Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
At the second step, this study examines whether Z moderates the
effects of X on M as shown in the regression equation below.
The coefficient of XZ (a
xz2
) indicates the extent to which the
relationship between Quality (X) and Satisfaction (M) varies across
Service Type levels (Z).
Next to capture the moderating effects of Z on the relationship of X
and M with Y, the regression equation is given by:
This represents what is also called the Total Effect Moderation
Model (Edwards & Lambert 2007) since it combines the direct and indirect
39
effects. Substituting equation 2 into equation 3, we get the reduced form of
equation:
The reduced form of equation contains the terms Z
2
and XZ
2
indicating that the moderating effect of Z on the relationship between X
and Y depends on the value of Z.
Another way this can be represented is:
40
Equation 4 shows that Z affects the two paths that constitute the
indirect effect of X on Y as indicated by the term (a
x2
+ a
XZ2
Z)(b
M3
+ b
MZ3
Z)
as well as the path representing the direct affect of X on Y, which
corresponds to the term (b
X3
+ b
XZ3
Z). This equation also shows that Z
affects the intercept through b
Z3
Z, a
z2
Z and b
MZ3
Z. Hence substituting
values of Z into equation 4 yields simple paths and effects that can be
analyzed & plotted to determine the form of moderating effect of Service
Type on direct, indirect and total effects of Quality on Loyalty.
MODEL ESTIMATION:
Estimation of this model uses reduced form equations which
contain products of regression coefficients. These equations are tested
with procedures that take into account sampling distributions of products
of random variables. One procedure is based on methods for deriving the
variance of the product of two random variables (Bohrnstedt &
Goldberger, 1969; Goodman, 1960), of which the Sobel (1982) approach
is perhaps the best known (MacKinnon et al., 2002). With this procedure,
the product of two regression coefficients is divided by the square root of
its estimated variance, and the resulting ratio is interpreted as a t statistic.
Although this procedure is useful, it relies on the assumption that the
sampling distribution of the product of two random variables is normal,
given that the procedure uses only the variance to represent the
distribution of the product. This assumption is tenuous because the
41
distribution of a product is nonnormal, even when the variables
constituting the product are normally distributed (Anderson, 1984).
The foregoing assumption can be relaxed with the bootstrap (Efron
& Tibshirani, 1993; Mooney & Duval, 1993; Stine, 1989). The bootstrap
generates a sampling distribution of the product of two regression
coefficients by repeatedly estimating the coefficients with bootstrap
samples, each of which contains N cases randomly sampled with
replacement from the original sample, in which N is the size of the original
sample. Coefficient estimates from each bootstrap sample are used to
compute the product, and these products are rank ordered to locate
percentile values that bound the desired confidence interval (e.g., the 2.5
and 97.5 percentiles for a 95% confidence interval). Confidence intervals
constructed in this manner should be adjusted for any difference between
the product from the full sample and the median of the products estimated
from the bootstrap samples, yielding a bias-corrected confidence interval
(Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Mooney & Duval, 1993; Stine, 1989).
1,000 bootstrap samples were used to accurately locate the upper
and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (Efron & Tibshirani,
1993; Mooney & Duval, 1993). Since the moderator, service type is a
categorical variable; it was dummy coded using two dummy variables d1
and d2. When service type is search, d1=1 and d2=0. For experience
service, d1=0 and d2=1. Since the baseline comparison service is
credence, it was coded as d1=0 and d2=0 (Aiken and West 1991). The
42
other continuous variables, namely, quality, satisfaction and loyalty were
mean-centered prior to analysis.
PROCEDURE:
The regression module was used to estimate coefficients for the full
sample, and the constrained nonlinear regression (CNLR) module was
used to estimate coefficients from 1,000 bootstrap samples. Unlike the
regression module, the CNLR module contains an algorithm that draws
bootstrap samples, estimates regression coefficients for each sample, and
writes the coefficients to an output file. I used the default loss function of
the CNLR module, which minimizes the sum of squared residuals, thereby
producing OLS coefficient estimates.
Expressions that contained products of coefficients, such as
indirect and total effects, were tested with biascorrected confidence
intervals based on the bootstrap coefficient estimates generated by the
CNLR module. These confidence intervals were constructed by opening
the SPSS output files, resaving them as Microsoft Excel files, and opening
these files with Excel 2003. Using Equation 4, formulas were written into
the Excel file to compute simple paths, indirect effects, and total effects at
selected levels of the moderator variables (0 and 1 for gender, one
standard deviation above and below the mean for centrality). These
formulas were applied to coefficient estimates from each bootstrap
sample, producing 1,000 estimates of each simple path, indirect effect,
and total effect.
43
Next the differences between each path and effect across different
service type were computed and were also applied to the 1,000 bootstrap
estimates. The Excel percentile function was used to locate the 2.5 and
97.5 percentiles of the paths and effects computed from the bootstrap
estimates, establishing the bounds of the 95% confidence interval. These
bounds were adjusted with formulas reported by Stine (1989, p. 277),
which were also written into the Excel file, to obtain bias-corrected
confidence intervals. These confidence intervals were used to test indirect
effects, total effects, and differences in these effects across levels of the
moderator variables such that, if the 95% confidence interval excluded 0,
the quantity being tested was declared statistically significant. (Please see
Table 2.)
CONCLUSION
This chapter described the pilot study, procedures for collecting
data, measuring constructs and the scales used. Chapter 5 provides the
results of the study.
44
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
This chapter describes the results of the study and examines the
characteristics of the sample, the outcomes of the measurement model,
and the results of the structural relations and hypothesis testing. The
chapter closes with a brief summary of the results.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
An online survey was emailed to students at a large Northeastern
University. They were encouraged to answer it for extra credit. 399 usable
surveys were obtained. 84.14% of the respondents were in the 18-25
years age group. 85.17% were single while 4.35% were married with
children. 6.25% were married without children while the rest were living
with a partner. 53.71% of the respondents were male and 46.29% were
female which is reflective of the demographics of the University. While the
age of the respondents is skewed towards the younger demographics, the
respondents are all actual consumers of the services studied and they are
recalling actual satisfactory and dissatisfactory experiences. This makes
the results more generalizable than would have been otherwise.
These 399 responses were then examined for the appropriateness
of their usage in the study. Multivariate outliers were examined by using
45
the Difference in Fit Standardized Test (DFITS) as a global measure of
influence (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, and West 2003). All of the variables were
regressed onto case numbers and a scatterplot was generated. Cases
with inordinately high or low global influence, as measured by DFITS,
were examined. (Please see Figure 10)
QUALITY MEASURES
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and loadings for all
the construct indicators used in the analysis, excluding interaction terms.
All items are on a 1 to 7 Likert scale anchored at the endpoints with
strongly agree/strongly disagree with neither agree nor disagree
anchoring the middle position. The standard deviations for the indicators
range from 1.277 to 1.5822 indicating a substantial amount of variance in
the responses.
Table 3 provides a catalogue of survey items.
The reliability statistics were high with Cronbachs Alpha of .939 for
the 16 items.
SATISFACTION MEASURES:
Satisfaction was also measured using a 3-item scale each of which
was measured on a 7 point Likert scale where 1 was strongly agree and 7
was strongly disagree. The 3 items showed means ranging from 2.20 to
2.26. Satisfaction was calculated as the mean of the 3 items.
Table 4 shows the survey items for Satisfaction. The 3 item
satisfaction scale loaded onto a single factor with high factor loadings
46
ranging from .955 to .960. Reliability scores were also high with
Cronbachs alpha of .946 for the 3 items.
LOYALTY MEASURES:
Loyalty was measured using a 5 item scale each of which was
measured on a 7 point Likert Scale where 1 was strongly agree while 7
was strongly disagree. 4 represented the middle anchor stating neither
agree nor disagree. The average of the 5 items was used to create a
composite loyalty measure. The Cronbach Alpha was .913.
MEASUREMENT AND HYPOTHESES TESTING:
This section formally tests the hypotheses developed in the
conceptual model regarding the role played by service type in the
relationships between service quality and satisfaction, service quality and
loyalty, satisfaction and loyalty. Finally, the complete model is tested for
the moderation by service type of the mediation by satisfaction. For each
hypothesis, the definition, operationalization, and descriptive statistics of
the relevant measure are briefly restated. The analysis and results for
each hypothesis test are then presented. Finally, each test concludes with
a statement of the outcome (supported, partially supported, or not
supported).
47
OUTCOMES:
H1: Service Type moderates the relationship between Service
Quality and Loyalty
Service Type is operationalized as either search, experience or
credence service depending on the ease of evaluation of the service.
There have been conflicting theories about why service type may
influence perceptions of quality though there has been no research which
looked at how service type would moderate the relationship between
service quality and service loyalty.
Perceptions of service quality were significantly different when
comparing credence services to experience or search services. Running a
one-way ANOVA to check for differences of means between groups
(service types) showed an F value of 25.35 at a significance level of
p<.000. For search services, service quality mean was 2.804 (sd=.937,
minimum=1, maximum=7). In case of experience services, the mean was
2.807 (sd= 1.005, minimum=1, maximum=7). For credence services, the
mean was 2.045 (sd=.871, minimum=1, maximum=7). The fact that
credence services showed significantly higher perceptions of quality is as
expected and as predicted by existing theory. Since the ambiguity
associated with credence services is the highest as compared to the other
services, consumers will perceive the received quality to be as per their
expectations. It seems logical to believe that any consumer who selects a
service expects to receive satisfactory service quality and that influences
his/her perceptions of the quality received. Interestingly post hoc analysis
48
did not show significant difference between search and experience
services for their perceptions of service quality. This issue is addressed in
the discussion and analysis section. (Please see Figure 12.)
The first hypothesis was tested by creating a 2-way interaction. The
interactions were calculated following the procedure described by Aiken
and West (1991). The independent variable, quality was mean centered
before calculating the interaction terms. Credence service type was
coded as the default comparison while experience and search services
were coded as dummy variables. Two interaction terms were created by
multiplying the mean centered quality measure by the two dummy
variables. The results were significant for both the interaction terms which
showed that credence services were significantly different from search
and experience service types when it came to the relationship between
service quality and loyalty.
Coefficient for SearchD1 X Service Quality is - .145 (p<.02).
Coefficient for ExperienceD2 X Service Quality is -.109
(p<.05).
The R
2
value is .472 while the effect size (f
2
) is .894 both figures
indicating the strength of the model. (Please see Figure 13.)
Therefore, H1 is supported.
49
H2: Service Type moderates the relationship between quality
and satisfaction.
Satisfaction is operationalized as the average of a 3-item scale.
The 3 items measured happiness at having chosen the service, belief that
it was the right choice and overall satisfaction. The mean is 2.24 with a
minimum value of 1 and maximum of 7 (1=strongly agree, 7=strongly
disagree with 4 being a neutral anchor), s.d = 1.127. Running an ANOVA
to check for differences of means between the different service types
shows F value of 8.973 with a significance of .000. (Please see Figure 14.)
The hypothesis was tested by running an interaction following the
procedure outlined by Aiken and West. The independent variable, quality
was mean centered and interaction terms were created with the dummy
variables used to code service type. While quality was a significant
predictor of satisfaction, (p<.000) the interactions were not significant
predictors. Quality explained 43.5% of the variance while the model which
included the interactions explained about 45% of the variance. The effect
size was .818. Therefore this hypothesis is not supported.
This puts forth the interesting question about why is the relationship
between service quality and satisfaction not significantly moderated by
service type when ANOVA results for both quality and satisfaction with
service type as a factor are significant. This issue is addressed in the
discussion section. (Please see Figure 15.)
50
H3: Service Type moderates the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty.
Since prior expectations play an important role in satisfaction as
judged post experience especially in case of services with high ambiguity,
it is expected that credence services with their high levels of ambiguity will
have higher levels of satisfaction. Also, credence services are associated
with higher levels of risk. So to reduce the perceived risk, consumers will
reduce perceived risk by either searching for more information before a
new purchase or reducing the cognitive burden and continuing with the
existing service provider. This also indicates that loyalty will be affected
by service type.
The hypothesis that service type moderates the relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty is tested by running a regression with
interaction terms which were created by multiplying mean centered
satisfaction by the dummy variables created to code service type. The
results were significant when comparing credence services to search
services (p< .000) as well as when comparing credence services to
experience services (p<.000). The explained variance of the model was a
strong 66% with an effect size (f
2
) of 1.960. Thus the hypothesis is
supported. (Please see Figure 16.)
51
H4: Service type moderates the mediation effect of satisfaction
between service quality and loyalty.
The moderation of mediation effect is tested through the interaction
of service type by service quality. The procedure followed is as provided in
Edward and Lambert (2007). The model called moderated mediation
occurs when mediation results are contingent on the level of a moderator.
Wegener and Fabrigar (2000) share James and Bretts (1984) definition:
Moderated mediation could occur when a moderator _ IV interaction is
observed (because of differences in IV to mediator and/or mediator to DV
paths) or when no moderator _ IV interaction is observed (because
different mediators create the same magnitude of effect or a mediator
operates at some levels of the moderator but direct effects occur at other
levels) (p. 437).
This model looks at the conditional indirect effect of a single causal
independent variable, service quality, on outcome variable, loyalty,
through a proposed mediator variable satisfaction, conditional on a
moderator, service type, of the path from quality to satisfaction and/or the
path from satisfaction to loyalty. It calculates the Sobel test for the
conditional indirect effect as well as percentile-based, bias-corrected, and
bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals for the
conditional indirect effect.
Regression results are reported in Table 1 and simple effects are
given in Table 2 including effects that represent the three paths of the
52
basic mediated model as well as the indirect and total effects of the model.
Models depicting simple paths are shown in Figures 15-17.
RESULTS FOR SERVICE TYPE MODERATION:
Coefficient estimates in Table 6 show that service type moderated
the path from quality to loyalty, satisfaction to loyalty but not the path from
quality to satisfaction. Table 7 summarizes these effects. Comparing these
effects for different service types, we find interesting results. When
credence services are compared to search services, in case of first stage
(quality to satisfaction), search services showed stronger effects. This was
reversed in case of second stage (satisfaction to loyalty) effects where
credence services showed stronger effects. Both these differences were
significant at p<.05. Direct effect (quality to loyalty) was not significant
(0.092-0.020=0.072, p>.05). However indirect effects and total effects
were both significant at p<.05 with credence services showing stronger
effects than search services.
Next, credence services were compared to experience services.
Credence and experience services were not significantly different for the
first stage as well as direct effect. However the second stage and indirect
effect were significantly greater for credence services (p<.05) leading to
an overall difference in total effects (.252-.097 = .155, p<.05)
Differences in these effects are depicted as simple slopes in
Figures 21-25. The moderating effects of service type are not sufficient to
produce a meaningful difference in slopes for the first stage. But the
53
difference in slopes for second stage is substantial enough to create an
overall difference for the indirect effects graph. Similarly, while the graph
for direct effects does not indicate significant difference in slopes, when
combined with indirect effects to produce total effects, credence services
are significantly stronger in the effects they show. Thus, service type
moderated the second stage (satisfaction to loyalty) and indirect effect
(quality to loyalty) and these differences were sufficient to produce a larger
total effect for credence services.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This chapter described the empirical findings of the study. Table 8
summarizes the hypotheses with the findings. The next chapter reviews
the implications of these findings for marketing theory and practice.
54
CHAPTER 6: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
This study is motivated by a desire to understand how the service
type affects service quality, satisfaction and subsequent loyalty of the
consumer. Improving loyalty is considered an important marketing as well
as strategic goal of almost every organization. The research in this area
has been plentiful but not sufficient since there are still gaps in our
understanding of the model. This research looks at the influence of
service type as classified by ease of evaluation on the different behaviors.
The results of this study suggest that service type does indeed influence
how consumers perceive quality and also how they arrive at judgments of
evaluations. Subsequent satisfaction was also influenced by service type.
The findings of this research suggest that organizations making
quality improvements hoping to improve satisfaction and loyalty ratings
need to know what service type their industry falls into. Service type can
help predict not only how consumers perceive those improvements and if
those improvements will even have the expected effect on satisfaction and
behavior. Information search perspective offers some insight into how
consumers evaluate different services and why differences exist. This
research builds on that and extends it to how service type could have
managerial implications.
55
QUALITY AS A PREDICTOR OF BEHAVIOR
Perceived quality was a significant predictor of loyalty in all service
types. However the slope was steepest in credence services. That is
interesting since credence services by their very definition are the most
difficult to evaluate for their quality. The findings of this research show that
while consumers may find it difficult to judge credence services, once they
have arrived at their judgments, they can be the most loyal consumers
showing all positive behaviors which organizations seek.
This has important implications for credence services such as
medical services where most consumers are overwhelmed by the
complexity of medical information available and therefore unable to feel
confident about evaluating the quality of care they receive. This leads to
anxiety when it comes to making decisions such as finding a new provider
or switching providers. Research so far has indicated that in credence
services the rate of switching has been the lowest. The findings of this
research show contrary results. While positive behavioral intentions
showed the highest rate of change for credence services, negative
behavior also showed the quickest rate of decline in case of credence
services. So for every unit of perceptible quality improvement, companies
can expect to see most reduction in complaining and switching behavior in
credence services. So, on one hand, organizations struggle with the fact
that their investments in improving credence service quality may be
wasted since consumers may never notice them. On the other, it is
credence services which provide the most cost-effective investment in
56
improving service quality. This opens up the avenue for further research,
namely, what aspects of service quality in credence services are the ones
that truly matter and are noticed by consumers.
QUALITY AS A PREDICTOR OF SATISFACTION
As expected, quality is a significant predictor of satisfaction.
Perceived quality was also significantly different for the three different
service types. However a surprising finding was that the relationship
between quality and satisfaction was not moderated by service type. This
seems to fit in with satisfactions description as a fulfillment response, a
judgment that a product or service provided a pleasurable level of
consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under or over-fulfillment
(Oliver 1997.) Therefore once a consumer has gone through the process
of evaluating the quality and arriving at a judgment, the resulting feeling of
satisfaction is not dependent on the process which goes into the
evaluation.
SATISFACTION AS A PREDICTOR OF LOYALTY
Satisfaction was a significant predictor of behavior. Service type
played a moderating role in the relationship between satisfaction and
loyalty. So long as satisfaction was below a certain threshold (in this
case, the mean value), credence services showed the lowest loyalty
scores. However, once the threshold was crossed, consumers of
credence services were the most loyal as compared to other service
types. They were also the most vocal in terms of spreading positive word
57
of mouth and encouraging friends and families to frequent the business.
Conversely, when they were dissatisfied beyond a certain threshold, they
were the most likely to carry out negative behaviors such as complaining
to external or internal agencies and even switching.
This is an interesting find since previous research has indicated
that credence service consumers are generally reluctant to carry out
negative behaviors because of the multiple factors of uncertainty about the
current provider as well as the greater effort required to select another
provider. The findings here show that contrary to that belief, consumers of
credence services, once they have crossed a certain threshold in
dissatisfaction, are the most likely to carry out negative actions such as
sue the practitioner.
SATISFACTION OR QUALITY?
A significant finding was that satisfaction was a far stronger
predictor of loyalty than was perceived quality. This finding held true for all
three service types. This is very important since it indicates improving
service quality may not be the most efficient way of seeing quick changes
in positive behavior. While perceived quality is a major antecedent to
satisfaction, there is obviously more to satisfaction. It has been proposed
that service quality is a simpler cognitive construct while satisfaction is
more complex with both cognitive and affective components (Bitner 1990,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1988.) While it has been long speculated
that consumers find it more difficult, or even find themselves unable, to
58
evaluate service quality, this research shows that is indeed the case.
This may point to a crucial distinguishing factor between services and
goods when it comes to evaluating quality.
This research also looked at the role satisfaction plays in the model
since previous results have been conflicting. The findings showed that not
only is satisfaction a mediator between quality and behavior, but the
mediation is moderated by the service type. Therefore, in credence
services, the mediation effect seen was least, indicating that satisfaction
explains only part of the variance in the model. It has been often said that
partial mediation is merely an indication that more research needs to be
carried out to find the undiscovered mediators. This opens up interesting
avenues for research in credence services to identify these other variables
that may explain the relationship between quality and loyalty.
The managerial implications of this are interesting as well as
challenging. On one hand, it indicates that when it comes to services, it is
not enough to Build a better (i.e. improved quality) mousetrap, and the
world will beat a path to your door." Consumers are either unable to
appreciate or dont care for much of what passes for service quality
improvements. Another implication may be that satisfaction has more
antecedents than have been previously acknowledged. It may be more
fruitful to carry out research into how satisfaction can be improved in
services to be able to better predict how to improve positive behavior.
59
Similarly, satisfaction was found to be a partial mediator between
quality and loyalty while it was a complete mediator in search services.
This shows that for simpler evaluations, consumers make the leap from
perceived quality to satisfaction easily. However, when it comes to
complex valuations, there are other variables besides satisfaction which
intervene between quality and loyalty. Value and trust are two possible
mediators which deserve to be looked at, though there may be more.
LIMITATIONS
Like any research, this has its limitations. There is a possibility that
the extra credit led to high involvement on part of the students. Also
retrospective recall sometimes encourages bias towards highly satisfying
and dissatisfying incidents. The links between satisfaction and loyalty are
not always discernible. Dissatisfaction with a single transaction may not
cause the customer to switch loyalties just as a single satisfying
transaction is unlikely to lead to new loyalty.
It is important to acknowledge that other variables such as value,
sacrifice etc could be predictors of loyalty as well. They were deliberately
not included in this model since the focus here is on the relationship
between quality, satisfaction and behavior. This way respondent fatigue
was avoided and a clean, controlled research model was created. These
can be avenues for future research.
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Applied Psychology,
69, 307321.
2. Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski,
Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer and Stacy Wood (1997),
Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and
Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic
Marketplaces, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul.,
1997), pp. 38-53
3. Anderson Rolph E. (1973) Consumer Dissatisfaction: The
Effects of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product
Performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 10, pp 38-44
4. Anderson, E. W., and M. W. Sullivan (1993) The
Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction
for Firms. Marketing Science 12, pp. 125-143.
5. Bansal H.S and S. Taylor (1997), Investigating the
Relationship Between Service Quality, Satisfaction, and
Switching Intentions Developments in Marketing Science,
Vol. 20, pp 304-313.
6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
51, 11731182
7. Bauer, R.A. (1960), Consumer Behavior as Risk-taking.
Dynamic Marketing for a ChangingWorld, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 389-98.
61
8. Bell Simon, Seigyoung Auh and Karen Smalley (2005)
"Customer Relationship Dynamics: Service Quality and
Customer Loyalty in the Context of Varying Levels of
Customer Expertise and Switching Costs" Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 33: pp 169-183
9. Berry L.L. & Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services:
Competing through Quality, Free Press, New York, NY.
10. Berry, L.L, Parasuraman, A (1993), Building a new
academic field the case of services marketing, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 69 pp 13-60
11. Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: The
Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Re-
sponses," Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82.
12. Bloch Peter H. & Marsha L. Richins (1983), A Theoretical
Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No.3. (Summer), pp 69-81
13. Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991a), "A Longitudinal
Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer
Attitudes," Journal of Marketing, 55 (January), 1-9.
14. Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991b), "A Multistage
Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and
Value," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 375-84.
15. Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie
A.Zeithaml (1993). "A Dynamic Process Model of Service
Quality:From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions," Journal
of Marketing Reseurch, 30 (February), pp7-37.
62
16. Brogowicz, Andrew A., Linda M. Delene, David M. Lyth
(1990), A Synthesised Service Quality Model with
Managerial Applications, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 1, 1, pp. 27-45.
17. Brown, S.W. & T.A. Swartz(1989) A Gap Analysis of
Professional Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, 53, pp.
92-98.
18. Buzzell, Robert D. and Bradley T. Gale (19871, The PlMS
Principles. New York: The Free Press.
19. Celsi, Richard and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of
Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210-224.
20. Churchill, Gilbert and Carol Suprenant (1982), An
Investigation into the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Reearch, 19 (November),
pp 491-504.
21. Coyne, K. (1989), "Beyond service fads, meaningful
strategies for the real world", Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 30 pp.69-76.
22. Coyne, Kevin P. (1989), "Beyond Service Fads: Meaningful
Strategies for the Real World," Sloan Management review,
(Summer), pp 69-76
23. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr.; M.K. Brady & G.T.M Hult (2000)
Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments Journal of retailing, Vol. 76 pp., 193 - 216.
24. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr.; Steven A. Taylor (1992) Measuring
Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 3. pp. 55-68.
63
25. Cronin, J. Joseph Jr.; Steven A. Taylor (1994) SERVPERF
versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-Based and
Perceptions-Minus-Expectations Measurement of Service
Quality, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan.), pp.
125-131
26. Dabholkar, P.A (1995), Contingency framework for
predicting causality between customer satisfaction and
service quality, in Sujan, M. and Kardes, F. (Eds), Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol.22, pp. 101-8
27. Dabholkar, P.A, C.D. Shepherd & D. Thorpe (2000), A
comprehensive framework for service quality: an
investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues
through a longitudinal study Journal of Retailing, Vol 76, 2,
pp 139-173
28. Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973) , ``Free competition and
the optimal amount of fraud, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 6, April, pp. 67-88.
29. De Ruyter Ko, Martin Wetzels, and Mirella Kleijnen (2001),
Customer adoption of e-service: an experimental study,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol.
12, 2, pp. 184-207.
30. Dodds, William B. and Kent B. Monroe (1984), "The Effect of
Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product
Evaluations", in Advances in Consumer Research, vol 12,
Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 85-90.
31. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and
attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp.
161-202). New York: Academic Press.
64
32. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: An Introduction to theory and research
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
33. Ford, Gary, Darlene Smith and John Swasy (1990)
"Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing
Hypotheses From Economics of Information," Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (Mar) 433-441.
34. Gale, B. (1997) Customer satisfaction - relative competitors
- is where it's at. (Strong evidence that superior quality
drives the bottom line and shareholder value.) Marketing
and Research Today, Feb pp39-53
35.
36. Gale, Bradley (1992). "Monitoring Customer Satisfaction and
Market-Perceived Quality," American Marketing Association
Worth Repeating Series, Number 922CSO I. Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
37. Garvin, David A. (1983), Quality on the Line, Harvard
Business Review, 61(September-October), pp. 65-73
38. Gotlieb, Jerry B.; Grewal, Dhruv; Brown, Stephen W. (1994).
Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality:
Complementary or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied
Psychology. Vol 79(6), Dec, pp. 875-885
39. Grapentine T. (1998), The History and Future of Service
Quality Assessment, Marketing Research A Magazine of
Management & Applications 10 (4), 1998, pp. 520.
40. Gremler, D.D, Brown, S.W. (1996), "Service loyalty: its
nature, importance and implications", in Edvardsson, B.,
Brown, S.W, Johnston, R, Scheuing, E.E. (Eds),Proceedings
American Marketing Association, pp.171-80.
65
41. Gronroos, Christian (1990), Service Management and
Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Com-
petition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
42. Guiltinan, Joseph P. The Price Bundling of Services: A
Normative Framework. Journal of Marketing, Vol 51(April),
pp 74-85
43. Ha, Y.-W. S. J. H. (1989). "Ambiguity, Processing Strategy
and Advertising-Evidence Interactions." Journal of Consumer
Research 16(December): 354-60.
44. Hair, Joseph, Bill Black, Barry Babin, Rolph E. Anderson,
Ronald L. Tatham, (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis 7th E
Prentice Hall
45. Hayes, A.F (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical
Mediation Analysis in the New Millenium. Communications
Monographs, Volume 76 Issue 4, December pp. 408-420
46. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and
testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the
constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 45, 627-660
47. Holbrook, M. and Corfman,K. (1985). Quality and value in
the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again. In
J.Jacoby and J. Olson (Eds.) Perceived Quality. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books, 31-51.
48. Huang, Peng, Nicholas H. Lurie, and Sabyasachi Mitra
(2009), Searching for Experience on the Web: An Empirical
Examination of Consumer Behavior for Search and
Experience Goods, Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 55-69.
66
49. Iacobucci, Dawn (1992), "An Empirical Examination of Some
Basic Tenets in Services: Goods-Services Continua" in
Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 1,
eds. Teresa Swartz, David Bowen, and Stephen Brown. JAI
Press, Inc. Greenwich, CT, p. 23-52.
50. Iacobucci, Dawn, Amy Ostrom and Kent Grayson (1995),
"Distinguishing Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction:
The Voice of the Customer," Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 4, 277-303.
51. Jacoby, J., and Kaplan, L. (1972). The components of
perceived risk. Paper presented at the Proceedings 3rd
Annual Conference Association for Consumer Research,
Chicago, IL.
52. James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators,
and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol
69, No. 2, 307-321
53. Johnson, E. J., Steven Bellman, & Gerald Lohse (2003).
"Cognitive Lock-in and the Power law of Practice." Journal of
Marketing 67(April): 62-75.
54. Johnston, Robert,(1995) The Zone of Tolerance, Exploring
the relationship between service transactions and
satisfaction with the overall service, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol 6, No. 2, pp. 46-61
55. Kennedy J.R. and Thirkell, P.C. (1988), An Extended
Perspective on the Antecedents of Satisfaction, Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, 1, 2-9
56. Kretch, D., Crutchfield, R., & Ballachey, E. (1962), Individual
in society New York: McGraw-Hill
67
57. Krishnan, B. C., & Hartline, M. D. (2001). Brand equity: Is it
more important in services? Journal of Services Marketing,
15 (5): 328-342.
58. LaBarbera, Priscilla A. and David Mazursky,(1983) A
Longitudinal Assessment of Consumer
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the
Cognitive Process, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20,
No. 4 (Nov.), pp. 393-404
59. LaTour, Stephen A. and Nancy C.Peat (1979), Conceptual
and Methodological Issues in Consumer Satisfaction
Research, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 6, William
F. Wilkie, ed, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, pp31-37
60. Liljander, V & Strandvik, T (1993), Estimating Zones of
Tolerance in Perceived Service Quality and Perceived
Service Value, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol 4, No. 2, pp. 6-28
61. Lynch, James and Drue Schuler (1990), "Consumer
Evaluation of the Quality of Hospital Services From an
Economics of Information Perspective," Journal of Health
Care Marketing, 10 (June) 24-28.
62. Lynch, John G. and Dan Ariely (2000), Wine Online:
Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and
Distribution, Marketing Science, 19(1), 83-103.
63. Maute, Manfred F. and William R. Forrester, Jr. (1991). The
Effect of Attribute Qualities on Consumer Decision Making: A
Causal Model of External Information Search. Journal of
Economic Psychology 12 (December), pp 643-66
68
64. Maynes, E. Scott (1976), The Concept and Measurement of
Product Quality, Household Production and Consumption,
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050
Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.pp.
529-584
65. McDougall, Gordon H.G. and Douglas W. Snetsinger
(1990), The Intangibility of Services: Measurement and
Competitive Perspectives, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol.4, 4, pp. 27-40
66. McDougall, Gordon H.G. and Terrence Levesque (2000),
Customer Satisfaction with services: putting perceived value
into the equation, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14, 5,
pp 392-410
67. Miller, J.A., (1977) Studying Satisfaction, Modifying Models,
Eliciting Expectations, Posing Problems, and Making
Meaningful Measurements, in Hunt, K. (Eds),
Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer
satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Report No. 77-103,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp 72-91
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
68. Mitra, K., Reiss, M. C., and Capella, L., M. (1999). An
examination of perceived risk, information search,
experience and credence services. The Journal of Services
Marketing, 13(3), 208-228.
69. Mittal, Banwari (1999), The Advertising of Services: Meeting
the Challenge of Intangibility," Journal of Services Research,
2 (Aug.) 98-116.
70. Mittal, V. Kamakura, W. A.(2001), Satisfaction, Repurchase
Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the
Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38; PART 1, pages 131-142
69
71. Murray, K.B., and J.L. Schlachter. (1990), The Impact of
Services versus Goods on Consumers' Assessment of
Perceived Risk and Variability. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 18, pp51-65
72. Nelson, P. (1970), ``Information and consumer behavior ,
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78, March-April, pp. 311-
29.
73. Nelson, Phillip (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal
of Political Economy, 81 (J/A), 729-54.
74. Newman, J. W., & Werbel, R. A. (1973). Multivariate
analysis of brand loyalty for major household appliances.
Journal of Marketing Research, 404-409.
75. Oliva, Terence A., Richard L. Oliver, and William O. Bearden
(1995), "The Relationships Among Consumer Satisfaction,
Involvement, and Product Performance: A Catastrophe
Theory Application," Behavioral Science, 40 (April), 104-132.
76. Oliver, R. L. (1993). "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and Service Satisfaction: Compatible Goals, Different
Concepts." Advances in Services Marketing and
Management 2: 65-85.
77. Olshavsky, Richard W. (1985), Perceived Quality in
Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical
Perspective, In Perceived Quality ed. J.Jacoby and J.Olson,
pp. 3-29, Lexington
78. Olshavsky, Richard W. and Anand Kumar (2001), Revealing
The Actual Role of Expectations in Consumer Satisfaction
with Experience and Credence Goods, Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Vol. 14, 60-73.
70
79. Ostrom, A. and Iacobucci , D. (1995), ``Consumer trade-off s
and the evaluation of services, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
59, January, pp. 17-28.
80. Parasuraman, A., Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml
(1991), Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL
Scale, Journal of Retailing, 67 (Winter), pp 420-50
81. Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1985), A
Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for
Future Research. Journal of Marketing 49(4) pp. 41-50.
82. Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L.
Berry,(1988), SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality,
Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), pp 12-40
83. Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml (1990), "An Empirical
Examination of Relationships in an Extended Service Quality
Model," Marketing Science Institute Research Program
Series, (December), Report No. 90-122.
84. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1994), "Alternative
Scales for Measuring Service Quality: A Comparative
Assessment Based on Psychometric and Diagnostic
Criteria," Journal of Retailing, (Fall), pp. 201-30.
85. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1994), "Reassessment of
Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring
Service Quality: Implications for Future Research," Journal
of Marketing, (January), pp. 111-24.
86. Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1997),
Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for
business-to-business professional services, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
71
87. Phillips, Lynn W; Dae R. Chang; Robert D. Buzzell (1983),
Product Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance:
A Test of Some Key Hypotheses Journal of Marketing, Vol.
47, No. 2. (Spring), pp. 26-43.
88. Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J., Deibler, S.L. (1995), "Consumers
emotional responses to service encounters", International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.34-
63
89. Reichheld FF (1996), Learning from Customer Defections
Harvard Business Review, 74, (March-April), pp. 56-69.
90. Reichheld, F. F. (1996): The loyalty effect: the hidden force
behind growth, profits, and lasting value, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press
91. Roest , Henk and Rik Pieters (1997), The nomological net
of perceived service quality, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol 8, 4, pp. 336-351
92. Rust, Roland T. and Richard L. Oliver. (1994). Service
Quality: Insights and Managerial Implications from the
Frontier. Pp. 119 in Service Quality: New Directions in
Theory and Practice. Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver
(Eds.). New York: Sage Publications, Inc.
93. Rust, Roland T., Anthony J. Zahorik & Timothy L.
Keiningham (1995), Return on Quality (ROQ): Making
Service Quality Financially Accountable, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr.), pp. 58-70
94. Rust, Roland T., J. Jeffrey Inman, Jianmin Jia & Anthony J.
Zahorik (1999), What You Dont Know About Customer-
Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation
Distributions, Marketing Science, Vol 18., No 1, pp 77-92
72
95. Singh, Jagdip (1988), Consumer Complaint Intentions and
Behavior: Definitional and Taxonomical Issues, Journal of
Marketing, 52 (January), 93-107
96. Smith, R. and Bush, A. J. (2000) Toward Developing a
Measure of Search, Experience and Credence Qualities for
Products and Services Southwestern Marketing ssociation,
San Antonio, Texas, March 15-18.
http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2000/swma/00swma194
.htm
97. Spreng, Richard A. and Robert D. Mackoy (1996), "An
Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived Service
Quality and Satisfaction," Journal of Retailing, 72:2, 201-214.
98. Strandvik (1994), Tolerance Zones in Perceived Service
Quality, Publications of the Swedish School of Economics
and Business Administration, Helsinki.
99. Szymanski, David and David H. Henard,( 2001), Customer
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, No.
1, 16-35 (2001)
100. Taylor, S. A., and T. L. Baker (1994) An Assessment of the
Relationship Between Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers' Purchase
Intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70, pp 163-178.
101. Teas, R. K. (1993), Expectations, performance evaluation
and consumers perceptions of quality, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 pp. 18-34
102. Teas, R. Kenneth & Thomas E. DeCarlo (2004), An
Examination and Extension of the Zone-of-Tolerance Model:
A Comparison to performance-based Models of perceived
Quality, Journal of Services Research, Feb; 6, 3; pp 272-
286
73
103. Tse David K. and Peter C. Wilton(1988), Models of
Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May), pp. 204-212
104. Voss, G. B., A. Parasuraman, & Dhruv Grewal (1998). "The
Roles of Price, Performance, and Expectations in
Determining Satisfaction in Service Exchanges." Journal of
Marketing 62(October): 46-61.
105. Woodruff Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte; Roger L. Jenkins,
(1983)Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using
Experience-Based NormsJournal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 20, No. 3. (Aug.), pp. 296-304.
106. Yi, Youjae (1990), "A Critical Review of Consumer
Satisfaction," in Review of Marketing 1990, ed. Valarie A.
Zeithaml, Chicago; American Marketing Association, 68-123.
107. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the
Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, 12
(December), 341-352.
108. Zeeman, E.C. (1977). Catastrophe theory Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley
109. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1981), How Consumer Evaluation
Processes Differ between Goods and Services, in
Marketing of Services, James Donnelly and William George,
eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp 186-190
110. Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of
evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52(3), pp 2-22
111. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1993), "The
nature and determinants of customer expectations of
74
service", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
21 No.1, pp.1-12.
112. Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996), "The Behavioral
Consequences of Service Quality," Journal of Marketing,
(April), pp. 31-46.
113. Zeithaml Valarie A. & Mary Jo Bitner (2000) Services
marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm,
McGraw-Hill, Boston
75
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
SATISFACTION
LOYALTY QUALITY
1
?
Figure 1: Existing Research
76
SATISFACTION
LOYALTY QUALITY
H
1
H
2
H
3
H
4
Figure 2: Proposed Model
SERVICE TYPE
77
10
search experience credence
Easily evaluated before
purchase
Easily verifiable claims
Low risk
Typically less expensive
More price sensitive
Typically less
interpersonal
Less Customization
Almost impossible to
evaluate even after
purchase
Difficult to verify
claims
High risk
Typically more
expensive
Less Price Sensitive
Typically more
interpersonal
More customization
Can be evaluated after
consumption
Claims verifiable after
purchase and use
Most services by their
nature have high
experiential attributes
Ex: Hotel room stay,
haircut
Figure 3: Services Continuum
78
Figure 4: Normal Q-Q Plot of Quality
79
Figure 5: Normal Q-Q Plot of Satisfaction
80
Figure 6: Normal Q-Q Plot of Loyalty
81
Figure 7: Simple Effects
82
Figure 8: Proposed Model showing Moderated Mediation
83
Figure 9: Respondents by Gender
84
Figure 10: DFBETA Satisfaction by Case Number
85
Figure 11: DFBETA Quality By Case Number
86
Figure 12: ANOVA for service quality by service type
87
Figure 13: Service Type Moderates the Quality-Loyalty Link
-2
-1
0
1
2
Low High L
o
y
a
l
t
y
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
Service Type moderates the Quality-Loyalty link
88
Figure 14: ANOVA for Satisfaction by Service Type
89
Figure 15: Service type moderates the Quality-Satisfaction relation
90
Figure 16: Service Type moderates the Satisfaction Loyalty Link
91
A. Search Services
Figure 17: Simple Effects for Search Services
Indirect Effect for Search Services is product of first and second
stages, ie .885*.210 = .186
Total Effect = Sum of direct and indirect effect ie .020 + .186 =.206
.210
.020
.885
92
B. Experience Services
Figure 18: Simple Effects for Experience Services
Indirect Effect for Experience Services is product of first and
second stages, ie .240*.305 = .073
Total Effect = Sum of direct and indirect effect ie .024 + .073 = .097
.240
.305
.024
93
C. Credence Services
Figure 19: Simple Effects for Credence Services
Indirect Effect for Credence Services is product of first and second
stages, ie .349*.458 = .160
Total Effect = Sum of direct and indirect effect ie .160 + .092 = .252
.349 .458
.092
94
Figure 20: Direct Effect
0
0.5
1
1.5
Low High
L
o
y
a
l
t
y
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
95
Figure 21: First Stage
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Low High
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
96
Figure 22: Second Stage
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Low High
L
o
y
a
l
t
y
Satisfaction
Credence
Experience
Search
97
Figure 23: Indirect Effect
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Low High
L
o
y
a
l
t
y
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
98
Figure 24: Total Effect
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Low High
L
o
y
a
l
t
y
Quality
Credence
Experience
Search
99
APPENDIX B: TABLES
Table 1: Measures
Construct Measure Adapted From
Received Service
Quality
The average of received service
quality on all 5 quality dimensions
Parasuraman, Zeithaml
& Berry (1994)
Satisfaction
The average of a 3 item satisfaction
scale
Oliver (1980)
Loyalty
The average of a 5 item scale
measuring consumer behavior
intentions
Zeithaml, Parasuraman
& Berry (1996)
SearchD1
Dummy variable indicating service
type 1 if service type is Online
ticket site (search)
0 otherwise
Manipulation
ExperienceD2
Dummy variable indicating service
type 1 if service type is restaurant
(experience)
0 otherwise
Manipulation
100
Table 2: Hypotheses Tests
Hypothesis
Hypothesized
relationship
Statistical
Test
H1: Service Type moderates the
relationship between Service Quality
and Loyalty
Moderation
qr1
>0
H2: Service Type moderates the
relationship between Quality and
Satisfaction
Moderation
qr1
>0
H3: Service Type moderates the
relationship between Satisfaction
and Loyalty
Moderation
rs2
> 0 &
rq2
>0
H4: Service Type Moderates the
Mediation of Satisfaction between
Quality and Loyalty
Moderation of
Mediation
q2
>0 &
s2
>0&
rq2
>0 &
r
s2
>0
101
Table 3: Survey Items - Quality
Variable
Mean
Statistic
Std.
Statistic
Q1 Prompt Service 5.18 1.345
Q2 Caring Employees 5.11 1.358
Q3 Providing Service On Time 5.37 1.306
Q4 Visually Appealing Materials 5.00 1.467
Q5 Employees who have Customers Best Interest
at heart
5.09 1.426
Q6 Willingness to Help customers 5.28 1.449
Q7 Maintaining Error Free Records 5.63 1.422
Q8 Keeping customers informed about when
services will be performed
5.35 1.481
Q9 Providing services as promised 5.70 1.285
Q10 Knowledgeable employees 5.48 1.370
Q11 Dependability in handling customers service
problems
5.36 1.309
Q12 Readiness to respond to customers requests 5.42 1.341
Q13 Performing services right the first time 5.72 1.390
Q14 Giving customers individual attention 5.14 1.575
Q15 Modern Equipment 5.55 1.331
Q16 Making customers feel safe in their transactions 5.92 1.255
102
Table 4: Survey Items - Satisfaction
Variable Mean
Std.
Deviation
I am Happy about my decision to go to this_____
(service provider)
2.20 1.194
I believe I did the right thing when I selected this
_____ (service provider)
2.28 1.148
Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this
_____ (service provider)
2.24 1.208
Satisfaction (Calculated) 2.24 1.125
103
Table 5: Survey Items - Loyalty
Variable Mean
Std.
Deviation
Based on your overall experience with this service
provider, how likely are you to
Visit this service provider More 2.23 1.284
Say positive things about the provider to other people 2.49 1.353
Recommend the provider to someone who seeks your
advice
2.43 1.349
Encourage friends and relatives to go to this provider 2.65 1.433
Consider this provider your first choice in future 2.82 1.586
104
Table 6: Coefficient Estimates
Variable Value
a
x1
0.664
a
z11
0.057
a
z12
-0.14
a
xz11
0.221
a
xz12
0.042
R
2
0.45
b
x3
0.092
b
m3
0.458
b
z31
0.541
b
z32
0.347
b
xz31
-0.072
b
xz32
-0.068
b
mz31
-0.248
b
mz32
-0.153
R
2
0.666
105
Table 7: Simple Effects
Moderator Quality
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Loyalty
Direct Effect
Quality
Loyalty
Indirect
Effect
Quality
Loyalty
Total
Effect
Sum of
Direct
and
Indirect
Effect
Search
Service
0.204 0.210 0.020 0.043 0.063
Experience
Service
0.240 0.305 0.024 0.073 0.097
Credence
Service
0.349 0.458 0.092 0.160 0.252
Diff-1
(Cred-
Search)
0.145 0.248 0.072 0.117 0.189
Diff-2
(Cred-
Exp)
0.109 0.153 0.068 0.087 0.155
106
Table 8: A summary of Hypotheses and Findings
Hypothesis Findings
H1 : Service Type moderates the relationship between
service quality and loyalty
Supported
H2: Service type moderates the relationship between service
quality and satisfaction
Not Supported
H3: Service Type moderates the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty
Supported
H4: Service Type moderates the mediation effect of
satisfaction between service quality and loyalty
Supported
107
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE SPSS REGRESSION AND CNLR SYNTAX
The following SPSS syntax produces results for quality (qual_c) as
the independent variable, satisfaction (sat_c) as the mediator variable,
loyalty (loyalty) as the outcome variable, and service type (servtype) as
the moderator variable. All continuous variables are mean-centered, as
indicated by the letter c in the variable names. Interactions which are
products of a variable (ex. Quality) and a dummy variable representing
service type are given names which concatenate the independent variable
as well as the service type such as InterQualSearch. Regression results
for Equations 2 and 3 are produced by the REGRESSION procedure, and
bootstrap estimates are generated by the constrained nonlinear
regression (CNLR) procedure. The CNLR syntax should specify the same
random number seed (e.g., 54321) for Equations 2 and 3 in the SET lines
and use coefficient estimates from the REGRESSION procedure as
starting values in the MODEL PROGRAM line.
The COMPUTE PRED and CNLR lines specify the independent
and dependent variables, respectively. Each OUTFILE produces 1,001
rows of coefficient estimates, the first containing estimates from the full
sample and the remaining rows containing estimates from the 1,000
bootstrap samples. The CNLR syntax requires SPSS version 14.0.2 or
later.
* REGRESSION syntax for Equation 2
108
SET RNG=MT MTINDEX=54321 .
MODEL PROGRAM a02= .025 aX2=.664 aZ21=.057 aZ22=-.140
aXZ21=.221 aXZ22=.042.
COMPUTE PRED = a02 + aX2*Qual_c + aZ21*SearchD1 +
aZ22*ExprD2 + aXZ21* InterQualSearch + aXZ52*InterQualExprnc.
CNLR Sat_c
/OUTFILE='C:\Users\Documents\Dissert\May3\FXOutput.SAV'
/BOOTSTRAP=1000 .
.
* REGRESSION syntax for Equation 20.
SET RNG=MT MTINDEX=54321 .
MODEL PROGRAM b020= .498 bX20=.092 bM20=.458 bZ21=.541
bZ22=.347 bXZ21=-.072 bXZ22 = .347 bMZ21=-.248 bMZ22=-.153.
COMPUTE PRED = b020 + bX20*Qual_c + bM20*Sat_c +
bZ21*SearchD1 +bZ22*ExprD2 + bXZ21*InterQualSearch +
bXZ22*InterQualExprnc + bMZ21*InterSatSearch +
bMZ22*InterSatExprnc .
CNLR Loyalty
/OUTFILE='C:\Documents\Dissert\May3\FXOutput.SAV'
/BOOTSTRAP=1000.
109
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR ONLINE SURVEY
Thank you for your participation in this survey.
I am a student studying satisfaction with service businesses
and appreciate your help. Please answer all of the following
questions to the best of your ability. Submission of this survey will
be considered your consent to participate.
Please complete the survey in a single sitting. It should take
no more than 10-12 minutes of your time.
If you are a student completing this survey for extra credit,
please enter the ID code you have been given. If not, please enter 0.
Please enter the name of the country where you currently reside.
Block 1
In the past 6 months, have you purchased tickets at a ball game or
theater online?
o Yes
o No
We would like to compare the ticket selling service to your
expectations. Please do not evaluate the theater or ballpark.
Please think about the two different levels of expectations defined
below and the actual service you received:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: The lowest level of adequate service
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL: The level of service you wanted
RECEIVED SERVICE LEVEL: The service you actually received
For the following questions, please indicate your minimum service
level in the first column, your desired service level in the second column
and your perception of the service you received in the third column.
Please evaluate the ticket selling
service
When it comes to
Minimum Service
Level
Desired Service
Level
Received Service
Level
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
1. Prompt service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
110
2. Caring Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. On-Time Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Visually appealing materials
associated with the service
(e.g. clear seating chart to
select our choice of seats)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Having your best interest at
heart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Willingness to help you
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Error-free records
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Kept you informed about when
services will be performed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Provided Services as promised
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Knowledgeable Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Dependability in handling any
service problems
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ready to respond to requests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Performed the service right the
first time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Gave you individual attention
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Modern Equipment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Made you feel safe in my
transactions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by the ticket
selling service?
Very Good Good Fair
Neither
Good nor
Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
18. Thinking about your ticket service overall, please rate the value you
feel you get for your money.
Very Good Good Fair
Neither
Good nor
Poor Bad Very Bad
111
Bad
19. Based on your overall experience with the ticket service, please
indicate how likely you are to take the following actions
Very
Likely
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Undecided
Somewhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
Do more
business with
this ticket
service in the
next few years
Do less
business with
this ticket
service in the
next few years
Take some of
your business
to a competitor
that offers
better prices
Continue to do
business with
this ticket
service even if
prices increase
somewhat
Pay a higher
price than what
competitors
charge for the
benefits you
currently
receive from
this service
Switch to a
competitor if
you experience
a problem with
this service
Complain to
other
consumers if
112
you experience
a problem with
this service
Complain to the
ticket services
employees if
you experience
a problem with
the service
Complain to
external
agencies, such
as the Better
Business
Bureau, if you
experience a
problem with
the service
Say positive
things about the
ticket service to
other people
Recommend
the service to
someone who
seeks your
advice
Encourage
friends and
relatives to do
business with
this service
Consider this
service your
first choice to
buy tickets in
the future
20. I am happy about my decision to go to this ticket service.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
21. I believe I did the right thing when I selected this ticket service.
113
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
22. Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this ticket service.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
23. I was able to judge the performance of this ticket selling service even
before I tried it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
24. I was able to judge the performance of this ticket selling service only
after I had tried it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
25. Have you had a problem with any of your transactions with this ticket
service
o Yes
o No.
26. If Yes, was it resolved to your satisfaction?
o Yes
o No.
114
The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your answers
will be combined with others and will be kept strictly confidential.
27. How long have you been buying tickets from this ticket service?
o Less than 1 year
o 1 year but less than 2 years
o 2 years but less than 3 years
o 3 years but less than 5 years
o 5 years or more
28. What is your current status?
o Single, never married
o Married without children
o Married with children
o Divorced
o Separated
o Widowed
o Living w/ partner
29. How old are you?
o 18 25
o 26 34
o 35 54
o 55 64
30. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
115
Block 2
In the past 6 months, have you been to a sit down restaurant? By
sit-down we mean a restaurant where a waiter/waitress takes your order
at the table and then serves you?
o Yes
o No
We would like to compare the restaurant service to your
expectations.
Please think about the two different levels of expectations defined
below and the actual service you received:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: The lowest level of adequate service
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL: The level of service you wanted
RECEIVED SERVICE LEVEL: The service you actually received
For the following questions, please indicate your minimum service
level in the first column, your desired service level in the second column
and your perception of the service you received in the third column.
Please evaluate the restaurant
service
When it comes to
Minimum Service
Level
Desired Service
Level
Received Service
Level
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
1. Prompt service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Caring Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. On-Time Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Visually appealing materials
associated with the service
(e.g. menus with pictures of the
entrees)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Having your best interest at
heart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Willingness to help you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Error-free records 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Kept you informed about when
services will be performed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Provided Services as promised 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Knowledgeable Employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Dependability in handling any
service problems
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ready to respond to requests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Performed the service right the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
116
first time
14. Gave you individual attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Modern Equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Made you feel safe in my
transactions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by the
restaurant service?
Very Good Good Fair
Neither
Good nor
Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
18. Thinking about the restaurant service overall, please rate the value you
feel you get for your money.
Very Good Good Fair
Neither
Good nor
Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
19. Based on your overall experience with the restaurant, please indicate
how likely you are to take the following actions
Very
Likely
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Neither
Likely
nor
Unlikely
Somewhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
Dine more at this
restaurant in the next
few years
Dine less at this
restaurant in the next
few years
Take some of your
business to a
competitor restaurant
that offers better prices
Continue to visit this
restaurant even if
prices increase
somewhat
Pay a higher price than
what competitors
charge for the dining
experience you
currently receive from
this service
Switch to a competitor
if you experience a
problem with this
restaurant
Complain to other
117
consumers if you
experience a problem
with this restaurant
Complain to the
restaurants employees
if you experience a
problem with the
service
Complain to eternal
agencies, such as the
Better Business
Bureau, if you
experience a problem
with the restaurant
Say positive things
about the restaurant to
other people
Recommend the
restaurant to someone
who seeks your advice
Encourage friends and
relatives to visit this
restaurant
Consider this
restaurant your first
choice to dine out in
the future
20. I am happy about my decision to go to visit this restaurant.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
21. I believe I did the right thing when I selected this restaurant.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
22. Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this restaurant.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
23. I was able to judge the performance of this restaurant service even
before I tried it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
118
24. I was able to judge the performance of this restaurant service only
after I had tried it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
25. I found it difficult to judge the performance of this restaurant service
even after having tried it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
26. Have you had a problem with any of your transactions with this
restaurant
o Yes
o No.
27. If Yes, was it resolved to your satisfaction?
o Yes
o No.
The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your
answers will be combined with others and will be kept strictly confidential.
28. How long have you been visiting this restaurant?
o Less than 1 year
o 1 year but less than 2 years
o 2 years but less than 3 years
o 3 years but less than 5 years
o 5 years or more
29. What is your current status?
o Single, never married
o Married without children
o Married with children
119
o Divorced
o Separated
o Widowed
o Living w/ partner
30. How old are you?
o 18 25
o 26 34
o 35 54
o 55 64
31. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
120
Block 3
Have you had an appointment with a dentist in the past 6 months?
o Yes
o No
We would like to compare the dentist's service to your expectations.
Please think about the two different levels of expectations defined below
and the actual service you received:
MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL: The lowest level of adequate service
DESIRED SERVICE LEVEL: The level of service you wanted
RECEIVED SERVICE LEVEL: The service you actually received
For the following questions, please indicate your minimum service
level in the first column, your desired service level in the second column
and your perception of the service you received in the third column.
Please evaluate dentist's
service
When it comes to
Minimum Service
Level
Desired Service
Level
Received Service
Level
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
1. Prompt service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Caring Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. On-Time Service
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Visually appealing
materials associated
with the service (e.g.
photos, brochures)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Having your best
interest at heart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Willingness to help
you
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Error-free records
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Kept you informed
about when services
will be performed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Provided Services as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
121
promised
10. Knowledgeable
Employees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Dependability in
handling any service
problems
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ready to respond to
requests
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Performed the service
right the first time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Gave you individual
attention
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Modern Equipment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Made you feel safe in
my transactions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by your
dentist?
Very Good Good Fair
Neither
Good nor
Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
18. Thinking about your dentist's service overall, please rate the value you
feel you get for your money.
Very Good Good Fair
Neither
Good nor
Bad
Poor Bad Very Bad
19. Based on your overall experience with the dentist, please indicate how
likely you are to take the following actions
Very
Likely
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Neither
Likely
nor
Unlikely
Somewhat
Unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
Visit this dentist
122
more in the next
few years
Visit this dentist
less in the next
few years
Take some of
your business to
a competitor
that offers better
prices
Continue to do
business with
this dentist if
his/her prices
increase
somewhat
Pay a higher
price than what
competitors
charge for the
benefits you
currently receive
from your
current dentist
Switch to a
competitor if you
experience a
problem with
your dentist's
service
Complain to
other
consumers if
you experience
a problem with
this dentist's
service
Complain to the
dentist's
employees if
you experience
a problem with
his/her service
Complain to
external
agencies, such
123
as the Better
Business
Bureau, if you
experience a
problem with the
dentist's service
Say positive
things about the
dentist to other
people
Recommend the
dentist to
someone who
seeks your
advice
Encourage
friends and
relatives to go to
this dentist
Consider this
dentist your first
choice to get
any dental work
in future
20. I am happy about my decision to go to this dentist.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
21. I believe I did the right thing when I selected this dentist.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
22. Overall I am satisfied with my experience at this dentist.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
124
23. I was able to judge the performance of this dentist before having had a
treatment.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
24. I was able to judge the performance of this dentist after having had a
treatment.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
25. Did your insurance cover all or most of the expenses of this visit?
o I do not have dental insurance
o Yes
o No. I have insurance but I paid all or most of the expenses out of
the pocket
26. Have you had a problem with any of your transactions with this dentist
o Yes
o No.
27. If Yes, was it resolved to your satisfaction?
o Yes
o No.
The following questions are for statistical purposes only. Your
answers will be combined with others and will be kept strictly confidential.
28. How long have you been visiting this dentist?
o Less than 1 year
o 1 year but less than 2 years
o 2 years but less than 3 years
o 3 years but less than 5 years
o 5 years or more
125
29. What is your current status?
o Single, never married
o Married without children
o Married with children
o Divorced
o Separated
o Widowed
o Living w/ partner
30. How old are you?
o 18 25
o 26 34
o 35 54
o 55 64
31. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
126
VITA
Komal Karani is currently an assistant professor of Marketing at Lamar
University, Beaumont, Texas. Her research interests include services marketing,
satisfaction and quality, aging consumers and consumer behavior. She has
published on these issues in conference proceedings such as Academy of
Marketing Science.
E D U C A T I O N
Ph.D:. LeBow College of Business
Drexel University, 2010
M.B.A: M.L. Sukhadia College of Business
Udaipur University, Rajasthan India, 1998
B.S: Maharanis College
Rajasthan University, India, 1996
R E S E A R C H I N T E R E S T S A N D P U B L I C A T I O N S
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
1. Komal Gyani Karani & Katherine Fraccastoro (2010): Resistance to
Brand Switching : The elderly consumer A study looking at quality of
life and its impact on elderly consumers. Presented at International
Business and Economics Research division of the Clute conference in
Las Vegas. This paper was awarded the Best paper at the session.
2. Komal Gyani Karani (2006), The Price is right! Or is it? A study of
price as a measure of information and its effect on the consumers
decision making process. Presented at the 2006 AMS Annual
Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Published in Conference Proceedings
in abstract form.
3. Komal Gyani Karani (2007), Brand Switching and the elderly
consumer. Presented at the 2007 AMS Annual Conference, Miami,
Florida. Published in Conference Proceedings in abstract form.