Cs and SQ

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND SERVICE
QUALITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE

LITERATURE AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
Haemoon Oh
and
Sara C. Parks
The Pennsylvania State University
ABSTRACT
There is a desperate need for new research that will advance customer
satisfaction (CS) and service quality (SQ) methodologies in the hospitality industry.
This comprehensive review of the theories and methodologies reported in CS and
SQ studies cited in the hospitality literature provides suggestions for future CS and
SQ research in the hospitality field. First, the theoretical and methodological issues
are critically reviewed. Next, major developments in CS and SQ research method-
ologies are discussed. The concept of importance and its role in behavioral models
are included as they have been recently applied in hospitality CS and SQ research.
The final section of this study is devoted to developing and proposing new directions
for future CS and SQ research in the hospitality industry. Key words: customer
satisfaction, service quality, expectation, performance, disconfirmation, behavioral
intention, importance
INTRODUCTION
Today, companies within and outside the hospitality industry are striving to deliver
not only their products and services but also high "quality" and "satisfaction" that will
lead to increased brand loyalty and market share. The importance of customer
satisfaction (CS) and its relationship with service quality (SQ), occupancy rate and
profitability has long been exhorted by both management experts and researchers in
the hospitality field (Brewton, 1990; Edwards, 1992; Florida Hotel & Motel Journal,
1989; Greger and Withiam, 1991; Hirst, 1992; Kirwin, 1992; Knutson, 1988; Ravenel,
1992; Shifflet, 1989; Walker, 1988; Withiam, 1991; Wolff, 1992). CS and SQ frequently
top the list of the most important issues that must be addressed by hospitality marketers
(HR Focus, 1992 a, b).These concerns for measuring CS and SQ in the hospitality
industry have been precipitated by the need to position firms competitively in the
marketplace.
Responding to the growing demands for more reliable ways to measure CS and
SO, several hospitality researchers have recently attempted to introduce theoretical
and methodological frameworks for measuring CS and SQ in hotel services (Barsky,
Cl 1997 THE COUNCIL ON HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND SERVICE QUALITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
1992 a, b; Barsky and Labagh, 1992; Getty and Thompson, 1994; Saleh and Ryan,
1991 ), restaurant services (Dube, Renaghan and Miller, 1994), and international travel
(Pizam and Milman, 1993). Most of these studies employed theories and methods
grounded in the well-developed domains of research in product marketing; however,
they did not address the theoretical and methodological issues raised in consumer
behavior literature. Although these recent efforts in hospitality research have made
substantive contributions to understanding hospitality customers' behavior, more
rigorous theoretical and methodological treatments are needed to advance the
underdeveloped pedagogy of hospitality CS and SQ research. Therefore, a critical
review of the CS and SQ literature is valuable at this incipient stage of developing
hospitality-specific CS and SQ paradigms.
The primary purpose of this paper is to review critically the main issues in CS and
SQ research and their applications for the hospitality industry. Specifically, this paper
will: 1) provide a critical review of theoretical and methodological issues revealed in the
CS and SQ literature; 2) review the major developments in CS and SQ research; 3)
discuss the concept of importance and its role in CS and SQ models; 4) develop specific
suggestions to assist hospitality researchers in designing more robust CS and SQ
studies; and 5) offer several directions for future hospitality CS and SQ research. In
achieving these objectives, this study considers CS and SQ research together.
Because these two paradigms share considerable areas of theoretical and method-
ological overlap, they can be meaningfully compared to each other.
THEORIES EMBEDDED IN CS AND SQ RESEARCH

Definition of CS and SQ
The notion that CS and SQ are two distinct paradigms has led to a number of
research studies where satisfaction research was mistakenly assumed to measure
perceived SQ. In addition, other studies assumed a perfect correlation between CS and
SQ, and therefore included similar errors of interpretation. While there is overlap in the
two definitions, there is also specific distinction.
The concept of CS has defied exact specification even in those disciplines having
a long-standing tradition of satisfaction research (Oliver, 1981 ). Perhaps the most
frequently raised question regarding the definition of satisfaction has been whether it
is a cognitive process or an emotional state. For example, Howard and Sheth (1969)
defined satisfaction as "the buyer's cognitive [italics added] state of being adequately
or inadequately rewarded for the sacrifice he has undergone." In the same vein,
satisfaction was defined as "an evaluation (cognitive] that the chosen alternative is
consistent with prior beliefs with respectto that alternative" (Engel and Blackwell, 1982).
Some efforts have been made to capture explicitly these cognitive and emo-
tional processes. For example, Woodruff, Cadotte and Jenkins (1983) argued that
CS should be defined to reflect the link between the cognitive and emotional
processes, because "customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is an emotional [italics
added] feeling in response to confirmation/disconfirmation [cognitive]." In the same
manner, Pfaff (1977) suggested that both the cognitive and the affective models
might be appropriate for describing satisfaction. These integrative definitional efforts
are also well reflected in more recent CS research (Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988;
36 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

HAEMOON OH and SARA C. PARKS
Olshavsky and Krishnan, 1994; Spreng and Mackay, 1994; Westbrook, 1987;
Westbrook and Oliver, 1991 ).
In an attempt to understand CS better, most CS researchers have focused on the
cognitive consumption processes (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982). However, it is
clear that CS may be more than a simple cognitive evaluative process. Rather, it is
probably a complex human process involving extensive cognitive, affective and other
undiscovered psychological and physiological dynamics. Considering the recent
movement towards broadening the definition of CS, it is desirable that future research
measures satisfaction more broadly in order to reflect the constant interplay of cognition
and emotion in processing external stimuli {i.e., products and services).·
Similarly, the SQ literature also reflects the movement of measuring customer
perceptions as an indication of quality. Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985)
developed the GAPS model, which is widely accepted in today's service industry. By
subsequently proposing a measurement model (SERVQUAL) for SQ within the GAPS
framework, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) defined SQ as "the degree and
direction of discrepancy between consumers' perceptions and expectations." Their
model measures SQ as the gap between a customer's expectations and the percep-
tions of what is actually delivered. The model is built on the assumption that the smaller
the gap, the better the quality of service provided.
Although Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry attempted to lay a distinct framework
for research on SQ, their definition of SQ happened to be similar to that of CS. This
definitional overlap has caused mixed conceptualization and interpretations of CS and
SQ among researchers. Therefore, in addition to methodological differentiation, a
stand-alone conceptual framework is needed in order to pursue an independent
research tradition of SQ.
Theoretical Underpinnings of CS Research

Roughly nine theories about CS have been introduced into the literature. Most are
deeply rooted in cognitive psychology, due primarily to the narrow definition of CS in
earlier studies. Some have received moderate attention in the literature, while others
have simply been introduced without provoking further empirical research. The nine
theories include: 1) expectancy disconfirmation; 2) assimilation or cognitive disso-
nance; 3) contrast; 4) assimilation-contrast; 5) equity; 6) attribution; 7) comparison-
level; 8) generalized negativity; and 9) value-precept. Although these theories have
received more frequent applications and empirical testing in CS than in SQ research,
they still have strong potential for applications in future SQ research due to the
substantial amount of theoretical commonality shared by the two subject areas.
Among these theories, expectancy-disconfirmation has received the widest
acceptance, perhaps because of its broadly applicable conceptualization. Dating back
to as early as Lewin (1938), expectancy-disconfirmation theory asserts that individuals
make purchase decisions based on their expectations of the outcomes of a specific
action {Webster, 1991 ). Positive disconfirmation occurs if the product is better than
expected, whereas a performance worse than expected ensues a negative
disconfirmation. A match between the two leads to confirmation-i.e., neither satisfac-
tion nor dissatisfaction.
Hospitality Research Journal 37

Most of the other theories listed above have often been applied within the
expectancy-disconfirmation framework. For example, several researchers tested
assimilation theory by examining how performance perceptions were assimilated
towards prior expectations in product purchase situations (Cardozo, 1965; Oliver,
1977; Olshavsky and Miller, 1972; Olson and Dover, 1979). Also, the expectancy-
disconfirmation model has served as the basic research framework in studies of the
effects of contrast. Anderson (1973) and Cohen and Goldberg (1970) interpreted the
tendency of exaggeration for disparity between expectations and perceptions as a
typical example of contrasting effects. Nonetheless, it should be noted that other
researchers have argued that value-precepttheory replace expectancy-disconfirmation
theory because it was believed to be more valid and reliable (Locke, 1967).
With the exception of expectancy-disconfirmation, most CS theories define the CS
judgment process too narrowly. Consequently, they have received applications and
testing in a laboratory setting where the CS process was tightly controlled, situation-
specific, and individually focused. This is well-evidenced by their frequent applications
nested in the more broadly conceptualized expectancy-disconfirmation theory. There-
fore, when applied in a field survey research study, the hypothesized effects may fail
to be demonstrated, leading to a hasty rejection of the research hypotheses. Further
research is needed to define under what situations the theorized effects are most likely
to occur. Also, researchers might want to pose these theoretical effects as a null
framework for their investigation of the CS and SQ processes.
Despite the problems with CS theories, many of them, when applied appropriately,
possess strong potential for applications in service consumption situations. For
example, hospitality customers engaged in service encounters may be very sensitive
to the fairness of the transaction, thereby demonstrating the effects of equity theory. It
is also possible that the customers develop satisfaction or dissatisfaction by attributing
their good or bad service experience to either themselves or the other parties involved
in the service transactions (i.e., the effects of attribution theory). Comparison-level
theory also holds importance when applied to the situation in which customers are
heavily involved in comparing multiple brands in the decision-making processes.
Finally, value-precept theory, if fully developed, may also provide cogent explanations
of the CS and SQ processes.
State-of-the-Art CS and SQ Research in the Hospitality Literature

CS. Most of the past CS studies in the hospitality literature have focused on
identifying the sources of CS (i.e., attributes) and discovering effective ways to
determine customers' wants and needs. However, substantial disagreement appears
in the level of specificity of the investigated attributes. Lewis and Pizam (1981 ), for
example, examined 24 items in their study of hotel guest survey questionnaires, while
Lewis (1983) included 33 items. Also, 32 and 20 items were considered in Lewis and
Klein's (1987) and Knutson's (1988)studies, respectively. More recently, Callan (1994)
identified 166 hotel service attributes through extensive interviews and focus-group studies.
Although these studies have widely divergent levels of attribute specification, it appears that
most hospitality CS researchers agree with measuring guest satisfaction based on
multiattnbute scales that reflect the multifunctional nature of the hospitality services.

