The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

MSQ
17,6 Culture and service quality
expectations
Evidence from Generation Y consumers in
656 Malaysia
Karen Kueh
Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak, Malaysia, and
Boo Ho Voon
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sarawak, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of individual-level cultural
dimensions on Generation Y consumers’ expectations of service quality.
Design/methodology/approach – Service quality and individual-level cultural values were
measured using existing scales from the literature. Factor analysis was conducted to verify the
factor structures of both constructs while structural equation modeling was employed to examine the
measures for cultural values and service quality dimensions.
Findings – Four out of the five hypotheses are supported and the last one is partially confirmed in
terms of directional support. Service quality expectations are positively related to uncertainty
avoidance and long-term orientation but negatively related to power distance. Masculinity and
collectivism did not have a significant relationship. Service quality was found to be a three-factor
construct consisting of tangibles, reliability and responsiveness/empathy/assurance. Cultural values
were confirmed to consist of five dimensions according to Hofstede’s typology. Generation Y
consumers are found to be low in power distance and have high expectations of service quality.
Research limitation/implications – The main limitations are that the study did not distinguish
between different types of full-service restaurants in its analysis and the sample consisted of
undergraduate students only.
Practical implications – The findings indicate the importance of measuring individual-level
cultural values which may be used as a segmentation variable to guide service delivery and resource
allocation.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the scant research on service quality among
Generation Y consumers in developing countries. It also assesses the five-factor structure of the
SERVQUAL scale in a new country setting, that is, Malaysia.
Keywords Customer services quality, Culture, Food service, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

Managing Service Quality
Vol. 17 No. 6, 2007
pp. 656-680
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-4529
DOI 10.1108/09604520710834993
Introduction
The importance of the services sector in the world economy is growing. As countries
become more developed and income levels rise, the observable trend, known as the
“hollowing out effect”, is that the emphasis of economic activity shifts from the
agricultural and manufacturing sectors to services (Lovelock et al., 2004). This makes
research on services increasingly important and relevant to the developing economies
in Asia which have enjoyed relatively high economic growth rates in the past decade.
The East Asia and Pacific region now accounts for 19 percent of global output (World
Bank, 2007). As such, a better understanding of consumer service expectations in the Culture and
region is potentially valuable to both marketing practitioners and researchers. In this service quality
study, we focus on the youth segment because they represent a significant market in
Asia. The number of young people aged 15-24 years in Asia has grown from 648 expectations
million in 1995 to 729 million in 2006, comprising 18.4 percent of the population (US
Census Bureau, 2006). Also known as Generation Y or millenials, youths of this
generation have significant spending power and wield considerable clout in purchase 657
decisions for their family as well as being savvy consumers themselves (Harris
Interactive, 2003; O’Donnell, 2006; AC Nielsen, 2006; Wilson, 2007). They are therefore
legitimate targets of research in services marketing (e.g. Yoon and Niehm, 2006;
Rugimbana, 2007).
Existing marketing literature also indicates that Generation Y is a key customer
segment for foodservice, not just in terms of market size but also due to their lifestyle
and consumption habits. Having grown up with takeout food, they eat out frequently,
are more adventurous in trying new restaurants compared to older diners and seek
environments that make them feel welcome with products and facilities that suit their
needs (Gale, 2007; Hume, 2007). In spite of this, empirical studies on the service
expectations of Generation Y consumers in the foodservice industry are few and the
role of consumers’ personal cultural values in this context has not been explored. This
highlights an area that warrants further study because prior research suggests that
culture has an impact on consumers’ expectations in service encounters (Winsted, 1997;
Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Mattila, 1999; Furrer et al., 2000; Laroche et al., 2004; Imrie,
2005; Kanousi, 2005; Kong and Jogaratnam, 2007, Tsoukatos and Rand, 2007). The
present study expands the understanding of service quality to the Generation Y market
in foodservice and a new country setting, that is, a developing Southeast Asian country
(Malaysia) by examining the influence of individual level cultural values on service
expectations. It therefore also contributes to the existing literature on services
marketing in developing countries which is still sparse.
One of the challenges in research on the relationship between culture and service
quality is the measurement of cultural values. While Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions have
been widely employed in many studies involving culture, the majority of them quote
country-level measurements of national culture from Hofstede’s work without
obtaining updated measurements of cultural values. Using national-level measures of
culture ignores the variability in cultural values among individuals in a country (Yoo
and Donthu, 2002). It also disregards differences in cultural values between different
age groups within the same country. Thus, there is a need to identify suitable
instruments to measure individual-level cultural values. Research in this area is
noticeably absent other than a handful of studies (e.g. Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer
et al., 2000; Yoo and Donthu, 2002; Kanousi, 2005), and the scales that have been
proposed lack follow-up studies to provide additional empirical validation. In addition,
little has been done to empirically test the factor structure of Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions as the majority of marketing research studies rely on his measurements of
national culture without collecting primary data on cultural values. The first objective
of this study is therefore to provide empirical evidence in order to establish the
reliability and validity of a measurement instrument for personal cultural values in the
context of marketing research. The psychometric properties of a scale previously
MSQ developed by Yoo and Donthu (2002) are assessed and at the same time, the factor
17,6 structure of Hofstede’s dimensions is empirically verified.
The second objective of this study is to validate the use of the SERVQUAL scale
(Parasuraman et al., 1988) as a measurement model for the service quality expectations
of young Malaysian consumers in foodservice. This study assesses whether a
replication of the SERVQUAL scale in the current context produces the theoretical
658 five-factor model. Although the SERVQUAL instrument has been widely used to
measure service quality in a variety of industries, its development and validation took
place mainly in the USA and other Western countries. Scales that work in Western
cultures may not perform comparably in other cultures (Malhotra et al., 1996; Smith
and Reynolds, 2001; Ueltschy and Krampf, 2001; Ueltschy et al., 2002) and efforts to
replicate the factor structure of SERVQUAL have not always been successful in
samples from Asian countries (e.g. Kettinger et al., 1995; Raven and Welsh, 2004; Arasli
et al., 2005; Jabnoun and Khalifa, 2005). SERVQUAL as a measurement of service
quality therefore requires ongoing validation in different cultural settings.
The third objective is to examine the relationship between individual-level cultural
values and service quality expectations among young Malaysian foodservice
consumers. Malaysia is chosen as a sample case of a developing, Asian country and
diverse cultural setting. There are 4.6 million youths in Malaysia aged 15-24 years
representing 19 percent of the population (US Census Bureau, 2006). The Malaysian
economy has been experiencing strong growth with real gross domestic product (GDP)
expanding by 5.9 percent in 2006, an improvement from 5.2 percent in 2005 (Central
Bank of Malaysia, 2006). Growth is expected to remain strong in 2007 at 5.6 percent
(Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, 2007). The services sector is an important
contributor to economic growth, expanding by 6.5 percent in 2006. The wholesale and
retail trade, hotels and restaurants sub-sector was the largest contributor to GDP
within the services sector. Its share of GDP rose from 12.1 percent in 1980 to 14.2
percent in 2005 (Public Bank, 2005). For the last quarter of 2006, the hotels and
restaurants sub-sector experienced a growth rate of 5.2 percent (Aseansources.com,
2006). Research shows that the demand for food away from home (FAFH) has a
high-income elasticity in Malaysia (Radam et al., 2006). This underscores the
importance of the foodservice industry to the economy as both living standards and
consumer incomes continue to rise (Euromonitor International, 2007). Eating out is
common in Malaysia as a result of relatively cheap food prices and the wide variety of
cuisine. It is also becoming an indispensable part of the youth lifestyle as they seek
convenience, time saving and relaxation by patronizing foodservice outlets. Due to the
importance of the youth market in this industry, it appears worthwhile to explore the
service expectations of this segment in relation to their cultural values.

