an empirical examination of a model of perceived service

An Empirical Examination of a Model ofPerceived Service Quality and Satisfaction

RICHARD A. SPRENGMichigan State University

ROBERT D. MACKOYButler University

Perceived service quality and satisfaction have generally been conceptualized to be distinct constructs,but there isn 't a good understanding of their relationship. While the two constructs are very similar, lit-lie research has empirically examined the distinction. This study discu.<ises the conceptual argumentsfor the distinction, and examines the empirical distinction by testing a recently proposed model of .ser-vice quality and satisfaction. Results indicate that the two constructs are. in the present case, distinct,and there is some support for the model, with several modifications.

In recent years there has been a great deal of interest in the conceptualization and measure-ment of consumer satisfaction and perceived service quality, by both managers and aca-demic researchers. Consumer satisfaction and service quality have each been the subject ofextensive, but separate, research, although many studies of consumer satisfaction havebeen conducted in service settings (Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins, 1987; Fomell, 1992;Oliver. 1980; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988; Oliver and Swan, 1989; Swan, 1988; Swan andTrawick, 1980). There seems to be a great deal of similarity between these two concepts,yet researchers are usually careful to state that these are different constructs (for exceptionssee Dabholkar, 1993; Oliva, Oliver, and MacMillan. 1992; Spreng and Singh, 1993). Forexample, Cronin and Taylor (1992, p. 56) state that "This distinction is important to man-agers and researchers alike because service providers need to know whether their objectiveshould be to have consumers who are 'satisfied' with their performance or to deliver themaximum level of 'perceived service quality.'" Most researchers in the services domainhave maintained that these two constructs are distinct (Bitner, 1990; Boulding, Kalra. Stae-lin and Zeithaml, 1993; Carman, 1990; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988; Taylor and

Richard A. Spreng. Michigan State University, Broad Graduate School of Management. Department of Maricelingand Logistics. East Lansing, MI 48824. Robert D. Mackoy. Butler University. Department of Marketing,Indianapolis, IN 46208.

Journal of Retailing, Volnme 72(2), pp. 201-214. ISSN: 0022-4359Copyright © 1996 by New York University. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

201

202 Joumal of Retailing Vol. 71, No. 2 1996

Baker, 1994), yet there have been repeated calls for research investigating the relationshipbetween the two constructs (Anderson and Fomell, 1994; Rust and Oliver, 1994).

Greater understanding of the relationship between perceived service quality and satisfac-tion is needed. If they are distinct constructs as has generally heen claimed, then we needto understand how they are different. If they are not distinct, then we don't have to wastetime on surveys asking for both or confuse managers hy telling them they have to be con-cerned with both. Further, researchers in the service quality area continue to state that sat-isfaction is the result of a comparison with predictive expectations (Bolton and Drew, 1991;Bitner, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1988. 1994; Oliver. 1993; Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeith-aml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1993), despite many criticisms of the disconfirmation ofexpectations model (Barbeau, 1985; Cadotte et al.. 1987; LaTour and Peat. 1979; Sprengand Olshavsky, 1993; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983). If satisfaction is no/simply a result ofmeeting expectations, then managers may not be focusing on the correct things. Closelyrelated to this are the recommendations to manage expectations. Those who advocate thisusually mean that managers should attempt to lower expectations so that it will be possibleto provide service that is "better than expected" which will then produce higher satisfaction(Davidow and Uttal, 1989; Peters, 1987). If this is not a complete picture of how expecta-tions influence satisfaction, then it may he that managers are being urged to do the wrongthings.

This paper will extend this research by empirically testing a new model of service qualityand satisfaction. Specifically, we will first discuss one of the conceptual distinctions madein past research between service quality and satisfaction. We then test a model by Oliver(1993) that proposes to integrate satisfaction and perceived service quahty.

PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY AND SATISFACTION

Perceived service quality is defined by Parasuraman et al. (1988) as "a global judgment, orattitude, relating to the superiority of the service," and many researchers in the service qual-ity literature concur with this definition (Boulding et al., 1993; Bolton and Drew, 1991;Cronin and Taylor. 1992). The definition of consumer satisfaction is not so clear (see Yi.1990 for a review). While there is not a clear consensus regarding the definition of satisfac-tion, most detinitions would involve "an evaluative, affective, or emotional response"(Oliver, 1989. p., 1).