In order to advance CS research in the lodging context, Barsky (1992) and Barsky
and Labagh (1992) introduced the expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm into lodging
research. Basically, the proposed model in these studies was that CS was the function
of disconfirmation, measured by nine "expectations mer (EM measures) that were
weighted by attribute-specific importance. The model was tested with data collected
from 100 random subjects via guest comment cards. As a result, CS was found to be
correlated with a customer's willingness to return.
Although Barsky (1992) added to an extant research base by attempting to
formulate a modified (i.e., weighted) disconfirmation model for lodging services, a close
look at the proposed model, weighting procedures and hypothesis testing procedures
suggests a number of methodological problems. For example, the null hypothesis
posited in this study is not the theoretical property of the employed Chi-square. That is,
the Chi-square test does not assume a negative relationship between the two variables
in its null hypothesis. Rather, it hypothesizes a zero correlation and tests whether
there exist any positive or negative interactions between the two variables. Also,
multiplicative weighting assumes the two factor variables (i.e., EM and importance
measures) to be a continuous, normally-distributed variable. However, the two
variables were later used as a variable of nonparametric property through a modified
weighting scheme. The employed weighting method has the potential risk of biasing
the results.
Pizam and Milman (1993) utilized Oliver's (1980 a, b, c; 1981) expectancy-
disconfirmation model to improve the predictive power of travelers' satisfaction. They
introduced the basic dynamic nature of the disconfirmation model into hospitality
research, while testing part of the original model in a modified form. In order to assess
the causal relationship between two different disconfirmation methods, they employed
a regression model with a single "expectation-mar measure as the dependent variable,
and21 difference-score measures (performance minus expectation as in Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry's [1988] definition of SQ) as the independent variables. Thus,
Pizam and Milman's regression model can be written in CS research terms as
=
"subjective disconfirmation f(objective disconfirmation)," which can be rewritten as
=
"subjective disconfirmation f (SQ).• Here, the CS and SQ paradigms were mixed,
without supportive justification, which resulted in an equation contradictory to that
agreed upon by other researchers (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1994; Teas,
1993 a, b; 1994). No explanation was provided for this modification in the model
specifications or the departure from earlier CS/SQ methodologies. Their model tested
only the reliability of the two different methodological operationalizations for the same
concept.
Some research efforts on CS are also notable in tourism behavior. For example,
Pizam, Neumann and Reichel (1978) investigated the factor structure of tourists'
satisfaction with their destination areas. The authors showed eight distinguishable
dimensions of tourist satisfaction. In addition, by applying a series of Sirgy's (1982,
1983, 1984, 1985, 1987) research on a social cognition and self-image model, Chon
(1989, 1992 a, b) attempted to show how the congruities and incongruities between
the tourists' self-image and their perceived destination image relate to tourist
satisfaction with the destination. Sirgy's conceptualization of social cognition and
self-image was supported in tourists' destination behaviors. For interested readers,

Chon (1992 a) provided an intensive literature review of tourist satisfaction. One

thing to be noted, however, is that although posited social cognition theory offers an
alternative way of explaining satisfaction processes, its methodological mechanism is
analogous to that of expectancy-disconfirmation theory. To explain briefly, the con-
cepts of congruity and incongruity can be well-interpreted as the concepts of confirma-
tion and disconfirmation, both of which can result in either positive or negative
directions. Additionally, both paradigms commonly use satisfaction as a criterion
variable. A study comparing the ability of these two alternative models to explain CS
processes may be interesting.
Due primarily to the extant hospitality-oriented research and problematic theoreti-
cal applications, there is a great need to encourage more CS research that embraces
sound theoretical underpinnings. This is particularly necessary because many hospi-
tality firms are basing their marketing strategies on CS research results with limited
validity and reliability. Although more hospitality researchers are expected to study CS
in the future, the current theoretical and methodological debates among CS and SQ
researchers are causing a delay in introducing CS and SQ paradigms into hospitality
research.
SQ. Several researchers have attempted to apply the SERVQUAL model in
hospitality research (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Getty and Thompson, 1994; Saleh and
Ryan, 1991). Most of these researchers have applied the SERVQUAL model as
modified for hospitality situations and found results different from those of the original
SERVQUAL researchers. For example, Bojanic and Rosen (1994) identified six
factors, compared to the original five factors, underlying restaurant customers' expec-
tations and perceived performance levels. Similarly, Saleh and Ryan (1991) arrived at
different factor dimensions for lodging services. Meanwhile, by supporting perfor-
mance-only measures for lodging services, Getty and Thompson (1994) attempted to
develop a scale, which they called LODGQUAL, for the lodging industry.
Despite the above applications and propositions, caution should be taken when
interpreting the results of these studies. First, Bojanic and Rosen (1994) used the same
factor structure for both expectation and performance, but it is not likely that the factor
patterns forthe two constructs are identical in real situations. Typically, the performance
construct is likely to produce a smaller number of factors than expectations. This is the
case because customers' perceptions of actual service delivery tend to be narrower
than their expectations due to likely limited exposure to actual service performances.
Customers' expectations are likely to be generic and therefore do not limit perceptual
variation.
A second reason to exercise caution in interpreting current hospitality studies
relates to the level of abstraction in the factor analyses. For example, Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry (1988) repeated factor analysis to reduce the sizable data set to a
reliable factor structure. This data reduction increased proportionately the level of
abstraction in the interpretation of their results. Thus, the factor structure could be
somewhat tentative unless the level of abstraction is controlled. It is unlikely that the
findings of Bojanic and Rosen (1994) and Saleh and Ryan (1991) could be directly
compared to those of Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry because the latter researchers
used different attributes with different levels of abstraction under different settings. In
particular, Bojanic and Rosen's (1994) inference about the dimensionality of SQ is

questionable, because they obtained the P-E difference scores based on factor
structure rather than item levels (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988}.
Finally, careful assessment must be made of the source of Getty and Thompson's
(1994) factor structure for future lodging research. Customers' perceived performance
is likely to be a state, rather than trait, variable. Therefore, perceived performance may
not be a psychometric property that is enduring in customers' minds because it depends
heavily on the company's performance per se. Rather, perceived performance could
be simple performance patterns resulting in some company-specific partitioning of
performance scores, and not factors generic to customer wants and desires. Moreover,
the results have limited generalizability because the study sample used to generate the
factor structures was composed of students. Therefore, Getty and Thompson's (1994)
results may not serve broadly as the basis for future lodging research.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CS AND SQ RESEARCH

Along with the theoretical issues discussed earlier, a number of methodological
issues in CS and SQ research have emerged. In this study, the review of these issues
centers around study design, measurement issues, measurement scales, sampling,
validity and reliability. Table 1 provides a summary of the issues along with their major
contributions according to the CS literature.
Study Design
One of the most critical issues in CS and SQ research is the nature of the study
setting used to model the two constructs. The debate focuses on two data generation
methods: experimental designs and field surveys. Although experiments were a
popular study design among many researchers (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Cardozo,
1965; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Tse and Wilton, 1988), other researchers
continued to prefer field survey approaches (Bearden and Teel, 1983; Oliver and Swan,
1989; Westbrook and Newman, 1978). Most notably, Bolton and Drew (1991)
conducted a field experiment by manipulating the quality of telecommunication
services in selected areas in order to measure subscribers' satisfaction with the
telephone companies. Although both experimental design and field survey methods
have respective strengths and limitations in producing generalizable study results, the
results of studies using either of the methods have been generally accepted without any
critical considerations of the employed study designs.
In general, most of the experimental studies have attempted to test the validity of
the employed conceptual theories (Anderson, 1973; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988), while
in the field survey CS studies the size and directionality of causal influences among
model constructs have been the major concerns (Swan and Trawick, 1981; Oliver,
1980 a). Due to the methodological limitations, experimental studies have investigated
almost exclusively the short-term aspects of the CS processes. However, both the
short-term (Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins, 1987; Swan and Trawick, 1981) and the
longitudinal (Bearden and Teel, 1983; Oliver, 1980 a; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983)
aspects of the CS processes have received equivalent attention in field survey
approaches.
Hospiulity Research journal 41

Issues Methods Reported Sllldies l:ommenU
iCanlozo 0 965), Cohen & GoldberJ 0 970l.Olshanky & Bohon & Dn:w'1 i1
Mille< (1972), Anderson (1973), Churchill & $urpRmnl I field experimenL
EAperimenls (1982), Oliver & DeSarbo (1988), Toe & Wihon (1988), Focus: Conceptual
Study Bolton & Drew (1991) lheory lellins snd
design short·letm CS process
Westbrook & Newman (1978), Oliver (1980s), Swan & Focus: Size snd direc-
Field Survey Trswick (1981}, Be•den & Teel (1983), Cadoa.e et sl lion of csusa1 foraa.
(1983). Oliver & Swan 0987), llalstead (1989) Jon&iludinal snd
matkel-level CS.
Cardozo (1965), Olshavlky & Miller (1972), Andenon Moot llludiel