Literature review
Service quality
Service quality is a central issue in services marketing and has been discussed in a
number of writings (e.g. Lewis and Booms, 1983; Grönroos, 1984) even before the
well-known SERVQUAL research by Parasuraman et al. (1985). It is generally agreed
that service quality is more difficult for consumers to evaluate as compared to the
quality of tangible goods. It is therefore not surprising that service researchers have
listed a variety of service quality determinants (e.g. Albrecht and Zemke, 1985;
Parasuraman et al., 1985; Grönroos, 1990; Johnston, 1997). Sasser et al. (1978) argued Culture and
that service performance could be categorized into three levels, namely, material, service quality
facilities, and personnel. They suggested that evaluation of service quality should be
based on the manner the service was delivered. Grönroos (1984) postulated two types expectations
of service quality: technical quality (i.e. what the customers actually received from the
service), and functional quality (i.e. the manner in which the service is delivered). More
recently, he proposes that service quality can be described in terms of professionalism 659
and skills, attitudes and behaviour, accessibility and flexibility, reliability and
trustworthiness, service recovery, servicescape, reputation and credibility (Grönroos,
2000). Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1991) suggested that service quality is produced through
the interaction between the customers and elements of the service organization. They
claimed that there are three service quality dimensions, namely, physical quality,
corporate quality and interactive quality. The last dimension recognizes that service
quality arises from the interaction between the service provider and service receiver
and is therefore necessary to supplement the customer-centered view of service quality
which has been the dominant paradigm to date (Svensson, 2006).
Despite the variety of proposed definitions, the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman
et al., 1985, 1988) remains the most widely adapted and tested conceptualization of
service quality. According to the model, service quality can be measured by comparing
the service expectations of customers with their perceptions of actual performance. The
SERVQUAL instrument uses 22 questions to measure both expectations and
perceptions covering five service dimensions, namely, reliability, responsiveness,
tangibles, assurance and empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Reliability refers to
accurate, dependable and consistent performance of the service. Responsiveness means
being prompt and willing to serve the customer. The physical service aspects such as
appearance of employees, equipment and facilities are classified as tangibles. The
dimension of assurance comprises the competence, courtesy and credibility of staff
which generate customer trust and confidence. Lastly, empathy involves caring and
personalized attention as well as understanding customer needs and convenient access
to the service.
The SERVQUAL instrument has been widely applied in studies covering a variety
of service industries such as healthcare, public services, higher education,
telemarketing, and banking. There are also applications in different cultural
contexts (e.g. Johnson and Sirikit, 2002; Kassim and Bojei, 2002; Arasli et al., 2005;
Jabnoun and Khalifa, 2005, Voon, 2006). Nevertheless, it has generated criticisms in
terms of its basic methodology and conceptualization (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Teas
(1993) questions the validity of the way SERVQUAL conceptualizes and measures
expectations while Babakus and Boller (1992) identify the use of gap scores and
mixed-item wording as two of the major problems. Furthermore, different industries
vary in terms of the service quality dimensions that are relevant (Carman, 1990;
Babakus and Mangold, 1992). As such, the instrument may need to be adapted for use
in different industries or settings.
Nonetheless, SERVQUAL remains popular whereby many researchers have used it
as the starting point in measuring service quality. There have been numerous studies
investigating service quality in the foodservice industry (e.g. Stevens et al., 1995) that
applied or adapted the gap model of Parasuraman et al. (1985) which measures quality
based on the differences or gaps between customer’s expectations and their perceptions
MSQ of the service performance. In the specific context of the hospitality industry such as
17,6 restaurant services, extensions of SERVQUAL are also found. For instance, Stevens
et al. (1995) adapted SERVQUAL to the restaurant industry and called it DINESERV.
Based on a survey of casual dining, fine dining and quick-service restaurants, they
found that reliability was most important among restaurant consumers, followed by
tangibles, assurance, responsiveness and empathy. The SERVQUAL instrument was
660 also applied by Johns and Tyas (1996) to the catering sector where their findings
revealed that competitive differentiation among food caterers was based on prompt
service, reliability, staff behaviours and attractive appearance of facilities, food and
staff. Heung et al. (2000) adapted the DINESERV scale to study desired service levels,
adequate service levels and perceived performance in four types of restaurants
(Chinese, casual dining, full service and quick service) in an airport in Hong Kong.
They found that regardless of the type of restaurant, customers desired convenience in
operating hours, cleanliness, politeness, courtesy, well-dressed employees and readable
menus.
These studies show that the SERVQUAL dimensions have been found to be useful
and relevant in studying service quality in the restaurant industry. However, they
focus largely on the measurement of service quality for service improvement purposes.
What remains poorly researched is how consumers’ cultural orientations influence
their evaluations of service quality.

Culture and the link with service evaluations

Many authors have attempted to present a concise meaning of what culture is. For
instance, according to Gupta (2003, p. 69):
. . . culture may be defined as a way of life, cultivated beliefs, learned behaviours, shared
mental programmes, compelling ideologies, and inter-related symbols whose meanings
provide a set of orientations for members of a society, and are transmitted by them.
Robbins and Stylianou (2001, p. 3) on the other hand offer the following definition:
Culture can be defined as a shared set of values that influence societal perceptions, attitudes,
preferences, and responses.
In addition to these, there are a multitude of other definitions and interpretations of
culture. As acknowledged by Kale (1991), the many definitions offered by the literature
present difficulties in arriving at a universally-accepted definition of culture.
Nonetheless, implicit in many of these definitions is the fact that culture influences the
belief system and perceptions of consumers, and subsequently, their behaviour. In the
context of marketing, consumers’ cultural values affect their expectations and
perceptions of products or services, and therefore, their purchase choices and buying
behaviour. Companies therefore need to consider the influence of culture in the way
they serve their customers and market their products. Indeed, there have been many
studies showing the influence of culture on advertisements (Cho et al., 1999; Bang et al.,
2005), corporate web sites (Robbins and Stylianou, 2001; Singh and Matsuo, 2004;
Singh et al., 2005), new product acceptance (Yeniyurt and Townsend, 2003; Singh,
2006), retailers’ perceptions of personal selling (Fam and Merrilees, 1998), service
recovery expectations (Poon et al., 2004; Kanousi, 2005), consumer complaint behaviour
(Liu and McClure, 2001) and evaluations of service encounters (Winsted, 1997; Mattila,
1999; Stauss and Mang, 1999).
 In attempting to capture and explain systematic differences between cultures of Culture and
different societies, culture-level cultural frameworks are necessary to provide a service quality
rigorous basis for research (Steenkamp, 2001; Singh et al., 2005). One of the earliest
ones was by Hall who discussed cultural differences in terms of time, space, expectations
communication context and friendships (Hall, 1960; Schneider and Barsoux, 2003).
More recently, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) proposed three dimensions
of culture, namely, relationship with nature, people and time. However, Hofstede’s 661
framework is the only one that has received widespread empirical application and
despite the fact that Hofstede originally studied the work values of IBM employees, its
popularity and usefulness in international marketing studies is well documented (Kale,
1991; Cho et al., 1999; Steenkamp, 2001; Singh et al., 2005).
Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 2005, p. 4). From 1967 to 1973, he collected responses to over 116,000
questionnaires distributed to IBM employees in 20 languages and 72 countries. From
these, the cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance
and masculinity were derived. In the 1980s, a fifth dimension of long-term orientation
was added based on the Bond’s Chinese Value Survey (Hofstede, 2001).
There is evidence to suggest that cultural dimensions have a significant effect on
consumers’ evaluations of service encounters. Mattila (1999) found that Asian leisure
travelers had higher service expectations and desired greater levels of personal
attention due to larger power distance. Consequently they gave poorer ratings of brief
routine service encounters as exemplified by the check-out service at a hotel compared
to Western travelers who had lower expectations of personalized service delivery.
Winsted (1997) studied the types of behavioural dimensions which restaurant
customers would use to evaluate service encounters and found differences between
American and Japanese consumers. In line with the greater emphasis on the role of the
individual and equality of status in American society, the American sample
highlighted behaviours related to friendliness, promptness, being personal and
authentic and having a positive attitude. On the other hand, due to high status
consciousness and group orientation, Japanese consumers emphasized behaviours
such as caring, kindness and formality. The study indicated that customers in different
countries evaluate good service in different ways and therefore, measures and scales
developed in one culture may not always work as well in other cultures.
Liu and McClure (2001) investigated cross-cultural differences in consumer
complaining behaviour between an individualist culture, the USA, and a collectivist
culture, South Korea. They found empirical evidence that dissatisfied consumers in a
collectivist culture are less likely to voice their dissatisfaction compared to consumers
in an individualist culture, but are more likely to engage in private behaviours (either
exit or negative word-of-mouth). This was seen as being consistent with the norms in
collectivist cultures to avoid public expressions of negative emotions in order to save
face and maintain group harmony as well as to avoid unnecessary interactions with
out-groups such as businesses.
Poon et al. (2004) compared attributions on negative service encounters between
Canadian and Chinese consumers and found that these were significantly affected by
cultural values. Chinese consumers, being more fatalistic, are more likely to believe
that the service firm does not have control over the negative event and therefore, they
MSQ need more assurance (through explanations and compensation) that the event will not
17,6 recur.
Laroche et al. (2004) did a cross-cultural comparison of perceptions of service quality
and satisfaction for a dental service between Canada, Japan and the USA. They found
that under conditions of low service performance, Japanese respondents reported
significantly higher service quality perceptions and satisfaction than Canadian or
662 American respondents. This was attributed to the desire in collectivist cultures to
maintain harmony in relationships, thereby inhibiting the expression of negative
emotions such as dissatisfaction. The study further noted that due to differences in
response styles and interpretation of items, not all measures of service quality and
satisfaction are equivalent across cultures.
A few studies have explicitly utilised Hofstede’s framework of cultural dimensions.
Kanousi (2005) examined the effect of Hofstede’s dimensions on service recovery
expectations and found that individualism, masculinity and long-term orientation did
affect certain aspects of service recovery expectations. Malhotra et al. (1994) asserted
that there would be differences in service quality perceptions between customers in
developed and developing countries due to differences in the economic and
socio-cultural environment and also hypothesized that power distance and
collectivism would be related to the service quality dimensions of competence,
courtesy, communication and credibility. A follow-up study by Malhotra et al. (2005)
found empirical support for many of these hypotheses.
In one of the few studies to relate Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to service quality
dimensions using the SERVQUAL scale, Donthu and Yoo (1998) tested the effect of
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism and long-term orientation on bank
consumers’ expectations of service quality. Masculinity was not tested as the authors
did not feel it would have any strong relationship with service expectations. They
found that customers with higher service quality expectations were those who were
short-term oriented, individualistic, low on power distance and high on uncertainty
avoidance. Low power distance consumers also had higher expectations of reliability
and responsiveness while individualistic customers had higher expectations of
empathy and assurance.
Furrer et al. (2000) extended Donthu and Yoo’s (1998) study to investigate the
correlation between each of Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions with the five
SERVQUAL dimensions in relation to banking services and used these to identify five
different customer segments based on their service quality expectations. Their study
focused on weak customers who were frequent users of the service and more often
served by a female employee. Their results showed that weak customers in large power
distance cultures placed less importance on reliability, empathy and responsiveness.
This is because weak customers do not expect much and are more tolerant of failure
from powerful service providers. As for individualist customers, it was found that they
emphasize reliability, responsiveness and tangibles but because of their greater
self-confidence, they have less need of assurance or empathy. There was little empirical
evidence in the study to show that masculinity had any significant effect on service
dimensions other than a weak positive relationship with tangibles and a negative
relationship with responsiveness. For customers of high uncertainty avoidance in
frequent service situations, all dimensions of service quality except tangibles are
important to reduce uncertainties of service failure. For long-term oriented customers,
reliability and responsiveness were found to be important whereas assurance and Culture and
tangibles are of less importance due to the expectations of close and enduring service quality
relationships with service providers. A limitation of this study as acknowledged by the
authors themselves is that their findings are restricted to frequent service situations expectations
involving weak customers and female service providers. To advance knowledge in the
area, further research needs to be conducted in other service settings.
Tsoukatos and Rand (2007) conducted a similar study as Furrer et al. (2000) in 663
Greek retail insurance. They characterised the industry as involving infrequent service
situations with weak customers who were mainly served by female employees.
Tangibles were excluded from the study as it was felt to be unimportant in Greek retail
insurance. They found power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance to be
inversely related to reliability, responsiveness and assurance. Long term orientation
was only significantly related to reliability while uncertainty avoidance had no
significant correlation with any dimension of service quality. While their study also
found that the importance of service quality dimensions is affected by the cultural
profiles of customers, there is a limitation in the methodology used. There was no
attempt to confirm the factor structure of Hofstede’s dimensions and the relationships
between the dimensions of service quality and culture were examined using Pearson’s
correlation. Our study employs a more rigorous methodology using structural equation
modeling to verify the dimensions of the cultural values and service quality constructs
as well as the relationships between them.

Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

In Malaysia, foodservice premises include restaurants, street stalls and pubs/bars.
Restaurants may be either limited-service or full-service facilities and involve limited,
medium-contact encounters between customers and service providers. In
limited-service restaurants, customers give their orders at a counter and pay
immediately (Davis and Steward, 2002). In the Malaysian context, this includes
fast-food chains such as McDonald’s and Pizza Hut as well as cafeteria-style outlets.
Full-service restaurants have table service and generally have more elaborate dining
amenities and décor (Davis and Steward, 2002). This study examines expectations for
full-service restaurants as the type of service and facilities provided in such
establishments fit better with the SERVQUAL instrument.

Power distance
Power distance is “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and
organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”
(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005, p. 46). In large power distance societies, hierarchy and
inequalities among people are both expected and desired. There tends to be more
inequalities in power and wealth. The powerful are entitled and expected to have status
symbols and privileges while the less powerful are expected to be dependent on the
more powerful.
According to Donthu and Yoo (1998), service providers generally have some degree
of power over their customers. In the case of restaurant services, customers are
dependent on the service provider in terms of the expertise and equipment used in meal
preparation and table service. Indeed, Generation Y customers depend on the
restaurant as an alternative to preparing their own meals. Higher power distance
MSQ customers are more willing to accept being dependent on someone with more power
17,6 than them in a certain situation. They will therefore have more respect for the
restaurant employees, be more tolerant of service failure and consequently have lower
service quality expectations compared to low power distance customers (Donthu and
Yoo, 1998).
H1. Power distance will be negatively related to all dimensions of service quality
664 (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy).

Individualism and collectivism

Individualist societies are those in which “the interests of the individual prevail over
the interests of the group” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005, p. 75). They are characterized
by self-orientation, identity based on the individual, low-context communication,
emotional independence from institutions or organizations, emphasis on individual
achievement, privacy and autonomy. In contrast, collectivist societies emphasize
belonging to in-groups to which one is expected to remain loyal throughout one’s
lifetime. It is considered important to maintain social harmony and to avoid direct
confrontation. Collectivist customers desire harmony and interdependence in social
relationships (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). They will therefore be more tolerant of
mistakes and have lower expectations of reliability but will have a greater need for the
service provider to show empathy, assurance and responsiveness. They will also have
a greater need to be assured of the quality of service by using tangibles as surrogate
evidence.
H2. Collectivism will be negatively related to reliability but positively related to
tangibles, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.

