A Study Of Service Quality Of Stockbrokers In Mauritius Using

A STUDY OF SERVICE QUALITY OF STOCKBROKERS IN MAURITIUS USING A MULTI-EXPECTATIONS APPROACH Rooma Roshnee Ramsaran-Fowdar, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius. [email protected] ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to develop a measure for service quality for the stockbroking industry. Another purpose is to test a model that depicts a relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. Using a self-administered questionnaire, data was collected from investors in Mauritius. It was concluded that a modified SERVQUAL scale was necessary for the stockbroking industry in Mauritius. Keyword: service quality, customer satisfaction, stockbrokerage industry. INTRODUCTION The stockbroking industry is a service-oriented industry where brokers act as agents for investors when a security is bought or sold and are compensated with a commission. Investors would not hesitate to switch to alternative brokerage houses if they do not obtain satisfaction. Providing quality service and hence customer satisfaction should thus be recognised as a key strategy and a crucial element of long-run success and profitability for stockbroking businesses. Little has been done towards understanding the expectations investors hold from their stockbrokers. Since expectations serve as benchmark to gauge the service level of brokers, the delivery of services that exceed customer expectations is one strategy that can give firms a competitive advantage (Rudie and Wansley, 1985; Thompson, DeSouze and Gale, 1985). Therefore, it would seem beneficial for stockbrokerage firms, in a dynamic economic environment like Mauritius, to have a measurement scale to examine service quality of stockbrokers. In addition, stockbrokers have much to gain in understanding investors’ expectations of them, as this would help the stockbrokers to serve their customers better and foster longlasting relationship with their customers. Very few studies have examined the service expectations investors hold from their stockbrokers. This study therefore aims to provide a multi-expectations framework to stockbroking services providers. This information would be useful for those who would like to control and improve the performance of their service. Accordingly, there are four main objectives of this research effort. The first objective is to gauge the applicability of the SERVQUAL instrument to the stockbroking industry and to test if additional dimensions are important. The second objective sought is to examine the relationships between service levels, the Measure of Service Adequacy and the

1

Measure of Service Superiority and the satisfaction level of investors. The third objective sought is to contribute to the theoretical and methodological advancement of the zone of tolerance framework in the service quality literature.

Literature Review Service Quality Quality is the cornerstone for success in any business and is perceived as a key factor in acquiring and sustaining competitive advantage (Hampton, 1993; Shearden, 1988). Providing service quality improves satisfaction of customers and this is believed to lead to favourable behavioural intentions and to ultimately affect business success (Iacobucci, Grayson and Ostrom, 1994). Establishing service quality may be the only way of differentiating oneself. That is why many existing businesses are using enhanced service quality to position them more competitively both domestically and globally (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Brown and Swartz, 1989). The most widely accepted measurement scale for service quality is the SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (PZB) (1988). They define service quality as the “difference between what a service company should offer and what it actually offers” or the discrepancy between expectations and perceptions of the service performance. To measure customer satisfaction with different aspects of service quality, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) developed a survey research instrument called SERVQUAL. It is based on the premise that customers can evaluate a firm’s service quality by comparing their perceptions of its service with their expectations. Since its inception, the SERVQUAL has been seen as a generic measurement tool by both academics and practitioners, which can be applied across a broad spectrum of service industries. The SERVQUAL instrument is based on five service quality dimensions that include reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000) and they provide the basic “skeleton” underlying service quality, which is represented as a multidimensional construct. Despite its widespread use in many service industries, SERVQUAL has been subject to several criticisms on conceptual and methodological grounds (Babakus and Mangold, 1989; Brown, Churchill and Peter, 1993; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Spreng and Singh, 1993; Teas, 1993 a, b). One of these criticisms is the inappropriateness of SERVQUAL as a generic measure for all service settings. Replication studies done by other investigators failed to support the five-dimensional factor structure as was obtained by PZB (1988) and PBZ (1991) in their development of SERVQUAL. For example, McDougall and Levesque’s study (1994) revealed only three underlying dimensions of service quality: tangibles, contractual performance (outcome) and customer-employee relationships (process). Other studies have indicated the possibility of two (Babakus and

2

Boller, 1992 – in a public utility sector) to nine (Carman, 1990 – in a dental school patient) distinct dimensions underlying the service quality construct. Because some determinants of perceived service quality are generic while others are industry- or situation-specific, Babakus and Mangold (1989) argue that the instability of the dimensionality of SERVQUAL is probably due to the type of service sector under investigation. PBZ (1993) agree though that the five dimensional structure of service quality remains in doubt and should be further researched. To evaluate the stability of the five underlying dimensions when applied to a variety of different service industries, Mels, Boshoff and Nel (1997) analysed data sets from banks, insurance brokers, vehicle repair shops, electrical repair shops and life insurance firms. Their findings suggest that in reality, SERVQUAL difference scores measure only two factors: intrinsic service quality (resembling what Gröonroos (1982) termed functional quality) and extrinsic service quality (which refers to the tangible aspects of service delivery and “resembles to some extent what Gröonroos (1982) refers to as technical quality”). In another study, Lam and Woo (1997) found that the SERVQUAL scale was not stable over time, as revealed by insignificant correlations between test scores and retest scores. Although scores on items in the expectation battery remained fairly stable over time, the performance items were subject to instability even in a one-week test-retest interval. These findings do not undermine the value of Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman’s achievement in identifying some of the key underlying constructs in service quality, but they do highlight the difficulty of measuring customer perceptions of quality. Smith (1995) notes that the majority of researchers using SERVQUAL have omitted from, added to, or altered the list of statements purporting to measure of service quality. In their popular framework for measuring service quality, PZB (1988) used a single expectation standard, desired expectations as a comparison against which service performance is assessed. Recently, researchers have proposed that multi-expectations standard approaches may be more appropriate in service quality models (Boulding et al., 1993; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1993). This model proposes that service expectations can be separated into an adequate standard and a desired standard (ZBP, 1993). A ‘zone of tolerance’ lies between these two levels of expectations and represents a range of performance that the service consumer considers acceptable. It also illustrates the difference between perceived service and desired service known as the Measure of Service Superiority (MSS) and the difference between perceived service and adequate service labelled as the Measure of Service Adequacy (MSA). This framework not only provides a better comprehension of the multiple expectations that consumers use in evaluating services but also gives the opportunity to practitioners to optimise resource allocations when attempting to meet/exceed customer expectations (Walker and Baker, 2000). However, existing research on the multi-expectations standards of consumers, zone of tolerance, MSS and MSA is relatively in the exploratory stage in empirical investigations

3

and a number of consumer, situational and other firm specific factors have yet to be empirically tested. Customer Satisfaction The concept of customer satisfaction has been used by consumer behaviour and marketing researchers. Researchers consider customer satisfaction as a part of consumer behaviour whereas practitioners treat it as a focal point for designing successful marketing strategies. The majority of approaches view customer satisfaction as a cognitive process (Bloemer and Poiesz, 1989). The widespread approach to the definition of customer satisfaction is therefore that it is “the accumulated experience of a customer’s purchase and consumption experiences” (Andreassen, 1995). Klaus (1985) defines satisfaction as “the customer’s subjective evaluation of a consumption experience based on some relationship between the customer’s perceptions and objective attributes of the product”. Thus, customer satisfaction is treated as an “abstract and theoretical phenomenon, it can be measured as a weighted average of multiple indicators” (Johnson and Fornell, 1991, in Andreassen, 1995). “Satisfaction is a person’s feelings of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a product’s perceived performance (or outcome) in relation to his or her expectation” (Kotler, 2001). As this definition makes it clear, satisfaction is a function of perceived performance and expectations. If the performance falls short of expectations, the customer is dissatisfied. If the performance matches the expectations, the customer is satisfied. If the performance exceeds expectations, the customer is highly satisfied or delighted. Despite the fact that the definition varies, the common factor is that satisfaction is a post-consumption evaluative judgement (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991). Satisfaction is believed to strengthen beliefs and attitudes whereas dissatisfaction may create negative beliefs and attitude towards the object (Assael, 1987). A revised attitude appears as a result of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the experience (Mayo and Jarvis, 1981; Oliver, 1981; Moutinho, 1987). The result would be an increase or decrease in the likelihood of repeat business for the investment. Moreover, the intensity of an attitude may influence the level of satisfaction with an object. In other words, if the attitude is positive, satisfaction results. Similarly, dissatisfaction is expected when the attitude is negative. As such, as stated earlier, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a previous experience is crucial because it may affect expectations for the next purchase (Westbrook and Newman, 1978). The next difference could be that attitude formation does not require any direct experience with the object, but satisfaction or dissatisfaction is a direct result of experience. In the same line of thought, satisfaction can be defined as an attitude-like judgement following a purchase act or series of consumer-product interactions (Lovelock, 2001). Most studies are based on the theory that the confirmation or disconfirmation of preconsumption product standards is the essential determinants of satisfaction. So, in a service context, the model argues that customers have certain service standards in mind prior to consumption (their expectations), observe service performance and compare it

4

with their standards, and then form satisfaction judgements based on this comparison. The resulting judgement is labelled negative disconfirmation if the service is worse than expected, which results in customer dissatisfaction and may lead to negative word of mouth publicity and/or customer defection. In contrast, a positive disconfirmation exists if service is better than expected, thereby resulting in customer satisfaction, positive word of mouth publicity and customer retention (Hoffman and Bateson, 1997). A simple confirmation occurs if service is as expected. When there is substantial positive disconfirmation plus pleasure and an element of surprise, then customers are likely to be delighted. Research Hypotheses Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) identified a set of comprehensive service attributes that could be used to measure service performance. Subsequently, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), further refined these attributes and constructed SERVQUAL, a scale of 22 items along five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy as a generic measure for service quality. Despite being widely recognised, researchers (Babakus and Mangold, 1989; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Teas, 1993a, 1993b; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brown, Churchill and Peter, 1993a, 1993b; Carman, 1990) held different views on SERVQUAL’s usefulness, which resulted in uncovering several limitations and in the process, provided suggestions for improvements. The following hypothesis is thus advanced. H1: Not all the five dimensions of SERVQUAL are applicable to the stockbroking industry. It has been assumed in the review of literature that service quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction (Bitner, 1990; Bolton and Drew, 1991 a, b; PZB, 1988, 1994; Zeithaml and Bitner 2000). According to Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1993), satisfaction took place when perceived service surpassed the adequate levels of service. However, very few studies have tested the relationship between MSS and MSA and satisfaction. Hence, it was observed that. H2a: There exists a positive relationship between MSA and satisfaction. H2b: There exists a positive relationship between MSS and satisfaction. H2c: There exists a stronger positive relationship between MSA and satisfaction than between MSS and satisfaction. METHODOLOGY Before the questionnaire was constructed, several in-depth interviews with investors were conducted so as to develop an understanding of their behaviour in selling and buying

5

stocks, on their expectations from their stockbrokers. The development of the questionnaire involved refining and measuring issues relating to service quality of stockbrokers. The questionnaire was basically structured – consisting of a series of 7-point itemised, labelled, Likert type statement – to determine variations in extent, with the final demographics section including sex, age, marital status, ethnic group occupational status, level of education and gross monthly household income. The labelled scale was chosen because, as Lewis (1993) recommends, the use of scale prevents the use of extreme ends. Also, an argument raised by Babakus and Mangold (1992) suggests that such scales minimise respondents’ frustration. The mail survey technique was used for the purpose of the study since clients’ database of stockbrokerage firms was confidential and the researcher could not have access to it. Hence, it was the responsibility of participating stockbrokerage firms to mail or hand over the questionnaire to their clients. The survey instrument was accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope with the university address and all these were sealed in an envelope. The data collection occurred over a two-months period. Out of a total of 250 survey instruments, 131 duly completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 52.4%. Analysis of Findings Among these 131 investors, 91.6% had transacted at least once through their stockbroker in the last 1-year. On the other hand, 8.4% of the investors had not done any transactions. 52.7% of the respondents were male investors and 47.3% were female investors. The majority of the investors (45%) came from the age group 30-49 years old while 26.7% were aged 18-29 years old. Most of the investors were married with children (57.3%) and the majority of them belonged to the Hindu community (58%) followed by the Chinese community (23.7%). Moreover, 40.5% of the investors were holders of an undergraduate degree whereas 25.2% of them held a postgraduate degree. All respondents had gone beyond primary level education. Most of the investors (55.7%) drew a gross monthly household income before income taxes of below Rs 30,000 followed by those whose income ranged between Rs 30,001 and 60,000 (39.7%) and at least 64.9% of them held administrative, managerial, professional and executives positions in their jobs. Interestingly, on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is ‘Low’ and 7 is ‘High’, a mean of 5.42 shows that the stockbrokers of investors provided a rather high service quality. Reliability tests were then performed on the satisfaction variables using Cronbach’s (1960) coefficient alpha. The coefficient 0.9369 for ‘satisfaction’. Thus, the satisfaction construct exhibited well over the 0.50 reliability level suggested by Nunnally (1978) as a minimum score for acceptable reliability in pilot studies.

6

The 53 service quality items were factor analysed (Principal Components with VARIMAX Rotation) to examine if meaningful dimensions emerged from these items. The MSS scores used in this construct were derived by computing the difference between perceptions and desired services. Five factors emerged from the analysis (after 4 items were eliminated due to low factor loadings) accounting for 63.668% of the total variance. MSA was computed from perception-minus-adequate expectations. However, no factor extraction and rotation could be done. Hence, this operation was skipped. Factor analysis was carried out on perceptions-only ratings and four factors emerged from the analysis (accounting for 73.289% of the total variation) after omitting 4 items from the analysis due to poor factor loadings and reliability results. A comparison of the two possible formats is needed to determine which format should be used to determine the factor structure for further analysis. Table 1 summarises the two factor analysis results derived from MSS and Perceptions-Only scores based on the total variation explained, eigenvalues and Cronbach alphas. Table 1. Comparison between MSS and Perceptions-Only Score Formats MSS Format Perceptions-Only Format Total variance 76.360 % 81.510 % explained Dimensions No. Eigenvalues Cronbach No. of Eigenvalues Cronbach of Alpha items Alpha items Trust/Reliability 20 10.706 0.9712 Assurance/ 23 16.153 0.9194 Reliability Assurance/ Empathy 11 7.560 0.9271 Core Stockbroking Services/ Professionalism/ 21 12.915 0.9722 Skill & Competence Investment Information/ 9 6.130 0.9428 Responsiveness Responsiveness 4 4.849 0.8902 Leadership 8 6.117 0.8880 Empathy 2 2.020 0.7885 Relationship 2 2.236 0.6844 Building Based on the total variance explained, the factors derived from the Perceptions-only construct were slightly superior to the MSS score format. Comparing the eigenvalues for the individual factors revealed that the results were relatively equivalent. The same 7

conclusion was reached when comparing the Cronbach alphas. The Perceptions-only scores explained the item loadings in a better and sound conceptual way. Therefore, this study will use the factors derived from the Perceptions-Only format in subsequent analysis. Proposed Service Quality Scale for Stockbroking Industry Table 2 compares the service quality dimensions which will be used in this study with the SERVQUAL dimensions proposed by PZB (1988). Table 2: SERVQUAL Dimensions versus Service Quality Dimensions Generated from Factor and Reliability Analyses SERVQUAL Dimensions Service Quality Dimensions in Stockbroking Industry (STOCKBROKQUAL) 1. Tangibility – physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel 2. Assurance – courtesy and knowledge 1. Assurance/Reliability – courtesy of staff and their ability to inspire trust displayed by stockbrokers and their and confidence ability to inspire trust and confidence; ability to perform the expected service 3. Reliability – ability to perform the dependably and accurately expected service dependably and accurately 4. Responsiveness – willingness to help 2. Responsiveness – willingness to help customers and provide prompt service customers and provide prompt service 5. Empathy – caring, individualised 3. Empathy – caring, individualised attention provided to customers attention provided to investors by stockbrokers 4. Core Stockbroking Services/ Professionalism/Skill/Competence – the central stockbroking aspects of the service: appropriateness, effectiveness and benefit to the investor; knowledge, technical expertise, amount of training and experience On the basis of the above comparison, hypothesis H1 was therefore accepted. The tangibility dimension of PZB did not apply to the stockbroking industry. Although some dimensions were relatively equivalent, there was one additional dimension with high eigenvalues and Cronbach Alphas and explaining the total variance to a large extent, named “Core Medical Services/Professionalism/Skill and Competence” which was obtained using factor and reliability analyses for a stockbroking setting. This new service quality instrument was named as STOCBROKQUAL. The Chi-Square test was used to test H2a, H2b and H2c. A significant positive relationship was determined between overall MSA, MSS and satisfaction. The correlation was

8

significant at p<0.05 level. Therefore, H2a, H2b and H2c were strongly and positively supported. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) identified a set of comprehensive service attributes that could be used to measure service performance. The five dimensions namely tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy were used as a generic measure for service quality. Results from this study based on factor analysis from Perceptions-ratings only revealed that the number of dimensions identified by PZB were generally applicable to the stockbroking industry. However, the tangible dimension was not applicable to the Mauritian stockbroking industry and this should be modified from the existing SERVQUAL. Furthermore, one additional dimension was deemed necessary to be added and it was named Core Stockbroking Services/ Professionalism/Skill/Competence. The new scale was called STOCKBROKQUAL and contained four dimensions whereby some attached somewhat similar meanings to the dimensions proposed by PZB. The first dimension, Assurance/Reliability was easily identified, as its meaning was clearly consistent with the “Assurance” and “Reliability” dimensions of the existing SERVQUAL model and was defined as courtesy displayed by stockbrokers and their ability to inspire trust and confidence, and the ability to perform the expected service dependably and accurately. The second dimension which was Responsiveness was similar to the “Responsiveness” dimension of PZB’s SERVQUAL that is the willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. The third dimension of Empathy, was conceptually similar to the “Empathy” dimension of SERVQUAL, whereby the stockbrokers provided personalised attention and care to clients. The fourth and final dimension which was added, was the Core Stockbroking Services/ Professionalism/Skill/Competence which referred to the central stockbroking aspects of the service: appropriateness, effectiveness and benefit to the investor; knowledge, technical expertise, amount of training and experience. By itself, this fourth dimension was a very outstanding indicator. Generally, these four dimensions provided a holistic measure of the service quality of stockbrokers. Results based on factor analysis from perceptions-ratings only provided by far the clearest picture of a service quality scale than the results based on factor analysis from the MSS conceptualisation. This study had also ascertained the relationship between MSS and MSA and satisfaction. However, the zone of tolerance framework could not be demonstrated through this study since no factor could be extracted for MSA. There are, however, some limitations that surfaced in this study. Given that Mauritus is a multi-racial society, the sample in this study might not be reflective of the entire investor population. Moreover, it is quite possible that the findings will tend to be biased although respondents participated in this study came from brokerage firms of various sizes. If we

9

keep this limitation in mind, the findings in this study are still very useful as they can serve as research leads and thus help researchers understand various behavioural aspects of the financial markets. REFERENCES Andreassen, T.W. 1995. Dissatisfaction with Public Services: The Case of Public Transportation. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 30-41. Assael H. 1987. Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 3rd Edition, PWS-KENT Publishing Company Boston. Babakus E. and Boller G.W. 1992. An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Business Research, 24, 253-68. Babakus E. and Mangold W.G. 1989. Adapting the SERVQUAL Scale to Health Care Environment: An Empirical Assessment. In P. Bloom, B. Weitz, R. Winer, R.E. Spekman, H.H. Kassarjian, V. Mahajan, D.L. Scammon and M. Leay (eds.), AMA Summer Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing. American Marketing Association, IL, Chicago. Bitner M.J. 1990. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Response. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82. Bloemer J.M. and Poeisz T.B.C. 1989. The Illusion of Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 2, 43-48. Bolton R.N. and Drew J.H. 1991a. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 53, January, 1-9. Bolton R.N. and Drew J.H. 1991b. A Multistage Model of Customers’ Assessment of Service Quality and Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), March, 37584. Boulding W., Karla A., Staelin R. and Zeithaml V.A. 1993. A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioural Intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7-27. Brown S.W. and Swartz T.A. 1989. A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 92-8. Brown T.J., Churchill G.A. Jr., Peter J.P. 1993. Improving the Measurement of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 127-39. Carman J.M. 1990. Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, Spring, 33-55. Cronin J.J. Jr and Taylor S.A. 1994. SERVPERF Versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus Expectations Measurement of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-31. Cronin J.J. Jr and Taylor S.A. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68. Gröonroos C. 1982. Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. Swedish School of Economic and Business Administration, Helsinki, Finland. Hampton G.M. 1993. Gap Analysis of College Student Satisfaction as a Measure of Professional Service Quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9(1), 15-28.

10

Hoffman K.D. and Bateson J.E.G. 1997. Essentials of Services Marketing, The Dryden Press. Iacobucci D., Grayson K.A. and Ostrom A.L. 1994. The Calculus of Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: Theoretical and Empirical Differentiation and Integration. In T.A. Swartz, D.E. Bowen and S.W. Brown (eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 3, 1-67, JAI Press Inc. Greenwich, CT. Klaus P. 1985. Quality Epiphenomenon: The Conceptual Understanding of Quality in Face-to-Face Service Encounters. In: Czepiel J.A., Solomon M.R., Suprenant C.L. and Guttmann E.G. (eds.) The Service Encounter: Managing Employee Customer Interaction in Service Business. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 17-33. Kotler P. 2001. Marketing Management, The Millennium Edition, 10th Edition, Prentice Hall India. Lam S.S.K. and Woo S. 1997. Measuring Service Quality: A Test-Retest Reliability Investigation of SERVQUAL. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2), 381-96. Lewis B.R. 1993. Service Quality Measurement, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 11(4), 4-12. Lovelock C. 2001. Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 4th Edition, Pearson Education, Asia. Mayo E.J. and Jarvis L.P. 1981. The Psychology of Leisure Travel: Effective Marketing and Selling of Travel Services, CBI Publishing Company, Boston. McDougall G.H.G. and Levesque T.J. 1994. A Revised View of Service Quality Dimensions: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 11(1), 189-209. Mels G., Boshoff C. and Nel D. 1997. The Dimensions of Service Quality: The Original European Perspective Revisited, The Service Industries Journal, 17, 173-89. Moutinho L. 1987. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 5-44. Nunnally J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Oliver R.L. 1981. Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25-48. Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithaml V.A. 1991. Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-50. Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithaml V.A. 1993. More on Improving Service Quality Measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 140-47. Parasuraman A., Berry L.L., Zeithaml V.A. 1994, Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-24. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, Spring, 21-40. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 4150.

11

Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, Spring, 21-40. Rudie M.J. and Wansley B. 1985. The Merrill Lynch Quality Program. In Services Marketing in a Changing Environmen”, Bloch T., Upah G. and Zeithaml V.A., Eds. Chicago: Americam Marketing Association. Shearden W.A. 1988. Gaining the Service Quality Advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 9(2), pp. 45-48. Smith A.M. 1995. Measuring Service Quality: Is SERVQUAL Now Redundant? Journal of Marketing Management, 11(1), 257-76. Spreng R.A. and Singh A.K. 1993. An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale and the Relationship Between Service Quality and Satisfaction. In D.W. Cravens and P. ickson (eds.) Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, 4, 1-6, American Marketing Association, Chicago. Teas R.K. 1993a. Consumer Expectations and the Measurement of Perceived Service Quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8(2), 33-54. Teas R.K. 1993b. Expectations, Performance, Evaluation and Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, pp. 18-34. Thompson P., DeSouze G. and Gale B.T. 1985. The Strategic Management of Service Quality. In PIMSLETTER, Cambridge: The Strategic Planning Institute. Walker J. and Baker J. 2000. An Exploratory Study of a Multi-Expectation Framework for Services. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 411-31. Westbrook R.A. and Newman J.W. 1978. An Analysis of Shopper Dissatisfaction for Major Household Appliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (August), 456466. Westbrook R.A. and Oliver R.L. 1991. The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91. Yates J.F. 1990. Judgement and Decision Making, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Zeithaml V.A. and Bitner M.J. 2000. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, USA. Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. and Parsuraman A. 1993. The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1-12.

12