An executive summary for managers and executivereaders can be found at the end of this article.

The context and sequence of service encounters can differwidely, from simple transaction-based services (use of a payphone) to multiple-sequence services (a weekend stay at theDisney properties in Orlando). In the latter case, serviceencounters are unfolding dramas (Grove et al., 1992),wherein each scene of the drama is evaluated from adifferent perspective. As such, situational service factorsspeci?c to each scene dynamically determine individuals’evaluations of the service encounter as each scene in the playis performed, at times moving from one unique stage (place/venue/episode) to another. Hence, one’s perception of servicequality may differ from scene to scene.Situational customer factors speci?c to individuals atvarious sequences in these service dramas are also likely toin?uence perceptions of the encounter. Since different actorsenter at different scenes in the service drama, customers havethe opportunity to evaluate unique service teams within the context of each scene. Surprisingly, limited research hasexamined the role of the person-situation on service qualityevaluations (see Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002), and none inmultiple-sequence service encounters with varying servicedurations.What happens when a service delay occurs within thecontext of a multiple-sequence service encounter? Dependentupon the duration of the service encounter, the effect of theservice delay may compound itself, as the repercussions of theinitial delay transcend across each stage in the serviceencounter. In such cases, customers may perceive increasedtime pressure, as a service delay at an early stage may impingeupon timely service transactions at later stages in theencounter. However, will all customers experience orperceive the same level of effects of time pressure in thiscontext? What situational factors might lead some customersto maintain a positive evaluation of service quality even in theface of increased time pressure due to service delays?In this study, we examine the effects of consumption motive(hedonic versus utilitarian) and service duration (shorterversus longer service encounters) in relationship to perceivedtime pressure within the context of a multiple-sequenceservice encounter.First, as Berry et al. (2002) suggest in their model of serviceconvenience, services that possess hedonic value to the consumer (e.g. cruises) are often intended to be a time-investment, such that service perceptions are favorablyaltered. Time is an ambiguous commodity, its valuedependent upon an individual’s situation and characteristics(Okada and Hoch, 2004). Hence, individuals seeking hedonicbene?ts may perceive time (pressures) related to servicedelays differently than those seeking primarily utilitarianbene?ts. Interestingly, a given service may have primarilyhedonic value to some, and primarily utilitarian value toothers. Furthermore, service providers often positionthemselves on utilitarian bene?ts (e.g. “When saving time isimportant, then go to . . . ”), thereby orienting consumers toevaluate the service accordingly. We investigate the utilitarian-hedonic motivation peculiar to each individual’s situation andsubsequent perceptions of time pressure and service quality.Second, we examine the possibility that the intensity ofperceived time pressure effects on service quality evaluationsmay be moderated by the length of duration of the serviceencounter (see Price et al., 1995) for each individual. Theduration of a multiple-sequence service encounter may varyfrom relatively short time periods (e.g. 30 minutes on acommuter plane) to relatively longer time periods (e.g. eighthours on a transcontinental ?ight) for a given service(airlines). Some customers may stay a short while in theservice setting, while others experience longer stays forvarious reasons. Within the context of an unfolding servicedrama, does a short bad production have the same effect oncustomers as a longer, poorly executed production? From theservice provider’s viewpoint, does making a service errormatter more if the service encounter is long or short? Weexamine these effects and their relationships in a multiple-sequence service encounter (airlines) in the presence ofservice failures (namely, service delays). Figure 1 illustratesthe proposed model.From a methodological perspective, we offer an alternativeapproach to service quality measurement that recognizes thatdistinct but related scenes form the basis of perceived servicequality in multiple-sequence service encounters such asamusement parks, cruises, airline or rail travel, health care,and the like. As such, each scene is measured separately andmodeled as a second-order factor. This approach is more fullyexplained in the Methodology section.#p#分頁標題#e#

Background

We consider the relationships between four person-situationfactors that are anticipated to in?uence service qualityevaluations in this study. In turn, we provide thebackground and hypotheses for differences in service qualityevaluations due to an individual’s utilitarian-hedonicconsumption motive, experienced service delay, perceivedtime pressure, and service duration.Utilitarian-hedonic consumption motiveService quality research has typically focused on serviceencounters of short duration consumed for utilitarianpurposes (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1999). Although weknow something of how the physical environment plays animportant role in predominantly hedonic service settings suchas sporting events, movie theaters, and entertainment centers(e.g. Hightower et al., 2002; Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1999;Wake?eld and Barnes, 1996), we know little of howconsumers’ service quality perceptions might differ when theconsumption purpose for a given service could be eitherhedonic or utilitarian.Prior research has typically dichotomized a particularservice as primarily hedonic or utilitarian. Consider theexample of restaurants. Stafford et al.’s (2002) examination ofthe effects of created characters in advertising ?nds thatcreated, animated characters work better for restaurants(hedonic) than for banks (utilitarian). Wirtz and Lee (2003),in their study of customer satisfaction measures acrossutilitarian and hedonic contexts, more speci?cally identify anice cream restaurant as hedonic and the use of an ATM asutilitarian. Interestingly, Cronin et al. (1997) depict fast foodrestaurants as utilitarian in their studies regarding servicevalue. Schlosser and Shavitt (2002) indicate that certainaspects of a restaurant experience, such as food quality, maybe utilitarian in nature, whereas other attributes may be morehedonic (e.g. social atmosphere). So, does a restaurantrepresent utilitarian or hedonic consumption?The utilitarian/hedonic nature of the consumptionexperience is not dependent upon the service alone, butupon the individual and the context. Different consumersmay approach the same service at the same time and placewith different motives and different circumstances, resultingin different perceptions of the same consumption experience(see Wake?eld and Inman, 2003). Entering a McDonald’srestaurant, one individual may have primarily utilitarianintentions to consume food to stave off hunger versusanother’s hedonic intentions to enjoy a Happy Meal withfriends or family. Individuals in the latter case are likely toevaluate time and effort costs differently than in the formercase (Bellante and Foster, 1984; Berry et al., 2002).Liljander and Mattsson (2002) indicate that consumers’affective states prior to visiting a bank, food retailer, and travelagent in?uence their perceptions of the service delivery, suchthat a prior positive (negative) mood led to more positive(negative) service evaluations. Srull’s (1983, 1984, 1987)work illustrates that individuals in a positive mood are likely toproduce more favorable product evaluations than those in anegative mood. Mattila and Enz (2002) ?nd that theemotional state of consumers during and after the serviceencounter appears to in?uence service quality evaluations.Accordingly, an individual predisposed to seek pleasure orhedonic value in a service encounter should be more likely toevaluate the service encounter in a positive light. Conversely,although those focusing on the utilitarian value in the serviceencounter are not necessarily in a negative emotional state,such individuals can be expected to be more analytical andcritical as they focus on core service functions of the serviceprovider (cf. Tripp and Drea, 2002). Therefore, see:H1. Hedonic (utilitarian) consumption motives will lead topositive (negative) service quality evaluations.#p#分頁標題#e#