Masculinity
Masculinity and femininity are defined by Hofstede as referring to “the dominant
gender role patterns (Hofstede, 2001, p. 284) in society. Masculine societies emphasize
assertiveness and material success in men while women are supposed to be more
tender and caring. Masculine cultures stress ambition, results and rewards based on
performance. Feminine cultures are more concerned with equality, welfare, quality of
life, compromise and negotiation.
Furrer et al. (2000) hypothesized that masculinity would affect service expectations
depending on whether the service provider is male or female. Nonetheless, this
hypothesis was not fully supported by their findings. We believe that the gender of the
service provider is less important than the type of values required by the job itself. As
stated by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), jobs in which human contact is at the core
require feminine values regardless of whether the employee is a man or woman. In the
case of restaurants, feminine values such as friendliness, caring and helpfulness are
required from both male and female service providers, and customers would not expect
poorer service just because the employee is a male.
H3. Masculinity will not be significantly related to any of the service quality
dimensions.
Uncertainty avoidance Culture and
Uncertainty avoidance refers to “the extent to which the members of a culture feel service quality
threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005, p.
167). High uncertainty avoidance societies have a need for rules to reduce ambiguity, expectations
prefer structure in organizations and relationships, have low tolerance for behaviors
and ideas that are different and have more resistance to change.
Furrer et al. (2000) claim that in frequent service situations, customers seek to 665
reduce perceived risks of service failure rather than to reduce ambiguity. Tangibles are
therefore less important in reducing these risks. We argue that even in frequent service
situations, there is still the uncertainty that future service will not be of the same
quality compared to what the customer has received in the past. This is likely to be the
case for services such as restaurants which involve medium to high-level of human
contact where it is more difficult to maintain a consistent level of service quality.
Tangibles play a role in assuring customers that the service quality is being
maintained. If the appearance of facilities and staff has deteriorated, this could very
likely cause customers to begin doubting the quality of the service itself. For
restaurants, the physical environment is a key component of the service experience.
Customers are therefore likely to use tangibles together with the other service quality
dimensions as a means to reduce their uncertainty regarding the quality of the service,
regardless of the frequency of the service situation. In this regard, it is expected that
high uncertainty avoidance customers will have higher expectations in all service
quality dimensions as they are more cautious and do not like unpleasant surprises.
H4. Uncertainty avoidance will be positively related to all dimensions of service
quality (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy).

Long-term orientation (Confucian dynamism)

The fifth dimension, long-term orientation, was originated from a survey of Chinese
values conducted on university students in 22 countries (Chinese Culture Connection,
1987). Long-term oriented societies look towards the future and value perseverance,
thrift, adaptiveness, self-discipline, virtue and having a sense of shame. Short-term
oriented societies are more oriented towards the past and present whereby their norms
include belief in quick results, social pressure to spend, concern with personal stability
and valuing freedom, achievement and truth. Long-term oriented consumers
emphasise perseverance and sustained efforts (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). As
they are future-oriented, they will also look for evidence that it is worthwhile to return
to the same service provider in future. As such, they will have higher expectations of
service quality in all dimensions.
H5. Long-term orientation will be positively related to all dimensions of service
quality (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy).
Figure 1 summarises the theoretical framework for the variables to be examined.

Methodology
This paper presents the findings of an exploratory study carried out in Malaysia. The
main purpose was to examine the influence of individual-level cultural dimensions on
Generation Y consumers’ expectations of service quality, specifically in the foodservice
industry. The structured questionnaire survey method was used to collect data on the
MSQ
17,6

666

Figure 1.
Dimensions of cultural
values and service quality
expectations

self-evaluated cultural values (independent variable) and service quality expectations

(dependent variable).

Research instrument
The individual-level cultural values were operationalised using Yoo and Donthu’s
(2002) 26-item scale which adapted Hofstede’s work-oriented items of national culture.
The scale has been found to display adequate reliability and validity in measuring
Hofstede’s dimensions of culture at the individual level (Yoo and Donthu, 2002). The
cultural values items for power distance, collectivism, masculinity and uncertainty
avoidance were evaluated on a seven-point Likert-type scale anchored as 1 ¼ Strongly
disagree and 7 ¼ Strongly agree while the Confucian dynamism items were evaluated
as 1 ¼ Strongly unimportant and 7 ¼ Strongly important.
Service quality expectations were assessed based on the 22 items of the
SERVQUAL scale using a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to
7 ¼ Strongly agree. The version used was adapted to the restaurant industry by Yun
and Hing (1995). Expectations are defined as “predictions of what is likely to happen”
(Walker, 1995, p. 6) and form the standards against which actual performance will be
judged (Bearden and Teel, 1983). In this study, the type of expectations measured is
predictive expectations or what is likely to happen rather than normative expectations
or what should happen (Boulding et al., 1993; Spreng et al., 1996). This is in line with
the revised SERVQUAL questionnaire in which the authors of SERVQUAL changed
the original “should” terminology to “would” because they acknowledged that
measuring “should” expectations might result in unrealistically high scores
(Parasuraman et al., 1991).

Data collection
The data for this structured questionnaire survey was collected from students
attending pre-university and undergraduate programmes at two Malaysian
universities (one private and one public university). These youths were intentionally
chosen as they were good representations of the Generation Y within the appropriate Culture and
age group. No mature student was included in the study. Aside from this, these student service quality
samples also constitute a reasonably homogenous group from a demographic
standpoint in terms of occupation, education level and age (Furrer et al., 2000; Laroche expectations
et al., 2004; Kanousi, 2005). The survey instrument was in English as this is the main
medium of instruction for the students who participated in the survey. A total of 470
self-completion questionnaires were distributed to the randomly selected classes of 667
students. The personal-contact method was used and lecturers were responsible for the
distributions. Only students who were willing to participate in the survey were given
the questionnaire. The duly completed questionnaires were returned to pre-assigned
collection boxes. Hence, the whole data collection process was anonymous. After two
weeks of fieldwork, a total of 240 usable questionnaires were obtained and the response
rate was 51.1 percent. The sample consisted of 61 males (25.4 percent) and 179 females
(74.6 percent).

