reference scales of service quality and satisfaction judgments: a reconsideration and research...

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)

(-) (+)




position

M os t ac ce ptab lepo si tio n

Criticals (e.g., quality of food)

(-) (+)




position


Satisfiers (e.g., large serving portions)

(-) (+)




position


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”

reference scales of service quality and satisfaction judgments: a reconsideration and research...

Documents