苏州洗头房,特彩吧0739ly,淘机灵
The concept of value and its relationship to service quality, satisfactionand behavioural intentions was studied in a sample of 218 sports and leisurecentre customers. Using structural equation modelling, this study focusedon the role that value may play as a potentially significant mediating variablein the service quality → satisfaction → behavioural intentions chain.Findings indicated that value appears to play an important mediating rolein satisfaction judgments of customers. This exploratory study is a steptowards developing more comprehensive models to assist managers ofsports and leisure centres to better understand the key drivers of satisfactionand customers’ future purchase or visitation intentions.Providing a service that results in satisfied customers will generally improveprofitability for any organisation that operates in a consumer market (Parasuraman,Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). This is based on the premise that satisfied customers willbe more likely to re-use or repurchase the service (Anderson & Sullivan, 1990;Bernhardt, Donthu, & Kennett, 2000; Fornell & Wernerfelt, 1987; Gale, 1997; Howat,Murray, & Crilley, 1999; Philip & Hazlett, 1997). Retaining customers and improvedprofitability have become increasingly important for local government sports andleisure services in Australia. This is, in part, due to the move away from a traditionalcommunity merit approach towards local recreation provision. In its place is a user-pays rationale, which has seen a more commercial focus in the provision of publicsports and leisure opportunities (Crilley, Murray, & Kelly, 1999).A considerable body of research in the broader marketing literature has focusedon the nature of satisfaction and its relationship to service quality and the futureintentions of customers (Brady & Robertson, 2001). However, there has been limitedresearch in this field specific to sports and leisure contexts in Australia. A clearerunderstanding of how to produce satisfied customers in a sports or leisure contextwill help managers to better predict the return or repatronage of customers. Severalrecent studies support the dominant position that satisfaction is a consequence ofservice quality (Brady & Robertson, 2001; McDougall & Levesque, 2000) and thisappears consistent across service contexts. Similarly, relationships between servicequality through satisfaction to repurchase intentions of customers were reported byCronin and Taylor (1992), and Patterson and Spreng (1997).Many other factors have been shown to influence the satisfaction that acustomer experiences with a service. These include affective or emotional attachmentswith the service, self-esteem or self-concept concerns (Mahony & Moorman, 1999),or even social norms. McDougall and Levesque (2000) recognised the alreadyextensive research on service quality and its relationship to customer satisfactionand argued for more comprehensive models to assist managers in better understandingthe key drivers of satisfaction. A specific focus was the concept of perceived value.Perceived value is generally defined as the gap between what is received comparedto what is given in an exchange (McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Zeithaml, 1988).McDougall and Levesque (2000) argued that, along with perceived service quality,perceived value was an antecedent to customer satisfaction, which in turn was directlyrelated to future purchase intentions of customers.While McDougall and Levesque (2000) encouraged further research onconcepts such as perceived value, Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000) asserted that partialconsensus had been achieved, supporting perceived value along with perceived servicequality as antecedents to customer satisfaction (e.g., Hallowell, 1996). However,Cronin et al. (2000) did also note that the literature was deficient in research thatsimultaneously compares the relative influence of quality, value and satisfaction withservice outcomes. Such research, they believed, would further clarify ourunderstanding of consumers’ decision-making. Similarly, Petrick, Backman, andBixler (1999) supported the need to augment customer satisfaction measurementwith such variables as perceived value to provide more in-depth understandings ofcustomer perceptions at a diagnostic managerial level.Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to empirically test a model ofservice quality, satisfaction, value and the future intentions of customers, as per thecalls of McDougall and Levesque (2000). Consistent with Brady and Robertson(2001), the model proposed that satisfaction as a consequence of service quality hasa direct effect on future intentions of customers, as well as an indirect effect which ismediated by value. Alternately, the model also tests whether value has a direct effect on future intentions of customers and if an indirect effect mediated by satisfactionalso exists. Improved understanding of such relationships will provide managers ofsports and leisure services with an enhanced ability to utilise customer feedback datain a diagnostic manner to improve the potential for repeat patronage and positiveword of mouth promotion.Conceptual BackgroundEach of the constructs tested in the model (service quality, satisfaction, value andfuture intentions) is summarised in the sections that follow. More comprehensivediscussions of each construct are well documented elsewhere (e.g., Babin & Griffin,1998; Brady & Robertson, 2001; Giese & Cote, 2000; McDougall & Levesque, 2000).Service QualityConsiderable research has focused on the nature of service quality, and there is generalacceptance that service quality is composed of a number of underlying dimensions.However, there is a lack of agreement on the exact nature of these dimensions. Forexample, Parasuraman et al. (1988) derived five dimensions of service quality:responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, empathy and reliability (RATER), using theSERVQUAL scale. They asserted that these five dimensions were consistent acrossa number of independent samples in different service contexts. Consequently, theyproposed that the SERVQUAL scale could be used directly in different serviceindustries and contexts.However, subsequent research consistently confirmed that service qualitymeasurement should be tailored to the context being examined (Asubonteng,McCleary, & Swan, 1996; Babakus & Boller, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin & Taylor,1992; Crompton, MacKay, & Fesenmaier, 1991; Johnson, Tsiros, & Lancioni, 1995).It should be noted that, subsequently, Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1993) alsoacknowledged the need for context-specific tailoring of the SERVQUAL instrumentbased on the service industry context in which it was to be employed.Numerous studies provide support for the industry-specific dimensionalstructure of service quality. For example, Gagliano and Hathcote (1994), in a studyof retail apparel specialty stores, found that 19 service quality attributes (of the original22 SERVQUAL attributes) loaded into four dimensions. These were interpreted as:reliability, tangibles, personal attention, and convenience. In contrast, Carman (1990),in his study on service quality perceptions in hospitals, derived nine factors to explainservice quality.This variability in dimensional structure is also apparent when sports andleisure services are considered (Chelladurai & Chang, 2000). For example, Hill and Green (2000) used four groupings of service quality attributes in their study thatlinked perceptions of sportscape with future attendance intentions of spectators atrugby league games. Additionally, Howat et al. (1999), in a study of 30 Australiansports and leisure centres, obtained a three-factor solution for 17 service qualityattributes. Interpretation of the factors identified them as: personnel (loading on staffingfunctions), core (loading on principal role functions such as clean facilities) andperipheral (loading on secondary services, such as food and drink facilities).The three-factor solution found by Howat et al. (1999) was consistent withthe service quality dimension models that emphasise core and peripheral servicesproposed by Philip and Hazlett (1997) and Norman (1984). However, a more globalapproach was taken by McDougall and Levesque (2000). They proposed that debateon service quality dimensions was largely irrelevant, as service quality could be seenas being composed of two overarching dimensions: the core (what is delivered in theservice) and the relational (how it is delivered) aspects of the service. The three-factor model of Howat et al. for leisure services may be seen as consistent with thisapproach. The relational aspects of service appear to be a combination of the personnelfactor and the peripheral factors found by Howat et al. For example, a creche operatingat a leisure centre would not be perceived by customers as a core service of thecentre. However, it may be perceived as an example of how management of thecentre respond to their customers’ needs and provide them with enhanced experiences.
Customer Satisfaction There is general support for defining satisfaction in a consumer context as an overallevaluation of the service compared to customers’ expectations (e.g., see Jones &Suh, 2000; and McDougall & Levesque, 2000). However, there has been considerabledebate in the literature regarding the nature of satisfaction as a construct and itsrelationship to other constructs. Several major themes or questions have emerged inthe literature: whether satisfaction and dissatisfaction are poles of a single continuumor separate constructs (Soderlund, 1998); whether satisfaction may be considered astransaction-specific or an overall or global phenomenon (Rosen & Suprenant, 1998);the relationship between service quality and satisfaction (Parasuraman et al., 1988;Cronin & Taylor, 1992); and finally the relationship between satisfaction and futureintentions of customers (McDougall & Levesque, 2000). Although the first two issuesare important in the field of customer satisfaction research, the latter two issues arecentral to this paper and will be dealt with briefly to provide a background for readers.Satisfaction and service quality. There has been considerable debate aboutwhether satisfaction is an antecedent to, or a consequence of, service quality, or indeedif they are distinct constructs (Buttle 1996; Crompton & MacKay, 1989; De Ruyter,Bloemer, & Peeters, 1997; Liljander & Strandvik, 1997; Oliver, 1993). To summarise,although there is conflicting evidence (e.g., Rosen & Suprenant, 1998), the bulk of the literature tends to support satisfaction as an outcome of service quality (Brady &Robertson, 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1994; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1994;Taylor & Baker, 1994; Teas, 1994). The dominant assumption therefore is that theevaluation of the quality of the service provided determines, along with other factors,the customer’s level of satisfaction with the organisation or service provider (Hurley& Estelami, 1998).Satisfaction and future intentions. There is also evidence to suggest that itis the satisfaction of the customer that ultimately determines their future intentionsand behaviour towards the service (De Ruyter, Wetzels, & Bloemer, 1997; McDougall& Levesque, 2000; Taylor & Baker, 1994). Both Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault (1990)and Jones and Suh (2000) found that overall satisfaction had a direct influence onhow likely customers were to re-use the service. Similarly, McDougall and Levesque(2000) proposed a causal path, with perceptions of service quality influencing feelingsof satisfaction, which in turn influenced future purchase behaviour of customers. Ina sports and leisure context, Howat et al. (1999) found that satisfaction of customerswas positively related to their willingness to recommend the service. Indicators ofcustomer retention that are invariably used to denote customers’ intended loyaltyinclude: the level of customer repurchase (such as renewed memberships), how willingcustomers are to recommend the service to other prospective customers, andcustomers’ intentions to increase their frequency of visitation (Howat et al.).ValueThe concept of perceived value has become of increasing interest to researchers,particularly those investigating its potentially mediating relationship with theperceptions of satisfaction held by customers (McDougall & Levesque, 2000). Valuemay be viewed as the evaluation of what is received compared to what is given in aservice encounter. For example, McDougall and Levesque (2000) defined value as“benefits received relative to costs” (p. 393). Likewise, Zeithaml (1988) definedvalue as a consumer’s overall assessment of product utility, based on perceptions ofwhat was received and what was given in the exchange. The relationship betweenvalue and satisfaction appears to be well established in the literature, with thecustomer’s perception of receiving value for their money positively related to thesatisfaction of the customer (Zeithaml, 1988).Although the relationship between value and satisfaction appears to be wellestablished, there is uncertainty regarding the broader nature of the relationshipbetween value and satisfaction, and the implications of this relationship to both servicequality and future intentions. Zeithaml (1988) suggested that value might be a mediatorin perceptions of service quality. In forming an overall perception of that service,customers may use value to evaluate the service compared to alternatives availableto them. This premise implies that satisfaction, when considered as an overall evaluation of a service, and value may be similar constructs, or at least may be stronglyinter-correlated. For instance, Patterson and Spreng (1997) explained that “value isconsidered a cognitive-based construct which captures any benefit-sacrificediscrepancy in much the same way disconfirmation does for variations betweenexpectation and perceived performance” (p. 4).In a similar vein, Cronin et al. (2000) found strong and consistent results forthe indirect path linking service quality to intentions (through service value andsatisfaction), and value to intentions (through satisfaction) across industry contexts.These findings are consistent with the premise that service quality and valueperceptions (cognitive evaluations) precede satisfaction (affective responses) (Croninet al.). This in turn has potential implications for managers, as affective responses(i.e., emotions) may act as better predictors of behaviour than cognitive evaluationssuch as service quality perceptions and value judgments (Patterson & Spreng, 1997).On the other hand, monitoring of service quality attributes is also important formanagers because many of these reflect aspects of the service that can be more easilycontrolled or manipulated by service providers. In contrast, satisfaction may beinfluenced by a range of factors outside the control of a service provider, such asweather conditions or social group influences (Crompton & MacKay, 1989).McDougall and Levesque (2000) proposed that, in addition to satisfaction,value might be a dominant mediator of future intentions and behaviour of customers,with decisions to return to a service based on whether or not the customer received“value”. To this end, Cronin et al. (2000) suggested that there are two dimensions ofvalue: price and service received. They concluded that customers “place greaterimportance on the quality of a service than … on the costs associated with itsacquisition” (p. 196). Consequently, perceptions of service quality may driveperceptions of value, which, in turn, influence satisfaction judgments and futureintentions of customers. However, McDougall and Levesque (2000) proposed thatthe relationship is more complex, stating that customers may be happy with the serviceprovided (the core), how it is provided (the relational) and overall be satisfied withthe service, but not feel that they have received their money’s worth.In summary, it is apparent that although the path relationship between servicequality and satisfaction is well accepted, there is conflicting evidence regarding thepotentially mediating role that value may play in the satisfaction relationship.Accordingly, this paper will evaluate two models of service quality, satisfaction, valueand future intentions in a sports and leisure context, focusing on the role of value asa mediator of satisfaction. Specifically, the models will assess the role that valueplays in mediating the relationship between service quality, satisfaction and futureintentions.++The model shown in Figure 1a considers service quality to be composed oftwo variables as proposed by McDougall and Levesque (2000): relational aspects ofservice quality (such as the interaction with staff and child-minding services) andcore aspects of service quality (such as how well the centre is organised and run).The model proposes that satisfaction is a product or outcome of perceptions of servicequality, and that satisfaction is an antecedent to future intentions. In this model, valueis considered to mediate the influence of satisfaction, as the exogenous variables ofcore and relational service quality may affect satisfaction both directly and indirectlythrough the value–satisfaction relationship.However, the direction of the relationship between satisfaction and value isunclear. Accordingly, it will be tested by re-analysing the model with the direction ofthe relationship reversed (satisfaction as the antecedent to value). This is presentedin Figure 1b. |