Service delays

Service delays occur when the service provider does not meetthe expectations of consumers with respect to the timelinessof the service delivery as scheduled, as when a patient arrivesfor a scheduled appointment and must wait beyond theappointed time to see the doctor (Taylor, 1994). Taylor(1994) demonstrates that as customers experience longerservice delays, their anger increases, resulting in increasinglypoor service quality evaluations. Taylor also found that the setting to have a direct effect on overall service qualityevaluations. The same direct effect is anticipated:H2. Service delays will lead to negative service qualityevaluations.

Perceived time pressure

Time pressure has frequently been the focus of researchregarding information processing (see Beatty and Smith,1987). Aside from the waiting time literature (see Baker andCameron, 1996), time pressure has not been explicitlyexamined within the context of service quality evaluations.Individuals perceive increased time pressure when theamount of time needed to accomplish a task approaches orexceeds the amount of time available. Service delays reducethe amount of time available to accomplish the intended tasksin the service encounter at the pace or schedule originallyintended. Service delays are likely to lead to increased feelingsof being in a hurry, as a customer increasingly feels short ontime that may have been intended for other uses. Servicedelays may also prompt service employees to be in a hurry, asthey signal or even explain to customers that they are pressedfor time. Hence:H3. Service delays will lead to increased time pressure.Not all perceived time pressure is due to actions taken by theservice provider. Customers may enter the service encounterunder self-imposed (i.e. poor time management; personalitytraits) or other external conditions (e.g. traf?c jam) that resultin feelings of time pressure. Karlberg et al. (1998) notes thattime pressure, impatience, and hostility are characteristics ofType A personalities – who, incidentally, are more prone totraf?c accidents. Thus, some individuals are prone to feel asthough they are under time pressure regardless of context. Ingeneral, time pressure leads individuals to be impatient,irritable, and angry (Wofford, 2001). Whether due to servicedelay, individual characteristics, or individual situations (orsome combination thereof), time pressure is likely to lead tocritical, negative attitudes toward the encounter. Therefore:H4. Increased time pressure will lead to negative servicequality evaluations.

Compared to those with more utilitarian motives, individualsseeking hedonic value in a service encounter may be lessprone to feel time pressure effects. One’s hedonic state priorto an encounter in?uences one’s subsequent emotionalattitude within that context (see Branscombe, 1985).Hedonic qualities in an experience are associated withpleasantness and arousal (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Babinand Darden (1995) ?nd that hedonic shopping value ispositively associated with time spent at the mall, indicatingthat enjoyment is derived from spending time in hedonicservice encounters. Exploratory behavior, including thewillingness to spend time, has been found to be positivelyassociated with hedonic contexts (Oostendorp and Berlyne,1978). Consequently, individuals who intend to have a goodtime in the service encounter are less likely to feel negativelytoward the time invested in the service encounter.In contrast, the focus of individuals seeking utilitarian valuewill be on the effectiveness, ef?ciency, and functioning of the service provider (viz. Voss et al., 2003). Such individuals arelikely to be attentive to timeliness and responsiveness inservice and to be cognizant of time pressure. Whereas hedonicconsumption contexts are immersive experiences wherecustomers may well lose track of time (e.g. online gaming,mall shopping, amusement parks, etc.), utilitarianconsumption contexts are, in part, de?ned by the fact thatone is mindful of the time spent in the encounter (e.g. groceryshopping, auto repair, etc.).The utilitarian/hedonic consumption motive, then, isexpected to in?uence perceptions of time pressure. As somemight approach shopping in the mall from a strictly utilitarianperspective (viz. a minimalist), others do so from a hedonicperspective (see Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). In the sameway, we expect that some will approach a given multi-sceneservice encounter from a hedonic perspective, while otherswill enter with more utilitarian motives – and that those withhedonic motives will be less cognizant of time pressure thanare those with a utilitarian bent. Thus:H5. Hedonic (utilitarian) consumption motives will lead toless (more) perceived time pressure.#p#分頁標題#e#

