California State University Service Quality in Hotel Industry Written Proposal I will post 19 articles, please read and write a proposal. The proposal topi

California State University Service Quality in Hotel Industry Written Proposal I will post 19 articles, please read and write a proposal. The proposal topic is “service quality in hotel industry”. The optimal length of research proposal is 4,000 ~ 4,500 words, including references. The research proposal must follow the typical research paper format shown below in the word document. You can also read others article sources. The requirements are in the word document. Service Quality Research Proposal – Written Proposal
Research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research. It
sets out the central issues or questions that you intend to address. It outlines the
general area of study within which your research falls, referring to the current state of
knowledge and any recent debates on the topic. Service Quality Research Proposal is
intended to encourage in-depth reading in service marketing research with a special
emphasis on service quality, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and service
recovery. Each student must submit the final research proposal on May 5. The optimal
length of research proposal is 4,000 ~ 4,500 words, including references. The research
proposal must follow the typical research paper format shown below:
I. INTRODUCTION
Industry trends, statement of problem, justification of the study (why it has merits),
purpose and
objectives of your research, projected outcomes and contribution.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
An integrative review of the relevant literature indicating how your research would
extend the
extant literature. Identification all important service quality attributes. Theoretical
foundation for
your research. Cite minimum of 10 research articles published since 2013.
III. METHODOLOGY
Research design (discuss how you plan to conduct your study), service quality
attributes to be
included, research population and sample (who is the population: how will you select
the
sample?), data collection procedures (describe how you will gather your data: on-site
or online?),
data analysis (what statistical analysis is planned?)
IV. REFERENCES
List of all references used in alphabetical order (Use APA style).
V. APPENDIX (Optional)
Survey instrument/questionnaire if available.
Assessment criteria for proposal presentation includes originality and/or unique
contribution,
clarification of research problem, thorough theoretical foundation, sound
methodology, APA style
writing, and professional editing.
Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues
Consumer Satisfaction Theories: A Critical Review
Atila Yüksel & Fisun Yüksel
Adnan Menderes University
Introduction
The marketing and consumer behavior literature has traditionally suggested that
customer satisfaction is a relative concept, and is always judged in relation to a standard
(Olander, 1977). Consequently, in the course of its development, a number of different
competing theories based on various standards have been postulated for explaining customer
satisfaction. The theories include the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Paradigm (EDP), the
Value-Precept Theory, the Attribution Theory, the Equity Theory, the Comparison Level
Theory, the Evaluation Congruity Theory, the Person-Situation-Fit model, the PerformanceImportance model, the Dissonance, and the Contrast Theory.
Early researchers, including Engel, Kollat & Blackwell (1968), Howard & Sheth
(1969), & Cardozzo (1965), relied on the dissonance theory developed by Festinger (1957).
Subsequent studies (Anderson, 1973; Olshavsky & Miller, 1972) drew on the assimilationcontrast theories proposed by Sheriff & Hovland (1961). Later, Oliver (1977), drawing on the
adaptation level theory (Helson, 1964), developed the Expectancy-Disconfirmation model for
the study of consumer satisfaction, which received the widest acceptance among researchers.
These frameworks generally imply conscious comparison between a cognitive state prior to an
event and a subsequent cognitive state, usually realized after the event is experienced (Oliver,
1980). Following the introduction of the EDP, Westbrook & Reilly (1983) proposed the
Value-Precept theory as a competing framework to study consumer satisfaction, arguing that
what is expected from a product may not correspond to what is desired and valued in a
product, and thus, values may be better comparative standards as opposed to expectations
used in the EDP. In addition, Sirgy (1984) proposed the Evaluative Congruity model as
another competing framework to explain consumer satisfaction. According to Chon (1992),
the Evaluative Congruity Model is a better framework than the EDP because of its ability in
capturing the different states of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction resulting from different
Chapter 4 – Yüksel and Yüksel
combinations of expectations and performance outcome. Last decades also saw the
development of a number of additional frameworks such as the Attribution Theory,
Importance-Performance model, and the Equity Theory for the study of consumer satisfaction.