Results and analysis

The data collected was first carefully screened for missing values. Seven cases with
randomly missing values were found whereby these cases were deleted as they
comprised less than 5 percent of the sample (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Univariate
outliers were identified as those with standardized scores exceeding 3.29 (Tabachnick
and Fidell, 2001). These were cases with extreme scores that nonetheless appeared to
be a legitimate part of the sample, therefore they were retained but steps were taken to
reduce their impact by changing the score on the outlier by one unit larger (or smaller)
to be less deviant. This is considered a viable method of dealing with univariate
outliers since the measurement of variables is often arbitrary to begin with
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Mahalanobis distance was computed to check for
multivariate outliers. Only a minimal number of cases were found and these were
retained as deleting a large number of outliers may risk limiting the generalizability of
the results (Hair et al., 1998). Furthermore, transformation or score alteration may not
be effective for multivariate outliers as it is the combination of scores on two or more
variables that is aberrant rather than the score on a particular variable (Tabachnick
and Fidell, 2001).
The data was also screened for normality using critical values for skewness and
kurtosis. Kurtosis was not found to be a significant problem. On the other hand, a large
number of variables were skewed. This is not surprising because for samples that
come from the same cultural background, some degree of homogeneity would be
expected in their responses. In other words, their responses for cultural values would
be expected to cluster around a certain value on the scale. For instance, collectivistic
societies would be expected to have above-average ratings on the collectivism scale
rather than a normal distribution. Likewise, if culture affects service quality
expectations as hypothesised, groups that are culturally similar should have similar
levels of service quality expectations, hence the service quality responses would also
not be normally distributed. As such, instead of transforming the data, bootstrapping
will be used to generate parameter estimates since it does not require the assumption of
normality (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).
To assess the factor structure, exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Principal
component method was used with varimax rotation for the cultural values scale while
MSQ oblique rotation was used for the service quality scale as the dimensions are expected
17,6 to have inter-correlations (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Cronin
and Taylor, 1992). Items with factor loadings above 0.4 (Hair et al., 1998), eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 (Hair et al., 1998) and factors with at least three indicator items
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996) were retained.
Variables with similar loadings on more than one factor were deleted (Hair et al., 1998),
668 as were items that did not conceptually belong to the factor. Coefficient alphas and
item-to-total correlations were computed each time items were deleted (Flynn and
Pearcy, 2001, Choi et al., 2004).
A three-factor structure for the service quality scale was obtained explaining 53.91
percent of the overall variance. The responsiveness, assurance and empathy items
loaded onto the same dimension. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy was 0.906, higher than the recommended value of 0.6 and above (Tabachnick
and Fidell, 2001) while the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p , 0:001,
thus indicating that the sample size was adequate for factor analysis. The items on the
cultural values scale loaded as expected onto five dimensions corresponding to the
theory and explaining 59.68 percent of the variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
of sampling adequacy was 0.784 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at
p , 0:001 indicating the suitability of the sample for factor analysis. Table I shows the
scale reliabilities and factor loadings obtained from the exploratory factor analysis. All
the individual scales met the minimum reliability threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994; Hair et al., 1998). Descriptive statistics of the service quality and
cultural values items are reported in Appendices A and B respectively.
The exploratory factor analysis was then followed by a confirmatory factor analysis
to further evaluate and refine the scales (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Items with
standardized loadings below 0.50 were eliminated while maintaining a minimum of
three indicators per dimension. These consisted of item 1 for tangibles, item 7 for
responsiveness/ assurance/empathy and item 1 for collectivism. The final results
indicate a reasonable level of fit as a number of fit statistics were within the generally
acceptable limits: x2¼860.57, df¼601, x2 /df¼1.432, p , 0:001; CFI¼0.92; TLI¼0.91;
IFI¼0.92; RMSEA¼0.043; SRMR¼0.058. Bollen-Stine bootstrap p ¼ 0:074, thus the
model is accepted at the 0.05 significant level. Table II shows the standardized loadings
for the scale items.
The hypotheses are tested through the intercorrelations of the constructs in the
measurement model. As shown in Table III, power distance is negatively correlated
with all dimensions of service quality ranging from 0.0160 (p , 0:05) to 0.341
(p , 0:001). This supports H1. Both collectivism and masculinity are not significantly
related to all the dimensions of service quality. This provides support for H3 but only
directional support for the dimensions of responsiveness/assurance/empathy and
tangibles in H2. Uncertainty avoidance and Confucian dynamism are all significantly
and positively correlated with all the service quality dimensions. Therefore, H4 and H5
are supported.

Discussion and implications

This study contributes to our larger understanding of culture and service quality in a
number of areas (see Tables IV and V. First, it underscores the importance of obtaining
individual-level measurements of cultural values rather than relying on country-level
 Cronbach Item-to-total Factor
Culture and
Scale items alpha correlation loadings service quality
Cultural values
expectations
Collectivism 0.723
1. Sacrifice self-interest for the group 0.433 0.656
2. Stick with the group even through difficulties 0.509 0.710 669
3. Group welfare is more important than individual
rewards 0.630 0.826
4. Group success is more important than individual
success. 0.493 0.723
Uncertainty avoidance 0.843
1. It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail 0.541 0.716
2. It is important to closely follow instructions and
procedures 0.670 0.788
3. Rules/regulations are important to me 0.713 0.828
4. Standardized work procedures are helpful 0.666 0.767
5. Instructions for operations are important 0.665 0.755
Masculinity 0.798
1. It is more important for men to have a professional
career 0.618 0.773
2. Men solve problems with logical analysis, women with
intuition 0.708 0.819
3. Solving difficult problems usually requires an active
forcible approach which is typical of men 0.628 0.739
4. There are some jobs that a man can always do better 0.514 0.691
Power distance 0.832
1. People in higher positions should make most decisions
without consulting people in lower positions 0.586 0.693
2. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions
of people in lower positions too frequently 0.613 0.675
3. People in higher positions should avoid social
interaction with people in lower positions 0.705 0.806
4. People in higher positions should not delegate
important tasks to people in lower positions 0.611 0.747
5. People in lower positions should not disagree with
decisions made by people in higher positions 0.647 0.805
Long-term orientation 0.755
1. Careful management of money (thrift) 0.461 0.624
2. Going on resolutely in spite of opposition (persistence) 0.482 0.707
3. Personal steadiness and stability 0.613 0.741
4. Long-term planning 0.610 0.736
5. Working hard for success in future 0.460 0.663
Overall coefficient alpha 0.798

Service quality expectations

Tangibles 0.744
1. Modern-looking equipment 0.453 0.797 Table I.
2. Visually attractive physical facilities 0.627 0.766 Reliability and factor
3. Neat appearance of staff 0.498 0.527 analysis on cultural
4. Visually attractive materials 0.621 0.703 values and service
(continued) quality expectations
MSQ
Cronbach Item-to-total Factor
17,6 Scale items alpha correlation loadings

Reliability 0.773
1. Genuine interest in solving customers’ problem 0.598 0.808
2. Performs service right the first time 0.584 0.714
670 3. Provides service at the time it promises to do so 0.604 0.637
4. Error-free service 0.525 0.408
Responsiveness, assurance and empathy 0.860
1. Prompt service 0.614 0.606
2. Willingness to help 0.631 0.695
3. Never too busy to respond to requests 0.553 0.587
4. Customers feel safe in their transactions 0.561 0.562
5. Knowledge to answer customers’ questions 0.592 0.687
6. Individual attention to customers’ needs 0.659 0.687
7. Convenient operating hours 0.461 0.579
8. Personal attention 0.611 0.859
9. Have customers’ best interests at heart 0.609 0.624
Table I. Overall coefficient alpha 0.896

scores. This is because although Malaysia was ranked No. 1 in terms of power distance
in Hofstede’s country scores (Hofstede, 2001), the power distance scores in this study
(in Table V) were below the mid-point of the scale (mean of 3.14) and were in fact the
lowest among all the cultural dimensions. The discrepancy is not surprising given that
Hofstede’s data was collected from 1967-1973 and was based on samples of IBM
employees whereas our sample consists of young consumers in 2007. Fam and
Merrilees (1998) also found differences between Hofstede’s 1970 measures and data on
collectivism which they collected in 1995 for Australia and Hong Kong. They found
that in comparison to Hofstede’s scores, Australia was becoming more collectivist
while Hong Kong was becoming more individualist. Similarly, Tsoukatos and Rand
(2007) discovered differences between their measurements of individual level cultural
values and Hofstede’s scores. Since country scores may vary from the score of a
specific segment in the society (Kale, 1991), our study has highlighted the need for
researchers to collect contemporary data on cultural values of individuals. In line with
this, the present study has supplied evidence to validate the use of an instrument to
measure individual-level cultural values. Yoo and Donthu’s (2002) scale was found to
provide reliable and valid measures of cultural values. In addition, Hofstede’s cultural
framework has been given empirical support through this study in which the cultural
value items loaded as expected onto the theoretical five factors. We have therefore
answered the call for more precise measurements of culture which is especially
relevant given the global nature of services in the current marketplace (Tsoukatos and
Rand, 2007).
The failure of the SERVQUAL dimensions to fit the five-factor structure is in line
with previous literature (Buttle, 1996), especially the tendency for overlap between the
dimensions of responsiveness, empathy and assurance (Asubonteng et al., 1996). In the
present study, all three dimensions loaded onto the same factor resulting in a
three-factor solution. Previous studies have also produced three-factor structures. For
instance, Arasli et al. (2005) found three dimensions, namely, tangibles,
 Standardized
Culture and
Scale items loadings service quality
Cultural values expectations
Collectivism
1. Stick with the group even through difficulties 0.478
2. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards 0.922
3. Group success is more important than individual success 0.677 671
Uncertainty avoidance
1. It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail 0.618
2. It is important to closely follow instructions and procedures 0.723
3. Rules/regulations are important to me 0.742
4. Standardized work procedures are helpful 0.782
5. Instructions for operations are important 0.775
Masculinity
1. It is more important for men to have a professional career 0.711
2. Men solve problems with logical analysis; women with intuition 0.811
3. Solving difficult problems usually requires an active forcible approach which is
typical of men 0.754
4. There are some jobs that a man can always do better 0.572
Power distance
1. People in higher positions should make most decisions without consulting people
in lower positions 0.665
2. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions of people in lower positions
too frequently 0.687
3. People in higher positions should avoid social interaction with people in lower
positions 0.804
4. People in higher positions should not delegate important tasks to people in lower
positions 0.683
5. People in lower positions should not disagree with decisions made by people in
higher positions 0.700
Long-term orientation
1. Careful management of money (thrift) 0.539
2. Going on resolutely in spite of opposition (persistence) 0.514
3. Personal steadiness and stability 0.740
4. Long-term planning 0.788
5. Working hard for success in future 0.515
Service quality expectations
Tangibles
1. Visually attractive physical facilities 0.653
2. Neat appearance of staff 0.729
3. Visually attractive materials 0.760
Reliability
1. Genuine interest in solving customers’ problem 0.734
2. Performs service right the first time 0.682
3. Provides service at the time it promises to do so 0.685
4. Error-free service 0.634
Responsiveness, assurance and empathy
1. Prompt service 0.677
2. Willingness to help 0.695
3. Never too busy to respond to requests 0.607
4. Customers feel safe in their transactions 0.605 Table II.
5. Knowledge to answer customers’ questions 0.639 Standardized factor
6. Individual attention to customers’ needs 0.722 loadings for cultural
7. Personal attention 0.639 values and service
8. Have customers’ best interests at heart 0.666 quality expectations
MSQ empathy/responsiveness and reliability. The assurance dimension was eliminated.
17,6 Zhou (2004) also discovered a three-factor pattern comprising tangibility, empathy/
responsiveness, and reliability/assurance. A possible explanation is that the
dimensions of empathy, responsiveness and assurance as they are currently
measured by the SERVQUAL items lack adequate discriminant validity, leading
respondents to consider them as conceptually similar (Smith, 1999). This issue is raised
672 once again in the context of Generation Y restaurant consumers in Malaysia. While
previous research on the use of SERVQUAL in the restaurant industry has found the
scale to be useful, our findings suggest the need for further refinement of the individual
scale items, especially those relating to the dimensions of empathy, responsiveness and
assurance. The implication for both service researchers and practitioners is that future
efforts to measure service quality, particularly in different cultures, should pay
attention towards improving the validity of the instrument. It is likely that this will
require the amendment or replacement of existing items and the inclusion of additional
dimensions that may be more culturally meaningful.

PDI COLL MAS UAI LO

Tangibles 20.341* 0.049 2 0.092 0.336* 0.424*

Reliability 20.338* 0.092 2 0.115 0.445* 0.627*
Table III. Responsiveness/assurance/empathy 20.160** 0.106 0.014 0.348* 0.366*
Relationships between
dimensions of cultural Notes: *p , 0.001; **p , 0.05
values and service PDI¼Power distance, COLL¼Collectivism, MAS¼Masculinity, UAI¼Uncertainty avoidance,
quality expectations CD¼Confucian Dynamism

Mean Standard deviation

Tangibles
1. Modern-looking equipment 5.22 1.36
2. Visually attractive physical facilities 5.74 1.04
3. Neat appearance of staff 6.00 1.06
4. Visually attractive materials 5.64 1.00
Reliability
1. Genuine interest in solving customers’ problem 5.90 1.12
2. Performs service right the first time 5.93 1.03
3. Provides service at the time it promises to do so 5.99 1.01
4. Error-free service 5.84 1.18
Responsiveness, assurance and empathy
1. Prompt service 5.83 1.19
2. Willingness to help 5.51 1.27
3. Never too busy to respond to requests 5.79 1.21
4. Customers feel safe in their transactions 5.64 1.13
5. Knowledge to answer customers’ questions 5.30 1.20
6. Individual attention to customers’ needs 5.57 1.12
Table IV. 7. Convenient operating hours 5.69 1.19
Measure of service 8. Personal attention 5.22 1.39
quality expectations 9. Have customers’ best interests at heart 5.58 1.19
 Culture and
Standard
Mean deviation service quality
Collectivism
expectations
1. Individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the group that they
belong to 4.11 1.66
2. Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties 4.67 1.57 673
3. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards 4.82 1.44
4. Group success is more important than individual success 4.68 1.57
Uncertainty avoidance
1. It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail so that I
always know what I’m expected to do 5.24 1.26
2. It is important to closely follow instructions and procedures 5.28 1.19
3. Rules/regulations are important because they inform me of what
is expected of me 5.33 1.17
4. Standardized work procedures are helpful 5.40 1.20
5. Instructions for operations are important 5.73 1.14
Masculinity
1. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is
for women 3.95 2.11
2. Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women solve
problems with intuition 4.28 1.79
3. Solving difficult problems usually requires an active forcible
approach which is typical of men 4.33 1.63
4. There are some jobs that a man can always do better than a
woman 4.96 1.66
Power distance
1. People in higher positions should make most decisions without
consulting people in lower positions 3.49 1.88
2. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions of people in
lower positions too frequently 3.27 1.83
3. People in higher positions should avoid social interaction with
people in lower positions 2.46 1.73
4. People in higher positions should not delegate important tasks to
people in lower positions 3.30 1.75
5. People in lower positions should not disagree with decisions made
by people in higher positions 3.17 1.76
Long-term orientation
1. Careful management of money (thrift) 5.74 1.21
2. Going on resolutely in spite of opposition (persistence) 5.15 1.15
3. Personal steadiness and stability 5.85 1.07 Table V.
4. Long-term planning 6.02 1.06 Measure of cultural
5. Working hard for success in future 6.04 1.07 values