Service duration

Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) call for research regarding theeffects of time pressure and possible interactions betweensituational factors on customer response. In particular, withrespect to technology-based self-service options, they suggestthat long waiting times combined with time pressure mayhave negative effects on consumer responses. In a multiple-sequence service encounter, the effects of time pressure onservice quality evaluations may be mitigated (exacerbated)when the duration of the service encounter is relatively short(long).Time pressure frequently implies that something orsomeone else is inconvenienced, such that an individualrunning late – due to a service delay or for personal reasons –is keeping someone or something else waiting. Compared tolonger waits, the anxiety and uncertainty associated with timepressure may be of little consequence in a service encounter ofshort duration. For instance, an individual feeling timepressure at an automobile service area for an oil change knowsthat the pressure will likely be relieved within minutes –rather than hours. Conversely, an individual under timepressure in a longer service encounter may becomeincreasingly agitated as time passes. In multi-scene serviceencounters, in particular, actual time pressure (versus justperceived) due to service delays or customer error (e.g. missedservice appointment, went to wrong location, etc.) may resultin realized time pressure in subsequent scenes – as when the?rst leg of an airline ?ight departs late, causing the customerto sprint through the airport to make a connecting ?ight. Thelonger an individual has to deal with realized or perceivedtime pressure, the greater is the likelihood that negativeattitudes will develop and crystallize. Consequently, timepressure is expected to have limited in?uence in determiningservice quality evaluations in service encounters of shortduration, but will have a relatively stronger in?uence onservice quality evaluations for service encounters of longduration. Thus:H6. The duration of the service encounter (short versuslong) will moderate the effect of time pressure onservice quality evaluations.

Methodology

Previous service quality research has administered multiple-item scales, typically attempting to measure responsiveness,reliability, empathy, assurance and tangible aspects of servicequality. Consistent and clear factor structures have beenelusive (Van Dyke et al., 1999). Typical SERVQUAL resultsindicate that dimensions are highly correlated (namely, Bradyand Cronin, 2001), suggesting that respondents view episodesof the service encounter holistically (Bitner, 1992). We expectthat given single reference points in time (i.e. speci?csequences) in the service encounter to evaluate, consumerswill view:. service dimensions as related (intercorrelated) within thesequence; and. service sequences as distinct from each other, yetcorrelated across sequences.Consequently, a second-order factor structure (see Figure 1)should appropriately ?t the data.#p#分頁標題#e#

Multi-sequence service encounter: air travel

As did Taylor (1994), we test our model based on datacollected from airline passengers of a major airline carrier. Inorder to gain responses from customers during the serviceencounter, individuals were intercepted as they boarded anairline ?ight. Subjects were provided surveys requestingevaluation of the service quality provided at each of ?ve stagesusing the following reference points:1 Entrance: from airport arrival . . . to check-in.2 Preboarding/boarding: after bag check-in . . . to boardingthe plane.3 Flight: after getting a seat . . . to landing.4 Transfer: after deplaning . . . to boarding a second plane.5 Exit: from ?nal deplaning . . . to leaving the terminal.The ?ve stages were derived from an extensive pretest studywith over 100 airline passengers to explore and con?rm thatpassengers do indeed perceive demarcation between each ofthese scenes in this service encounter.Sample frameThree thousand surveys were systematically distributed topassengers boarding 30 different ?ights over a two-day periodon a major international airline out of a Midwest hub.Respondents were asked to complete the survey during andfollowing their ?ight and to return the survey with a prepaidmail envelope. A total of 482 surveys were returned, but onlya total of 432 passengers (14.4 percent) completed the entiresurvey for all ?ve scenes. Since we intended to examinedifferences across multiple stages, this analysis included thosethat had at least one transfer. To account for non-responsebias, we compared later respondents (last 100 received) versusearly respondents (the ?rst 332) and found similarperceptions and no signi?cant differences (p . 0:05) inperceptions of service quality in each of the ?ve stages orany of the situational variables.Respondents were predominantly male (58.8 percent),middle aged (45 years old) and, not surprisingly, relativelyupscale – holding college or graduate degrees (80.5 percent)with household incomes exceeding $50,000 (80 percent),similar to other reports of airline passenger demographics (see Paul, 2002).MeasuresPassengers were asked to evaluate the service quality at each ofthe stages in the service encounter in terms of the 13 dimensions(employing seven-point Likert scales) of communication,courtesy, personalization, credibility, positive attitude,accommodation, proactivity, reliability, responsiveness,accessibility, protection, competency, and atmospherics. In amanner similar to Driver and Johnston (2001), we de?ned eachservice quality dimension, asking respondents to read and thenrate each dimension for each stage. Table I displays thedescriptions employed for each dimension.To measure time pressure, passengers were asked todescribe the nature of their trip on two seven-pointsemantic differentials:1 in a hurry–in no rush; and2 short on time–plenty of time (r ¼ 0:75).Similarly, to measure the utilitarian-hedonic value of the trip,passengers were asked to describe the trip in terms of threeseven-point semantic differentials (a¼ 0:88):1 pure necessity–pure pleasure;2 because I have to–because I want to; and3 strictly business–non-business.This utilitarian-hedonic scale was signi?cantly (p , 0:01)related to whether the passenger separately indicated that thetrip was for the purpose of vacation/leisure (x ¼ 5:75) or forbusiness reasons (x ¼ 1:68).The duration of the service encounter was measured interms of how long (within the closest hour) the ?ightexperience lasted for the passenger, i.e. ,2 hours, 2-4 hours,5-7 hours, 8-9 hours, or 10 þ hours. In keeping with thepractice of the airline, service delay was measured by askingthe respondents “How close to the scheduled departure timedid your plane leave the gate?”. Responses were captured atthe following intervals:. ?ve minutes or less (34 percent);. 6-15 minutes (24 percent);. 16-30 minutes (14 percent);. 31-45 minutes (9 percent);. 46-60 minutes (11 percent); and. more than one hour (8 percent).#p#分頁標題#e#