Performance meuured (1973), Swan & Tuwick (1981), LaBarbcn & MuunkJ included exp<CWiona.
(1983), Tse & Wilton (1988) but disconfmnalion.
Performance omiu<d Oliver (1980s), Bearden & Teel (1983), Oliver & Swan Dilconfumation wu
(1989) measured.
Both performance snd Swan & Trswiclc (1981), Oiun:hill & Surprawll (1982) E..pectations were
disconfumation Oliver & DeSarbo (1988), Bolton & Dn:w (1991) meuwed.
Affect-belief Obon & Dover (1979), Oliver (1980s), Oliver (1981) Not 11 all likely -
scales very likely
4-poinl Halslead (1989) Definitely would not

unipo!M would ••poet
Meuures
5-point bipola.t Cadoae et sl (1987), Tie & Wilton (1988) Very poor - very good
E&P
6.!r.7 poinl unt Swan & Trswick (1981) Poot~len~ Yes--no
7-point Bearden & Teel (1983), PZB (1988, 1991), Cronin & Likely-unlikely bipola.t
scales T1ylor (1992) Agree-<lisagree Liken
100-poinl Cardozo (1965) Very inferior-superior
Line Oliver (1981) Beeler· snd worse-than
3-Poinl uni. Halstead (1989) Notusoodu-be<ler

DC
5-point bipol11 Tie & Wilton (1988) Modified Oliver's
7-poinl Bearden & Teel (1983), Swan & Tnwlck (1981) Oliver'1 snd Y. .No
4-Poinl Halslead (1989) Very (dillulilfied

CS
5-point LaBarbers & Mu:unky (1983), Tee & Wilton (1988) Very (dil)111isfied
BI 4-poinl LaBarbera" Mu:unky (1983), Halllad (1989) Definildy will (noc)
The field survey approach has been a dominant study design for CS research
the hospitality field. For example, Barsky (1992 b) and Barsky and Labagh (199 ,
studied with customers staying at a local hotel, while Pizam and Milman (1993)
collected data from travelers to Spain by using a "before and after" measurement
design. Traditionally, experimental studies have not been widely used in hospitality
research. Perhaps one of the major reasons for this is that hospitality services, due to
their multifunctional nature, can be overly sensitive to extraneous variables that cannot
easily be controlled in typical laboratory experimental designs. In the future, it is likely
thatthe field survey approach will remain a popular mode of CS research in both product

HAEMOON OH and SARA c. PARKS
Issues Methods Reponed Studies Commenta
Convenience student Cardozo (1965), Cohen A Goldbera (1970), Obh1¥1ky ~ Sia varies from 40 lo
umple Miller (1972), Andenon(l97JJ,Oliver A DeSvboU988) 144 IUbjectl
Systematic residall WCllbroolt A Newm111 (1978) Oliver (1980b), 119- 39'4 oubjedS
umple Bohon A Drew (1991) 3 waves of aamplinJ
Samplin&
Random CadoUe et al. (1987), Oliver A Swan (1989), PZB (1988) 120 -415 (2 atage sample)
Panel Swan A Trawick (1981), Bearden A Tccl (1983). 87 - 749 (ID wa\'OI)
LaBarben A Muunky (1983) Lon&itudinal lllUdiel
Dau bank Oliver et al. (1992) 89 consumer panel
WCllbroolt (1980b), OiurchlU A Surpmw1t (1982), Convergen1 and

Validity Reported Bearden A Teel (1983), CadoUe et al. (1987), PZB disaiminant validities
(1988. 1991). Cronin A Taylor (1992), Teu (1993b)
Oliver (1980al, Westbrook (1980b), Oli•er A Linda Ran&ed variously from

(1981), Westbrook t. Oliver (1981), Churchill A .46 to .96.
Reliability Reported Sutprenant (1982), Bearden A Teel (1983), Oliver A See Yi (19921 pp. 71 -
Bearden (1983). PZB (1988, 1991), Cronin A Taylor 74.
(1992).
Nore; E"" expectations, P =perceived performance. DC= subjective disconfirmation,

=
CS = customer satisfaction, BI behavioral intention, and uni ... unipolar.
and services marketing research, including the hospitality industry. However, there
is a continuous need for experiments that can help to develop and refine theories.
Another critical issue with hospitality CS research design is that most studies have not
investigated the dynamic nature of the CS processes. The majority of studies have focused
exclusively on transaction-specific CS processes without incorporating the potential effects
of the long-term CS elements, such as attitude changes. Thus, the results of the transaction-
specific CS studies, which did not provide experimental control overthe effects of customers'
attitudes towards the focal brands, have often exposed valicfity problems. The long-term
aspect of CS processes should be considered even in designing a CS study with a
transaction-specific nature. This view of CS processes is particularly worthwhile in the
hospitality industry, which thrives on customers' repeat visits over an extended period oftime.
Study design in SQ research has been consistent in employing the fixed format
of the original SERVQUAL model suggested by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry
(1988). Most of the SQ studies, including those in the hospitality field, were based on
field surveys (Saleh and Ryan, 1991; Bojanic and Rosen, 1994). In particular,
hospitality SQ studies were conducted mainly in replication of the SERVQUAL model.
However, SQ researchers should expand their study design to the longitudinal aspect of SQ,
both as an indicator of company performance and as a predictor of consumer behavior.
Measurements and scales

Model specification : Measurements of CS and SQ share many methodological
issues due to their conceptual overtap in model specification. Both paradigms include
Hospiulity Research journal 43

prepurchase expectation and postpurchase perceived performance as the basis of

explaining CS and SQ (see Figure 1). The unique difference is that CS researchers
view CS as a result of customers' subjective comparison between expectation and
performance, while SQ is viewed as the researcher's objective comparison between
the two components. As shown in Figure 1, in the CS paradigm the subjective
comparison is operationalized as a subjective disconfirmation, a construct that is
typically believed to exist immediately before satisfaction formation. Therefore,
when SQ (as in the form of objective disconfirmation) in the SQ model and subjective
disconfirmation in the CS paradigm are supposed to explain what CS has in common
with each model, the two variables play a conceptually similar role. Consequently,
when introduced into the hospitality industry, the two research paradigms are likely
to compete for common purposes with similar concepts but via different method-
ological operationalizations. Thus, the focus of the competition between the two
paradigms lies within the validity and the reliability of the subjective disconfirmation
and the SQ constructs. This issue is reflected in the recent debate among research-
ers (Brown, Churchill and Peter, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry, 1994).
Expectation measure: A variety of psychometric properties have been pro-
posed for measuring expectations, which in turn requires corresponding diversity in
scales and measurement wording. For instance, Olson and Dover (1979) and Oliver
(1980 a), who suggested that expectations be measured based on the Fishbeinian
affect-belief (ab) scales, recommended that the belief component be measured as
the subjective probabilities of the occurrence of store or product factors. Given these
circumstances, at least two component measures of expectation are in practice: 1)
the presence of the attribute; and 2) the likelihood of the occurrence of the possessed
attribute. "Having friendly front desk clerks" may be different from the customers'
expectation that "they need to be treated friendly by the front desk clerks."

The measure of attribute presence has been widely used in SQ research, whereas
both presence and likelihood measures are frequently employed by CS researchers.
Although this distinction is possible in measurement practices, it is not clear whether
customers really distinguish these two measures in expressing their expectations. It is
more likely that customers consider the two components simultaneously, because the
likelihood notion already captures the presence concept. Moreover, this distinction is
particularly difficult when applied to hospitality services that contain numerous intan-
gible components. Therefore, the likelihood measure seems to be more appropriate for
measuring customers' expectations towards hospitality services.
The recommended scale for belief measures consists of a continuum with two
ends of the scale anchored as "not at all likely" and "very likely." The affective dimension
of each attribute is to be measured on scales of like-dislike, good-bad, desirable-
undesirable or attractive-unattractive. Further, Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins (1987)
suggested a 5-point bipolar scale to measure beliefs related to normative product and
brand expectations. Similarly, a unifonn "should" (nonnative) expectation has been
measured in all SQ research.
Despite these suggestions, however, researchers have used different scales to
measure expectations. Halstead (1989) used a 4-point scale ranging from "definitely
would not expecr to "definitely would expect." Both 6-point and 7-point scales were
used to measure attitudinal beliefs in Swan and Trawick's study (1981). Another
example is Bearden and Teel (1983), who used a 7-point bipolar scale ranging from
"likely" to "unlikely" to measure perceived expectations. In hospitality CS research,
Pizam and Milman (1993) employed 5-point scales, while Barsky (1992 a, b) adopted
a 4-point scale with different measure-specific wording.
In general, SQ research advocates the use of a 7-point normative, unipolar Likert
scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Although diverse measure-
ment methods have been used to measure expectation, 5- to 7-point interval scales
seem to be appropriate for measuring expectation.
Performance measure: Measurement of perfonnance does not seem to be

