69 (Spring), 127-39. 38.
Cadotte, Earnest R., Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger L. Jenkins Gronroos, Christian (1982), Strategic Management and Marketing
(1987), ''Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer in the Service Sector, Helsinki, Finland: Swedish School of Ec-
Satisfaction,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), onomics and Business Administration.
305-14. Hattie, John (1985), ''Methodology Review: Assessing Unidimen-
Carman, James M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of Service sionality," Applied Psychological Measurement, 9 (June),
Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions," 139-64.
Journal of Retailing, 66 (1), 33-55. Helson, Harry (1964), Adaptation Level Theory. New York:
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. and Carol Surprenant (1982), "An Inves- Harper and Row.