Analysis and results

Figure 2 displays the second-order factor structure for the 65service quality items (13 dimensions £ five stages). Given thelarge sample size and number of latent variables in the model,we employ the normed ?t index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index(TLI) and comparative ?t index (CFI) to assess ?t. Our study isnot immune to the multicollinearity measurement problemsexperienced by other service quality researchers. Althoughcorrelations between error terms exist within scenes (as well asbetween scenes), the model ?t (x22;010¼ 8;728:2, p , 0:01,NFI ¼ 0:733, TLI ¼ 0:773, CFI ¼ 0:781, RMR ¼ 0:10)indicates that the data approximates ?ve different scenes asexpected. Fit can be improved, of course, by allowing errorterms within each scene to be correlated (e.g. reliability andresponsiveness are highly correlated). Exploratory factoranalysis produces similar results (i.e. ?ve clear factors) withlimited second-order cross-loadings. In contrast, modeling the65 service quality items as 13 factors with ?ve items each (i.e.?ve reliability items from each scene, ?ve responsiveness items,and so on) produces signi?cantly (x28¼ 6;577:8, p , 0:01)worse ?t to the data (x22;002¼ 15; 305:9; CFI ¼ 0:57). Hence,the second-order factor structure appropriately models themulti-scene service encounter as anticipated.Interestingly, measurement of scale reliabilities across eachof the ?ve scenes for like items (e.g. all ?ve responsivenessitems from each of the scenes) indicates high reliability(Cronbach’safor all such scales exceed 0.86). Thus,passengers do view a speci?c service quality dimension (e.g.proactive service) as related across the scenes, but the resultsfrom both exploratory and structural equation modelingdemonstrates that each dimension is more strongly related tothe other service quality dimensions within a particular scenethan across scenes.For modeling purposes, scales were summed to produceformative (rather than re?ective) indicators to test the proposedmodel (Figure 1). To examine the hypothesized paths, as well asthe moderating effect of service quality duration, a two-groupstructural equation was tested based upon those whose trip wasrelatively short (less than ?ve hours; 44.4 percent) versus longer(?ve hours or more; 55.6 percent). In analyzing H1 through H5,each of the hypothesized paths is constrained to be equal acrossthe two groups.The resulting structural equation model ?t the data verywell (x241¼ 48:9, p ¼ 0:187, GFI ¼ 0:974, TLI ¼ 0:994,CFI ¼ 0:996). See Table II for the results for each of theTable I Service dimensionsRELIABLE Consistency of performance; dependability;accuracy in record keepingRESPONSIVE Willing and ready to provide service; actsquickly or promptly; responds immediatelyACCESSIBLE Ease of contact with employees; convenientlocations; convenient service hoursCOURTEOUS Respectful and polite employees; friendlyservice; consideration for customersCOMMUNICATION Keeps customers informed; explains details;tells customers about problemsCREDIBLE Honest and trustworthy employees; keepspromises; frank and open about a situationPERSONAL Seeks to understand customer; adapts serviceto person’s need; gives individual attentionPROTECTING Guards the physical, ?nancial, and personalsafety of the customer; keeps personalinformation con?dentialCOMPETENT Knowledgeable and skillful in performing theservice; able to do the job ef?cientlyPROACTIVE Takes responsibility for a situation; offers asolution before being asked; acts to preventproblemsACCOMMODATING Bends service rules for customers; extendsservice hours when necessary, makesadjustmentsPOSITIVE ATTITUDE Provides service with a smile; employeesenjoy their work; uses humor to make theexperience pleasantFACILITY/ATMOSPHERE High quality of facilities; good comfort;adequate space in facilities; good layout; niceinterior design; high quality amenities,employee appearance hypothesized paths. Modi?cation indices (all less than 6.0)indicated that no other substantive changes could be made toimprove model ?t. As anticipated (H1), the greater thehedonic (utilitarian) value associated with the trip, the greater(lower) the perceived service quality of the service encounter(0.128, t ¼ 2:50). Service delays reduce service qualityevaluations (20.223, t ¼ 24:44) and increase perceivedtime pressure (0.181, t ¼ 4:09). Thus, H2 and H3 aresupported. In turn, time pressure further decreases servicequality evaluations (20.212, t ¼ 23:96), supporting H4. Themore that passengers are motivated by the hedonic(utilitarian) purpose of the service encounter, the less(more) are their feelings of time pressure (20.291,t ¼ 26:61). Accordingly, H5 is supported.To determine the moderating effect of short versus longerduration service encounters, the path of interest (timepressure ! service quality) is allowed to vary across the twogroups and the resulting unconstrained model ?t is comparedto the constrained model (viz. where all paths are set asinvariant across the two groups). Releasing the timepressure ! service quality path signi?cantly improves themodel ?t (Dx21¼ 3:96, p , 0:05), as this path is not signi?cantfor short duration service encounters (20.069, t ¼ 20:927),but is signi?cant for long-duration service encounters(20.275, t ¼ 20:431). Therefore, H6 is supported. Anexamination of the remaining paths (i.e. independentlyfreeing each path and comparing to the completelyconstrained model) reveals no other signi?cant differencesin effects between short- and long-duration serviceencounters.#p#分頁標題#e#