Both satisfaction and service quality literatures have emphasized the idea that consumersmake a comparison between the performance of the product or service and some standard.The service quality literature has maintained that the distinction between perceived servicequality and satisfaction is that they use different standards of comparison (Bitner, 1990;Parasuraman et al., 1988; Zeithaml et al., 1993). These authors have argued that the stan-dard of comparison in forming satisfaction is predictive expectations, or what the consumerbelieves will happen, while perceived service quality is the result of a comparison of per-formance and what the consumer feels a firm should provide. In a conceptual model thatattempts to integrate service quality and satisfaction, Oliver (1993) similarly argues thatwhile the antecedent of quality perceptions is the disconfirmation of ideals, the antecedents

An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived Setvice Quality and Satisfaction 203

of satisfaction are disconfirmation of predictive expectations (regarding quality and non-quality dimensions), and perceived quality. Oliver suggests that the constructs are distinct,in part, because they use different standards. That is. he claims that one can be satisfied withlow quality if the performance is better than one's prediction of the performance. However,Oliver (1993, p. 81) states that "...verification of the use of ideal expectations for qualityand predictive expectations for satisfaction is needed."

Research in consumer satisfaction has extensively examined the issue of the standardagainst which performance is compared in producing satisfaction. While the construct ofpredictive expectations has dominated, a number of other standards have been suggestedand tested, such as experience-based norms, ideals, values, desires, equity, and others (forreviews see Spreng and Dixon. 1992 and Woodruff, demons, Schumann. Gardial andBums, 1991).

Oliver's Satisfaction/Service Quality Model

Oliver (1993) has proposed a model that is intended to integrate the satisfaction and theservice quality literatures (see Figure 1 for a modified version of this model). He proposesthat while service quality is fomied by a comparison between ideals and perceptions of per-formance regarding quality dimensions, satisfaction is a function of the disconfirmation of

ExpectationsDisconfirmation

Figure 7. Modified Satisfaction-Service Quality Model


predictive expectations regarding both quality dimensions and non-quality dimensions.Further, perceived service quality is proposed to be an antecedent to satisfaction.

There are several limitations to this model. First, Oliver's model suggests that satisfac-tion is not related to disconfirmation of ideals, except through service quality perceptions.However, there is a fair amount of evidence in the satisfaction literature that ideals ordesires are an important antecedent to satisfaction (Barbeau, 1985; Cadotte et al., 1987;Spreng and Olshavsky. 1993; Swan and Trawick, 1980; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983).Second, Oliver's model specifies that expectations do not influence perceptions of perfor-mance, despite an extensive literature showing this effect (for a review, see Yi, 1990,pp. 83-84).

In order to investigate these issues, a study was undertaken that would be able to unam-biguously assess several key aspects ofthe perceived service quality-satisfaction relation-ship. The purposes of this study are to assess the distinction between perceived servicequality and satisfaction, and examine the impact of different standards of comparison.Desires were used to operationalize the standard of comparison that Oliver portrays in hismodel as "Ideals." The service quality literature has used the term "desires" in describingtheir standard (Parasuraman et al., 1988), and this standard has had some support in the sat-isfaction literature (Barbeau, 1985; Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993).

METHOD

Setting and Subjects

The study examined student assessment of undergraduate advising, and subjects receivedextra credit in an undergraduate marketing class for participating. A total of 273 usableresponses were obtained. The students in the study were all Juniors (36%) or Seniors(64%). and thus had at least one previous year of personal experience with the undergrad-uate advising office. Most students (95%) had had at least one previous appointment in thelast year. While this is clearly a service setting, some may argue that there is not anexchange taking place. This is incorrect, since students view the services they receive assomething they pay for through their tuition fees. This would be similar to a situation inwhich someone sees a physician, but the actual payment for the service comes from moneythe patient has paid to an insurance company. Further, there is additional sacrifice by thestudents in terms of time and effort in seeing an advisor. Finally, if the level of service ispoor (e.g., students get wrong or incomplete advice) the service failure can have extremelyadverse consequences to the student (e.g., the student may not graduate on time, may wastemoney taking the wrong classes, etc.). Thus, we believe that the elements necessary fordeveloping real reactions to a service are present in this situation.

Subjects filled out a pre-experience questionnaire immediately before an appointmentwith an advisor. To prevent advisors from knowing that they were being evaluated, thesequestionnaires were filled out in offices that were in another part of the building from the

An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction 205

advising offices. After completing the pre-experience questionnaire, subjects went to theirappointment, and then immediately returned to fill out the post-experience questionnaire.

Our procedure has some advantages over many past studies of perceived service quality.First, we have measures of pre-experience constructs that were taken before the experience.Second, the subjects had a real, naturally occurring service experience, with perceptionscollected both before and after the service encounter.

Measures

Desires, predictive expectations, perceived performance, desires congruency and expec-tations disconfirmation were each measured for ten attributes. These attributes were devel-oped from reviewing past research in the academic advising literature, discussions with thedirector of the undergraduate advising office, and two focus groups with undergraduate stu-dents. Previous administration of the questionnaire permitted the measures to be refined,and this resulted in a set of 10 attributes of advising (convenience in making an appoint-ment, friendliness of the staff, advisor listened to my questions, the advisor provided accu-rate information, the knowledge of the advisor, the advice was consistent, advisor helpedin long range planning, the advisor helped in choosing the right courses for career, advisorwas interested in personal life, and the offices were professional).

The pre-experience questionnaire asked about students' desires and expectations regard-ing the 10 attributes. The desires questions asked for the level of service the student wantsto receive, while the expectations questions asked about the level of service the studentbelieved they would actually receive, each on seven-point Likert scales (see Appendix).After their advising appointment, subjects filled out the post-experience questionnaire. Per-ceived performance was measured by asking for the student's perception of their advisingexperience, and used seven-point Likert scales for the 10 attributes. For all three of thesemeasures (Desires. Expectations, and Perceive Performance) the average over the tenscales was the measure used in the analysis described below.

There has been a great deal of criticism of gap scores as measures of disconfirmation con-structs (Teas, 1993), although not all researchers agree that difference scores are problem-atic, and in fact can provide more diagnostic infonnation (Parasuraman et al., 1994). Inorder to measure desires congruency and expectations disconfirmation in a way that avoidssome of the problems with past measures, they were both measured in a new way.

To measure desires congruency for each attribute the subjects were asked for their sub-jective assessment of the "...difference between what you desired and what you received"on seven-point scales anchored, 1 = "Exactly as I desired," and 7 = "Extremely differentthan I desired," with "Somewhat different than I desired" as the midpoint. This asked thesubject to assess how close the product was to what was desired. Following this scale foreach attribute was an eleven-point scale that asked "How good or bad was this difference?"with -5 labeled as "Very bad," +5 labeled "Very good," and 0 labeled as "Neither good norbad." Desires congruency was operationalized by multiplying these two scales for eachattribute. The ten products were then averaged to get an "Average Desires Congruency"score that was used in the analysis. Thus, these measures represent a belief regarding the

206 ' lournal of Retailing Vol. 72, No. 21996

degree to which the attribute matched the subject's desires and an evaluation of this belief.See Appendix for an example of these measures.

Expectations congruency was operationalized in a similar way. Subjects were first askedto assess the difference between what they anticipated they would receive and what theyactually received, and then to evaluate this difference. The two scores for each attributewere multiplied for each attribute. The ten products were then averaged to get an "AverageExpectations Congruency" score that was used in the analysis.

Overall satisfaction was measured by asking "Overall, how do you feel about the advis-ing services you just received?" Following this stem there were four seven-point scalesanchored by "Very dissatisfied/very satisfied," 'Terrible/delighted," "Very dissatisfied/notat all dissatisfied," and "Not at all satisfied/very satisfied." These are all widely used scalesfor measuring the level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Overall service quality was measured with respect to a long term, overall evaluation, andasked "Overall, what is the level of service quality you receive from advising services?"Following this stem were three seven-point scales anchored by "Extremely poor/extremelygood." "Awful/excellent," and "Very low/very high." Table 1 shows the correlations, stan-dard deviations, and means of the variables.