problematic due to its exclusively evaluative nature. Although researchers have
adopted slightly different scales and scale wording, they have generally measured
whether perfonnance occurred as expected. Swan and Trawick (1981) used a 7-point
rating scale ranging from "1-poor" to "?-excellent." The same perceived perfonnance
was measured on a 5-point "very-poor" to "very-good" scale in Tse and Wilton's study
(1988). Cardozo's (1965) experiment utilized a continuum ranging from "O-very inferior"
to "100-vastly superior." With regard to expectations, SQ researchers have followed
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry's (1988) recommendations-to measure perceived
nonnative performance on a 7-point "strongly-agree" to "strongly-disagree" scale.
Interestingly, however, Getty and Thompson (1994) used a 7-point "inferior-superior"
scale to develop an alternative performance-based SQ scale for lodging services, and
they found acceptable scale reliabilities.
Even if researchers typically assume that the criteria for perfonnance evaluation
correspond to those of expectations, this criterion agreement between the two
constructs has not been proven empirically. For example, a customer may not have

expected to wait in line for more than ten minutes in a restaurant. However, suppose
that the customer was treated nicely while waiting in line for 15 minutes and that the
dining experience was much betterthan she had initially expected. It is doubtful that the
customer would develop dissatisfaction regarding the 15-minute waiting period, which
was not her original expectation. Instead, it is likely that the customer would develop
more tolerance for waiting in line, because she received outstanding performance in
the other attributes of the dining experience. Thus, the performance evaluation criterion
for waiting in line, in this case, is likely to be lowered post hoe. This example illustrates
a potential mismatch in criteria between expectation and performance, thereby
suggesting that multicriteria for performance evaluation are likely in measuring
expectations. However, the validity of this criterion mismatch between expectations
and performance perception has not been questioned in the literature.
Disconfirmation measure: Two types of disconfirmation measures are found in

practice: subjective and objective. Oliver (1981) suggested that the most meaningful
approach to measuring subjective disconfirmation from the respondent's standpoint is
a "better-than-expected" and "worse-than-expected" scale on a continuum with "just as
expected" in the middle. Tse and Wilton (1988) modified this scale into a 5-point bipolar
scale. A 7-point, but differently worded, scale was used in both Bearden and Teel's
(1983) and Swan and Trawick's (1981) studies. Objective disconfirmation, however, is
calculated (not measured) by subtracting expectations from perceived performance
and is uniformly used in SQ research. Due to the unique methodologies, objective
disconfirmation (that is, SQ) requires researchers to measure expectation and perfor-
mance on the same interval scale.
As mentioned earlier, disconfirmation plays a critical role in distinguishing SQ from
CS models. Thus, the comparison of the two research paradigms should be focused
on the validity and reliability of disconfirmation that is measured in two different ways.
Recently, this issue has received considerable debate. The viability of the two methods
should be assessed in terms of their predictive ability-that is, their ability to predict CS
and behavioral intention.
Satisfaction measure: Typically, satisfaction has been measured on a single

"overall" scale with 7-, 5-, 3-, and even 2-points worded as "satisfied" or "not satisfied."
Oliver (1981) argued that the latter nominal scale cannot accurately gauge satisfaction
levels because it does not provide for degrees of satisfaction. Halstead (1989) used a
4-point "very satisfied" to "very dissatisfied" scale, while a similar 5-point scale
measured satisfaction in Tse and Wilton's (1988) and LaBarbera and Mazursky's
(1983) studies.
Based on the measurement of job satisfaction (Porter, 1962), life satisfaction
(Andrews and Withey, 1976) and traditional attitude scaling (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975),
Westbrook and Oliver (1991) constructed five measurement instruments and tested
them for their reliabilities as satisfaction measures. The results of this study showed that
the Ukert and semantic-differential scales had the highest reliabilities and the highest
convergent and discriminant validities. Similarly, Maddox (1985) tested the reliability of

three scales to measure tourist satisfaction. As a result, the OT (Delighted-Terrible)

scale appeared to outperform the graphic or faces scales. Therefore, until additional
research proves differently, it is recommended that researchers use multiple Likert or
semantic-differential scales anchored with the OT expression in order to measure CS.
In future research, the dimensionality of CS is likely to receive more attention. Past
studies showed a tendency to focus on measuring customers' cognitive evaluations
based on levels of satisfaction. This measurement practice included emotional scaling
as a complementary measure of CS, as suggested by Westbrook (1980) and
Westbrook and Oliver (1991 ). This movement towards multidimensional measures of
CS is expected to improve scale validity and reliability.
Behavioral intention measure: Researchers have measured many behavioral

intentions such as the complaint, word-of-mouth communication and the intention to
return. However, scales for behavioral intention vary depending upon the variables
measured in the particular studies. Complaining behaviors are typically measured by
the number of verbal and/or written complaints that the customers voice against the
seller. Following LaBarbera and Mazursky's (1983) operationalization, Halstead
(1989) measured repurchase intention on a 4-point scale ranging from "definitely will
not buy again" to "definitely will buy again." Word-of-mouth communication is generally
measured by the customer's intent to recommend the product or service to others.
Because the construct of behavioral intention has only recently been included in CS
models, an appropriate scale has not yet been identified. However, Boulding, Kalra,
Staelin and Zeithaml (1993) recently attempted to include behavioral intention in their
SQ modeling to show the dynamic process of SQ.
Sampling Methods
CS and SQ researchers have collected data from various types of samples.
Convenience, systematic and random sampling methods were frequently employed by
CS researchers. Student subjects were used mainly in experimental studies. Cardozo
(1965), Anderson (1973) and Oliver and DeSarbo (1988), for example, utilized either
undergraduate or graduate business school students for their experiments. The size
of the sample for these experiments ranged from 40 (Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988) to 144
(Anderson, 1973). Bolton and Drew (1991) and Westbrook and Newman (1978)
systematically sampled residents in selected service areas, while random sampling
was used by Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins (1987) and Oliver and Swan (1989). A
panel-type sample was used for longitudinal studies (Bearden and Teel, 1983; Swan
and Trawick, 1981 ), while Oliva, Oliver and MacMillan (1992) utilized a data bank.
In order to develop measurement scales for SQ, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and
Berry (1985, 1988) used a national sample. Also, Cronin and Taylor (1992) used
random samples from four industries to evaluate SERVQUAL and other alternatives.
Hospitality researchers have utilized various sampling techniques. These include
random sampling (Barsky, 1992 b; Barsky and Labagh, 1992; Callan, 1994), system-
atic random sapipling (Pizam and Milman, 1993), stratified random sampling (Saleh
and Ryan, 1991) and convenience sampling (Getty and Thompson, 1994).

The sampling and the generalization of study results are thorny issues in
hospitality CS and SQ research due to the high levels of fragmentation in both product
class and market segments. The lodging and restaurant industries, for example, have
a distinct hierarchy of products that are differentiated by price, and at the same time
require a wide variety of market segments for the same products. Thus, any study
drawing samples from a specific property or market segment has limited generalizability.
Also, time is an important factor to be considered when sampling for such hospitality
products as hotels, resorts and tourist attractions. Considering all the constraints in
hospitality sampling, it is suggested that researchers build a generalizable model by
developing it from a specific sample and testing it with diverse samples, rather than by
pursuing an aggregate model from the beginning.
Validity
Perhaps the two most salient issues related to validity in CS and SQ research are:
1) the discriminant validity of measured expectations; and 2) the dimensionality of CS
and SQ (construct validity). Discriminant validity is established, for example, when the
between-factor item correlations are lower than the within-factor item correlations. The
questions associated with discriminant validity were raised first by Miller (1977) who
argued that multiple comparison standards for expectations do exist. In accordance
with this viewpoint, CS researchers have measured different expectations in their
studies. Churchill and Surprenant (1982), Tse and Wilton (1988) and Bolton and Drew
(1991 ) measured subjects' expectations on expected[predicted] product performance,
whereas Swan and Trawick (1981) gauged customers' beliefs. Cadotte, Woodruff and
Jenkins (1987) measured both product norms and brand norms as comparison
standards.
Similarly, SQ research has typically measured normative expectations, although
Teas (1993 a) strongly argued that the discriminant validity of these expectation
measures was a methodological problem. In particular, Boulding et al. (1993) included
measures of ideal expectations along the normative measures and found discriminant
validity between the two types of expectations.
To date, it is not clear what type of expectation, under what type of situation, has
greater validity. More empirical evidence should be accumulated to support any
particular type of expectation. Obviously, the validity of any particular expectation must
be assessed in tenns of performance measures due to their close relationship.
Along with discriminant validity, several researchers have provided evidence of
the convergent validity of each model construct (Bearden and Teel, 1983; Cadotte,
Woodruff and Jenkins, 1987; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982). Following the sugges-
tions made by Nunnally (1978) and Churchill (1979), the convergent validity of each
construct can be tested by examining the correlation coefficients among construct
measurement items. For convergent validity to hold, the correlation among the items
that measure the same construct should be higherthan the correlation among the items
that measure the different constructs. Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins (1987) and
Westbrook (1980) examined both convergent and discriminant validity by using a
multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) developed by Campbell and Fiske (1959).
Convergent and discriminant validities were also discussed in SQ studies (Cronin and

Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988, 1991; Teas, 1993 a, 1993 b).
Nonetheless, the majority of the hospitality CS and SQ research reported in the
literature lacks a discussion of convergent and discriminant validities of the employed
scales. Thus, it appears that some of the conclusions drawn from these studies may
be inappropriate.
Only a few studies have directly investigated the dimensionality of CS measures
(Yi, 1992; Czepiel, Rosenberg and Akerele, 1974; Leavitt, 1977). The most frequently
proposed theory about the dimensionality of CS is a dual-factor theory, which was
proposed early in Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner
and Snyderman, 1959). The theory asserts that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are
different constructs, and that they are caused by different facets of interaction between
a product or service and a customer. A low correlation between the two constructs is
believed to imply their relative independence from each other. While there is an ongoing
argument about the two-factor theory, the service and hospitality literature has not
reported evidence of this dual-factor possibility. Further empirical evidence is needed
to determine the viability of the two-factor CS measures.
The dimensionality question for SQ has also been raised. As discussed earlier,
although Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) proposed five dimensions of
service, many replication studies have disagreed about the number and types of
dimensions. For instance, Cronin and Taylor (1992) found that 22 SERVQUAL items
loaded on the same dimension. Bojanic and Rosen (1994) identified six dimensions of
restaurant service when the original SERVQUAL scale was used. Three plausible
sources of this discrepancy in the dimensionality of SQ are: 1) the SQ score's situation-
specific dependence on the expectation or performance scores; 2) the structural
differences of SQ across services; and 3) the differences in the level of factor
abstraction achieved by researchers. Research should be conducted to determine
which of these sources of discrepancy is the most likely.
Reliability
Cronbach's (1951) alpha statistic has been the most frequently used indicator of
reliability in CS and SQ research. A number of CS studies have reported reliability
indices of adopted scales (Oliver and Linda, 1981; Westbrook, 1980). Westbrook
(1980) and Maddox (1985), for example, compared the test-retest reliability of several
single-item CS scales such as the Delighted-Terrible [D-T] percentage, need (satisfied-
dissatisfied) [S-0], content analytic and graphic scales. As a result, they found the O-
T scale to be the most reliable among the examined scales with an alpha value ranging
from .65 to .85. However, most of the reliability estimates for these repeated single-item
scales were low to moderate, suggesting that caution is needed in using single-item
measures (Yi, 1992; Churchill, 1979).
Reliability scores also vary for multi-item CS scales. Several researchers have
reported reliabilities of selected multi-item scales: Bearden and Teel (1983), Oliver
( 1980 a) and Oliver and Bearden (1983) forthe Likertscale; and Oliver and Linda (1981)
for a semantic differential scale. Westbrook and Oliver (1991) investigated five different
scales to assess their reliabilities: Liker!, semantic differential, graphic, verbal and
porter. The results of their study showed that the Like rt and semantic-differential scales

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND SERVICE QUALITY; A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
performed equally well for multi-item CS measures with alpha values of .75 - .96 and
.90 - .95, respectively. In comparing these results with those of single-item measures,
it was found that the multi-item measures outperformed most of the single-item
measures of CS.
Studies on SQ have reported favorable reliabilities for normative expectations and
performance. For example, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), who utilized a
7-point Likert-type scale, achieved reliabilities ranging from .72 (tangibles) to .86
(empathy) for five SQ dimensions. In similar efforts to develop lodging-specific SQ
scales, Getty and Thompson (1994) identified three dimensions of customers' per-
ceived performance of hotel services with improved reliabilities ranging from .84 to .97.
Overall, the hospitality literature does not report reliability and validity results
sufficiently. Only a few studies have discussed validity issues. For example, following
Churchill's (1979) and Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry's (1988) suggestions, Getty
and Thompson (1994) discussed the face, trait and predictive validities of their
performance scales. Not included in their discussion, however, were the convergent
and the discriminant validity issues as emphasized by Churchill (1979). More rigorous
examination of validity and reliability issues is necessary in future hospitality research.
In this regard, Churchill (1979) and Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins (1987) have
demonstrated excellent examples of reliability assessment using the multitrait-
multimethod-matrix.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CS AND SQ RESEARCH

Several notable conceptual and methodological advances have been reported
recently in the CS and SQ literature. Most of these new developments came as a result
of questioning the underlying assumptions of the paradigms, the reliability and the
validity of the measurement scales employed in CS and SQ research. Although the new
propositions and criticisms are expected to remain unresolved for the time being, they
provide hospitality researchers with useful guidelines for future CS and SQ research.
Changes in assumptions. The first observation in the CS literature addresses the

fundamental assumption regarding the functionality of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
One assumption universally adopted by CS researchers is a linear relationship of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction with disconfirmation (i.e., the size and direction of disagree-
ment between expectation and perceived performance) or performance evaluations.
Also, the strength of behavioral intentions such as the intent to return and the disposition
to complain are believed to be a linear function of CS. However, a closer look at several
CS theories suggests an argument against this linearity assumption. As contended by
assimilation and contrast theorists, for example, satisfaction might not be a linear
function of disconfirmation and performance; furthermore, it may not be linearly
associated with behavioral intentions.
New theories: In response to the fundamental concern raised above, Oliva, Oliver
and MacMillan (1992) proposed a catastrophe model theorizing the relationship of
satisfaction with transaction costs and brand loyalty. Originated in the catastrophe

theory (Thom, 1975; Zeeman, 1976) and chaos theory (Gleick, 1988), this approach
hypothesizes that satisfaction and dissatisfaction occur at different points. By bringing
a gap between the two threshold points, these behaviors are associated with transac-
tion costs and brand loyalty and therefore are not monotonic. The gap between the two
thresholds is explained by the concept of a catastrophe, which is similar to the zone of
indifference proposed by Woodruff, Cadotte and Jenkins (1983). If this reasoning is
true, two questions emerge: (1) Where are the triggering points of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, respectively? and (2) How does one measure the two constructs
independently? These questions remain unanswered in the literature.
Methodological advances: Structural equation modeling has been a widely

adopted technique in more recent CS and SQ research (Churchill and Surprenant,
1982; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Oliver and Swan, 1989). Early work by Bagozzi (1980)
and Joreskog and Sorbom (1982) provided essentials for marketing researchers. As
a result of structural modeling techniques, the underlying causal dynamics among the
CS model constructs have surfaced. Nevertheless, the researchers' specifications for
structural CS models have been divergent, and thus the findings have not converged
(Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins, 1987; Oliver and Swan, 1989; Swan and Trawick,
1981 ). Therefore, it is imperative for CS researchers to: 1) determine a generalizable
causal relationship among the model constructs (i.e., expectation, perceived perfor-
mance, disconfirmation, CS and behavioral intention); and 2) identify a representative
parsimonious CS structural model.
Market-level aggregation of CS: Modeling CS on the market level is yet another

recent development among researchers (Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann, 1994). In
today's competitive marketplace, companies are spending a significant proportion of
their marketing dollars to develop niche markets that can nourish the firm and protect
it from intense competition. In this situation, marketing managers are most likely to be
interested in understanding CS at their target market levels as compared to their
competitors' efforts in the same market. More CS researchers are expected to pursue
market-level CS investigation in the future. To realize this objective, domain-specific CS
studies and market segmentation based upon purchase behaviors are prerequisites.
Reassessments of SQ models: SQ research, SERVQUAL in particular

(Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988), has received both unprecedented support
and methodological criticisms during the past three years. Peter, Churchill and Brown
(1992) and Brown, Churchill and Peter (1993) presented a compelling argument about
why difference scores (such as the performance-minus-expectation SERVQUAL
score) should be avoided. They argued that difference score measurements often
demonstrate poor reliability, primarily because any positive correlation between the
component scores attenuates the reliability of the resulting difference score. In practice,
the difference will always be highly correlated with, and therefore not distinct from, at
least one of the component measures. Thus, any correlation between a difference
score and another variable is an artifact of the relationship between the component
measures used to form the difference score and the other variable. This artificial
correlation undermines discriminant validity.

Another serious problem with the SERVQUAL difference score is the variance
restriction, which occurs when one of the component scores used to calculate the
difference score is consistently higher than the other component. This situation does
apply to SERVQUAL in that the expected or desired level of service is almost always
higher than the perceived level of actual service (Peter, Churchill and Brown, 1993),
thereby potentially limiting the variability in perceptions scores. Therefore, the validity
issues of difference scores are not yet clearly settled. More rigorous theoretical
consideration must be given to using difference scores.
Teas' (1993 a, b) propositions about SERVQUAL also deserve attention. He
raised questions about the locus of the ideal point by which Parasuraman, Zeithaml and
Berry's expectation construct is believed to be developed and to which performance is
to be compared. According to Teas, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry's "ideal
standard" subsumed in expectations poses two possible interpretations: 1) a classic
attitudinal ideal point that predicts, in contrast to Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry's
assumption of monotonic relationship between performance and SQ, decreasing
perceived quality as performance increasingly exceeds the ideal point (Ginter, 1974;
Green and Srinivasan, 1978); and 2) a feasible ideal pointthat represents a feasible or
the best level of performance by the highest-quality provider under perfect circum-
stances. Although this feasible ideal point interpretation could justify assumptions
made by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, it still depends on whether the attributes
are vector attributes (i.e., infinite or maximum classic attitudinal ideal points) or finite
ideal point attributes (i.e., non-infinite or intermediate classic attitudinal ideal points), as
proposed by Lilien, Kotler and Moorthy (1992). Building on these researchers, Teas
(1993b)proposedtwoaltemativeapproachestoSERVQUAL:1)aModifiedSERVQUAL
(MQ) model; and 2) a Normed Quality (NQ) model.
Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) also proposed an alternative performance-based
model (SERVPERF) which was found to perform better than SERVQUAL. They tested
the two models in four different industries for nomological validities and structural
consistency. Also raised in their study was the issue related to the temporal order
between CS and SQ. They concluded that SERVPERF outperformed SERVQUAL,
and that SQ is an antecedent of CS. However, they were inclined to over-interpret their
study results because their claimed difference in model performance might not prove
"significant."
In sum, several alternative approaches to traditional CS and SQ models have
recently been proposed to provide a more robust prediction of customers' behaviors
over time. Additionally, these new models address more practical issues of measuring
attitude, SQ and CS over time. Similar model specification problems with SQ models
are expected in the future because structural models will become more frequently used
in SQ modeling. Therefore, a critical task pending for CS and SQ researchers is to
integrate pieces of models and recreate them as a few parsimonious models that would
be useful to industry managers.
THE CONCEPT OF IMPORTANCE AND ITS ROLE IN BEHAVIORAL MODELS