Our findings also add to the growing body of empirical evidence confirming the
general conclusions of previous researchers who have noted that service expectations
vary across cultures. We found partial support for our initial contention that cultural
values influence consumers’ service quality expectations. With the exception of
masculinity and collectivism, the other cultural dimensions were significantly related
to service quality expectations. Based on the results provided by our data, Generation
Y consumers with lower power distance, higher uncertainty avoidance and higher
Confucian Dynamism had higher service quality expectations. A study conducted
MSQ among Asian youths found that they are increasingly sophisticated and materialistic
17,6 consumers with growing affluence and self-confidence (Yasue and Gu, 2001). Hofstede
and Hofstede (2005) suggest that power distance declines as wealth and education
levels increase. This implies that Asian youths are therefore likely to be lower in power
distance. Empirical support for this has been provided by our study where the power
distance scores for our sample were the lowest compared to the other cultural
674 dimensions. These results indicate that the Generation Y consumer in Asia is likely to
have higher expectations of service quality and should encourage managers and
employees in the restaurant industry to improve service delivery to this segment as
they represent the future market with a potentially high customer life time value if
repeat business can be generated. In addition, our study reveals that all aspects of
service quality are important to this segment as all the dimensions of service quality
were significantly related to power distance, uncertainty avoidance and Confucian
Dynamism. Generation Y consumers expect prompt and reliable service with visually
appealing facilities and well-groomed staff. They also desire service employees to be
courteous, caring and competent. Along with Furrer et al. (2000) and Tsoukatos and
Rand (2007), our findings affirm that culture influences evaluations of service quality
and therefore suggests the relevance of culture as a segmentation variable to guide
service delivery strategies and resource allocation.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations which provide avenues for future research. Due to
the exploratory nature of this study, our research did not differentiate between specific
types of full-service restaurants such as casual dining and fine-dining. Limited-service
restaurants have also been excluded. Follow-up studies to verify our findings should
focus on more specific sub-sectors of the restaurant industry. We have used a
university student sample as a proxy for the Generation Y market. However, this
excludes other age groups also falling under Generation Y such as younger
school-going teens. The generalizability of our findings should therefore be treated
cautiously pending further studies examining a broader range of Generation Y
consumers with larger and more representative sample sizes.
Our study did not examine potential moderators of the relationship between cultural
values and service quality expectations such as gender. Furthermore, as suggested by
Mattila (1999), the extent to which cultural background influences evaluations of
service encounters may depend on factors such as purchase motivation, task
complexity and type of customer contact. Incorporating these variables in future
research would greatly assist service practitioners to assess the degree of cultural
customization required in a particular type of service encounter.
This study has also shown that a well-validated measurement instrument for
service quality in the restaurant industry is still lacking. Despite some efforts towards
developing a scale to measure restaurant service quality (e.g. Bojanic and Rosen, 1994;
Knutson et al., 1995; Johns and Tyas, 1996; Soriano, 2003), none of the proposed
instruments have been properly validated in follow-up studies. Our research suggests a
need to develop localized versions of the SERVQUAL instrument with culture-specific
items in order to improve the validity of the measurement instrument across cultures.
Contrary to our expectations and prior research (Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al.,
2000), collectivism was not significantly related to service quality dimensions in this
study. Although our finding is supported by Tsoukatos and Rand (2007), our Culture and
conclusions on this issue must necessarily remain tentative till further research can service quality
clarify the conflicting results with previous studies. It may be instructive to use other
items to measure collectivism. For instance, our study did not differentiate between expectations
horizontal and vertical collectivism and individualism (Triandis, 1993; Triandis and
Gelfand, 1998). Future studies to verify and extend our findings could also employ
alternative measures of cultural values based on frameworks other than Hofstede, for 675
instance, Schwartz’s value dimensions (Ng et al., 2007).
In addition, this study focused only on the restaurant industry. As such, our
findings need to be validated in other types of service industries. Finally, an extension
of this study would be to conduct a cross-national replication examining how cultural
values affect service quality expectations among consumers from different countries.

Conclusion
This exploratory study contributes to the under-researched area of service quality
expectations in relation to the important market segment of young consumers in
developing countries. Besides, we have validated a measurement instrument for
individual-level cultural values and established the need for cultural adaptation of the
SERVQUAL scale in the context of the Malaysian restaurant industry. More
importantly, this study has also examined the influence of culture on the service
quality expectations of Generation Y consumers. It has discovered that this segment is
low in power distance and therefore likely to have high service expectations. In general,
our findings highlight the importance of understanding the cultural background of
consumers in designing strategies for effective service delivery and customer service
expectation management.