Discussion

The ?ndings of this study add to our understanding of theeffects of consumer motivation and situational context onattitudes and behaviors in ?ve important ways.First, while past research has typi?ed consumption contextsas either utilitarian or hedonic, this research af?rms theimportance of recognizing that the utilitarian or hedonicmotivation is dependent upon the individual and the situation(see Wake?eld and Inman, 2003). Some service contexts maylend themselves to primarily utilitarian (root canal) or hedonic(casinos) consumption. However, the bene?ts sought throughmany types of service encounters may still vary widely acrossconsumers and thereby in?uence their service evaluations.That the motivation for consumption is internally basedand situation-speci?c has important implications for futureresearch. For instance, Arnold and Reynolds (2003) ?nd thatconsumers can be typi?ed in terms of their psychographicshopping motivations along the lines of pleasure-seekingshopping enthusiasts versus task-oriented minimalists.However, based on this research we might expect to ?ndsome schizophrenic shoppers who for some shoppingsituations are seeking stimulation and grati?cation, while atother times are seeking just to ?nd the best deal and exit. Inthe study presented here, the nearly 60 percent traveling forbusiness purposes and seeking primarily utilitarian value in airtravel may possess an entirely different attitude on anotheroccasion when traveling for leisure purposes. Hence, futureresearch dealing with utilitarian/hedonic motives shouldacknowledge the point of reference as the individual, ratherthan attempting to classify the service encounter as “one type?ts all”.That customers respond differently based on functional-hedonic motives suggests that the importance and nature ofservice quality dimensions differs across various servicecontexts. For example, functional dimensions such as thereliability or timeliness of service may matter more for morefunctionally oriented services (auto oil change), whereasempathy may matter more for affect-laden hedonic services(Caribbean beach resort). Further, interactions may occuraccording to the motives or other characteristics of thecustomer. Future research that veri?es the salient servicequality dimensions in these various contexts and conditionswould aid service marketers and researchers to pinpointcritical service elements.Second, this research demonstrates that the effect of servicedelays has a direct effect on service quality perceptions, butalso has an indirect effect in that the service delay increasestime pressure for (some) consumers, leading to inferiorservice quality evaluations. In fact, for longer servicedurations, the effect of time pressure (20.275) on servicequality evaluations is greater than the direct effect of servicedelays (20.223).

n the airline service encounter, it is obvious thatmanagement is mindful of the importance of on-timeservice. However, based on this research, an importantobjective should also be to reduce the perceptions of timepressure – particularly if little can be done to control servicevariability. It is well known that occupied waits tend to reduceperceived waiting time (see Maister, 1985). However, thisresearch indicates that redirecting or reorienting consumerstoward more hedonic consumption values should change theperception of time pressure, as well as improve service qualityevaluations. In this sense, organizations which provide fun aspart of the service (e.g. Southwest Airlines) are more likely toreceive positive service quality evaluations in part becausedoing so orients consumers toward hedonic values andalleviates perceived time pressure – even if they were to haveotherwise similar on-time service delivery. Conversely, serviceoperators that primarily emphasize high quality service mayorient consumers toward utilitarian values – which, in turn,leads individuals to be more critical of service quality and toexperience enhanced feelings of time pressure in the presenceof service delays. In those cases, the only path to high servicequality is improved functional service. Alternately, orientingcustomers toward hedonic values offers service providers acushion against poor service quality evaluations.encounter. The same effects may occur for a variety of otherlengthy multiple-sequence service encounters, such as healthcare clinics or hospitals, amusement parks, sporting events,and vacation resorts. These ?ndings suggest that servicedelays, time pressure, and waiting at early stages in a multiple-sequence service encounter have stronger effects on servicequality than if experienced at later stages – which suggestsopportunities for future research.Fourth, the method and ?ndings from this study suggest anew avenue of service quality research. Little is knownregarding the effects of service performance at varioussequences in multiple-sequence service encounters. Wemight expect ?rst and last impressions to be critical indetermining overall service quality evaluations, such thatperceptions of service performance in middle scenes is eitherlargely tainted by the opening and closing scenes, or weightedas less important than opening and closing scenes. Such?ndings might lead service providers to placedisproportionate resources into the initial and ?nal servicescenes. To the extent that opening and closing scenesdominate overall service quality perceptions, anotherinteresting research question arises concerning themagnitude of service failure (excellence) that is required inthe middle sequences to overcome initial and ending excellent(poor) service quality. Such research would add to ourunderstanding of service recovery strategies (e.g. Dewitt andBrady, 2003; Gremler, 2004).Finally, customers perceived the service quality differentlyacross the ?ve stages. Whereas the average summed scores forall items were similar for the entrance (x ¼ 79:97), pre-boarding/boarding (x ¼ 79:86), and ?ight (x ¼ 80:27) stages,customers perceived the transfer stage as signi?cantly worse(x ¼ 75:78; p , 0:01) than each of the ?rst three stages.Customers perceived that the service provided during the exitstage (x ¼ 78:50) was signi?cantly (p , 0:01) better than thetransfer stage, but still signi?cantly worse than each of theearly stages (p , 0:05). Consequently, dependent upon thejuncture in the service drama, individuals may hold differentviews of the service delivery.Finally, from a managerial and methodological perspective,these results point to the importance of measuring servicequality at each scene in the service encounter. Future researchis needed to examine the relationships between servicedimensions in each scene in the service drama, as well as howservice delivery in one scene in?uences perceptions of otherscenes. Prior SERVQUAL research has assumed a global orholistic perspective regarding customers’ perceptions ofservice quality. For multiple-sequence service encounters,this research suggests that such SERVQUAL measures mightbe unreliable dependent upon the stage in the servicesequence that:1 customers may have been intercepted;2 is most salient in the customer’s mind at the point ofmeasurement; and/or3 was implied in the instructions to respondents.Furthermore, respondents in this study viewed service qualitydimensions (e.g. reliability, responsiveness, assurance, etc.) asmore of a function of the stage than the dimension itselfacross the stages. This suggests that respondents may bethinking more of the quality or satisfaction received from anindividual service employee or team at each stage andassigning negative/positive traits to those employeesirrespective of the service dimension. Clearly, more researchis needed to delineate the accurate point of in?uence inservice quality evaluations.Overall, the effects of the service duration, functional/hedonic context, service delays, and time pressure explains14.4 percent of the variance in perceptions of the servicequality provided across the ?ve stages. We further analyzedthe explanatory value of the model by modifying the model toinclude an overall service quality measure (poor–excellent,not what it should be–just what it should be; just what Iexpected–not at all what I expected;a¼ 0:70; see Wake?eldand Barnes, 1996). The ?ve-stage model of service qualityexplains 47.9 percent of overall service quality, whereasadding the effects attributed to service duration, context,service delays and time pressure explains 56.2 percent of thevariance in overall service quality. Consequently, thesesituational variables represent important factors indetermining consumers overall service quality perceptions.#p#分頁標題#e#

