Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
HTM 681 Reading 9 <br />(Spring 2009)<br />Kathryn Frazer Winsted,2000<br /> Service behaviors that lead to satisfied cust...
Background<br />How does this patient evaluate service encounters?<br />What does he REALLY want her to do? <br />Aren’t w...
Research Questions<br />Which behaviors do consumers use to evaluate services?<br />Which behaviors/factors are related to...
Industry-specific Analysis<br />Difference <br />Similarity<br /><ul><li> doctor </li></ul>-- professional <br />        -...
 WOM is important</li></ul>SERVQUAL is too generic..<br />An industry-specific analysis is needed! <br />
1. Literature Review: Identify Dimensions        + focus groups<br />Authenticity<br />Promptness<br />Caring<br />Service...
Oops… <br />
2. Behavior Identification <br />Behavioral identification questionnaire (Q1)<br />• 156 students in the US / Open-ended q...
2. Behavior Identification <br />Authenticity<br />Caring<br />137 behaviors<br /> 119 – both<br />      12-restaurant <br...
3. Identify Relationships between 	Behaviors and Satisfaction<br />Behavioral analysis questionnaire (Q2)<br />• 304 (medi...
3. Identify Relationships between 	Behaviors and Satisfaction<br />Pearson’s correlation between behaviors and satisfactio...
Oops~~!<br />p. 406<br />0.76<br />
4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />Group factors that are highly correlated with satisfaction and test ability to predic...
4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />Principal component analysis<br />Factor loading 0.50 and above with high reliability...
Discriminant analysis (dividing low / high satisfaction)   each factor classified correctly 96% of the cases</li></li></u...
4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />   AUTHENTICITY<br />   “not negative” behavior<br />Chandon et al. (1997)<br />perce...
4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />assurance <br />(SERVQUAL)<br />empathy<br />(SERVQUAL)<br />Responsiveness<br />(SER...
Discussion<br />Tangibles?<br />Factors might be different depending on the context <br />Sampling  / Methods <br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Winsted, 2000,  Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers

999

Published on

presentation file for an HTM 681 seminar

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
999
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Winsted, 2000,  Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers"

  1. 1. HTM 681 Reading 9 <br />(Spring 2009)<br />Kathryn Frazer Winsted,2000<br /> Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers<br />European Journal of Marketing, 34, 3/4, 399 – 417<br />Feb. 19, 2009<br />Suh-hee Choi<br />
  2. 2. Background<br />How does this patient evaluate service encounters?<br />What does he REALLY want her to do? <br />Aren’t we obsessed with SERVQUAL?<br />Need to examine behaviors based on the real service encounters! <br />
  3. 3. Research Questions<br />Which behaviors do consumers use to evaluate services?<br />Which behaviors/factors are related to satisfaction?<br />Four stages <br />1. Literature review: Identify dimensions<br />2. Open-ended survey:<br />Behavior identification<br />3. Identify relationships between behaviors and satisfaction<br />4. Group behaviors into factors<br />
  4. 4. Industry-specific Analysis<br />Difference <br />Similarity<br /><ul><li> doctor </li></ul>-- professional <br /> -- long-term relationship<br /> -- credence attributes<br /><ul><li> waiter </li></ul> -- generic / unskilled<br /> -- experience attributes<br /><ul><li> “people business”
  5. 5. WOM is important</li></ul>SERVQUAL is too generic..<br />An industry-specific analysis is needed! <br />
  6. 6. 1. Literature Review: Identify Dimensions + focus groups<br />Authenticity<br />Promptness<br />Caring<br />Service Encounter Dimensions<br />Personalization<br />Perceived control<br />Courtesy<br />Friendliness<br />Formality<br />
  7. 7. Oops… <br />
  8. 8. 2. Behavior Identification <br />Behavioral identification questionnaire (Q1)<br />• 156 students in the US / Open-ended questions<br />• e.g. “what thing would a doctor do if he or she were being ? Ans: behaviors (smile)<br />Sorting +<br />Antonym<br />Courteous<br />Coding<br />4000 behaviors<br /> 448 codes <br />137 behaviors<br />
  9. 9. 2. Behavior Identification <br />Authenticity<br />Caring<br />137 behaviors<br /> 119 – both<br /> 12-restaurant <br /> 6-medical<br />25~60 generated for <br />each dimension<br />3~12 uniquely for one dimension<br />Personalization<br />smile<br />Courtesy<br />Friendliness<br />Formality<br />
  10. 10. 3. Identify Relationships between Behaviors and Satisfaction<br />Behavioral analysis questionnaire (Q2)<br />• 304 (medical) + 424 (restaurant) = 728 undergrads<br />• recalled recent visit<br /> - 137 behaviors: 7 point Likert scale of agreement<br /> - satisfaction levels: 6 questions <br />Crosby et al., 1990, 79<br />“semantic differential scales” – feelings, pleasure, satisfaction<br />Churchill and Surprenant, 1982, global faces scale<br />
  11. 11. 3. Identify Relationships between Behaviors and Satisfaction<br />Pearson’s correlation between behaviors and satisfaction <br /> 123 (out of 137) of behaviors are significantly correlated with satisfaction <br /><ul><li>Correlation > 0.50 were chosen </li></ul> 78 (restaurant), 63 (hospital) : 59 behaviors in common<br />“there are some differences in the level of relationship with satisfaction <br />and in a few of the behaviors identified” (406) <br />can we conclude like this?<br />emotional issues are more important <br />caretakingissues are more important <br />
  12. 12. Oops~~!<br />p. 406<br />0.76<br />
  13. 13. 4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />Group factors that are highly correlated with satisfaction and test ability to predict satisfaction.<br />“since the behaviors highly correlated with satisfaction are almost identical for the two industries, a single factor analysis was instead performed for both industries to avoid redundancy and to allow for improved generalizability.” (409)<br />Didn’t you say that an industry-specific analysis is needed?<br />(412) “This research supports the notion that many of the behaviors important to consumers in evaluating service encounters are the same across different types of service encounters.”<br />
  14. 14. 4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />Principal component analysis<br />Factor loading 0.50 and above with high reliability were selected (34 items, 3 factors—concern, congeniality, civility, all factors with Cronbach alpha &gt; 0.9)<br /><ul><li>Factor score regressed on satisfaction – = 0.74 , sum scores of each factor highly correlated with satisfaction
  15. 15. Discriminant analysis (dividing low / high satisfaction)  each factor classified correctly 96% of the cases</li></li></ul><li>4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />Table IV. Analysis of factors<br />
  16. 16. 4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br /> AUTHENTICITY<br /> “not negative” behavior<br />Chandon et al. (1997)<br />perceived competence<br />listening<br />dedication <br /> SERVQUAL<br />Empathy<br />Assurance<br />Responsiveness<br />Congeniality<br />Concern<br />Civility<br />RESPECT<br />CONVERSATION/<br />PERSONALIZATION<br />positive attitude<br />
  17. 17. 4. Group Behaviors into Factors<br />assurance <br />(SERVQUAL)<br />empathy<br />(SERVQUAL)<br />Responsiveness<br />(SERVQUAL)<br />Respect<br />Authenticity<br />communication<br />personalization<br />Table III. Service dimensions with factor loadings (loading &gt; 0.5)<br />
  18. 18. Discussion<br />Tangibles?<br />Factors might be different depending on the context <br />Sampling / Methods <br />
  19. 19. Oops~~!<br />:<br />

×