References
AC Nielsen (2006), “Tomorrow is a new consumer! Who is the future Asian consumer?”, available
at: www.my.acnielsen.com/reports/documents/AsianConsumer.pdf
Albrecht, K. and Zemke, R. (1985), Service America!: Doing Business in the New Economy,
Warner Books, New York, NY.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Arasli, H., Mehtap-Smadi, S. and Katircioglu, S.T. (2005), “Customer service quality in the Greek
Cypriot banking industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Aseansources.com (2006), “Malaysia National Product and Expenditure Accounts Fourth
Quarter 2006”, available at: www.aseansources/com/jsp/
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K.J. and Swan, J.E. (1996), “SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of
service quality”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 62-81.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.
Babakus, E. and Mangold, W. (1992), “Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services:
an empirical investigation”, Health Services Research, Vol. 26, pp. 767-86.
Bang, H.K., Raymond, M.A., Taylor, C.R. and Young, S.M. (2005), “A comparison of service
quality dimensions conveyed in advertisements for service providers in the USA and
Korea”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-26.
MSQ Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: a review”, International Journal of Research in
17,6 Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 139-61.
Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and
complaint reports”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, February, pp. 21-8.
Bojanic, D.C. and Rosen, L.D. (1994), “Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of
676 the SERVQUAL instrument”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. (1993), “A dynamic process model of service
quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 30, February, pp. 7-27.
Buttle, F. (1996), “SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32.
Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimension”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Central Bank of Malaysia (2006), “Bank Negara Malaysia Annual Report 2006”, available at:
www.bnm.gov.my/
Chinese Culture Connection (1987), “Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of
culture”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 143-64.
Cho, B., Kwon, U., Gentry, J.W., Jun, S. and Kropp, F. (1999), “Cultural values reflected in theme
and execution: a comparative study of U.S. and Korean television commercials”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 59-73.
Choi, K.S., Cho, W.H., Lee, S., Lee, H. and Kim, C. (2004), “The relationships among quality, value,
satisfaction and behavioral intention in health care provider choice: a South Korean
study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 913-21.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
Davis, D.E. and Steward, H. (2002), “Changing consumer demands create opportunities for US
food system”, Food Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-23.
Donthu, N. and Yoo, B. (1998), “Cultural influences on service quality expectations”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 178-86.
Euromonitor International (2007), “Consumer foodservice in Malaysia”, available at: www.
euromonitor.com/
Fam, K.S. and Merrilees, B. (1998), “Cultural values and personal selling: a comparison of
Australian and Hong Kong retailers’ promotion preferences”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 246-56.
Flynn, L.R. and Pearcy, D. (2001), “Four subtle sins in scale development: some suggestions for
strengthening the current paradigm”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43,
Quarter 4, pp. 409-23.
Furrer, O., Liu, B.S.C. and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and service
quality perceptions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 355-71.
Gale, D. (2007), “Higher frequency”, Restaurants and Institutions, Vol. 117 No. 7, p. 83.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25, May, pp. 186-92.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Grönroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Culture and
Approach, Wiley, New York, NY.
Gupta, V. (2003), “Cultural dimensions and international marketing”, IIMB Management Review,
service quality
September, pp. 69-73. expectations
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, E.T. (1960), “The silent language of overseas business”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38 677
No. 3, pp. 87-95.
Harris Interactive (2003), “Generation Y earns $211 billion and spends $ 211 billion and spends
$172 billion annually”, available at: www.harrisinteractive.com/
Heung, V.C.S., Wong, M.Y. and Qu, H. (2000), “Airport-restaurant service quality in Hong Kong”,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 86-96.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hume, S. (2007), “Youth will be served”, Restaurants and Institutions, Vol. 117 No. 4, pp. 26-7.
Imrie, B. (2005), “Beyond disconfirmation: the role of generosity and surprise”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 369-83.
Jabnoun, N. and Khalifa, A. (2005), “A customized measure of service quality in the UAE”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 374-88.
Johns, N. and Tyas, P. (1996), “Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between
foodservice outlets”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 321-46.
Johnson, W. and Sirikit, A. (2002), “Service quality in the Thai telecommunication industry: a tool
for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 693-701.
Johnston, R. (1997), “Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retail banking:
importance and effect”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 111-6.
Kale, S.H. (1991), “Culture-specific marketing communications: an analytical approach”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 18-30.
Kanousi, A. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the role of culture on service recovery
expectations”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Kassim, N.M. and Bojei, J. (2002), “Service quality: gaps in the Malaysian telemarketing
industry”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 845-52.
Kettinger, W.J., Lee, C.C. and Lee, S. (1995), “Global measures of information service quality:
a cross-national study”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 569-88.
Knutson, B., Stevens, P. and Patton, M. (1995), “DINESERV: measuring service quality in quick
service, casual/theme and fine dining restaurants”, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 35-44.
Kong, M. and Jogaratnam, G. (2007), “The influence of culture on perceptions of service employee
behavior”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 275-97.
Laroche, M., Ueltschy, L.C., Abe, S., Cleveland, M. and Yannopoulos, P.P. (2004), “Service quality
perceptions and customer satisfaction: evaluating the role of culture”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 58-85.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J. (1991), “Two approaches to service quality dimensions”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-303.
MSQ Lewis, R.C. and Booms, B.H. (1983), “The marketing aspects of service quality”, in Berry, L.,
Shostack, G. and Upah, G. (Eds), Emerging Perspective on Services Marketing, American
17,6 Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 99-107.
Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer complaint
behavior and intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 54-74.
678 Lovelock, C., Patterson, P. and Walker, R. (2004), Services Marketing: An Asia-Pacific and
Australian Perspective, 3rd ed., Pearson Education Australia, Camberwell.
Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (2007), “MIER Quarterly Survey”, available at: www.
mier.org/my/surveys/
Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J. and Peterson, M. (1996), “Methodological issues in cross-cultural
marketing research: a state-of-the-art review”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 7-43.
Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J. and Baalbaki, I.B. (1994), “A comparative evaluation of
the dimensions of service quality between developed and developing countries”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-15.
Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005), “Dimensions of service
quality in developed and developing countries: multi-country cross-cultural comparisons”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-78.
Mattila, A.S. (1999), “The role of culture and purchase motivation in service encounter
evaluations”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 376-89.
Ng, S.I., Lee, J.A. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), “Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks
congruent?”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 164-80.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
O’Donnell, J. (2006), “Gen Y sits on top of consumer food chain”, USA Today, available at: www.
usatoday.com/
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and
its implication for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Poon, P.S., Hui, M.K. and Au, K. (2004), “Attributions on dissatisfying service encounters:
a cross-cultural comparison between Canadian and PRC consumers”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 11/12, pp. 1527-40.
Public Bank (2005), “Economic review: service sector in Malaysia”, available at: http://ww2.
publicbank.com/my/econreview77-aug05.pdf
Radam, A., Mansor, S.A. and Marikan, D.A.A. (2006), “Demand analysis of FAFH homes in
Malaysia”, available at: www.econmail.upm.edu/staffpaper/spoo62006.pdf
Raven, P. and Welsh, D.H.B. (2004), “An exploratory study of influences on retail service quality:
a focus on Kuwait and Lebanon”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 198-214.
Robbins, S.S. and Stylianou, A.C. (2001), “A study of cultural differences in global corporate
websites”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Winter, pp. 3-9.
Rugimbana, R. (2007), “Youth based segmentation in the Malaysian banking sector: the
relationship between values and personal e-banking service preferences”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Sasser, W., Olsen, R. and Wyckoff, D. (1978), Management of Service Operation, Text and Cases, Culture and
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Schneider, S.C. and Barsoux, J.L. (2003), Managing Across Cultures, 2nd ed., Pearson Education,
service quality
Harlow. expectations
Singh, S. (2006), “Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers’ propensity to adopt
innovations”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 173-91.
Singh, N. and Matsuo, H. (2004), “Measuring cultural adaptation on the web: a content analytic 679
study of US and Japanese web sites”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 864-72.
Singh, N., Zhao, H. and Hu, X. (2005), “Analyzing the cultural content of web sites:
a cross-national comparison of China”, India, Japan, and US, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 129-46.
Smith, A.M. (1999), “Some problems when adopting Churchill’s paradigm for the development of
service quality measurement scales”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 109-20.
Smith, A.M. and Reynolds, N.L. (2001), “Measuring cross-cultural service quality: a framework
for assessment”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 450-81.
Soriano, D.R. (2003), “The Spanish restaurant sector: Evaluating the perceptions of quality”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 183-94.
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996), “A reexamination of the determinants
of consumer satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, July, pp. 15-32.
Stauss, B. and Mang, P. (1999), “‘Culture shocks’ in inter-cultural service encounters?”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 329-46.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. (2001), “The role of national culture in international marketing research”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. (1995), “DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 56-60.
Svensson, G. (2006), “New aspects of research into service encounters and service quality”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 245-57.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Teas, R.K. (1993), “Expectations, performance evaluation and consumer’s perceptions of quality”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 18-34.
Triandis, H.C. (1993), “Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes”, Cross-Cultural
Research, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, pp. 155-80.
Triandis, H.C. and Gelfand, M.J. (1998), “Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1,
pp. 118-28.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Tsoukatos, E. and Rand, G.K. (2007), “Cultural influences on service quality and customer
satisfaction: evidence from Greek insurance”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 467-85.
Ueltschy, L.C. and Krampf, R.F. (2001), “Cultural sensitivity to satisfaction and service quality
measures”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, summer, pp. 14-31.
Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Tamilia, R.D. and Yannopoulos, P. (2002), “Cross-cultural invariance
of measures of satisfaction and service quality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57,
pp. 901-12.
MSQ US Census Bureau (2006), “International Data Base”, available at: www.census.gov/ipc/www/
idbrew.html
17,6 Voon, B.H. (2006), “Linking a service-driven market orientation to service quality”, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 595-619.
Walker, J.L. (1995), “Service encounter satisfaction: conceptualized”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
680 Wilson, M. (2007), “Defining Gen Y”, Chain Store Age, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 35-40.
Winsted, K.F. (1997), “The service experience in two cultures: a behavioural perspective”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 337-60.
World Bank (2007), “World development indicators 2007”, available at: www.worldbank.org/
Yasue, M. and Gu, X.W. (2001), “Asian youth and implications for marketing strategies”, in Siew,
M.L., Swee, H.A. and Chin, T.T. (Eds), Marketing in the New Asia, McGraw-Hill,
Singapore, pp. 98-124.
Yeniyurt, S. and Townsend, J.D. (2003), “Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a
country? An empirical investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 377-96.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2002), “The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values
on marketing ethics of students”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 92-103.
Yoon, J.M. and Niehm, L.S. (2006), “Service expectations of older generation Y consumers:
an examination of apparel retail settings”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 620-40.
Yun, L.L. and Hing, N. (1995), “Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 14
Nos 3/4, pp. 293-310.
Zhou, L. (2004), “A dimension-specific analysis of performance-only measurement of service
quality and satisfaction in China’s retail banking”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 7, pp. 534-46.

About the authors

Karen Kueh is a Lecturer in the School of Business at Swinburne University of Technology
(Sarawak Campus). Her research interests focus on cultural values, service quality and website
quality. She has published in the Australasian Marketing Journal and a number of local as well
as international conferences. She has also co-authored a case study in Services Marketing: An
Asia-Pacific and Australian Perspective (4th edition). Karen Kueh is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at kkueh@swinburne.edu.my
Boo Ho Voon is a marketing lecturer in the Faculty of Business Management at Universiti
Teknologi MARA Sarawak, Malaysia. His research interests include marketing research, market
orientation and service quality. He has published papers in international journals and
conferences. His ServEx scale can help to diagnose and improve service excellence orientation of
service organisations.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.