Managerial implications

We have shown herein that customer perceptions of timepressures do affect their attitudes toward the service, thuscon?rming ?ndings in earlier studies (Wake?eld and Blodgett,1999; Baker, 1987). Speci?cally, our study showed that aservice provider may deliver a stellar performance but if thecustomer feels rushed during the encounter the customer maybe blinded to any excellence in the service delivery. Thisimplies that while the development of a service distinctive(like accessibility) may competitively position a service againstits adversaries, perceived time pressure resulting from servicedelays may negatively trump these positional advantages. Inshort, perceived time pressure must be strategically managedlike any other tangible or intangible aspect of a service.Service managers should assess the hedonic/utilitarianmotives of customers for their particular service industry. Forsome industries, a service delay may add to the excitement of theexperience whereas in others a critical incident may be induced.A ?ve-minute service delay in using the equipment at a?tness club may lead to positive service evaluations if thedelay produces positive customer-to-customer interactions(Moore et al., 2005), while a ?ve-minute delay at a Starbucksdrive-through may have the opposite effect. Managers accessingtheir respective industries must clearly understand how delaysin the service will affect customer attitudes towardthe service, ascustomer perception of service ?rm responsiveness may vary byservice industry (Singh, 1991).Due to competitive positioning or service offering,organizations may attract a customer segment that ismotivated by functional (hedonic) consumption reasons –and subsequently generate a customer-base that is (less)focused on timely service and responsiveness. Returning toSouthwest Airlines (SWA), given their promotional strategy(e.g. travel promotions to pro sporting events) customers maymore likely be those ?ying for personal – rather than business– reasons. Consequently, SWA’s customer base may typically?y for hedonic purposes (and without connecting ?ights) andbe less prone to emphasize timeliness. Conversely, otherservice providers may train their customers to be functionallyoriented (namely, as when Domino’s once emphasized servicein 30 minutes or less or pizzas were free). Others may offer thesame service (e.g. Pizza Hut), but emphasize the pleasure ofconsumption (e.g. Stuffed Crust Pizza) and thereby generate better service evaluations with otherwise identical serviceperformance. Hence, service providers must be aware of theeffects of their market positioning on service qualityperceptions.Service managers should be mindful that customers mayhave different perceptions of each of the different serviceteams that may operate independently or cooperatively indelivering customer service. For multiple-sequence services,measuring service quality from a global or holistic standpointmay mask important areas in need of improvement.#p#分頁標題#e#

Limitations and directions for future research

The results of this study are limited in a number of ways.First, we examine a single context, airlines, in which the issueof service delays is well known. The effects presented in thismodel related to utilitarian/hedonic values, time pressure andservice duration may play out differently in other servicecontexts where on-time service delivery is not as central to thecore service delivery. Second, air travel is typically a fairlyinvolved, planned purchase. Results might differ in othercontexts that are less involving or more spontaneous orquickly planned. For example, consumers who make lastminute decisions due to personal choice (“It was so cheap, Ijust decided to go”) or circumstance (“I was in that part oftown and just decided to eat there”) might respond differentlyto service delays and time pressure. Third, airlines’ servicecontext is an appropriate venue to examine a healthy mix ofutilitarian/hedonic consumption motives. A comparison ofservice contexts where customers are predominantly seekinghedonic versus utilitarian bene?ts would be expected toproduce similar effects, but is untested here. Finally, weexamined the responses of those passengers that included atransfer from one plane to another to illustrate critical stagesin service delivery. Nonetheless, responses from those ?yingonly direct routes may well differ from those with connecting?ights and the given likelihood of service failures at thisjuncture.An interesting avenue for future research would be topursue other interaction effects between consumer-situation-employees that in?uence service quality evaluations atmultiple-scene encounters. Dependent upon utilitarian-hedonic consumption motives (or context), how wouldtime-pressured consumers respond to relaxed versus harriedemployees in the presence of a service delay? How might the?t between the consumer’s utilitarian/hedonic consumptionmotive and the attitude of the employee (e.g. strictly businessversus playful) in?uence time and service quality perceptions?In sum, this paper identi?es four speci?c person-situationfactors that in?uence service quality evaluations in a multi-scene service encounter that suggests a variety of scholarlyresearch options that may prove useful to service managers.

References

Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shoppingmotivations”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79, Summer,pp. 77-95.Babin, B.J. and Darden, W.R. (1995), “Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 71, Spring, pp. 47-70.Baker, J. (1987), “The role of the environment in marketingservices: the consumer perspective”, in Czepiel, J.A.,Congram, C. and Shanahan, J. (Eds), The ServicesChallenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 79-84.Baker, J. and Cameron, M. (1996), “The effects of the serviceenvironment on affect and consumer perception of waitingtime: an integrative review and research propositions”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 338-49.Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S.M. (1987), “External search effort:an investigation across several product categories”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 14, June, pp. 83-95.Bellante, D. and Foster, A.C. (1984), “Working wives andexpenditure on services”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 11, September, pp. 700-7.Berry, L.L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D. (2002),“Understanding service convenience”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 66, July, pp. 1-16.Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physicalsurroundings on customers and employees”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. (2001), “Some new thoughts onconceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchicalapproach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, July, pp. 34-49.Branscombe, N.R. (1985), “Effects of hedonic valence andphysiological arousal on emotion: a comparison of twotheoretical perspectives”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 9No. 2, pp. 153-69.Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Brand, R.R., Hightower, R. andShemwell, D.J. (1997), “A cross-sectional test of the effectand conceptualization of service value”, The Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 375-91.Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “An attitudinalmodel of technology-based self-service: moderating effectsof consumer traits and situational factors”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.Dewitt, T. and Brady, M.K. (2003), “Rethinking servicesrecovery strategies”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 193-207.Driver, C. and Johnston, R. (2001), “Understanding servicecustomers: the value of hard and soft attributes”, Journal ofService Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 130-9.Gremler, D.D. (2004), “The critical incident technique inservice research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 65-89.Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P. and Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Dramatizingthe service experience: a managerial approach”,in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds),Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 1, JAIPress, Westport, CT, pp. 91-121.Hightower, R., Brady, M.K. and Baker, T.L. (2002),“Investigating the role of the physical environment inhedonic service consumption: an exploratory study ofsporting events”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55,September, pp. 697-706.Karlberg, L., Unde´n, A., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998),“Is there a connection between car accidents, nearaccidents, and type a drivers?”, Behavioral Medicine,Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 99-106.Liljander, V. and Mattsson, J. (2002), “Impact of customerpreconsumption mood on the evaluation of employeebehavior in service encounters”, Psychology and Marketing,Vol. 19, October, pp. 837-60.Maister, D.H. (1985), “The psychology of waiting lines”, inCzepiel, J., Solomon, M. and Suprenant, C. (Eds), TheService Encounter, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA,pp. 113-23.Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing thedimensionality and structure of the consumptionexperience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December, pp. 451-66.Mattila, A.S. and Enz, C.A. (2002), “The role of emotions inservice encounters”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4No. 4, pp. 268-77.Moore, R., Moore, M.L. and Capella, M. (2005), “Theimpact of customer-to-customer interactions in a highpersonal contact service setting”, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 482-91.Okada, E.M. and Hoch, S.J. (2004), “Spending time versusspending money”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31,September, pp. 313-23.Oostendorp, A. and Berlyne, D.E. (1978), “Dimensions inthe perception of architecture: II. Measures of exploratorybehavior”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 83-9.Paul, P. (2002), “Advertisers climb on board”, AmericanDemographics, Vol. 24, October, pp. 30-2.Price, L., Arnould, E.J. and Tierney, P. (1995), “Going to theextremes: managing service encounters and assessingprovider performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59,April, pp. 83-97.Schlosser, A.E. and Shavitt, S. (2002), “Anticipatingdiscussion about a product: rehearsing what to say canaffect your judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 29, June, pp. 101-15.Singh, J. (1991), “Industry characteristics and consumerdissatisfaction”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 25No. 1, pp. 19-56.Srull, S.K. (1983), “Affect and memory: the impact ofaffective reactions in advertising on the representation ofproduct information in memory”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 10, pp. 520-5.Srull, S.K. (1984), “The effects of subjective affective stateson memory and judgment”, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 11, pp. 530-3.Srull, S.K. (1987), “Memory, mood, and consumerjudgment”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,pp. 404-7.Stafford, M.R., Stafford, T.F. and Day, E. (2002), “Acontingency approach: the effects of spokesperson type andservice type on service advertising perceptions”, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 31, Summer, pp. 17-34.Taylor, S. (1994), “Waiting for service: the relationshipbetween delays and evaluations of service”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 56-69.Tripp, C. and Drea, J.T. (2002), “Selecting and promotingservice encounter elements in passenger railtransportation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16No. 5, pp. 432-50.Van Dyke, T.P., Prybutok, V.R. and Kappelman, L.A. (1999),“Cautions on the use of the SERQUAL measure to assessthe quality of information systems services”, DecisionSciences, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 877-91.Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003),“Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions ofconsumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40,August, pp. 310-20.Wake?eld, K.L. and Barnes, J.H. (1996), “Retailing hedonicconsumption: a model of sales promotion of a leisureservice”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 409-27.Wake?eld, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1999), “Customerresponse to intangible and tangible service factors”,Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16, January, pp. 51-68.Wake?eld, K.L. and Inman, J.J. (2003), “Who are the pricevigilantes? An investigation of differentiating characteristicsin?uencing price information processing”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 216-33.Wirtz, J. and Lee, M.C. (2003), “An examination of thequality and context-speci?c applicability of commonly usedcustomer satisfaction measures”, Journal of Service Research,Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 345-55.Wofford, J.C. (2001), “Cognitive-affective stress responseeffects of individual stress propensity on physiological andpsychological indicators of strain”, Psychological Reports,Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 768-84.Corresponding authorStephen D. Strombeck can be contacted at: [email protected] summary and implications formanagers and executivesThis summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the article intoto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full bene?t of thematerial present.There’s a saying in Northern England: “There’s nowt soquare as folk” – “quare” being dialect for “queer”, and“queer” in the context of odd, eccentric or incomprehensible.Truth is, someone whose actions or reactions seem totallyunfathomable to one person may seem perfectly normal toanother. We are all different and we’re even different from ourown “normal” selves in some situations.For instance, we might be uncharacteristically angry if ourairline ?ight is delayed, causing us anxiety about missingappointments or connecting travel arrangements. On theother hand, if the ?ight is a return trip from a wonderfulholiday, we might adopt a more “Well, not to worry, thesethings happen” attitude.That good-humored response to a service failure, due to thegood mood we are in, might evaporate somewhat, however, ifan initially short delay is prolonged, or if the food at theairport restaurant is unappetizing. Conversely, we mightactually enjoy the delay if we are enjoying a meal in therestaurant while we wait. Even the business traveler, anxiousthe effects of the initial delay might have on subsequentarrangements, might even be cheered up a little by a pleasantexperience while waiting – an enjoyable meal or unexpectedtime to read a book or catch up on some preparatorypaperwork.There’s nowt so strange as our different attitudes andperceptions to service quality and how we, as customers,evaluate it. And while researchers have examined and explained the different effects on us of service encountersengaged in for pleasure (hedonic) or necessity (utilitarian),what’s primarily of hedonic value to one person may beutilitarian to another, and conversely. Calling in a shop andbuying exactly what you needed within minutes of arrivingmight be one person’s idea of a good shopping experience,while spending hours in a mall before you ?nd the perfectitem might be another’s.Grabbing a bite to eat at a fast-food restaurant might be apleasure to one person, while for another it’s merely anecessity to assuage their hunger. As for putting up withdelays, does someone kept waiting ten minutes or so to booktheir automobile for a service have a different perception tothe service quality if the delay is due to their own lateness inarriving? Does their culpability in causing the initial delaymoderate their evaluation of resulting service quality if thegarage employee displays his annoyance at the fact that he isnow more pressed for time?Putting these and other variables in the mix, StephenD. Strombeck and Kirk L. Wake?eld focus on airlinepassengers’ service quality evaluations, taking into accounttheir motives for travel (hedonic versus utilitarian) and serviceduration in relation to perceived time pressures in a multiple-sequence service encounter.Speci?cally, they show that a service provider may deliver astellar performance but if the customer feels rushed duringthe encounter the customer may be blinded to any excellencein the delivery. This implies that while the development of aservice distinctive (like accessibility) may competitivelyposition a service against its adversaries, perceived timepressure resulting from service delays may negatively trumpthese positional advantages. In short, perceived time pressuremust be strategically managed like any other tangible orintangible aspect of a service.Service managers should assess the hedonic/utilitarianmotives of customers for their particular service industry.For some industries, a service delay may add to theexcitement of the experience whereas in others a criticalincident may be induced. A ?ve-minute service delay in usingthe equipment at a ?tness club may lead to positive serviceevaluations if the delay produces positive customer-to-customer interactions, while a ?ve-minute delay at aStarbucks drive-through may have the opposite effect.Managers accessing their respective industry must clearlyunderstand how delays will affect customer attitudes towardthe service, as customer perception of service ?rmresponsiveness may vary by service industry.Due to competitive positioning or service offering,organizations may attract a customer segment that ismotivated by functional consumption reasons, andsubsequently generate a customer-base that is focused ontimely service and responsiveness (or less focused on thoseconsiderations if motivated by hedonic reasons).An airline whose passengers are more likely be ?ying forpersonal – rather than business – reasons may put lessemphasis on timeliness. Conversely, other service providersmay train their customers to be functionally oriented (forinstance a pizza delivery service offering 30 minutes or less orpizzas are free). #p#分頁標題#e#http://www.ttc-switch.com/thesis_sample/guanlileizuoye/Others may offer the same service, butemphasize the pleasure of consumption rather than speed.Service providers must be aware of the effects of their marketpositioning on service quality perceptions.Service managers should also be mindful that customersmay have different perceptions of each of the different serviceteams that may operate independently or cooperatively indelivering customer service. For multiple-sequence services,measuring service quality from a global or holistic standpointmay mask important areas in need of improvement.(A pre´cis of the article “Situational in?uences on service qualityevaluations”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)Third, service delays have a direct negative effect on servicequality evaluations for both short and long durationencounters, but the effects of time pressure is felt moreacutely in longer (20.275, t ¼ 24:31) than shorter (20.069,NS) service encounters. Further analysis shows that servicedelays have a somewhat stronger effect on service qualityevaluations for longer duration encounters (20.235,t ¼ 23:71) than for shorter (20.184, t ¼ 22:56), althoughthe difference is not signi?cant. Together, these ?ndingsindicate that the troubles associated with service delays arecompounded for long duration service encounters. Inparticular, this problem is demonstrably obvious in multiplesequence service encounters, wherein a service delay in anearly scene can spoil the service drama for later scenes. In thecase of airline service, the ?ight crew and destination groundcrew may provide excellent service, but still be evaluatedpoorly due to the effects of a service delay at check-in and theresulting time pressure that colors the rest of the service