Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction Relationship

Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction familyThe distinction between servicing persona and cheer was initially unclear in literature (Anderson and Fornell, 1994). at that place was considerable debate whether service quality is a cause of satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor, 1992 Parasuraman et al., 1985) or a essence of satisfaction (Bitner, 1990 Bolton and Drew, 1991). Anderson and Fornell, (1994) contend that Satisfaction is a post consumption pay back which comp bes perceived quality with judge quality, as contrasted to service quality which Parasuraman et al., (1985) refererred to as a global evaluation of a firms service spoken language system . In support of this distiction the works of (Brady and Robertson, 2001 Cronin and Taylor, 1992 Frazer Winsted, 2000 Spreng and Mackoy, 1996) lead us to believe that satisfaction and service quality are distinct constructs and, that service quality is an antecedent of the broader concept of customer satisfaction.An accepted view i s that the necessity determinant of satisfaction is the confirmation/disconfirmation of pre-consumption product standards (Erevelles and Leavitt 1992 Oliver 1996).Several different comparison standards-each exclusively tied to positively aspects of product features and their implications for consumers- cave in been used in past research. By far the most common are prognosticative expectations of attribute performance, as incorporated in the expectations-dis-confirmation (ED) model of satisfaction response (Boulding et al. 1993 Oliver 1996 Tse and Wilton 1988).Desires based on features and benefits that are considered ideal or aspirational in the product domain have also been recommended (Westbrook and Reilly 1983).Other models use loveliness expectations based on what the consumer believes reasonably should occur given the product/service price (Oliver and Swan 1989) and experience-based norms de-rived from in-person experiences or information received (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jen kins 1987).Although these four types of comparison standards reflect the four principal satisfaction models joint within the CS paradigm, past researchers probably have overemphasized the significance of predictive expectations and the ED model (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987).lacobucci, Grayson, and Ostrom (1994) of late called for research into conditions that determine the use of certain standards over others and the possibility of multiple simultaneous standards, and new a posteriori work has begun to support these ideas (Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996).A few CS paradigm researchers have gone beyond these cognitively toned model formulations to consider the ingrainive nature of satisfaction (Oliver 1996 Westbrook 1987). Perhaps most intriguing is Olivers (1989) breath that there exist five different modes or prototypes of satisfaction contentment (with its primary affect of acceptance or tolerance), pleasure (a positive reinforcement state that involves the evoc ation or enhancement of a positive, well-liked experience and a primary affect of happiness), relief (a negative reinforcement state occurring when an aversive state is removed), novelty (expectations of the unexpected that yield a primary affect of interest or excitation), and surprise (a primary affect of either delight or outrage as occurs when the product performs outside the range of expectations).Empirical mental testing of these modes has just begun, with initial results indicating a more parsimonious structure than originally proposed (Oliver 1996).Although satisfaction has been conceptualized in equipment casualty of either a single transaction (i.e., an evaluative judgment following the purchase occasion) or a series of interactions with a product over time, Anderson and Fornell (1994) note that nearly all satisfaction research has follow the former, transaction-specific view.Indeed, several observers have chastised the marketing field for treating satisfaction as a st atic evaluation derived from a lone trial event, noting that comparison standards are likely to change with consumer experience (Iacobucci, Grayson, and Ostrom 1994).Among the few satisfaction studies that have adopted longitudinal designs, most remain wedded to the CS paradigm (e.g., Bolton and Drew 1991 LaBarbera and Mazursky 1983 Richins and Bloch 1991).ReferencesCronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality a re-examination and extension, diary of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.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, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 69-82.Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), A multistage model of customers assessments of service quality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol . 17, March, pp. 275-84.Brady, M.K. and Robertson, C.J. (2001), Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service quality and satisfaction an exploratory cross-national convey, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51, January, pp. 53-9.Frazer Winsted, K. (2000), Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 no 4/3, pp. 399-417.Spreng, R.A. and Mackoy, R.D. (1996), An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 201-14.Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. (1994), A customer satisfaction research prospectus, in ust, R.T., Oliver, R.L. (Eds),Service Quality New Directions in Theory and Practice, pp.241-68..Yi (1990) conceptualizes satisfaction as an attitude-like judgment following a purchase act or based on a series of consumer-product interactions.