RESULTS

Measurement Results

A confirmatory factor analysis mode! of the constructs was estimated using LISREL8(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993). The fit ofthe model was good: chi-square = 45.00, 38 d.f.(p = .20), GFI = .97. AGFI = .95, CFI = 1.00 (Table 2). All indicator factor loadings weresignificant, and the squared multiple correlations ranged from .71 to .93. indicating accept-able reliability. The average variance extracted (Fomell and Larcker. 1981) for the satisfac-tion construct was .78 and for the overall service quality construct was .92. The averagevariance extracted (AVE) can also be used to evaluate discriminant validity (Fomell andLarcker. 1981). The AVE for each constmct should be greater than the squared correlationbetween the constmct and any other constmct. Examining the correlations between the sat-isfaction and the perceived service quality constmcts from Table 3 it is clear that this testholds, since the squared correlation between these two constmcts is .53 (.73 ). Further evi-dence ofthe discriminant validity comes from an examination ofthe standardized residuals.There were no standardized residuals with an absolute value greater than 3.0. Only threeout of 78 (4%) of the standardized residuals were over 2.0. and the largest positive residualwas 2.99 and the largest negative residual was -2.82. Finally, note from the correlationmatrix ofthe individual items in Table 1 thattherearenomeasuresof satisfaction that havea correlation with a measure of another constmct that is higher than its correlation with theother satisfaction items. Likewise, none of the perceived service quality measures is morehighly correlated with another measure than it is with the other perceived service qualitymeasures. Therefore, measures of latent variables of Overall Satisfaction and PerceivedService Quality were used in stmctural equation model.


i

•a

Iou

8

S

8

S

§ t^ \D -r- to r- r^ r-i e\l CO

s"SHoc

O O O C D D^ P ' c ' p ' p ^ <u Oftj C U tJ > > >2 2 2 S '5j

208

1ABLE2

lournal of Retailing Vol. 72, No. 2 1996

Measurement Model Parameters for Constructs

Construct Measure

CompletelyStandardizedCoefficient t-value

AverageVarianceExtracted

DesiresPerceived Performance'ExpectationsDesires Congruency'Expectations Disconfirmation'Satisfaction

1

Perceived Service Quality

SAT1SAT2SAT3SAT4

PSQ1PSQ2PSQ3

1.001.00roo1.001.00

.91

.86

.84

.92

.97

.95

.96

——

—,

20.8819.9924.28

—

37.541.02

.78

.92

Notes; 1. Construct used an average of 10 attributes as a single item mesure.

TABLE 3

Factor I ntercorrelations

factorIntercorrelations

1. Desires2. Perceived Performance3. Expectations4. Desires Congruency5. Expectations Disconfirmation6. Satisfaction7. Perceived Service Quiility

7.

1.00.13.23

-.13.00

-.08-.05

2.

1.00.55.70.61.73.65

.3.

1.00.38.17.35.53

4.

1.00.73.70.61

5.

1.00.63,44

6.

1.00.73

7.

1.00

Table 3 shows the correlations between the constructs, and indicates that while the cor-relation between perceived service quality and satisfaction is high (.73), they do seem to bedistinct. A model was estimated that constrained this parameter to be equal to 1.0, and thefit was significantly worse.

The Oliver (1993) Model oi Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction

Figure 1 shows a modified version of the model proposed by Oliver (1993). Here, no"non-quality" dimensions are specified as determinants of satisfaction. Note that, in accor-dance with Oliver's model, desires congruency is not specified to influence overall satis-


faction, expectations disconfirmation is not specified to affect perceived service quality,and expectations are not specified to affect perceived performance.

The fit of this model was only mediocre, with a chi-square of 276.66, 51 d.f (/?<.OO1),GFI = .86, AGFI = .79, and CFI = .93. When the relationship between expectations and per-ceived performance was allowed to be estimated, the fit improved greatly (chi-square =177.13, 50 d.f.,/K.OOl, GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, and CFI = .96). Thus, as we anticipated,expectations have a significant effect on perceptions of performance.

Next, the path between desires congruency and overall satisfaction, and the path betweenexpectations congruency and overall service quality were freed. The resulting decrease inchi-square was significant (change of 11.19, 2 d.f.,p<.01). Desires congruency had a sig-nificant effect on satisfaction, while expectations disconfirmation did not affect overall ser-vice quality. Figure 2 shows the parameters of this model after the expectationsdisconfirmation-perceived service quality path was constrained to zero (chi-square =164.94.49 d.f, GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, and CFI = .96). The amount of variation explainedin overall satisfaction and in overall service quality is 67 percent and 37 percent respec-tively. While desires congruency and expectations disconfirmation have comparable directeffects on satisfaction, the total effects of desires congruency are stronger (standardizedtotal effects of .52 (/ = 7.87) than the total effects of expectations disconfirmation (standard-ized total effects of .26 (t = 3.94). This is due, of course, to the indirect effect of desirescongruency on satisfaction through perceived service quality.

ExpectationsDisconfirmation

Figure 2. Final Model, Completely Standardized Parameters (f-values)

210 Journal of Retailing Vol. 72, No. 2 1996

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that service quality and satisfaction, as operationalized here, are dis-tinct. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two constructs were, in this case,distinct, and stmctural equations modeling showed that they have different antecedents.Our results also provide some support for Oliver's model of service quality and satisfac-tion. As he proposed, the disconfirmation of expectations does not have a significanteffect on perceived service quality. Contrary to his model, desires congruency doesinfluence satisfaction. However, this result supports past research in satisfaction showingthat desires congruency is an important antecedent of satisfaction (Barbeau, 1985;Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993; Swan and Trawick, 1980). Thus, our results also addressAnderson and Fomell's (1994) call for continued research on the antecedents of satisfac-tion.

While the disconfirmation of expectations did not have a direct effect on service qual-ity, this does not mean that expectations are unimportant in the formation of perceivedservice quality. The effect of expectations is indirect, through perceived performance(indirect standardized effects of .24, t = 7.16). Thus, the indirect effect of expectationson perceived service quality is positive. Conversely, the indirect effects of desires is neg-ative (standardized effect of -.12, / = -4.92), as there is not a significant relationshipbetween desires and perceived performance. Therefore, as found by Boulding et al.(1993), the two types of standards (i.e., desires and predictive expectations) have oppo-site effects.

The above results have a number of implications for research and management. First, fur-ther evidence is presented that desires congruency is an important antecedent of consumersatisfaction. The service quality literature continues to state that satisfaction is formed by acomparison with predictive expectations (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Bitner, 1990; Parasura-man et al., 1988. 1994; Oliver, 1993; Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1993). despitea great deal of contrary evidence (Barbeau. 1985; Cadotte et a!., 1987; LaTour and Peat,1979; Spreng and Olshavsky. 1993; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983). Since this is one oftheways perceived service quality and satisfaction are suppose to differ, it is important to rec-ognize that predictive expectations are not the only antecedent of satisfaction. Thus, man-agers should not believe that merely meeting (or exceeding) predictive expectations willsatisfy consumers.

Second, the results show the importance of expectations in influencing perceptions ofperformance. However, note that expectations have a negative effect on satisfaction,through disconfirmation, but a positive effect on both satisfaction and perceived servicequality, through perceived performance. Most consultants or authors who advocate "man-aging expectations" mean that firms should seek to lower expectations so that it will be pos-sible to provide service that is "better than expected" which will then produce highersatisfaction (Davidow and Uttal, 1989; Peters, 1987). Thus, these people are focusing onthe negative impact of expectations on satisfaction through disconfirmation (i.e., lowerexpectations causes higher positive disconfirmation, which causes higher satisfaction).However, the positive effect of expectations on satisfaction through perceived performanceis being ignored. By lowering expectations a firm might also lower perceptions of perfor-

An Empirical Exatnitiatioti of a Model of Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaaion 211

mance, leading to lower levels of satisfaction. Thus, managing expectations down canresult in lower, not higher satisfaction. It appears that managers must balance the positiveand negative effects of expectations. That is, in terms of satisfaction, it appears that raisingexpectations can increase satisfaction through perceived performance, but at the same timelower satisfaction through disconfirmation. This indicates that it may be problematic to"manage expectations" as some suggest. The prescription regarding desires is morestraightforward and intuitive: a key determinant of both satisfaction and service quality ismeeting customers' desires.

APPENDIX

The desires and the predictive expectations questions were asked in a two-column format(see Parasuraman et ai., 1994). This was deemed to be better than separate pages for eachset of measures because the two-column method makes it clearer to respondents the distinc-tion between predictive expectations and desires. The questionnaire was as follows:

DIRECTIONS:

Below are a series of statements about the advising center and the services offered. Foreach ofthe statements:

• on the first scale, indicate how much you agree/disagree that this is the amount ofservice you would want to receive.

• on the second scale, indicate how much you agree/disagree that this is the amountof service you believe you will actually receive.

1. It will be extremely convenient to make an advising appointment.

The level of service The level of service I believe

I WANT TO RECEIVE 1 WILL ACTUALLY RECEIVE

Strongly Strongly Strongly StronglyAgree Disagree Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The desires congruency and the expectations congruency pages were similar, and were asfollows:

DIRECTIONS:

The following questions are related to the difference between what you desire (wantedto receive) from advising and how well you think the advising center met your desires. Incomparison to what you desired, how big was the difference between what you wanted,and what the advising center actually provided? Since this difference can be either good or


bad, following each question is a scale that asks you to rate how good or bad this differenceis. Put a circle around the number that represents your answer.

2. The degree to which it was extremely convenient to make an advising appointment.

Ditterence between what IDesired and what I received

Exactlyas I

desired

1 2 3

Somewhatdifferent

than 1 desired

4

Extremelydifferent than

I desired

5 6 7

Verybad

-5 -4 -3

REFERENCES

How good or badis this difference?

Neitherbad norgood

- 2 - 1 0 1 2 3

Verygood

4 5

Anderson, Eugene W. and Claes Fomell. (1994). "A Customer Satisfaction Research Prospecnis."Pp. 241-268 in Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver (eds.). Service Quality: New Directions inTheory arui Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barbeau. J. Bradley. (1985). "Predictive and Normative Expectations in Consumer Satisfaction: AUtilization of Adaptation and Comparison Levels in a Unified Framework." Pp.27-32 in H. KeithHunt and Ralph L. Day (eds.). Conceptual and Empirical Contributions to Consumer Satisfactionand Complaining Behavior Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Business.

Bitner, Mary Jo. (1990). "Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings andEmployee Responses," Journal of Marketing, 54(April): 69-82.

Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew. (1991). "A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of ServiceChanges on Customer Attitudes," Joumal of Marketing, 55(January): 1-9.

Boulding, William, Ajay Kaira, Richard Staelin and Valarie A. Zeithaml. (1993). "A DynamicProcess Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions," Joumal ofMarketing Research, 30(February): 7-27.

Cadotte, Ernest R.. Robert B. Woodruff and Roger L. Jenkins. (1987). "Expectations and Norms inModels of Consumer Satisfaction." Joumal of Marketing Research, 24{ August): 305-314.

Cannan, lames M. (1990). "Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of theSERVQUAL Dimensions," Joumal of Retailing, 66(Spring); 33-55.

Cronin, J. Joseph, Jr. and Steven R. Taylor. (1992). "Measuring Service Quality: A Reexaminationand Extension," Joumal of Marketing, 56(July): 55-68.

Davidow, William H. and Bro Uttal. (1989). Total Customer Service: The Ultimate Weapon. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1993). "Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality: Two Constructs orOne?" Pp. 10-18 in David W. Cravens and Peter R. Dickson (eds.). Enhancing KnowledgeDevelopment in Marketing, Vol. 4. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Fomell. Claes. (1992). "A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer The Swedish Experience."Joumal of Marketing, 56(January): 6-21.

Fomell, Claes and David F. Larcker. (1981). "Evaluating Structural Equation Models withUnobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18(Febnjary)-

39-50.

Joreskog. Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. (1993). USREL 8: A Guide to the Program and Applications.Homewood, IL: Scientific Software Intemational, Inc.

An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived Setvice Quality ar)d Satisfaction 213

LaTour, Steven A. and Nancy C. Peat. (1979). "Conceptual and Methodological Issues in ConsumerSatisfaction Research." Pp. 431-437 in William L. Wilkie {ed.). Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 6. Ann Arbor. MI: Association for Consumer Research,

Oliva, Terence A., Richard L. Oliver and Ian C. MacMillan. (1992). "A Catastrophe Model forDeveloping Service Satisfaction Strategies," Joumal of Marketing, 56{July): 83-95.

Oliver. Richard L. (1980). "A Cognitive Model ofthe Antecedents and Consequences of SatisfactionDecisions," Joumai of Marketing Research, 17(November): 460-469.

. (1989). "Processing ofthe Satisfaction Response in Consumption: A Suggested Frameworkand Research Propositions." Joumal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and ComplainingBehavior, 2: 1-16.

. (1993), "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service Satisfaction: CompatibleGoals, Different Concepts." Pp. 65-85 in Advarwes in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 2.

Oliver, Richard L. and Wayne S. DeSarbo. (1988). "Response Determinants in SatisfactionJudgments," Journal of Consumer Research, 14(March): 495-507,

Oliver. Richard L. and John E. Swan. (1989), "Equity and Disconfirmation Perceptions as Influenceson Merchant and Product Satisfaction." Joumal of Consumer Research, 16(December): 372-383.

Parasuraman. A., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry. (1988). "SERVQUAL: A Multi-ItemScale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality," Joumal of Retailing, 64(Spring):13-40.

Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry, (1994). "Altemative Scales forMeasuring Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on Psychometric and DiagnosticCriteria," Joumal of Retailing, 70(Fall): 201-230.

Peters, Tom. (1987). Thriving on Chaos. New York: Haqjer and Row.Rust, Roland T. and Richard L, Oliver, (1994), "Service Quality: Insights and Managerial

Implication From the Frontier." Pp. 1-19 in Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver (eds.). ServiceQuality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spreng, Richard A. and Andrea L. Dixon. (1992). "Altemative Comparison Standards in theFormation of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction," Pp. 85-91 in Leone and Kumar (eds.).Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 3. Chicago. IL: American MarketingAssociation.

Spreng, Richard A. and Richard W. Olshavsky. (1993). "A Desires Congruency Model of ConsumerSatisfaclion," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(Summer): 169-177.

Spreng, Richard A. and A.K. Singh. (1993). "An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale.and the Relationship Between Service Quality and Satisfaction." Pp. 1-6 in David W. Peter R.Cravens and Dickson (eds.), Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 4. Chicago.IL: American Marketing Association.

Swan, John E. (1988). "Consumer Satisfaction Related to Disconfirmation of Expectations andProduct Performance," Joumal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and ComplainingBehavior, I: 40-47,

Swan, John E. and I. Frederick Trawick, (1980). "Satisfaction Related to Predictive vs DesiredExpectations." Pp. 7-12 in H. Keith Hunt and Ralph L. Day (eds.). Refining Concepts andMeasures of Consttmer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.

Taylor. Steven A. and Thomas L, Baker. (1994). "An Assessment of the Relationship BetweenService Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Fomiation of Consumers' Purchase Intentions."Joumal of Retailing, 70(2): 163-178.

Teas, R. Kenneth. (1993). "Expectations. Performance Evaluation, and Consumers' Perceptions ofQuality." Joumal of Marketing. 57(October): 18-34.

214 Journal of Retailing Vol. 71. No. 2 1996

Westbrook. Robert A. and Michael D. Reilly. (1983). "Value-Percept Disparity: An Altemative tothe Disconfirmation of Expectations Theory of Consumer Satisfaction." Pp. 256-261 in Richard P,Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10. Ann Arbor. Ml:Association for Consumer Research.

Woodruff, Robert B., D. Scott Clemons, David W. Schumann, Sarab F, Gardial and Mary JaneBums, (1991). "The Standards Issue in CS/D Research: Historical Perspective," Joumal ofConsumer Satisfaction. Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 4: 103-109.

Yi. Youjae. (1990). "A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction." Pp. 68-123 in Valarie A.Zeithaml (ed.). Review of Marketing. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Zeithaml, Valarie A.. Leonard L, Berry and A. Parasuraman. (1993). "The Nature and Determinantsof Customer Expectations of Service," Joumal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 21(Winter):1-12.

an empirical examination of a model of perceived service

Documents