Conceptualizing and Measuring Experience Quality PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University]
On: 12 August 2012, At: 19:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Service Industries Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
Conceptualizing and measuring

experience quality: the customer's
perspective
a b
Ting-Yueh Chang & Shun-Ching Horng
a
Graduate Institute of Leisure, Recreation and Tourism
Management, Southern Taiwan University, No. 1, Nantai Street,
Yung-Kang City, Tainan, 71005, Taiwan, Republic of China
b
Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Chengchi
University, 64, Section 2, ZhiNan Road, Wenshan District, Taipei,
11605, Taiwan, Republic of China
Version of record first published: 28 Sep 2010
To cite this article: Ting-Yueh Chang & Shun-Ching Horng (2010): Conceptualizing and measuring
experience quality: the customer's perspective, The Service Industries Journal, 30:14, 2401-2419
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060802629919
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Vol. 30, No. 14, December 2010, 24012419
Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality:

the customers perspective
Ting-Yueh Changa and Shun-Ching Horngb
a
Graduate Institute of Leisure, Recreation and Tourism Management, Southern Taiwan University,
No. 1, Nantai Street, Yung-Kang City, Tainan 71005, Taiwan, Republic of China; bGraduate
Institute of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, 64, Section 2, ZhiNan Road,
Wenshan District, Taipei 11605, Taiwan, Republic of China
(Received 14 October 2008; final version received 7 November 2008)
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 19:24 12 August 2012
Today many customers, managers, and scholars have become aware of the importance
of experiences, which are characterized as satisfying customers psychic or personal
needs. For customers, they care more about the experiences that are provided by
stores, and they are willing to pay for them. As for managers, attractive experiences
are the products they have taken great efforts to create, manage, and sell. For
academic researchers, experiences are considered as distinct economic offerings that
are different from goods and services. These scholars believe that the focus of the
economy has been transferred to experience (OSullivan, E.L., & Spangler, K.J.
(1998). Experience marketing: Strategies for the new millennium. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing), and that experience industries are on the rise (OSullivan, E.L.,
& Spangler, K.J. (1998). Experience marketing: Strategies for the new millennium.
State College, PA: Venture Publishing; Pine, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1998). Welcome
to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review (JulyAugust), 97105; Pine,
B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every
business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; Schmitt, B.H. (1999).
Experiential marketing: How to get customer to sense, feel, think, act, relate to your
company and brands. New York: The Free Press). Although experiences have moved
to the centre of customers consumption activities and have become crucial for
business success, very few studies have investigated the customers perceptions of
experience quality. In this research, we have conceptually defined experience quality
as the customers emotional judgment about an entire experience with an elaborately
designed service setting. We have undertaken multiple phases in conceptualizing and
measuring the concept of experience quality.
Keywords: customer experience; experience quality; customer services; service

experience; experiential marketing
Introduction
Consumption experiences have become increasingly important for customers and are
considered as offerings which can be created or customized to fulfil customers individual
needs (e.g. Gupta & Vajic, 2000; Pine & Gilmore, 1998, 1999; OSullivan & Spangler,
1998). In marketing practices, the management and design of experiences is stressed as
a base for companies efforts to differentiate themselves from competitors and achieve
competitive advantage. Apparent examples are the rapid expansions of theme restaurants