It is important to note that some of the posited theories have received intensive attention in the
literature (for example, the EDP), while others have not provoked further empirical research
(Oh & Parks 1997). The following section undertakes a critical review of these theories
postulated to explain consumer satisfaction, as this is important to the development of the
research.
The Dissonance Theory
The Dissonance Theory suggests that a person who expected a high-value product
and received a low-value product would recognize the disparity and experience a cognitive
dissonance (Cardozzo, 1965). That is, the disconfirmed expectations create a state of
dissonance or a psychological discomfort (Yi, 1990). According to this theory, the existence
of dissonance produces pressures for its reduction, which could be achieved by adjusting the
perceived disparity. This theory holds that “post exposure ratings are primarily a function of
the expectation level because the task of recognizing disconfirmation is believed to be
psychologically uncomfortable. Thus consumers are posited to perceptually distort
expectation-discrepant performance so as to coincide with their prior expectation level”
(Oliver, 1977, p. 480). For instance, if a disparity exists between product expectations and
product performance, consumers may have a psychological tension and try to reduce it by
changing their perception of the product (Yi, 1990). Cardozzo argues that consumers may
raise their evaluations of those products when the cost of that product to the individual is high.
For example, suppose that a customer goes into a restaurant, which she or he expects it to be
good, and is confronted with an unappetizing meal. The consumer, who had driven a long
distance and paid a high price for the meal, in order to reduce the dissonance, might say that
the food was not really as bad as it appeared or she likes overcooked meal, etc.
The researchers pursued this approach implicitly assume that consumers would
generally find that product performance deviated in some respect from their expectations or
effort expenditures and that some cognitive repositioning would be required (Oliver, 1980).
This theory has not gained much support from researchers, partly because it is not clear
whether consumers would engage in such discrepancy adjustments as the model predicts in
Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues
every consumption situation. In his criticism of the Dissonance theory, Oliver (1977), for
instance, argues that “Generally, it is agreed that satisfaction results from a comparison
between X, one’s expectation, and Y, product performance. Thus, it is the magnitude and
direction of this difference, which affects one’s post-decision affect level. X serves only to
provide the comparative baseline. Moreover, consumers are under no particular pressure to
resolve the X-Y difference. In fact, satisfaction/dissatisfaction is thought to arise from
recognition and acknowledgement of dissonance” (p. 206).
If the Dissonance Theory holds true, then companies should strive to raise
expectations substantially above the product performance in order to obtain a higher product
evaluation (Yi, 1990). However, the validity of this assumption is questionable. Raising
expectations substantially above the product performance and failing to meet these
expectations may backfire, as small discrepancies may be largely discounted while large
discrepancies may result in a very negative evaluation. This suggestion fails to take into
account the concept of “tolerance level”. The tolerance level suggests that purchasers are
willing to accept a range of performance around a point estimate as long as the range could be
reasonably expected. When perceptions of a brand performance, which are close to the norm
(initial expectation), are within the latitude of acceptable performance, and then it may be
assimilated toward the norm (Woodruff et al 1983). That is, perceived performance within
some interval around a performance norm is likely to be considered equivalent to the norm.
However, when the distance from this norm is great enough, that is perceived performance is
outside the acceptable zone, then brand performance will be perceived as different from the
norm, which, in contrast to this model’s assumption, will cause dissatisfaction not a high
product evaluation.
The Dissonance Theory fails as a complete explanation of consumer satisfaction,
however, it contributes to the understanding of the fact that expectations are not static in that
they may change during a consumption experience. For instance, the importance attached to
pre-holiday expectations may change during the holiday and a new set of expectations may be
formed as a result of experiences during the holiday. This implies that as customers progress
from one encounter to the next, say from hotel’s reception to the room or the restaurant, their
expectations about the room may be modified due to the performance of the previous
encounter (Danaher & Arweiler, 1996).
Chapter 4 – Yüksel and Yüksel
The Contrast Theory
The Contrast Theory suggests the opposite of the Dissonance Theory. According to
this theory, when actual product performance falls short of consumer’s expectations about the
product, the contrast between the expectation and outcome will cause the consumer to
exaggerate the disparity (Yi, 1990). The Contrast theory maintains that a customer who
receives a product less valuable than expected, will magnify the difference between the
product received and the product expected (Cardozzo, 1965). This theory predicts that product
performance below expectations will be rated poorer than it is in reality (Oliver & DeSarbo,
1988). In other words, the Contrast Theory would assume that “outcomes deviating from
expectations will cause the subject to favorably or unfavorably react to the disconfirmation
experience in that a negative disconfirmation is believed to result in a poor product evaluation,
whereas positive disconfirmation should cause the product to be highly appraised” (Oliver,
1977, p. 81). In terms of the above restaurant situation, the consumer might say that the
restaurant was one of the worst he or she had ever been and the food was unfit for human
consumption, etc.
If the Contrast Theory were applied to a consumption context, then the poor
performance would be worse than simply poor, and good performance would be better than a
rating of good would suggest (Oliver, 1997). Under the dissonance theory, the opposite effects
occur, perceived performance, whether it is less or more favorable than the consumer’s
expectations, is drawn to the original expectation level. It is important to note that these
theories have been applied and tested in laboratory settings where the customer satisfaction
was tightly controlled, situation specific and individually focused. For instance, researchers
investigated the ability of these theories in predicting customer satisfaction with a pen
(Cardozzo, 1965), a reel-type tape recorder (Olshavsky & Miller, 1972), ball-point pen
(Anderson, 1973), and a coffee brand (Olson & Dover, 1975). Thus, it is curious whether
hypotheses held by these theories could be accepted or rejected when applied in a field survey
research study of hospitality and tourism services (Oh & Parks, 1997). It is, for instance, not
clear whether all purchase decisions in tourism and hospitality services result in dissonance.
Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues
The Expectancy Disconfirmation Paradigm
Drawing on the shortcomings of the above early theories of consumer satisfaction,
Oliver (1977; 1980) proposed the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Paradigm (EDP) as the
most promising theoretical framework for the assessment of customer satisfaction. The model
implies that consumers purchase goods and services with pre-purchase expectations about the
anticipated performance. The expectation level then becomes a standard against which the
product is judged. That is, once the product or service has been used, outcomes are compared
against expectations. If the outcome matches the expectation confirmation occurs.
Disconfirmation occurs where there is a difference between expectations and outcomes. A
customer is either satisfied or dissatisfied as a result of positive or negative difference
between expectations and perceptions. Thus, when service performance is better than what
the customer had initially expected, there is a positive disconfirmation between expectations
and performance which results in satisfaction, while when service performance is as
expected, there is a confirmation between expectations and perceptions which results in
satisfaction. In contrast, when service performance is not as good as what the customer
expected, there is a negative disconfirmation between expectations and perceptions which
causes dissatisfaction.
This type of discrepancy theory has a long history in the satisfaction literature
dating back at least to Howard’s & Sheth’s (1967) definition of satisfaction which states that
it is a function of the degree of congruency between aspirations and perceived reality of
experiences. Porter (1961) can be credited with early empirical applications of this
comparative model of customer satisfaction in the field of job satisfaction (cf. Oliver, 1997).
In his study, Porter, for instance, compared the worker’s perception of how much of a job
facet (for example, pay) there should be to the worker’s perception of how much is the facet
there now. In support of Porter’s view, Locke (1965) proposed that this discrepancy
methodology could be employed in assessing employees’ job satisfaction
This literature review demonstrates that in addition to job satisfaction literature this
model has found great degree of support from researchers in other disciplines, and has been
widely used to evaluate satisfaction with different products and services, for example with flu
treatment (Oliver, 1980), with restaurant services (Bearden & Teel, 1983; Cadotte, Woodruff
& Jenkins, 1987; Swan & Trawick, 1981), with automobiles (Oliver & Swan, 1989;), with
Chapter 4 – Yüksel and Yüksel
record players (Tse & Wilton, 1989) with stock market services (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988),
with video disc player (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982) with hotel and holiday destination
services (Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Pizam & Milman, 1993; Tribe & Snaith,
1998; Weber, 1997).
Inferred versus Direct Disconfirmation
It is important to note that there are basically two methods of investigating
dis/confirmation of expectations. First, the inferred approach (or the subtractive approach)
and second the direct approach (or the subjective approach) (Meyer & Westerbarkey, 1996;
Prakash & Lounsbury, 1992). The inferred approach involves the computation of the
discrepancy between expectations and evaluations of performance. This requires researchers
to draw separate information relating to customer service expectations and perceived
performance. These scores are then subtracted to form the third variable, the dis/confirmation
or difference score. The inferred (subtractive) disconfirmation approach (for example,
LaTour & Peat, 1979), is derived from the theory of comparison (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)
and assumes that the effects of a post-experience comparison on satisfaction can be expressed
as a function of algebraic difference between product performance and a comparative
standard. Tse and Wilton (1988) report that the inferred approach has found considerable
support from studies in cognitive psychology where psychological variables expressed as
algebraic rules have been found to represent human information processes over a wide
variety of situations.
The direct approach on the other hand, requires the use of summary judgmental
scales to measure dis/confirmation, such as better than expected to worse than expected. The
calculation of the difference scores by the researcher is avoided as the respondents can be
asked directly the extent to which the service experience exceeded, met or fell short of
expectations. As an alternative approach, subjective disconfirmation approach represents a
distinct psychological construct encompassing a subjective evaluation of the difference
between product performance and the comparison standard (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982;
Oliver, 1980). That is, subjective disconfirmation encompasses a set of psychological
processes that may mediate perceived product performance discrepancies. Tse & Wilton
(1988) state that such processes are likely to be important in situations in which product
performance cannot be judged discretely.
Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues
An important distinction between the direct and inferred approaches has been
drawn by Oliver (1980) who suggests that “subtractive disconfirmation (inferred) may lead to
an immediate satisfaction judgment, whereas subjective disconfirmation represents an
intervening distinct cognitive state resulting from the comparison process and preceding
satisfaction judgments” (p. 460). Hence, according to Oliver, subjective disconfirmation is
likely to offer a richer explanation of the complex processes underlying customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction formation. Swan & Martin (1981) compared the ability of inferred
and direct disconfirmation measures in predicting customer satisfaction. They found that
satisfaction is more sensitive (better predicts) to inferred disconfirmation than to direct
disconfirmation, which appears to be contradicting with Tse’s & Wilton’s (1988) finding,
which suggests that direct disconfirmation yields a better prediction of customer satisfaction
than inferred disconfirmation.
Both the inferred and the direct methods of EDP have been used by hospitality and
tourism researchers in various studies which assess international travelers’ satisfaction levels
as well as in studies investigating customer satisfaction with hotel services (for example,
Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Cho, 1998; Chon & Olsen, 1991; Danaher &
Haddrell, 1996; Pizam & Milman, 1993; Reisinger & Turner, 1997; Reisinger & Warzyack,
1995; Weber, 1997; Whipple & Thach, 1989). It is important to remind that, the Servqual
technique, utilized by some researchers in assessing tourist satisfaction (Tribe & Snaith,
1998), employs a similar algorithm to that of the inferred disconfirmation approach.
Despite its widespread popularity, however, the EDP is not free of shortcomings.
The main criticisms of this approach focus on the use of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring customer satisfaction, the dynamic nature of expectations and the
timing of its measurement, the meaning of expectations to respondents, the use of difference
scores in assessing satisfaction, and the reliability and validity of the EDP in predicting
customer satisfaction (refer to Yuksel & Yuksel, 2001 for a detailed discussion on EDP
limitations). One of the problems related to the EDP is the suggested sequence of the model,
which presupposes that everyone has precise expectations prior to the service experience. It is
obvious that without these prior expectations, dis/confirmation of expectations cannot occur
(Halstead, Hartman, & Schmidt, 1994). However, the logic of the EDP, stating that everyone
has firm expectations of all attributes prior to service experiences, might be …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment