Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Service Provider Expectations and the Word of Mouth That Follows

427

Published on

Final Senior Capstone project analyzing customer service expectations of service providers in the context of short term interactions. End goal was to see how violations or affirmations of expectations …

Final Senior Capstone project analyzing customer service expectations of service providers in the context of short term interactions. End goal was to see how violations or affirmations of expectations effect word of mouth communication.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
427
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Performance that encourages cooperative social smoothness void of intense interaction with othersMore on SPSS will be discussed during my methods section as it was a direct influence for my measure.
  • WendyZabava Ford is another scholar who co-authored some of the studies on Sociality with Koermer. One in particular she states “ service interactions have become a significant part of our daily routines and the nature of these interactions may dramatically impact our overall quality of life”Findings:I think this is becoming more and more true everyday in every industry. This observation support the decision to focus the study on short-term quick non professional service provider – customer interactions.
  • Find out what people want and give it to them
  • Based on our theoretical background and what we know about sociality as it relates to word of mouth communication the following hypotheses are proposed.
  • Independent Samples T-Test: Note: Females also showed a difference in their likelihood to participate in Negative Word of Mouth when Behaviors were Neutral Expectations and Not Expectations. They are omitted because they were not in the “likely” range. Nonetheless the difference is still apparent
  • Apparent differences between those who had worked in customer service (Yes) and had not worked in customer service (No) however; none of them were statistically significant. All circumstances showed an apparent Mean Difference besides those where there were Not Behavior Expectations
  • Transcript

    • 1. Service Provider Behavior and The Word Of Mouth That Follows
      Erik Dittmann
      Senior Capstone
      Fall 2010
    • 2. Our Process
      Think about how your study has progressed
      What was the original concept?
      How did it change?
      Does the final product at all resemble your initial idea?
    • 3. Inspiration
      Entrepreneurial mindset
      Hotel Rogers
      Customer Service/Business
      How can I use communication theory to improve it?
      The Initial Ah-Ha!
      New York Times article
      “100 Things Staff Should Never Do” by Bruce Buschel
    • 4. Literature Review
      Studies of Customer – Service Provider interaction
      Variety of Approaches and Contexts
      Loyalty – Satisfaction – Word of Mouth
      Professional and Non-Professional Service Providers
      Sociality – Chas D. Koermer
      Performance that encourages cooperative social smoothness
      4 Dimensions
      Courtesies – polite greetings and friendly displays
      Pleasantries – small talk about weather, news, or politics
      Sociabilities – common disclosures: gossip and joking
      Privacies – intimate revelations about oneself
      Service Provider Sociality Scale (SPSS)
    • 5. Literature Review
      Main Application: Professional Service Provider
      Unfortunate as most interactions are non-professional
      Store clerk, bank teller, barista
      Findings
      Courtesies are a stronger predictor for customer satisfaction
      Koermer notes a paradigmatic shift where...
      Personal Connection with a sole service provider
      are being replaced with...
      Quick Courtesies from multiple service persons.
    • 6. Literature Review
      Word of Mouth (WOM) – Hong and Yang
      “Word of Mouth has more influence than any other communication”
      Studied positive WOM intentions of consumers
      Did not study negative WOM
      Suggested Research
      Studying Negative WOM and Positive WOM in conjunction to see differences
      Accompany WOM with another variable besides satisfaction
    • 7. Development
      Studies of Customer – Service Provider interaction
      Variety of Approaches and Contexts
      Loyalty – Satisfaction – Word of Mouth
      Professional and Non-Professional Service Providers
      Realization = Previous Studies are too complicated
      Broad – Far Reaching – Lacked Focus
      Not focusing on customer and their expectations
      “You have to give the people what they want”
    • 8. The Study
      Research Gap
      Considerable amount is known about how customer’s expectations of service provider behavior influence Word of Mouth communication
      Purpose
      Illuminate how service provider behavior expectations influence Negative WOM when violated and Positive WOM when fulfilled
    • 9. Theoretical Background
      Expectancy Violation Theory
      Customers will react to behavior based on their expectations
      Expectations will affect their WOM participation
      Expectation violations will have a more distinct reaction
      Attribution Theory
      People make sense of an unusual event by assessing 3 factors:
      Distinct – Is this behavior characteristically unique or different?
      Consistent – Does this behavior happen on a regular basis?
      Consensus – does the behavior “go along” with other behavior
    • 10. Hypotheses
      H1 When an Expected behavior is not performed by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Negative Word of Mouth
      H2 When an Unexpected behavior is performed by a service provider and “liked” by the customer, the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
    • 11. Method
      Participants – N = 107
      Sex: Male: 28 Female: 78
      Age: 18-27: 88 28-37: 6 38-47: 2 48-59: 9 70+: 2
      Procedure
      completed questionnaires on a voluntary basis during classes, social gatherings or at work during break.
      Participants were informed that purpose of the study
    • 12. Measure~ mcse-womr ~
      Adapted from Service Provider Sociality Scale (SPSS)
      Developed by Koermer et al. (2000)
      SPSS had 21 items
      9 additional items were added.
      developed from focus groups discussing positive and negative customer service interactions.
    • 13. Measure ~ mcse-womr ~
      Measure of Customer Service Expectations and Word of Mouth Relationship (MCSE-WOMR)
      3-part survey – 90 items total
      Part I consists of 30 behaviors designed to determine which behaviors are expected
      Part II uses negative hypothetical situational statements carried out by their service provider based on the 30 behaviors in Part I and gauged the likelihood of negative WOM communication
      Part III uses positive hypothetical situational statements carried out by their service provider based on the 30 behaviors in Part I and gauged the likelihood of positive WOM communication
    • 14. Coding
      Part 1 (Expectations)
      YES was coded as (1)
      NO was a (-1).
      Part II and III
      Original data was entered using the 1 – 5 Likert Scale
      Those values were re-coded for easy interpretation. As seen below:
      Highly Likely: (2)
      Likely: (1)
      Neutral: (0)
      Unlikely: (-1)
      Highly Unlikely: (-2)
    • 15. Analysis
      Step 1:
      The items in Part I (expectations) were divided into four categories (levels) of expectation.
      Groups were created to categorize the level of expectation the specific service behavior carried.
      Categorization determined by the individual behaviors composite mean.
    • 16. Analysis
      Step 2:
      Series of Paired T-Tests of:
      Category Levels of NWOM and PWOM
      Step 3:
      Independent Sample T-Test of:
      • Sex differences in likelihood of NWOM and PWOM
      Step 4:
      Independent Sample T-Test of:
      • Customer Service Experience in likelihood of NWOM and PWOM
    • Results: Highly Expected Behaviors
    • 17. Results: H1
      H1 When an Expected behavior is not performed by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Negative Word of Mouth
      The Paired T-Test confirmed this Hypothesis:
      t(106) = 11.85, p ≤ .01
      The composite means demonstrated a statistical significance in all pairs with a clear separation between each expectation level.
    • 18. Results: H2
      H2 When an Unexpected behavior is performed by a service provider and “liked” by the customer, the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
      The Paired T-Test did not support this Hypothesis:
      There was a statistically significant result that unexpected and “liked” behaviors will result in positive word of mouth.
      However, expected behaviors that are fulfilled yielded the greatest likelihood of positive word of mouth.
      t(106) = 3.68, p ≤ .01
    • 19. Results: H2
      Counter to prediction no difference or statistical significance found between Moderate and Neutral Expectations.
      Mean for MEPWOM – Mean for NEUPWOM
      t(106) = -.146, p ≥ .05
      There was a difference between High Expectation and Neutral Expectation Behavior however it failed to reach statistical significance.
      Mean for HEPWOM – Mean for NEUPWOM
      t(106) = 1.02, p ≥ .05
    • 20. Results: Sex Differences
      Males andfemales show differences but not statistically significant.
      The circumstances with an apparent Mean Difference were as follows:
      Females > Male in Negative Word of Mouth for High Expectations.
      NWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .286
      Females >Male in Positive Word of Mouth under all Expectations
      PWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .207
      PWOM Moderate Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .221
      PWOM Neutral Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .181
      PWOM No Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .137
    • 21. Results: Customer Service Experience
      CSE > No CSE under all except Non-Expected Behaviors
      Greatest difference was present for Neutral Behavior Expectations
      NWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .114
      NWOM Moderate Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .205
      NWOM Neutral Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .275
      PWOM High Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .120
      PWOM Moderate Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .120
      PWOM Neutral Behavior Expectation: Mean Difference = .400
    • 22. Discussion
      GOAL ACHIEVED!
      Identified an applicable set of communication behaviors that prompt positive and negative word of mouth.
      The results aim to benefit small business owners that wish to improve their customer service.
      Not all findings were statistically significant, the differences are apparent and worthy of discussion.
    • 23. Discussion: H1
      Hypothesis 1 Confirmed!
      When an Expected behavior is not performed by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Negative Word of Mouth
      Implication
      It is clear that business owners should examine these service provider behaviors to ensure their employees are not violating these expectations.
    • 24. Discussion: H2
      Hypothesis 2 Opposite!
      When an Unexpected behavior is performed by a service provider and “liked” by the customer, the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
      Instead...
      When an Expected behavior is fulfilled by a Service Provider the customer will be most likely to participate in Positive Word of Mouth
      Implication
      Fulfilling Expectations is the best way to get PWOM.
      However; going above and beyond will still result with a fairly high likelihood of PWOM
    • 25. Discussion
      Sex Differences
      Reason for Women’s greater WOM?
      More open to friends
      More sensitive to communication
      Customer Service Experience
      Overall Greater WOM
      More apt to speak Positively because they understand the difficulty of the job
      More apt to speak Negatively because they believe they would handle themselves as the service provider differently
      Neutral Expectations greater WOM?
      Customer Service Experience develops a more keen eye for smaller details with in a service interaction
    • 26. Limitations
      Limitations
      Sample Size
      Did not allow for statistical significance in every case
      Age Representation
      82% were 18-27, 5.6% were 28- 37, 12.1% were over 38
    • 27. Strengths
      Strengths
      Focused Context
      Short Term, Non-Professional Service Interactions
      Several Variables to Analyze and Compare
      Positive and Negative WOM
      Demographics
      Identified Several Avenues for Further Research
      Professional Service Provider – Same Model
      Customer Service Experience As Focus
      Age as a Focus (Even Representation)

    ×