Corresponding author. Email: tychang@mail.stut.edu.tw
ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02642060802629919
http://www.informaworld.com
2402 T.-Y. Chang and S.-C. Horng
such as Starbucks and Hard Rock Cafe. They do not simply sell coffee, but focus on exam-
ining whether the consumption situation can provide meaningful or valuable experiences
to customers. Accordingly, products and services might not be the most important offer-
ings anymore; experience, which represents customers personal sensations and fulfils cus-
tomers inner needs, is becoming a key element of a new economic stage (OSullivan &
Spangler, 1998; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999).
For academic research, however, many studies of customer experience are essentially
conceptual ideas or descriptive guidelines rather than studies of customer perceptions of
experience quality (experience quality for short). Although Csikszentmihalyi and his
colleagues (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991) conducted studies on the quality of life experience,
they did not focus on consumption experiences. In this paper, we stress the importance
of exploring customers evaluations of experience quality and argue that understanding
how customers assess experience quality will be crucial for service providers to deliver
excellent experiences. The purpose of this research is twofold: (1) to conceptualize the
concept of experience quality and (2) to develop a multidimensional measure of experi-
ence quality and assess its psychometric properties.
Literature review
Experience and service experience
In general, scholars have contended that customers obtain experiences as long as they are
engaging in consumption events (cf. Abbott, 1955; Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002;
Carbone & Haeckel, 1994; Holbrook, 2000; Laverie, Kleine, & Kleine, 1993). That is,
experiences are always obtained along with consuming goods or services. Abbott
(1955) considered all products as performing services that provide consumption experi-
ences. Experience is the take-away impression or perception created during the
process of learning about acquiring, using, maintaining, and (sometimes) disposing of a
product or service (Berry et al., 2002; Carbone & Haeckel, 1994). Additionally, several
authors have viewed experiences as economic offerings and have discussed the distinctions
among experiences, products, and services (cf. Gupta & Vajic, 2000; OSullivan &
Spangler, 1998; Pine & Gilmore, 1998, 1999). Goods and services are external to custo-
mers, whereas experiences are essentially personal. Each experience derives from the
interaction between a staged event (like a theatrical play) and the individuals state of
mind (Pine & Gilmore, 1998).
For service experience, many researchers have devoted themselves to studying its
composition (cf. Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert, & Zeithaml, 1997; Grace & OGass, 2004;
Johns, 1999; Tseng, Qinhai, & Su, 1999). Some authors have examined the service experi-
ence by drawing on service processes or a service blueprint scheme (e.g. Grace & OGass,
2004; Johns, 1999; Tseng et al., 1999). Other researchers have pointed out that service
experience is composed of clues with functional and emotional characteristics (Berry
et al., 2002; Carbone & Haeckel, 1994). The term clue usually refers to the signals of
a product or service that customers receive and experience. Moreover, Grove and his col-
leagues argued that many drama concepts and principles may be used to capture the
service experience (Grove & Fisk, 1992; Grove, Fisk, & Bitner, 1992; Grove, Fisk, &
Dorsch, 1998; Grove, Fisk, & John, 2000). Four key theatrical components constitute
the service experience, including the actors (service personnel), the audience (consumers),
the setting (physical environment), and the service performance itself. However, applied
The Service Industries Journal 2403
work on service experiences remains rather limited and the authors are only aware of one
piece of empirically based research by Grove et al. (1998).
A review of the experience literature allows us to comprehend the conceptual mean-
ings of experience, and a review of service experience helps us more specifically to
catch on to the notion of experience underlying the context of service. Accordingly, this
research identifies two research focuses. First, this research specifies the context where
experiences occur. Because experience should be studied in relation to the activities
and the social context where experiences happen (Gupta & Vajic, 2000), we investigate
the experience that occurs when a customer physically participates in a deliberately
designed service setting. Next, drawing on the two perspectives that experiences fulfil
individuals psychic needs and that customers are experience-oriented, this research
mainly focuses on the affective or emotional nature of customer experiences. Similar to
our research focus, Zaltman (2003) indicated that the subconscious sensory and emotional
elements derived from the total experience have far more influence on consumer prefer-
ence than tangible attributes of a product or service. Pine and Gilmore (1998, 1999)
also argued that the best relationships with customers are affective or emotional in nature.
Experience quality
Unlike service quality, investigations on experience quality have not caught much
attention, and the studies have been limited. With an attempt to identify the construct of
experience quality, we have referred to Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevres (1989) study
on the quality of life experience. Their viewpoint was focused on how people subjectively
evaluate the experience and how they feel. Their argument was parallel to the existing per-
spectives of experiences and service experiences, and it was also similar to our research
focuses. According to the conceptual definition of service experience and Csikszentmihalyi
and LeFevres (1989) investigation, we have preliminarily defined experience quality as
representing how customers emotionally evaluate their experiences as they participate in
consumption activities and interact with the service surroundings, service providers, other
customers, customers companions, and other elements.
Conceptually, the notion of experience quality explored in this study is a distinct con-
struct. However, due to limited research on experience quality, we discuss the relevant
relationship between experience quality and service quality in order to indirectly
explain the definition of experience quality. In this respect two considerations are worth
noting: first, experience quality, which is essentially regarded as how customers emotion-
ally assess the total consumption experience, is conceptually similar to the functional
quality of the service production and consumption processes (Gronross, 1988).
Second, the evaluation of service quality is distinct from the assessment of experience
quality. We postulate that the assessment of service quality is generally cognitive with
reference to researchers arguments (Bahia, Paulin, & Perrien, 2000; Dabholkar, 1995;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). Dabholkar (1995) and Bahia et al. (2000) pointed
out that perceived service quality is cognitive, whereas satisfaction is quasi-cognitive in
nature and predominantly affective. Parasuraman et al. (1988) study also revealed that
the evaluation of service quality is cognitive. As for the relative importance of the five
dimensions of SERVQUAL in influencing customers overall perceptions of quality,
reliability was consistently the most critical dimension across the four service categories,
assurance was the second most important dimension, and empathy was the least in all
the cases studied. Empathy consists of caring and providing individualized attention to cus-
tomers; it is comparatively affective or emotional. Compared with the cognitive nature of
service quality evaluation, we stress the emotional or affective nature of experience quality
assessment. This emphasis does not mean that the evaluation of experience quality only
concerns the emotions, but emphasizing the emotional nature of experience quality can
reveal more of the characteristics of experience that underlie contemporary experience
marketing. The most specific characteristics belonging to experience are regarded as
those that provide more intrinsic or personal benefit for customers. In addition, Holbrook
and Hirschman (1982) recognized that consumption experience is viewed as a phenomenon
directed towards pursuing fantasies, feelings, and fun. We consequently consider that
customers tend to subjectively and emotionally evaluate the experience quality.
Method
With regard to the procedures of investigating the concept of experience quality, we refer
to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry et al. (1985, 1988) study of service quality, Kohli and
Jaworskis (1990) research of market orientation, and other authors suggested steps of
developing a measurement scale (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 1991; Gerbing & Anderson,
1988).
The experience quality construct

The literature review and qualitative research were used to provide insight into the quality
construct. For qualitative research, two service organizations that provide personal and
memorable experiences to customers were chosen for investigation. One company sells
womens underwear within designed shopping surroundings, and the other is a national
museum of marine biology and aquarium in southern Taiwan. In-depth interviews were
undertaken with 20 customers, 10 for each service organization. Participants were selected
on the basis of two criteria: firstly, the characteristics of the organizations customers (or
visitors) and, secondly, the frequency of customer visits to the organization. Questions in
each interview began with the question, Please recall a time when you had a particularly
impressive experience with this service organization. The purpose of this initial question
was to focus the interview on descriptions of specific experiences. From the responses,
critical incidents could be identified and thematic descriptions of consumption experiences
would emerge. Additional probing questions were developed from the ensuing dialogue.
These questions were mostly driven by the respondents answers to ensure first-person
descriptions (Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1989). The format of the interview was
designed to be very flexible to allow the respondents to describe their own experiences
fully, including their attitudes and behaviours. Each interview was conducted by the
researchers and lasted for 45 to 60 min. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed
verbatim by the researchers. The focus of data analysis was on the dimensions of experi-
ence quality, which customers have emotionally evaluated. We unfolded thematic descrip-
tions of customer experiences through an interpretive process (Thompson et al., 1989;
Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1990).
The findings of the in-depth interviews demonstrated that the concept of experience
quality is composed of five dimensions: (1) physical surroundings, (2) service providers,
(3) other customers, (4) customers companions, and (5) the customers themselves. In
addition, four sub-dimensions (atmosphere, concentration, imagination, and surprise)
have been derived from the dimension of physical surroundings. The dimension of the
customers themselves was further divided into two sub-dimensions: cognitive learning
and having fun. The five dimensions were described in Table 1.
Table 1. Dimensions of experience quality.

Dimension Description
Physical When a customer steps into and stays in a service environment, he or she
surroundings interacts with the physical surroundings by five senses and acquires
experiences at the same time. According to informants descriptions, four
emotional sub-dimensions of experience are generated from customers
interactions with physical surroundings: atmosphere, concentration,
imagination, and surprise
(a) Atmosphere: Customers emotionally obtain perceptions of atmosphere
through interacting with physical facilities, including external variables,
general interior variables, layout and design variables, and point-of-
purchase and decoration variables
(b) Concentration: Due to the fact that physical surroundings attract
customers attention so that they enjoy themselves in the service settings,
customers become immersed in consumption activities and simply lose
track of time
(c) Imagination: Generally, service surroundings exquisitely designed
with fictitious scenes provide more imaginative opportunities for
customers. We sorted the transcript data that were related to descriptions
of fantasy, fancy, and imagination to the category of imagination
(d) Surprise: The physical surroundings of a service company can make
customers perceive more than they expect. That is, customers do not
expect to obtain sensation or knowledge through the physical space
Service providers Personal interaction between customers and service providers has been
viewed as the heart of most service experiences, and the in-depth
interviews reveal that interactions between customers and service
employees constitute customers experiences
Other customers Interactions with other customers also constitute customers evaluation of
experience quality. Compatibility between respondents and other
customers was mentioned when respondents assessed their experiences of
shopping or visiting the service companies
Customers Companionship has an effect on respondents evaluation of experience
companions quality. The findings demonstrated that getting along and having a good
time with companions was an important determinant of experience quality
Customers The interviews indicate that customers themselves were a significant
themselves dimension of experience quality. By participating in consumption activity
in service settings, the customers themselves acquire cognitive learning
and fun
(a) Cognitive learning: Cognitive learning refers the knowledge obtained
from becoming involved in the service process
(b) Having fun: Having fun also constitutes customers evaluation of
experience quality. The results of the interviews demonstrated that
respondents described experiences as interesting and joyful
Referring to the literature review and results of the qualitative study, we conceptualize
the concept of experience quality as customers emotional judgment about their entire
experiences, which include customers themselves and their interactions with physical
surroundings, service providers, other customers, and customers companions.
Generation of scale items

Sample items were generated to measure dimensions of experience quality. The initial item
pool for the instrument of experience quality contained informants descriptions in the
in-depth interviews and the items were adapted from developed measures (Arnould &
Price, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi, 1991, 1997; Martin, 1996; Richins, 1997; Turley & Bolton,
1999). Seventy-six items were generated (approximately nine items per dimension and
sub-dimension). A seven-point scale ranging from strongly agree (7), agree (6), slightly
agree (5), neither agree nor disagree (4), slightly disagree (3), disagree (2), to strongly
disagree (1) accompanied each statement. Scale values were reversed for negatively worded
statements prior to data analysis. The whole questionnaire was written in Mandarin. It was
accompanied by a cover letter that illustrated the research purpose and relevant confidential
statements on the first page of the questionnaire. This instrument contained three sections of
questions. The first section was related to asking about the respondents latest experiences
with the chosen store, such as When did you go to this shop recently? and Did you recently go
to this shop alone? The next section was relevant to measuring respondents emotional evalu-
ations of experience quality with the chosen store. If respondents recently went to that store
alone, they were asked to skip the items that measured customer companions and proceed to
the third section. Questions in this section were related to information on education, age, and
career. All respondents were directed to answer the questions in the third section.
Study 1: first stage of data collection and scale purification

Data collection
In study 1, the initial version of the questionnaire was tested for two purposes: (1) retaining
items which are capable of revealing respondents different perceptions of experience
quality in different service companies, and (2) examining the dimensionality of the experi-
ence quality construct. We chose two service companies, the womens underwear store
(name Easy Shop) in the qualitative research and Starbucks Coffee. These two companies
are both characterized as creating delicate service environments and providing memorable
or designed experiences for customers. Five hundred copies of questionnaires (250 copies
per company) were tested with students in two colleges and two universities in southern
Taiwan. To qualify for the research, respondents must have visited or shopped with the
company (Easy Shop/Starbucks) during the past year; only female respondents filled in
the questionnaires for Easy Shop because the companys target customers are female.
Data collection lasted 2 months, during November and December of 2005. A total of
146 female respondents for Easy Shop and 181 participants for Starbucks were collected.
All of these respondents had gone to the store with companions. The resulting response
rates were purifying the initial 76-item instrument (cf., Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Scale purification
Data from the two sample sets (Easy Shop, Starbucks) were separately analysed. We
referred to Parasuraman et al.s (1988) procedure and Gerbing and Andersons (1988) sug-
gestions to purify the instrument. First, coefficient alpha and item-to-total correlations were
computed. Following the procedure of Parasuraman and his colleagues study, the iterative
sequence of computing alpha values and item-to-total correlations was repeated several
times. It resulted in a set of 45 items with alpha values ranging from 0.60 to 0.92 across
the dimensions. Second, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then used for a preliminary
analysis of the overall set of items; SPSS 10.0 program (the VARIMAX rotation method)
was later used. We followed Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tathams (2006) suggestion
to derive factors, assess overall fit, and interpret the factors. In addition, we separately
performed EFA on the dimension of physical surroundings and the customers themselves
because the two dimensions contained the respective sub-dimensions. For the dimension of
physical surroundings, the analysis resulted in a four-factor solution, which explained

73.79% and 73.19%, respectively, of the two sets of data. For the dimension of the custo-
mers themselves, the analysis resulted in a two-factor solution, which explained 78.60%
and 72.92%, respectively, of the two sets of data. For the other three dimensions, the analy-
sis resulted in a three-factor solution, which explained 66.74% and 60.62%, respectively, of
the two sets of data. The process of EFA reduced the items from 45 to 38 (an average of four
items per factor). The corrected item-to-total correlations of the new set of items and the
alpha values per factor were recomputed, and on average, the alpha values exceeded 0.60.
Third, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation in
LISREL 8.5 was used to re-evaluate the factor structure. We used the measurement
model demonstrated in Figure 1 to assess convergent validity.
As shown in Figure 1, experience quality was a second-order factor. Physical surround-
ings, the customers themselves, service providers, other customers (negative public behav-
iour), and customers companions were first-order factors. Because four lower-order factors
(atmosphere, concentration, imagination, and surprise) belonged to physical surroundings

and two lower-order factors (cognitive learning and having fun) constituted the customers
themselves, we calculated the mean values of indicators, which are associated with each
lower-order factor.
The results of assessing convergent validity were provided in Table 2. It indicated that
the substantial amounts of variance in the measures were captured by the latent constructs
because all loadings were significant and above 0.50. An exception was the path of experi-
ence quality other customers negative public behaviours. The loading of this path was not
significant enough (p 0.1), and the negative loading of this path was due to negatively
worded statements of measurement. These statements included: My feelings are influenced
when other customers speak loudly, It takes me more time to select products when many
customers are in the store, I do not like other customers interrupting my conversation with
service provider(s), and My shopping emotions are influenced when other customers make
the decorations disorderly. Overall, the result demonstrated convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the chi-square values of the free model
and constrained model, which constrained the phi value (the correlation between two
latent constructs) to a value of 1 and tested whether the constraint caused a significant
decrease in fit (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). The results of testing discriminant validity
Figure 1. Measurement model of assessing convergent validity.

Table 2. Results of assessing convergent validity (Study 1).

Easy shop sample Starbucks sample
(N 146) (N 181)
Standard Standard
parameter parameter
estimate t-Value estimate t-Value
Constructconstruct
Experience quality physical surroundings 0.93 (g1) 6.60 0.91 (g1) 7.40
Experience quality customers themselves 0.95 (g2) 8.25 1.09 (g2) 9.55
Experience quality service providers 0.65 (g3) 6.97 0.57 (g3) 6.52
Experience quality other customers 20.13 (g4) 21.19 20.17 (g4) 21.50
Experience quality customers companions 0.47 (g5) 4.97 0.58 (g5) 6.13
Constructindicator
Physical surroundingsatmosphere (y1) 0.58 (ly1) Fixed 0.60 (ly1) Fixed
Physical surroundingsconcentration(y2) 0.81 (ly2) 6.82 0.66 (ly2) 6.81

Physical surroundingsimagination (y3) 0.65 (ly3) 5.99 0.71 (ly3) 7.15
Physical surroundingssurprise (y4) 0.71 (ly4) 6.32 0.72 (ly4) 7.24
Customers themselves cognitive learning 0.72 (ly5) Fixed 0.66 (ly5) Fixed
Customers themselves having fun (y6) 0.86 (ly6) 8.80 0.71 (ly6) 8.20
Service providers indicator 1 (y7) 0.78 (ly7) Fixed 0.75 (ly7) Fixed
Service providers indicator 2 (y8) 0.82 (ly8) 10.91 0.74 (ly8) 9.97
Other customers indicator 1 (y12) 0.41 (ly12) Fixed 0.25 (ly12) Fixed
Other customers indicator 2 (y13) 0.42 (ly13) 3.32 0.49 (ly13) 2.62
Customers companionsindicator 1 (y16) 0.82 (ly16) Fixed 0.71 (ly16) Fixed
Customers companionsindicator 2 (y17) 0.69 (ly17) 8.76 0.70 (ly17) 7.98
Model fit statistics x2 195.32 (p 0.00), x2 272.64 (p 0.00),
df 147, df 147,
RMSEA 0.048, RMSEA 0.069,
GFI 0.88, GFI 0.86,
AGFI 0.84, AGFI 0.82,
CFI 0.95 CFI 0.90

Other
customers negative public behaviours.

Mean value of indicators associated with this factor.
were provided in Table 3. For the Easy Shop sample, the 10 comparisons demonstrated
that the overall fit of the free model was significantly diminished when constraining the
correlation between the two latent constructs to a value of 1. For the Starbucks sample,
9 of 10 comparisons significantly decreased the overall fit of the free model. Generally,
discriminant validity of the measurement was achieved.
Study 2: second stage of data collection and scale purification

Data collection
We further collected new data to evaluate the 38-item scale of experience quality and its
psychometric properties. Three service firms were chosen for data collection, including the
Table 3. Results of assessing discriminant validity (Study 1).

x2 df p-Value Dx2 Ddf p-Value
Easy shop sample (N 146)
Free model 880.11 649 0.00
Constrained Model (1 2) 888.95 650 0.00 8.84 1 ,0.001
Starbucks sample (N 181)
Free model 1044.91 649 0.00

Constrained Model (1 2) 1043.23 650 0.00 1.68 1 Not significant
Note: 1, physical surroundings; 2, customers themselves; 3, service providers; 4, other customers negative public
behaviours; 5, customers companions.
two firms (Easy Shop and Starbucks) in the first study and one service firm (the karaoke
entertainment company in Taiwan, generally called KTV). Nine hundred copies of the
questionnaires were distributed to students in universities in northern and southern
Taiwan; 300 for every selected service companies (Easy Shop, Starbucks, and KTV).
To qualify for the study, respondents had to have shopped with the company or stepped
into the store in question within the past year. Again, only female respondents filled in
the questionnaires for Easy Shop. Data collection lasted 2 weeks, during March in
2006. A total of 550 self-administrated questionnaires were collected, of which 167
were collected for Easy Shop, 198 were obtained for Starbucks, and 185 were collected
for KTV. All respondents went to the chosen company with companions. An aggregate
response rate was 61% (response rate for Easy Shop was 56%, for Starbuck was 66%,
and for KTV was 62%).
Scale purification
A 38-item instrument of experience quality was used. To assess predictive validity of
scale, two variables were measured: satisfaction and loyalty. Olivers (1980) three items
were used to measure satisfaction. Items were, I am happy about my decision to
choose this company, I feel that I did the right thing when I chose this company, and
Overall, I am satisfied with the decision to go to this store. Five items were used to
measure loyalty (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Items included: Say positive
things about this company to other people, Recommend this company to someone
who seeks your advice, Encourage friends and relatives to do business with this
company, Consider this company as your first choice when buying, and Do more
business with this company in the next few years.
Similar to the first study, data from the three sample sets (Easy Shop, Starbucks, and
KTV) were separately analysed. We first calculated the item-to-total correlations and
reliability coefficient. The results of the reliability analysis indicated that the scale of
experience quality exhibited good internal consistency, with alpha values ranging from
0.80 to 0.94 across dimensions. Two items that measured loyalty were deleted because
the corrected item-to-total correlations were too low to decrease the coefficient alphas.
The deleted items were, Consider this company as your first choice when buying, and
Do more business with this company in the next few years. The measures of satisfaction
and loyalty also demonstrated good internal consistency, with alpha values ranging from
0.88 to 0.94 across three samples.
We then used a three-group CFA to test the adequacy of the measurement model across
three samples (Easy Shop, Starbucks, and KTV). Five hierarchical tests were used (Bollen,
1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The measurement model included five factors (physical
surroundings, service providers, other customers, customers companions, and the custo-
mers themselves) of experience quality, satisfaction, and loyalty. In the first step, the
equality of covariance matrices (HS) was examined (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The
result showed poor model fit (x2(854) 7352.37, p , 0.001, reject HS). Because covari-
ance matrices were not invariant, configure invariance (Hform) was subsequently examined
(Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). We summarized the results of these tests in Table 4.
The second step involved testing the model without constraints. This result provided a
baseline chi-square for further comparisons. The result of the baseline model (Model 1 in
Table 4) showed a good measurement model fit (x2 1486.21, df 762, non-normed fit
index 0.91, comparative fit index 0.92), and a move to testing HLx was appropriate.
In the third step, we constrained the factor loadings equally across the groups to test factor
loadings invariance (HLx). The non-significant difference in chi-square between this
model (Model 2 in Table 4) and the baseline model indicated that the factor loadings of
the three measurement models were invariant (Dx2 66.39, Ddf 38, not significant
at p , 0.05). In the fourth step, we examined the quality of error variances of the latent
variables across the three groups (HLxud). The result showed significant differences in
Table 4. Results of testing the equivalence of the measurement models across groups.
Testing the equivalence of the
Measurement model Goodness of fit measurement models
Model 1: Baseline model (no x2 1486.21, p 0.00,
constraints) (test Hform) df 762, comparative fit
index (CFI) 0.92
Model 2: Factor loadings- x2 1552.60, p 0.00, Model 2 2 Model 1:
specified invariant (test HLx) df 812, CFI 0.92 Dx2 66.39, Ddf 50, not
significant at p , 0.05
Model 3: Factor loadings and x2 1772.45, p 0.00, Model 3 2 Model 2:
error variances-specified df 862, CFI 0.90 Dx2 219.85, Ddf 50,
invariance (test HLxud) significant at p , 0.05
Model 4: Factor loadings, error x2 1875.71, p 0.00, Model 4 2 Model 3:
variances, and correlations df 904, CFI 0.89 Dx2 103.26, Ddf 42,
invariant (test HLxudF) significant at p , 0.01
Table 5. Results of assessing convergent validity (Study 2).
Easy shop sample (N 167) Starbucks sample (N 198) KTV sample (N 185)
Standard parameter Standard parameter Standard parameter

estimate t-Value estimate t-Value estimate t-Value
Construct construct
Experience quality physical surroundings 0.86 (g1) 7.60 0.81 (g1) 6.13 0.63 (g1) 5.51
Experience quality customers themselves 1.01 (g2) 9.79 1.04 (g2) 9.27 1.07 (g2) 8.24
Experience quality service providers 0.61 (g3) 7.27 0.56 (g3) 7.38 0.42 (g3) 5.08
Experience quality other customers 20.30 (g4) 23.19 20.28 (g4) 23.20 20.59 (g4) 26.04
Experience quality customers companions 0.73 (g5) 8.25 0.63 (g5) 6.46 0.59 (g5) 6.71

Construct indicators
Physical surroundings atmosphere (y1) 0.66 (ly1) Fixed 0.51 (ly1) Fixed 0.57 (ly1) Fixed
Physical surroundings concentration (y2) 0.60 (ly2) 6.44 0.63 (ly2) 5.82 0.58 (ly2) 5.72
Physical surroundings imagination (y3) 0.69 (ly3) 7.17 0.69 (ly3) 6.11 0.67 (ly3) 6.22
Physical surroundings surprise (y4) 0.72 (ly4) 7.43 0.70 (ly4) 6.15 0.75 (ly4) 6.50
Customers themselves cognitive learning (y5) 0.73 (ly5) Fixed 0.67 (ly5) Fixed 0.64 (ly5) Fixed
Customers themselves having fun (y6) 0.74 (ly6) 8.6 0.83 (ly6) 9.18 0.80 (ly6) 7.94
Service providers indicator 1 (y7) 0.86 (ly7) Fixed 0.90 (ly7) Fixed 0.84 (ly7) Fixed
Service providers indicator 2 (y8) 0.84 (ly8) 13.93 0.90 (ly8) 19.69 0.90 (ly8) 16.07
Other customers indicator 1 (y12) 0.76 (ly12) Fixed 0.68 (ly12) Fixed 0.67 (ly12) Fixed
Other customers indicator 2 (y13) 0.76 (ly13) 8.82 0.67 (ly13) 7.85 0.67 (ly13) 7.58
Customers companions indicator 1 (y16) 0.78 (ly16) Fixed 0.64 (ly16) Fixed 0.75 (ly16) Fixed
Customers companions indicator 2 (y17) 0.88 (ly17) 12.58 0.62 (ly17) 7.07 0.90 (ly17) 12.28
Model fit statistics x2 257.65 (p 0.00), x2 380.74 (p 0.00), x2 375.23 (p 0.00),
df 147, RMSEA 0.067, df 147, RMSEA 0.090, df 147, RMSEA 0.092,
GFI 0.86, CFI 0.94, GFI 0.83, CFI 0.89, GFI 0.82, CFI 0.88,
2411
NNFI 0.93 NNFI 0.87 NNFI 0.86

Other

chi-squares between this model (Model 3) and Model 2. It indicated that the error var-
iances were not invariant. In the fifth step, we tested the equality of variances and covari-
ances of the latent variables across the three groups (HLxudF). The result showed that the
constraint model (Model 4) significantly decreased chi-square (Dx2 103.26, Ddf 42,
significant at p , 0.01).
To sum up the results of these five steps of testing measurement invariance, the
measurement models were configure invariance and metric invariance across the three
groups. Although the measurement models lacked error variance invariance (Model 3),
that finding did not create a problem. Because we adopted LISREL 8.5 to perform the
CFA, the differences in measurement errors were taken into account.
To assess convergent validity, we also used the measurement model demonstrated in
Figure 1. As in the results of Study 1, the findings displayed in Table 5 revealed that all the
measures loaded significantly (t-value . 2.00) on their intended latent construct, demon-
strating convergent validity.
We followed a procedure similar to that of Study 1 to evaluate discriminant validity.

For the three samples (Easy Shop, Starbucks, and KTV), the 21 comparisons demonstrated
that the overall fit of the free model was significantly diminished when constraining the
correlation between the two latent constructs to a value of 1 (constrained model). There-
fore, discriminant validity of the measurement was achieved. Here, we briefly demonstrate
the results of the Easy Shop sample in Table 6.
As for the predictive validity of the scale, we further conducted a structural model to
examine whether customers perceived experience quality had an effect on the customers
satisfaction and loyalty. The results were provided in Table 7. For the three samples, the
Table 6. Results of assessing discriminant validity (Study 2).

x2 df p-value Dx2 Ddf p-Value
Easy shop sample (N 167)
Free model 428.84 254 0.00
Note: 1, physical surroundings; 2, customers themselves; 3, service providers; 4, other customers negative public
behaviours; 5, other customers; 6, satisfaction; 7, loyalty.
Table 7. Results of assessing the effect of experience quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Standard Standard
parameter parameter Standard
estimate t-Value estimate t-Value parameter estimate t-Value
Construct construct
Experience quality (j1) physical surroundings (h1) 0.86 (g11) 7.81 0.83 (g11) 6.56 0.71 (g11) 6.45

Experience quality (j1) customers themselves (h2) 1.01 (g21) 10.11 0.97 (g21) 9.23 0.93 (g21) 7.20
Experience quality (j1) service providers (h3) 0.62 (g31) 7.44 0.60 (g31) 8.18 0.48 (g31) 6.04
Experience quality (j1) other customers (h4) 20.27 (g41) 22.91 20.28 (g41) 23.20 2052 (g41) 25.60
Experience quality (j1) customers companions (h5) 0.73 (g51) 8.32 0.67 (g51) 6.97 0.63 (g51) 7.43
Experience quality(j1) satisfaction(h6) 0.65 (g61) 6.78 0.85 (g61) 7.45 0.87 (g61) 6.50
Satisfaction(h6) loyalty(h7) 0.63 (b76) 7.09 0.75 (b76) 7.33 0.60 (b76) 6.06
Construct indicators
Physical surroundingsatmosphere (y1) 0.66 (ly1) Fixed 0.53 (ly1) Fixed 0.61 (ly1) Fixed
Physical surroundingsconcentration(y2) 0.61 (ly2) 6.63 0.62 (ly2) 5.99 0.60 (ly2) 6.13
Physical surroundingsimagination (y3) 0.67 (ly3) 7.14 0.69 (ly3) 6.34 0.63 (ly3) 6.30
Physical surroundingssurprise (y4) 0.71 (ly4) 7.43 0.70 (ly4) 6.41 0.71 (ly4) 6.74
Customers themselves cognitive learning 0.73 (ly5) Fixed 0.66 (ly5) Fixed 0.58 (ly5) Fixed
Customers themselves having fun (y6) 0.74 (ly6) 8.86 0.84 (ly6) 9.39 0.89 (ly6) 7.60
Service providers indicator 1 (y7) 0.86 (ly7) Fixed 0.90 (ly7) Fixed 084 (ly7) Fixed
Other customers indicator 1 (y12) 0.76 (ly12) Fixed 0.68 (ly12) Fixed 0.67 (ly12) Fixed
(Continued)
2413
2414
Table 7. Continued.
Standard Standard
parameter parameter Standard
estimate t-Value estimate t-Value parameter estimate t-Value