There has been strong disagreement among researchers about the role of
importance measures in performance and CS predictions. Although many researchers

(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Mazis, Ahtola and Klippel, 1975; Mitchell, 1974; Oliver,
1979, 1981) did not recommend the inclusion of importance in the attitude models,
other researchers (Barsky, 1992 b; Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Getty and Thompson,
1994; Goering, 1985; Kotler, 1988; Lewis and Pizam, 1981; Teas, 1993 a, 1993 b)
seemed to support the inclusion of attribute importance in evaluating customers'
satisfaction levels.
In hospitality research, the concept of importance has received considerable
attention recently. For example, Barsky (1992 b) and Barsky and Labagh (1992)
included direct measures of importance in their investigation of hotel customers'
satisfaction. Also, following Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry's (1988) suggestions,
Bojanic and Rosen (1994) indirectly assessed, through a regression model, the relative
importance of six quality dimensions of restaurant services. However, although studies have
investigated the concept of importance, the benefits of measuring attribute importance have
not been thoroughly discussed. Studies are needed to assess accurately the contribution of
attribute importance to increasing the model's predictive power.
The two contradictory views on the inclusion or exclusion of importance in CS and
SQ models stem from the validity of the concept with insufficient empirical support. That
is, most researchers agree that customers' evaluations of performance are based upon
subjective relative comparisons (Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins, 1987; Oliva, Oliver
and MacMillan, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985). Here, the term
"relative" should mean between-attributes, between-brands (competitors) and even
between-alternative products simultaneously. However, empirical investigations have
attempted to focus on only one source of importance. Thus, study results have been
unable to support the role of importance in attitude models because no significant
improvement in the predictive power was shown (Mazis, Ahtola and Klippel, 1975).
In general, two methods of measuring importance are popular: 1) direct question-
ing of subjects; and 2) indirect inference through regression models. Studies that have
attempted to measure importance have only considered the absolute or within-brand
importance of each attribute or factor (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Cronin and Taylor,
1992). The dynamics of importance, however, may not be so simple. Rather, the
concept of importance must apply to a between-attribute and between-brands trade-
off that may be the basis of a choice against another brand being considered. In the case
of the direct question methods, the multiplication of a variable and its importance has
been the most popular weighting method, even if the underlying assumption of
statistical independence of the two variables has not been clearly estgblished.
In summary, the inclusion of importance in measuring attitudes seems to be a
philosophical question. Those who advocate inclusion tend to focus on the conceptual
and realistic role of importance in human decision processes, while those who dismiss
inclusion tend to emphasize statistical contributions and methodological efficiency of
the concept when it is included in attitude models. However, if the concept holds a role
in the CS processes, further efforts should be made to improve the methods of
measuring and modeling the concept of importance. This can be done by: 1) measuring
the importance construct more accurately-that is, the validity for the source of
importance should be established first; and 2) discovering a better way to incorporate
the concept with the other related variables-that is, an appropriate weighting method
must be developed if importance should be used as a weighting parameter.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE CS AND SQ RESEARCH IN HOSPITALITY

Review of CS and SQ research dictates further methodological refinements.
This is particularly true in the hospitality field where the importance of CS and SQ are
driving a broad research agenda. To date, many modifications and applications of the
CS and SQ model constructs reported in the consumer behavior literature have not
been applied in the hospitality industry. Thus, a number of opportunities exist to test
new and modified models in hospitality settings. At this juncture, it is recommended
that future hospitality CS and SQ research progress along the following directions.
Integration of CS and SQ paradigms: Although the two paradigms measure

different constructs, their ultimate contributions to a hospitality company do not seem
to provide a significantly differential basis for understanding existing and future
customer behaviors and developing subsequent marketing decisions. Even statis-
tically, the inclusion of SQ with CS in the same model seems to work well (Cronin and
Taylor, 1992). Also, both models, when related to customers' behavioral intentions,
appear to enhance the predictive ability of CS. In this way, the two models are
juxtaposed for the same purposes, suggesting a feasibility of integration. Thus,
pursuing two different methodologies for the same contributions is neither efficient
nor necessary. Research should be done to compare the relative ability of combining
CS and SQ models. At the same time, researchers should strive to achieve a
parsimonious model.
Methodological consensus: A need to establish a methodological consensus in

modeling CS and SQ in hospitality services must be established. Even a few CS and
SQ researchers in the hospitality field have reported differently specified models. For
example, while applying the concept of subjective disconfirmation (Oliver 1980 a, b,
c, 1981), Barsky (1992 b) and Barsky and Labagh (1992) proposed the following
equation:
CS = x importance + e) where i=event or attribute.
Pizam and Milman (1993) also attempted to improve the predictive power by
hypothesizing subjective disconfirmation =!(performance- expectation, e) where the
difference score is objective disconfirmation in CS theories or SQ, as operationalized
by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988). In examining restaurant service quality,
Bojanic and Rosen (1994) applied SERVQUAL, while Getty and Thompson (1994)
proposed a performance-only measure for hotel SQ as earlier proposed by Cronin
and Taylor (1992).
Although diverse exploratory models could produce more information, there is
a need for some consensus among researchers to ensure the appropriate interpre-
tation of the results. This need is particularly pronounced when researchers use only
part of the original model without providing a clear explanation for the alternative
approach. For example, it is not clear why Pizam and Milman ( 1993) regressed one
disconfirmation concept into another, both in different operationalizations. Re-
searchers may first want to compare the original model with their alternative
approaches in terms of model parsimony and robustness.

Simultaneous estimation of CS and SQ processes. A lack of modeling tech-

niques may account for the many modifications of the original model in hospitality
research. Structural equation models are a good example. As noted earlier,
structural models were one of the mainstream analytic tools for CS research during
the 1980s. Also, SQ researchers recently began to adopt structural models to assess
the viability of SERVQUAL and other alternative models (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).
With unprecedented modeling power, structural equation models have enabled CS
researchers to: 1) model the entire CS process in a single model frame; 2) unveil the
underlying causal dynamics of the CS processes; 3) examine the longitudinal aspect
of the CS processes; 4) define the relative role of the main model constructs; and 5)
enhance the results of the study by providing error-adjusted parameter estimates
and interpretations. However, these advanced modeling techniques have not been
widely used in hospitality CS and SQ research.
Incorporation of feedback processes: Further attention should be given to

the consequences of CS and SQ. Past CS and SQ studies in hospitality have
focused mainly on the antecedents of CS and SQ. Thus, CS and SQ have
typically been used as dependent variables. While understanding the sources
of CS and SQ is important to marketers, knowing and predicting the conse-
quences of CS and SQ and understanding their link to customers' long-term
attitudes and future purchase decisions are especially important to industry
managers. CS and SQ may be modeled as independent or mediating variables
so that CS and SQ can be viewed as predictors of repeat business. Although
cost and time are constraining factors, longitudinal study designs merit future
research consideration. Structural models and time series methods would also
be helpful in this scope of research.
Domain- and market-specific study design: Researchers need to pre-define

clearly the range of the generalizability of their study results. The hospitality market
is constantly being fragmented as customers' preferences become more specific
and volatile. Also, it is well known that service is "heterogeneous" in nature
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985); consequently, the generalizability of the
results of any services, let alone hospitality research, is likely to be limited substan-
tially as long as the level of abstraction is unusually high in interpreting the results.
Moreover, it is likely that customers have different structures of expectations and
perceptions which are dependent upon the target service organization. Therefore,
future hospitality CS and SQ researchers should design target market level studies
within the domain under investigation. For example, researchers may study the
market structure of a hotel before drawing a random sample. Then, subsequent
systematic or stratified sampling is likely to result in more meaningful results for the
hotel's management (Saleh and Ryan, 1991 ). Similarly, service attributes consid-
ered by customers are likely to differ depending upon the type of hotel, the travel
purpose, the location and the past experience with the brand. Thus, achieving a
parsimonious set of behavior-based market-specific service attributes is a crucial
undertaking in establishing a theoretical and methodological consensus in this area.

Scafe improvement: When expectation and performance are to be measured in

studies similar to SERVQUAL, researchers must give serious consideration to recent
criticisms of the scales. Teas (1993) illustrated an example of the P-E computation
problems when expectation can be interpreted as importance. For example, the SQ
score could be +6 when the customer's perception score is a+7 and expectation a+ 1.
Also, the customer's perception and expectation scores could be a+7 equally, leading
toanSQscoreofzero. lnthiscase, thequalityoftheserviceforthetwosituationsshows
a dramatic difference based solely on expectations, regardless of performance.
A similar problem is indicated in a critical review of CS research whereby a "ceiling
effecr is illustrated (Yi, 1992). Consider the situation of a customer who scores on a 7-
point scale a 7 (very high or important) in the expectation variable on a certain attribute
and finds actual performance exceeding initial expectations. There is no way in this
case to rate the performance except as a 7, equaling one's initial expectation,
regardless of the exceeded portion of performance. The same situation can occur at
the lower end of the scale (a· "floor effecr). Clearly, there is a need to modify existing
scales or develop new scales (or measuring CS and SQ.
Development of reliable comparison criteria: Discriminant validity in measuring

expectations and performance should be established. Although earlier studies achieved
reasonable predictive power even with problems of discriminant validity, this predictive
power of CS and SQ models could be improved by understanding the theoretical base
of both expectations and performance evaluations. Clarifying the expectation criteria
is particularly important because expectation is believed to serve as the basis of
comparison for performance. It is not feasible to use several different criteria, as
suggested by past research, because the study would then be limited by serious
confounding effects in responses. Perhaps it is desirable to identify the most stable (or
frequent) criteria employed by customers in their decision making.
Assessment of reliability and validity: Future hospitality research should include

discussions of scale reliability and validity. In general, past CS and SQ studies in
hospitality have not thoroughly discussed the reliability and the validity issues of the
scales used in studies, even if there were numerous reliability and validity assessment
procedures. This reliability and validity assessment is particularly important when
theories and methodologies are borrowed from other domains of research, as in the
case of CS and SQ research in hospitality. One reason for the inclusion of reliability and
validity discussion is that the theories and methods originally developed in different
areas do not guarantee a good fit in the realm of hospitality research. This is especially
the case for CS theories and methodologies, initially developed in product consumption
situations.
Hospitality-specific pedagogy of CS and SQ researcfr. Cumulative efforts should

be made in a cumulative fashion so as to establish a strong hospitality-specific research
tradition. One way to establish a strong pedagogical body of knowledge is to generate
theoretically hospitality-specific hypotheses and test them rigorously in hospitality
settings. Previous hospitality research provides an abundance of basic exploratory

research such as attribute generation, descriptive analyses and introduction of other

models and theories, but often in an incomplete manner. Research that is more
investigative and discovery-oriented is demanded in future hospitality CS and SQ
research. Theory-driven generation of research hypotheses and subsequent rigorous
tests of these hypotheses should be the basis for building the results of one study upon
another. For example, the following questions emerge: Are the CS and SQ models
really tenable in hospitality consumption situations? Are the underlying causal dynam-
ics of CS processes the same between business and leisure travelers? Are customers'
SQ processing strategies the same in different restaurant categories? These and other
questions await systematic inquiry.
CONCLUSION
It is most gratifying to see an increasing interest in CS and SQ research in the
hospitality industry. Although this research interest is not completely new to the
industry, these paradigm-oriented efforts have been unprecedented. In an effort to
improve marketers' understanding of consumer behavior in the hospitality industry,
many researchers are introducing CS and SQ models and testing them with different
hospitality services. Nevertheless, their research efforts are still within the conventional
approach that has prevailed in the hospitality industry. The simple, and often incom-
plete, introduction of new research paradigms without critical consideration of theory
and methodology is delaying the development of hospitality-oriented CS and SQ
research pedagogy. It is time for hospitality researchers to emphasize domain-specific
theories and the legacy of a discovery-oriented research tradition to the next-
generation researchers.
This review was conducted to provide hospitality CS and SQ researchers with
more useful guidelines forfuture research that would result in more rigorous theoretical
and methodological progresses. The terms "satisfaction" and "quality" have been a
central hospitality management philosophy, and their importance continues with the
promise of a renewed, foreseeable prosperity for hospitality organizations of the future.
Nevertheless, hospitality research has not, on the whole, developed any substantive
theories and innovations. Partial responsibility for this inevitably lies with the method-
driven research traditions of the past. Without consideration for theoretical underpin-
nings as a priori, the outcomes only become ad hoe.
Throughout this review, an effort has been made to define a number of important
issues related to CS and SQ research. However, this review still leaves many more
issues unresolved. Hospitality researchers are encouraged to address the more
fundamental issues pending in their research agendas. More discussion and more
rigorous investigations are urged. Certainly, opportunities to build more productive
research paradigms abound, especially in the hospitality industry.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market
share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53-66.
Anderson, A. E. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expect-

ancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 38-

44.
Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B. (1976). Socia/indicators of well-being. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1977). Structural equation models in experimental research. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 209-26.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York, NY: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Barsky, J. D. (1992 a). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Meaning and
measurement. Hospitality Research Journal, 16, 51-73.
Barsky, J. D. (1992 b). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Meaning and
measurement. Dissertation, The Golden Gate University.
Barsky, J. D. and Labagh, R. (1992, October). A strategy for customer satisfaction. The
Come// Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32-40.
Bearden, W. 0. and Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction
and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 21-28.
Bojanic, D. C. and Rosen, L. D. (1994). Measuring service quality in restaurants: An
application of the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1),3-
14.
Bolton, R. N. and Drew, J. H. (1991 a). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service
changes on customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 55, 1-9.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process
model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of
Brewton, C. (1990). "Quality circles" can improve guest satisfaction. Hotel and Motel
Management, 205, A-36.
Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A. Jr. and Peter, J. P. (1993, Spring). Improving the
measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69, 127-139.
Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B. and Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Expectations and norms in
models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 305-314.
Callan, R. J. (1994). Development of a framework for the determination of attributes
used for hotel selection-indications from focus group and in-depth interviews.
Hospitality Research Journal, 18(2), 53-74.
Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Cardozo, R. N. (1965). An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 244-249.
Chon, K. S. (1989). Understanding recreational traveler's motivation: Attitude and
satisfaction. Revue de Tourisrne (The Tourist Review), 44(1), 3-7.
Chon, K. S. (1992 a). The role of destination image in tourism: an extension. Revue de
Tourisme (The Tourist Review), 47(1 ), 2-8.

Chon, K. S. (1992 b). Self-image/destination image congruity. Annals of Tourism

Research, 1~2), 360-76.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979, February). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. and Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the detenninants
of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 491-504.
Cohen, J. B. and Goldberg, M. E. (1970). The dissonance model in post-decision
product evaluation . Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 315-321.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951 ). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cronin, J. J. Jr. and Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination
and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Cronin, J. J. Jr. and Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling
perfonnance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of ser-
vice quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 125-131.
Czepiel. J. A., Rosenberg, R. J., and Akerele, A. (1974). Perspectives on consumer
satisfaction. AMA Educators' Proceedings, Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association, 119-123.
Day, R. L. (1977). Towardaprocessmodelofconsumersatisfaction. In H.K. Hunt(Ed.),
Conceptualization and measurement ofconsumersatisfaction and dissatisfaction
(pp. 239-252). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 153-183.
Dube, L., Renaghan, L. M. and Miller J. M. (1994, February). Measuring customer
satisfaction for strategic management. The Come/I Hotel and Restaurant Admin-
istration Quarterly, 39-47.
Edwards, C. C. (1992). Customer satisfaction: The driving force. HR Focus, 69, 17.
Engel, J. F. and Blackwell, R. D. (1982). Consumerbehavior. New York: Dryden Press.
Fishbein, M. andAjzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, andbehavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Florida Hotel & Motel Journal (1989). Survey: Greater attention needed for customer
satisfaction. 12, 12-13.
Getty, J. M. and Thompson, K. N. (1994). A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodging
quality. Journal of Hospitality Research, 18{2), 75-96.
Ginter, J. L. (1974, July). An experimental investigation of attitude change and choice
of a new brand. Journal of Marketing Research, 56, 55-68.
Gleick, J. (1988). Chaos: Making a new science. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Goering, P. A. (1985). Effects of producttrial on consumer expectations, demand, and
prices. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 74-82.
Greger, K. R. and Withiam, G. (1991 ). The view from the helm: Hotel execs examine
the industry. The Come/I Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32, 18-
35.

Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978, September). Conjoint analysis in consumer

research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.
Halstead, D. (1989). Expectations and disconfirmation beliefs as predictors of con-
sumer satisfaction, repurchase intention, and complaining behavior: An empirical
study. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2, 17-21.
Herzberg, F. B., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Hirst, M. (1992). Creating a service-driven culture globally. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4, i-iii.
Howard, J. D. and Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyerbehavior. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
HR Focus (1992 a). Quality, service, and people: Key issues for entrepreneurs. 69, 24.
HR Focus (1992 b). Quality movement grows, influences more paychecks. 69, 18.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation
modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 404-416.
Katona, G. (1979). Toward a macropsychology. American Psychologist, 34, 118-26.
Kirwin, P. (1992). Increasing sales and profits through guest satisfaction. The Come//
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33, 38-39.
Knutson, B. J. (1988). Ten laws of customer satisfaction. The Come// Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29, 14-17.
Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management analysis, planning, implementation, and
control, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfac-
tion/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of
Leavitt, C. (1977). Consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction: Bipolar or independent.
In H.K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction
and dissatisfaction (pp. 132-149). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological
forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Lewis, R. C. (1983, November). Getting the most from marketing research. The Come//
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 81-85.
Lewis, R. C. and Klein, D. M. (1987). The measurement of gaps in service quality. In
J.A. Czepiel, C.A. Congram and J. Shanahan (Eds.), The services challenge:
Integrating for competitive advantage. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Associa-
tion.
Lewis, R. C. and Pizam, A. (1981, November). Guest surveys: A missed opportunity.
The Come/I Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37-44.
Lilien, G. L., Kotler, P. and Moorthy, K. S. (1992). Marketing models. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Locke, E. A. (1967). Relationship of success and expectation to affect on goal seeking
tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2), 125-34.
Maddox, R. N. (1985, Winter). Measuring satisfaction with tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 2-5.
Mazis, M. B., Ahtola, 0. T. and Klippel, R. E. (1975, June). A comparison of four multi-
attribute models in the prediction of consumer attitudes. Journal of Consumer
Research, 2, 38-52.
Miller, J. A. (1977). Studying satisfaction, modifying models, eliciting expectations,
posing problems, and making meaningful measurements. In H.K. Hunt (Ed.),
Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction
(pp. 72-91 ). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Mitchell, T. R. (1974, December). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational
preference an effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Oliva, T. A., Oliver, R. L. and MacMillan, I. C. (1992). A catastrophe model for
developing service satisfaction strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56, 83-95.
Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effects of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure
product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
62(4), 480-486.
Oliver, R. L. (1979). Product satisfaction as a function of prior expectation and
subsequent disconfirmation: New evidence. New dimensions of consumer satis-
faction and complaining behavior, Day, R. L. and Hunt, H.K. (Eds.), Bloomington,
Indiana University, 66-71.
Oliver, R. L. (1980 a). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 46-49.
Oliver, R. L. (1980 b).Theoretical basis of consumer satisfaction research: Review,
critique, and future direction. In C.W. Lamb and P.M. Dunne (Eds.), Theoretical
development in marketing, pp. 206-210. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion.
Oliver, R. L. (1980 c).Conceptualization and measurement of disconfirmation percep-
tions in the prediction of consumer satisfaction. In H.K. Hunt (Ed.), Refining
concepts and measures of consumer satisfaction and complaining behavior, pp.
2-6. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Oliver, R. L. (1981 ). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail
settings. Journal of Retailing, 57, 25-48.
Oliver, R. L. (1987). An investigation of the interrelationship between consumer
(dis)satisfaction and complaining reports. In M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson
(Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 14, pp. 218-222. Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.
Hospitality Research journal 61

Oliver, R. L. and Bearden, W. 0. (1983). The role of involvement in satisfaction

processes. In Advances in Consumer Research, pp. 250-255. Ann Arbor, Ml:
Association for Consumer Research.
Oliver, R. L. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction
judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 495-507.
Oliver, R. L. and Linda, G. (1981 ). Effects of satisfaction and its antecedents on
consumer preference and intention. In K.B. Monror (Ed.), Advances in consumer
research, pp. 88-93. Ann Arbor, Ml: Association for Consumer Research.
Oliver, R. L. and Swan, J.E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 21-
35.
Olshavsky, R. W. and Krishnan, H. S. (1994). The dual role of emotions in consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction. A paper presented at the 1994 Annual Conference of
Journal of Consumer Research, Boston.
Olshavsky, R. W. and Miller, J. A. (1972). Consumer expectations, product perfor-
mance, and perceived product quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 19-21.
Olson, J. C. and Dover, P. (1979, April). Disconfirmation of consumer expectation
through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 179-189.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64, 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., and Ze~haml, V. A. (1991 ). Refinement and reassess-
ment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expecta-
tions as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for
further research. Journal of Marketing, 58, 111-124.
Peter,J. P., Churchill, G. A.Jr. and Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference
scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 655-662.
Pfaff, M. (1977, May). The index of consumer satisfaction: Measurement problems and
opportunities. In H.K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of con-
sumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction, pp. 36-71. Cambridge, MA: Marketing
Science Institute.
Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to a
destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 12, 197-209.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y. and Reichel, A. (1978, July/September). Dimensions of tourist
satisfaction with a destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, 315-322.
Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: I. perceived deficiencies in need
fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 375-384.

Ravenel, C. S. (1992). A new way to satisfy guests. Lodging Hospitality, 48, 32.
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991, July). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry
using the SERVQUAL model. The Service Industries Journal, 11, 324-343.
Shifflet, D. K. (1989). How are you doing? Measure guest satisfaction. Hotel & Resort
Industry, 12, 72.
Sirgy, J. M. (1982). Self-image/product image congruity and advertising strategy. In
Vinay Kothari (Ed.), Development in marketing science, Proceedings of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 5, 129-33.
Sirgy, J. M. (1983). Social cognition and consumer behavior. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Sirgy, J. M. {1984, Summer). A social cognition model of CS/D: An experiment.
Psychology and Marketing, 1, 27-44.
Sirgy, J. M. (1985). Self-image/product image congruity and consumer decision
making. International Journal of Marketing, 2(4), 49-63.
Sirgy, J.M. (1987). A social cognition model of consumer problem recognition. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(4), 53-61.
Spreng, R. A. and Mackoy, R. D. (1994). A dynamic model of affect, disconfirmation,
and satisfaction judgment. A paper presented at the 1994 Annual Conference of
Journal of Consumer Research, Boston.
Swan, J. E. and Trawick, I. F. (1981 ). Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction
with a retail service. Journal of Retailing, 57, 48-67.
Teas, R. K. (1993 a). Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived
service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8(2), 33-53.
Teas, R. K. (1993 b).Expectatio ns, performance evaluation, and consumers' percep-
tions of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, 18-34.
Teas, R. K. (1994). Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service
quality: An assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58, 132-139.
Thom, R. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis. Reading, MA: Benjamin, W.
A.
Tse, D. K. and Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An
extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 204-212.
Walker, J. R. (1988). The viability of quality assurance in hotels. Hospitality Education
and Research Journal, 12, 461-470.
Webster, C. (1991 ). Influences upon consumer expectations of services. The Journal
of Services Marketing, 5, 5-17.
Westbrook, R. A. (1980, Fall). A rating scale for measuring producVservice satisfaction.
Journal of Marketing, 44, 68-72.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). ProducVconsumption-based affective responses and
postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258-270.
Westbrook, R. A. and Newman, J. W. (1978). An analysis of shopper dissatisfaction for
Hospitality Research journal 63

major household appliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 456-466.

Westbrook, R. A. and Oliver, R. L. (1991 ). The dimensionality of consumption emotion
patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.
Withiam, G. (1991 ). Retraining everyone. The Come/I Hotel and Restaurant Adminis-
tration Quarterly, 32, 11.
Wolff, C. (1992). Making you feel at home. Lodging Hospitality, 48, 73-74.
Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R. and Jenkins, R. L. (1983). Modeling consumer
satisfaction processes using experience-based norms. Journal of Marketing
Research, 20, 296-304.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V.A. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review
of Marketing 1990, pp. 68-123. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 68-
123.
Zeeman, E. C. (1976, May). Catastrophe theory. Scientific Amerjcan, 234, 65-83.
Submitted October 25, 1995

First Revision Submitted March 25, 1996
Second Revision Submitted March 25, 1996
Accepted August 30, 1996
Refereed Anonymously
Haemoon Oh is a doctoral candidate at the School of Hotel, Restaurant, and

Recreation Management at Pennsylvania State University (201 Mateer Building,
University Park, PA 16802; HM0103@PSUBM.PS U.EDU) where Sara C. Parks is
an Associate Professor.
64 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER j • 1997

Cs and SQ

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

Cs and SQ

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND SERVICE

QUALITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE

Cl 1997 THE COUNCIL ON HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION

THEORIES EMBEDDED IN CS AND SQ RESEARCH

36 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Theoretical Underpinnings of CS Research

Hospitality Research Journal 37

State-of-the-Art CS and SQ Research in the Hospitality Literature

38 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Hospitality Research Journal 39

Chon (1992 a) provided an intensive literature review of tourist satisfaction. One

40 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CS AND SQ RESEARCH

Hospiulity Research journal 41

Issues Methods Reported Sllldies l:ommenU

Cardozo (1965), Olshavlky & Miller (1972), Andenon Moot llludiel

4-poinl Halslead (1989) Definitely would not

100-poinl Cardozo (1965) Very inferior-superior

Line Oliver (1981) Beeler· snd worse-than

3-Poinl uni. Halstead (1989) Notusoodu-be<ler

4-Poinl Halslead (1989) Very (dillulilfied

BI 4-poinl LaBarbera" Mu:unky (1983), Halllad (1989) Definildy will (noc)

42 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Issues Methods Reponed Studies Commenta

Dau bank Oliver et al. (1992) 89 consumer panel

WCllbroolt (1980b), OiurchlU A Surpmw1t (1982), Convergen1 and

Oliver (1980al, Westbrook (1980b), Oli•er A Linda Ran&ed variously from

Nore; E"" expectations, P =perceived performance. DC= subjective disconfirmation,

Measurements and scales

Hospiulity Research journal 43

prepurchase expectation and postpurchase perceived performance as the basis of

44 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Performance measure: Measurement of perfonnance does not seem to be

Hospitality Research Journal 45

Disconfirmation measure: Two types of disconfirmation measures are found in

Satisfaction measure: Typically, satisfaction has been measured on a single

46 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

three scales to measure tourist satisfaction. As a result, the OT (Delighted-Terrible)

Behavioral intention measure: Researchers have measured many behavioral

Hospitality Research Journal 47

48 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Hospitality Research Journal 49

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CS AND SQ RESEARCH

Changes in assumptions. The first observation in the CS literature addresses the

50 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Methodological advances: Structural equation modeling has been a widely

Market-level aggregation of CS: Modeling CS on the market level is yet another

Reassessments of SQ models: SQ research, SERVQUAL in particular

Hospitality Research Journal 51

THE CONCEPT OF IMPORTANCE AND ITS ROLE IN BEHAVIORAL MODELS

52 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Hospitality Research Journal 53

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE CS AND SQ RESEARCH IN HOSPITALITY

Integration of CS and SQ paradigms: Although the two paradigms measure

Methodological consensus: A need to establish a methodological consensus in

54 VOLUME 20 • NUMBER 3 • 1997

Simultaneous estimation of CS and SQ processes. A lack of modeling tech-

Incorporation of feedback processes: Further attention should be given to

Domain- and market-specific study design: Researchers need to pre-define

Hospitality Research Journal 55

Scafe improvement: When expectation and performance are to be measured in

Development of reliable comparison criteria: Discriminant validity in measuring

Assessment of reliability and validity: Future hospitality research should include