T.-Y. Chang and S.-C. Horng

Customers companions indicator 1 (y16) 0.79 (ly16) Fixed 0.65 (ly16) Fixed 0.75 (ly16) Fixed
Satisfaction indicator 1 (y20) 0.87 (ly20) 12.27 0.89 (ly20) 10.17 0.91 (ly20) 8.59
Loyalty indicator 1 (y23) 0.86 (ly23) 13.01 0.79 (ly23) 11.86 0.86 (ly23) 14.08
Model fit statistics x2 465.43 (p 0.00), x2 559.77 (p 0.00), x2 592.15 (p 0.00),
df 268, df 268, df 268, RMSEA 0.084,
RMSEA 0.065, RMSEA 0.077, GFI 0.80, CFI 0.90,
GFI 0.82, CFI 0.93, GFI 0.81, CFI 0.91, NNFI 0.88
NNFI 0.92 NNFI 0.90

Other

statistics of model fit were acceptable. The coefficient values of all paths were significant
at p , 0.05. The results demonstrated that experience quality had a direct effect on
satisfaction and indirect effect on loyalty. Predictive validity of the scale was achieved.
Discussion
This study performed a procedure to develop an instrument of experience quality and
assessed its psychometric properties. We first clarified this construct by reviewing the lit-
erature and conducting a qualitative study. Experience quality is conceptualized as the cus-
tomers emotional judgment about the entire experience. Factors include the customers
themselves, their interactions with physical surroundings, service providers, other custo-
mers, and customers companions. Next, we generated items and conducted two studies
to collect data and purify the scale. The results of developing and assessing the instrument
revealed that construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and predictive
validity of this 38-item scale (see Appendix 1) were achieved. The experience quality con-
struct is composed of five dimensions: physical surroundings, service providers, other cus-
tomers, customers companions, and the customers themselves. The dimension of physical
surroundings contains four sub-dimensions (atmosphere, concentration, imagination, and
surprise), and the dimension of customer themselves includes two sub-dimensions (cogni-
tive learning and having fun). A seven-point scale ranging from strongly agree (7) to
strongly disagree (1) accompanied each statement.
Applications, future research, and limitations

For academic research, this study clarifies the conceptualizations of experience quality that
underlie the context of service settings. An instrument of experience quality was developed
and tested. This instrument is quite different from Schmitts (1999) assessment tools for
experiential marketing. In his book, he mentioned that he has developed easy-to-administer
assessment tools to measure the five proposed types of customer experiences sensing,
feeling, thinking, acting, and relating. His instruments have been used in consulting pro-
jects, including auditing a companys experiential marketing approach in its entirety, asses-
sing the experiential aspects of various experiential providers, planning for experiential
providers and strategic experiential marketing for company brands, and making strategic
and implementation recommendations. That is, Schmitts (1999) instruments have gener-
ally been used to evaluate the performance of experiential marketing and test whether its
practices have achieved the five types of experiences from the managers perspective.
However, the scale of experience quality in this research provides a measurement for
researchers who are interested in exploring customers perspectives of experience
quality in service settings. In order to improve construct validity, future research should
replicate a more comprehensive model. Further study could also examine the relationship
between experience quality, service quality, and outcome variables (such as satisfaction,
loyalty, and purchase intention).
For marketing practice, this research identifies the critical elements of experience
quality. It is helpful in managing and designing excellent experiences for customers. Con-
sequently, creating elaborate physical surroundings to elicit positive customers emotional
perceptions of experience quality is significant for experience design. Customers are com-
monly more impressed by service settings with atmosphere, and they enjoy going along
with companions for some service categories. In addition, the proceedings of this study
reveal the importance of managing customers experiences. Because customers are
educated to ask for excellent products and service quality, providing customers with
perfect quality of experience in service environments is increasingly significant.
This study has its limitations however: (1) it focuses on investigating the experiences
that underlie the context of deliberately designed service settings. Such a focus limits the
application of the findings to other service situations. However, this focus makes sense for
the existing concern of experience. Because many academic researchers and managers
have emphasized creating experiences for customers, experiences that happen in a
designed setting are relatively worthy of exploration. (2) The findings of this study are
comparatively applicable to situations in which customers stay in the service setting
with companions. As the results have demonstrated, customers interactions with compa-
nions constitute their perceptions of experience quality. At this stage, the findings are
therefore not suitable for a situation in which customers go to a store alone. Future research
to explore experience quality can collect other samples in which customers usually shop
alone. Customers experiences with bookstores or museums are good samples for further
study. (3) This study merely conceptually discusses the difference between experience
quality and service quality. To further investigate the difference, one could compare
these two constructs by dimension. Such a comparison could empirically verify whether
the cognitive dimensions of service quality are distinct from its emotional dimensions.
(4) The 38 items for measuring experience quality (total of 38 items; see Appendix 1)
are relatively general. When replicating this instrument with different samples, an
adjustment of the statements is suggested.
References
Abbott, L. (1955). Quality and competition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Arnould, E.J., & Price, L.L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service
encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 2445.
Bahia, K., Paulin, M., & Perrien, J. (2000). Reconciliating literature about client satisfaction and per-
ceived service quality. Journal of Professional Service Marketing, 21(2), 2741.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., & Haeckel, S.H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 8589.
Bitner, M.J., Faranda, W.T., Hubbert, A.R., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1997). Customer contributions and
roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3),
193205.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
Carbone, L.P., & Haeckel, S.H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management,
3(3), 819.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6473.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815822.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1995). A contingency framework for predicting casualty between customer satis-
faction and service quality. Advances in Customer Research, 22, 101108.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M.S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in
customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 7087.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimentionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186192.
Grace, D., & OGass, A. (2004). Examining service experiences and post-consumption evaluations.
Journal of Service Marketing, 18(6), 450461.
Gronross, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service quality. Review of
Business, 9(3), 1013.
Grove, S.J., & Fisk, R.P. (1992). The service experience as theater. Advances in Consumer Research,
19, 455461.
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P., & Bitner, M.J. (1992). Dramatizing the service experience: A managerial
approach. In T.A. Swartz, D.E. Bowen, & S.W. Brown (Eds.), Advances in services marketing
and management (pp. 91121). London: JAI Press.
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P., & Dorsch, M.J. (1998). Assessing the theatrical components of the service
encounter: A cluster analysis examination. The Service Industries Journal, 18(3),
116134.
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P., & John, J. (2000). Services as theater. In T.A. Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.),
Handbook of services marketing and management (pp. 2135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gupta, S., & Vajic, M. (2000). The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences. In J.A.
Fitzsimmons & M.J. Fitzsimmons (Eds.), New service development: Creating memorable
experiences (pp. 3351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.
Holbrook, M.B. (2000). The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: Experience and entertain-
ment. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(2), 178192.
Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132141.
Johns, N. (1999). What is the thing called service. European of Journal Marketing, 33(9/10),
958973.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientific
Software International.
Kohli, A.K., & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 118.
Laverie, D.A., Kleine, R.E., & Kleine, S.S. (1993). Linking emotions and values in consumption
experiences: An exploratory study. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 7075.
Martin, C.L. (1996). Consumer-to-consumer relationships: Satisfaction with other consumers
public behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 30(1), 146169.
Moneta, G.B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the
quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 275310.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460469.
OSullivan, E.L., & Spangler, K.J. (1998). Experience marketing: Strategies for the new millennium.
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 4150.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 1237.
Pine, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review
(July August), 97105.
Pine, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a
stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Richins, M.L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer
Research, 24(2), 127146.
Schmitt, B.H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customer to sense, feel, think, act, relate to
your company and brands. New York: The Free Press.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-
national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 7888.
Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B., & Pollio, H.R. (1989). Putting consumer experience back into con-
sumer research: The philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(2), 133146.
Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B., & Pollio, H.R. (1990). The lived meaning of free-choice: An exis-
tential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experience of contemporary
married women. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 346361.
Tseng, M.M., Qinhai, M., & Su, C.-J. (1999). Mapping customers service experience for operations
improvement. Business Process Management Journal, 5(1), 5064.
Turley, L.W., & Bolton, D.L. (1999). Measuring the affective evaluations of retail service environ-
ments. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 19(1), 3144.
Wong, M.M.-H., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Motivation and academic achievement: The
effects of personality traits and the quality of experience. Journal of Personality, 59(3),
539574.
Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think: Essential insights into the mind of the market. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 3146.
Appendix 1. Dimensions and measures of experience quality

Dimensions and sub-dimensions

of experience quality Item numbers and item content
Physical Atmosphere 1 The decoration of this store makes me feel comfortable
surroundings 2 The colour design of this store makes me feel easy
3 The light of this store makes me feel warm and fragrant
4 The space design of this store makes me feel comfortable
Concentration 5 I often feel time passing soon when staying in this store
6 I spend time staying in this store
7 I stay in this store for a long time without notice
8 Staying in this store often makes me forget passing time
9 I pick up products slowly in this store
Imagination 10 The decoration of this store gives me a feeling of fancy
11 The decoration of this store is like telling a story
12 Stepping into this store is like walking in a dream world
13 Staying in this store is just like being in another imaginative
space
Surprise 14 I am surprised to know the real design of this store is better
than photos
15 The internal design is the style that I have rarely seen
16 The decoration is designed with thought, and I am
unexpected to see
17 It is amazing to see special internal design
Service providers 18 Service employees provide thoughtful services
19 Contacting with service providers makes me feel relieved
20 Service employees serve me friendly and kindly
21 Interacting with service providers makes me feel that I am
treated with respect
22 Service providers say hello to me just like friends
Other customers negative 23 I do not feel good when other customers shouting loudly
public behaviours 24 Too many customers staying in the store makes me spend
much time to buy what I want
25 I do not like other customers interrupting my conversation
with service providers
26 My shopping emotion is influenced when other customers
make the decoration disorder
Customers companions 27 I share new products with friends and families who are
together with me
28 I find out special stuffs in the store with friends or families
(Continued)
Appendix 1. Continued.
Dimensions and sub-dimensions
of experience quality Item numbers and item content
29 I like to talk to friends or families when staying in this store
30 Shopping this store together can advance my relationship(s)
with friends or families
Customers Cognitive 31 I obtain much knowledge in this store
themselves learning 32 I learn some information of products when picking up
33 The instruction boards can help me learn
34 I learn something new when staying in this store
Having fun 35 It is happy time when I stay in this store
36 This is a store where people can enjoy themselves
37 It is relaxed and happy when I stay in this store
38 This is an interesting store

Conceptualizing and Measuring Experience Quality PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Conceptualizing and Measuring Experience Quality PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University]

On: 12 August 2012, At: 19:24

The Service Industries Journal

Conceptualizing and measuring

Version of record first published: 28 Sep 2010

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060802629919

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality:

Keywords: customer experience; experience quality; customer services; service

ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507 online

The experience quality construct

Table 1. Dimensions of experience quality.

Generation of scale items

Study 1: first stage of data collection and scale purification

physical surroundings, the analysis resulted in a four-factor solution, which explained

(atmosphere, concentration, imagination, and surprise) belonged to physical surroundings

Figure 1. Measurement model of assessing convergent validity.

Table 2. Results of assessing convergent validity (Study 1).

Physical surroundingsconcentration(y2) 0.81 (ly2) 6.82 0.66 (ly2) 6.81

Study 2: second stage of data collection and scale purification

Table 3. Results of assessing discriminant validity (Study 1).

Free model 1044.91 649 0.00

Standard parameter Standard parameter Standard parameter

The Service Industries Journal

We followed a procedure similar to that of Study 1 to evaluate discriminant validity.

Table 6. Results of assessing discriminant validity (Study 2).

The Service Industries Journal

T.-Y. Chang and S.-C. Horng

Applications, future research, and limitations

Appendix 1. Dimensions and measures of experience quality

Dimensions and sub-dimensions

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi