Servicescape Symbolism - QUTeprints.qut.edu.au/57199/1/Yun-Hsin_Chou_Thesis.pdf · Servicescape...
Transcript of Servicescape Symbolism - QUTeprints.qut.edu.au/57199/1/Yun-Hsin_Chou_Thesis.pdf · Servicescape...
Servicescape Symbolism
A thesis submitted to the School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations,
Queensland University of Technology, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in 2012
by
Yun-Hsin Chou
BSc (Hons) (Mass Communication) Ming Chuan University, Taiwan 1998
MSc (Marketing) University of Stirling, UK 2003
ii
Keywords: Servicescape, Self Theory, Personal Construct Theory, Human Value Theory,
Symbolic Interactionism, Self-Congruity Model, symbolic meanings, cognition, salient
servicescape attribute, values of the self, actual self, ideal self, social self, repertory tests,
laddering technique, hierarchical value map, categorisation, content analysis, servicescape
image, factor analysis, polynomial regression with response surface analysis, moderated
polynomial regression, self-incongruence, preference, Service Profit Chain, in-depth
interview, web-based survey
iii
ABSTRACT
In order to drive sustainable financial profitability, service firms make significant
investments in creating service environments that consumers will prefer over the
environments of their competitors. To date, servicescape research is over-focused on
understanding consumers‘ emotional and physiological responses to servicescape
attributes, rather than taking a holistic view of how consumers cognitively interpret
servicescapes. This thesis argues that consumers will cognitively ascribe symbolic
meanings to servicescapes and then evaluate if those meanings are congruent with their
sense of Self in order to form a preference for a servicescape. Consequently, this thesis
takes a Self Theory approach to servicescape symbolism to address the following broad
research question:
How do ascribed symbolic meanings influence servicescape preference?
Using a three-study, mixed-method approach, this thesis investigates the symbolic
meanings consumers ascribe to servicescapes and empirically tests whether the joint
effects of congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes influence consumers‘ servicescape preference. First, Study One identifies
the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attributes using a combination of
repertory tests and laddering techniques within 19 semi-structured individual depth
interviews. Study Two modifies an existing scale to create a symbolic servicescape
meaning scale in order to measure the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
Finally, Study Three utilises the Self-Congruity Model to empirically examine the joint
effects of consumer Self and servicescape on consumers‘ preference for servicescapes.
Using polynomial regression with response surface analysis, 14 joint effect models
demonstrate that both Self-Servicescape incongruity and congruity influence consumers‘
preference for servicescapes. Combined, the findings of three studies suggest that the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes and their (in)congruities with consumers‘
sense of self can be used to predict consumers‘ preferences for servicescapes. These
findings have several key theoretical and practical contributions to services marketing.
iv
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 RESEARCH RATIONALE .......................................................................................... 4 1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................... 8 1.4 RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 9
1.4.1 Study One ................................................................................................................. 9 1.4.2 Study Two................................................................................................................. 9 1.4.3 Study Three ............................................................................................................ 11
1.5 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ...................................................................................... 13 1.6 ETHICS CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 13 1.7 CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE................... 14 1.8 OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS ................................................................................. 15 1.9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 18
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 19 2.1 EXAMINING SERVICESCAPE RESEARCH ........................................................ 19
2.1.1 Servicescape Frameworks ..................................................................................... 20 2.1.2 Symbolism in Servicescape .................................................................................... 26
2.2 THE SELF .................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.1 Self Theory ............................................................................................................. 28 2.2.2 Self and Symbols .................................................................................................... 29 2.2.3 Personal Construct Theory .................................................................................... 31 2.2.4 The Self and Personality ........................................................................................ 33 2.2.5 Personal Value Theory .......................................................................................... 36
2.3 SELF-CONGRUITY MODEL ................................................................................... 42 2.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 44
3 STUDY ONE ......................................................................................................... 45 3.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 45 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION ....................................................... 45
3.2.1 Phase One: Repertory Test Technique .................................................................. 48 3.2.2 Phase Two: Laddering Technique ......................................................................... 49 3.2.3 Justification of a Combination of Repertory Test and Laddering Techniques ...... 50
3.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND JUSTIFICATION ............................................. 51 3.3.1 Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 51 3.3.2 Sample.................................................................................................................... 53 3.3.3 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 54
3.4 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 56 3.4.1 Sort Data Points .................................................................................................... 57 3.4.2 Categorise and Theme Attributes .......................................................................... 57 3.4.3 Categorise and Theme Consequences and End-Values ......................................... 58 3.4.4 Data Presentation .................................................................................................. 58 3.4.5 Method Summary ................................................................................................... 59
3.5 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 59 3.5.1 Tier 1: Salient Attributes ....................................................................................... 60 3.5.2 Tier 2: Consequences ............................................................................................ 65 3.5.3 Tier 3: Values ........................................................................................................ 68
3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF HIERARCHICAL VALUE MAPS ..................................... 69 3.6.1 Staff Behaviour (A8) .............................................................................................. 71 3.6.2 Furnishing (A4) ..................................................................................................... 73 3.6.3 Outdoors (A1) ........................................................................................................ 74 3.6.4 Layout and Space (A6) ........................................................................................... 76 3.6.5 Colour (A2) ............................................................................................................ 79
vi
3.6.6 Consumer Behaviour (A10) ................................................................................... 80 3.6.7 Architectural Design (A3) ..................................................................................... 82 3.6.8 Certification (A7) .................................................................................................. 84 3.6.9 Consumer Appearance (A11) ................................................................................ 85 3.6.10 Staff Appearance (A9) ......................................................................................... 86 3.6.11 Cleanliness (A5) .................................................................................................. 87
3.7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 88 4 STUDY TWO ........................................................................................................ 91
4.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 91 4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION ....................................................... 91 4.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE ...................................................................................... 94
4.3.1 Stage One: Selecting Stimuli ................................................................................. 94 4.3.2 Stage Two: Developing Items and Selecting the Scaling Format ......................... 95 4.3.3 Stage Three: Finalising Survey Layout and Instructions .................................... 103 4.3.4 Survey Pre-Testing .............................................................................................. 103
4.4 DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 105 4.4.1 Sample Size and Sampling Strategy .................................................................... 105 4.4.2 Survey Administration ......................................................................................... 106
4.5 METHODS FOR DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 107 4.5.1 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................... 107 4.5.2 Method for Factor Extraction ............................................................................. 108 4.5.3 Factor Interpretation ........................................................................................... 109 4.5.4 Missing Data ....................................................................................................... 111 4.5.5 Criteria to Extract Factors .................................................................................. 111 4.5.6 Label Factors ...................................................................................................... 112 4.5.7 Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................ 112
4.6 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 114 4.6.1 Sample Characteristics ....................................................................................... 114 4.6.2 Intercorrelations.................................................................................................. 115 4.6.3 Final Scale Structure ........................................................................................... 118 4.6.4 Qualitative Interpretation of the Three-Component Structure ............................ 119 4.6.5 Reliability and Validity of the Measure ............................................................... 120
4.7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 122 5 STUDY THREE .................................................................................................. 123
5.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESES ................................................. 123 5.1.1 Personality of the Self and Servicescape Preference .......................................... 126 5.1.2 Values of the Self and Servicescape Preference .................................................. 128 5.1.3 Moderating Effect of Salient Personality Components on Preference ................ 130 5.1.4 Moderating Effect of the Salient Personal Values on Preference ....................... 131 5.1.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 132
5.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION ..................................................... 134 5.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE .................................................................................... 135
5.3.1 Sample and Data Collection................................................................................ 137 5.4 METHODS FOR DATA ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION ............................ 140
5.4.1 Polynomial Regression ........................................................................................ 141 5.4.2 Response Surface Analysis .................................................................................. 141 5.4.3 Assumptions of the Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis ..... 143 5.4.4 Justification of the Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis ..... 144 5.4.5 Data Analysis Procedure .................................................................................... 146
5.5 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 150 5.5.1 Preliminary Data Preparation ............................................................................ 151 5.5.2 Hypotheses Testing .............................................................................................. 159 5.5.3 Predictive Strength of Personality Components and Personal Values ............... 204 5.5.4 Testing the Moderating Effects............................................................................ 206
vii
5.5.5 Summary of the Findings ..................................................................................... 221 5.6 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 223
6 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 225 6.1 OVERALL RESEARCH PURPOSE ....................................................................... 226 6.2 DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................. 227
6.2.1 Study One: Exploring the Symbolic Meanings Ascribed to Salient Servicescape
Attributes .......................................................................................................................... 227 6.2.2 Study Two: Modifying a Measure to Evaluate the Symbolic Meanings Ascribed to
Servicescapes ................................................................................................................... 229 6.2.3 Study Three: Testing the Joint Effects of Consumer Self and Symbolic Meanings
Ascribed to Servicescapes on Preference......................................................................... 233 6.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY .......................................................................... 235
6.3.1 Self Theory ........................................................................................................... 236 6.3.2 Human Value Theory ........................................................................................... 237 6.3.3 Self-Congruity Model ........................................................................................... 238
6.4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRACTICE ....................................................................... 239 6.4.1 Implication for Segmentation and Servicescape Design ..................................... 239 6.4.2 Implication for Service Employee Training and Recruitment ............................. 241
6.5 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ............................. 242 6.6 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 243
APPENDIX A: STUDY ONE INTERVIEW INFORMATION ........................ 245
APPENDIX B: STUDY ONE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ............................ 249 APPENDIX C: STUDY TWO SURVEY INFORMATION .............................. 267
APPENDIX D: STUDY THREE SURVEY INFORMATION .......................... 279 APPENDIX E: STUDY THREE RESULTS OF THE PREDICTIVE STRENGTH
COMPARISON MODELS ................................................................................... 289
7 REFERENCE ...................................................................................................... 313
viii
ix
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: DIAGRAM TO OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS ....................................................... 16 FIGURE 2: MAPPING BITNER‘S (1992) SERVICESCAPE FRAMEWORK AGAINST
MEHRABIAN AND RUSSELL‘S (1974) S-O-R MODEL ...................................... 21 FIGURE 3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTRIBUTES, CONSEQUENCES, AND END-
VALUES .................................................................................................................... 60 FIGURE 4: STAFF BEHAVIOUR AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND
END-VALUES .......................................................................................................... 71 FIGURE 5: FURNISHING AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND END-
VALUES .................................................................................................................... 73 FIGURE 6: OUTDOORS AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND END-
VALUES .................................................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 7: LAYOUT AND SPACE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND
END-VALUES .......................................................................................................... 77 FIGURE 8: COLOUR AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND END-
VALUES .................................................................................................................... 79 FIGURE 9: CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES
AND END-VALUES................................................................................................. 81 FIGURE 10: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH
CONSEQUENCES AND END-VALUES ................................................................ 83 FIGURE 11: CERTIFICATION AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND
END-VALUES .......................................................................................................... 84 FIGURE 12: CONSUMER APPEARANCE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH
CONSEQUENCES AND END-VALUES ................................................................ 85 FIGURE 13: STAFF APPEARANCE AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES
AND END-VALUES................................................................................................. 86 FIGURE 14: CLEANLINESS AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH CONSEQUENCES AND END-
VALUES .................................................................................................................... 87 FIGURE 15: EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK OF SYMBOLIC SERVICESCAPE ...................... 125 FIGURE 16: A REPRESENTATION OF POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION WITH RESPONSE
SURFACE PATTERN............................................................................................. 142 FIGURE 17: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE IDEAL SELF & SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ................................................................. 164 FIGURE 18: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE IDEAL SELF & PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ...................................... 165 FIGURE 19: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE IDEAL SELF & STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A
DISCREPANCY ................................................................................................... 166 FIGURE 20: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE ACTUAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ................................................................. 167 FIGURE 21: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE ACTUAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ......................................... 168 FIGURE 22: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
ACTUAL SELF & STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY
................................................................................................................................. 169 FIGURE 23: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE SOCIAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ................................................................. 170
x
FIGURE 24: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE SOCIAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ....................................... 170 FIGURE 25: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE SOCIAL SELF & THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A
DISCREPANCY .................................................................................................. 171 FIGURE 26: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE LIFE
ENJOYMENT VALUE OF THE SELF & THE LIFE ENJOYMENT VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ..................................... 172 FIGURE 27: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE PLEASANT
AND PLEASURE VALUE OF THE SELF & THE PLEASANT AND PLEASURE
VALUE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ......................... 173 FIGURE 28: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
RESPONSIBILITY VALUE OF THE SELF & THE RESPONSIBILITY VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ...................................... 173 FIGURE 29: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE SENSE OF
BELONGING VALUE OF THE SELF & SENSE OF BELONGING VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ..................................... 174 FIGURE 30: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE A AS PREDICTED BY THE
RECOGNITION VALUE OF THE SELF & RECOGNITION VALUE ASCRIBED
TO SERVICESCAPE A DISCREPANCY ............................................................. 175 FIGURE 31: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE IDEAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ................................................................. 178 FIGURE 32: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE IDEAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ...................................... 179 FIGURE 33: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE IDEAL SELF & THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B
DISCREPANCY ................................................................................................... 180 FIGURE 34: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE ACTUAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY .................................................................... 181 FIGURE 35: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE ACTUAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ...................................... 181 FIGURE 36: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE ACTUAL SELF & THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B
DISCREPANCY .................................................................................................. 182 FIGURE 37: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE SOCIAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY .................................................................... 183 FIGURE 38: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE SOCIAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ........................................ 184 FIGURE 39: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE SOCIAL SELF –THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B
DISCREPANCY ..................................................................................................... 184 FIGURE 40: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE LIFE
ENJOYMENT VALUE OF THE SELF & THE LIFE ENJOYMENT VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ...................................... 185 FIGURE 41: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE PLEASANT
AND PLEASURE VALUE OF THE SELF & THE PLEASANT AND PLEASURE
VALUE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ....................... 186
xi
FIGURE 42: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
RESPONSIBILITY VALUE OF THE SELF & THE RESPONSIBILITY VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ......................................... 187 FIGURE 43: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE SENSE OF
BELONGING VALUE OF THE SELF & THE SENSE OF BELONGING VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ......................................... 188 FIGURE 44: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE B AS PREDICTED BY THE
RECOGNITION VALUE OF THE SELF & THE RECOGNITION VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE B DISCREPANCY ......................................... 189 FIGURE 45: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE IDEAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ................................................................. 191 FIGURE 46: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE IDEAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ...................................... 192 FIGURE 47: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE IDEAL SELF & THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C
DISCREPANCY ...................................................................................................... 192 FIGURE 48: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE ACTUAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ................................................................... 193 FIGURE 49: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE ACTUAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ...................................... 194 FIGURE 50: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE ACTUAL SELF & THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C
DISCREPANCY ...................................................................................................... 195 FIGURE 51: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
SOCIABILITY OF THE SOCIAL SELF & THE SOCIABILITY ASCRIBED TO
SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY .................................................................... 196 FIGURE 52: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
PROFESSIONALISM OF THE SOCIAL SELF & THE PROFESSIONALISM
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ....................................... 196 FIGURE 53: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE STYLE OF
THE SOCIAL SELF & THE STYLE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C
DISCREPANCY ...................................................................................................... 197 FIGURE 54: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE LIFE
ENJOYMENT VALUE OF THE SELF & THE LIFE ENJOYMENT VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ......................................... 198 FIGURE 55: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE PLEASANT
AND PLEASURE VALUE OF THE SELF & THE PLEASANT AND PLEASURE
VALUE ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY........................... 199 FIGURE 56: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
RESPONSIBILITY VALUE OF THE SELF & THE RESPONSIBILITY VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ......................................... 199 FIGURE 57: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE SENSE OF
BELONGING VALUE OF THE SELF & THE SENSE OF BELONGING VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ......................................... 200 FIGURE 58: PREFERENCE FOR SERVICESCAPE C AS PREDICTED BY THE
RECOGNITION VALUE OF THE SELF & THE RECOGNITION VALUE
ASCRIBED TO SERVICESCAPE C DISCREPANCY ......................................... 201 FIGURE 59: LOW LEVELS OF THE SALIENT STYLE ON PERSONALITY OF IDEAL SELF
(SISTYLE) ............................................................................................................... 209 FIGURE 60: HIGH LEVELS OF THE SALIENT STYLE ON PERSONALITY OF IDEAL
SELF (SISTYLE) ................................................................................................... 210
xii
FIGURE 61: LOW LEVELS OF THE SALIENT STYLE ON PERSONALITY OF ACTUAL
SELF (SISTYLE) ................................................................................................... 211 FIGURE 62: HIGH LEVELS OF THE SALIENT STYLE ON PERSONALITY OF ACTUAL
SELF (SISTYLE) .................................................................................................... 211 FIGURE 63: LOW LEVELS OF THE SALIENT STYLE ON PERSONALITY OF SOCIAL
SELF (SISTYLE) ................................................................................................... 212 FIGURE 64: HIGH LEVELS OF THE SALIENT STYLE ON PERSONALITY OF SOCIAL
SELF (SISTYLE) .................................................................................................... 213 FIGURE 65: LOW LEVELS OF THE SALIENT RESPONSIBILITY ON VALUES OF THE
SELF (SIRESPON) ................................................................................................. 215 FIGURE 66: HIGH LEVELS OF THE SALIENT RESPONSIBILITY ON VALUES OF THE
SELF (SIRESPON) ................................................................................................. 216 FIGURE 67: LOW LEVELS OF THE SALIENT PROFESSIONALISM ON ACTUAL SELF
(SIPROMAN) .......................................................................................................... 218 FIGURE 68: HIGH LEVELS OF THE SALIENT PROFESSIONALISM ON ACTUAL SELF
(SIPROMAN) .......................................................................................................... 219
xiii
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................ 12 TABLE 2: SERVICESCAPE DIMENSIONS AND RELATED ATTRIBUTES IN EXISTING
LITERATURE ........................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3: SYMBOLIC MEANINGS AND THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO PERSONAL
VALUES .................................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 4: PRESENTATION OF THE SET OF TRIADS USING BALANCED INCOMPLETE
BLOCK DESIGN ...................................................................................................... 52 TABLE 5: EMPLOYMENT, GENDER AND AGE OF THE INFORMANTS OF STUDY ONE
................................................................................................................................... 54 TABLE 6: EMERGENT THEMES DERIVED FROM SALIENT ATTRIBUTES ...................... 64 TABLE 7: CONSEQUENCE AND THE THEMES ..................................................................... 66 TABLE 8: VALUES AND THEIR THEMES IN CORRESPONDING TO SCHWARTZ‘S (1992)
VALUE TYPES ......................................................................................................... 69 TABLE 9: THEMES AND THEMED CODES FOR ATTRIBUTES, CONSEQUENCES AND
END-VALUES .......................................................................................................... 70 TABLE 10: THREE REPRESENTATIVE SERVICESCAPE IMAGES...................................... 95 TABLE 11: SERVICESCAPE IMAGES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING PERSONALITY
DESCRIPTORS AND SELF-RELEVANT VALUES .............................................. 98 TABLE 12: A COMPARISON BETWEEN 28 PERSONALITY DESCRIPTORS AND
MALHOTRA‘S (1981) 15 PAIRS OF SELF-CONCEPT ITEMS............................ 99 TABLE 13: BIPOLAR PERSONALITY DESCRIPTORS ......................................................... 100 TABLE 14: SEVEN-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SYMBOLIC SERVICESCAPE
MEANING SCALE ................................................................................................. 102 TABLE 15: OVERVIEW OF TWO SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS ... 115 TABLE 16: INTER-ITEM CORRECTIONS AND MSA VALUES BETWEEN VARIABLES117 TABLE 17: KMO AND BARTLETT'S TEST ACROSS THREE VERSIONS OF SURVEYS 118 TABLE 18: FINAL THREE-COMPONENT EFA STRUCTURE FOR SYMBOLIC
SERVICESCAPE MEANING SCALE ................................................................... 119 TABLE 19: SERVICESCAPE PERSONALITY DESCRIPTORS, THE EXTRACTED
FACTORS AND THE CORRESPONDING SELF-RELEVANT VALUES ......... 120 TABLE 20: CFA MODEL FIT (N=250) ..................................................................................... 121 TABLE 21: REGRESSION WEIGHTS (N=250) ........................................................................ 121 TABLE 22: CORRELATIONS, SQUARED CORRELATIONS AND VE OF CFA MODEL
(N=250) .................................................................................................................... 122 TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES FOR STUDY THREE ........................................ 133 TABLE 24: SURVEY MEASURES ............................................................................................ 136 TABLE 25: OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS FOR STUDY THREE ............ 139 TABLE 26: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERCORRELATION AND ALPHA
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN PERSONALITY COMPONENTS VARIABLES
(VERSION 1: SERVICESCAPE A) ....................................................................... 153 TABLE 27: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERCORRELATION AND ALPHA
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN PERSONAL VALUES VARIABLES (VERSION 1:
SERVICESCAPE A) ............................................................................................... 154 TABLE 28: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERCORRELATION AND ALPHA
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN PERSONALITY COMPONENTS VARIABLES
(VERSION 2: SERVICESCAPE B) ........................................................................ 155 TABLE 29: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERCORRELATION AND ALPHA
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN PERSONAL VALUES VARIABLES (VERSION 2:
SERVICESCAPE B) ............................................................................................... 156 TABLE 30: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERCORRELATION AND ALPHA
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN PERSONALITY COMPONENTS VARIABLES
(VERSION 3: SERVICESCAPE C) ........................................................................ 157
xiv
TABLE 31:MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERCORRELATION AND ALPHA
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN PERSONAL VALUES VARIABLES (VERSION 3:
SERVICESCAPE C) ............................................................................................... 158 TABLE 32: RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES TESTING FOR CONGRUENCE AND
MODERATING EFFECTS..................................................................................... 160 TABLE 33: VERSION 1-HYPOTHESES 1A-3C: PREDICTING PREFERENCE
SERVICESCAPE A FROM PERSONALITY OF THE SELF-SERVICESCAPE A
CONGRUENCE ...................................................................................................... 163 TABLE 34: VERSION 1-HYPOTHESES 4A-4E: PREDICTING PREFERENCE FOR
SERVICESCAPE A FROM VALUES OF THE SELF-SERVICESCAPE A
CONGRUENCE ...................................................................................................... 163 TABLE 35: VERSION 2-HYPOTHESES 1A-3C: PREDICTING PREFERENCE FOR
SERVICESCAPE B FROM PERSONALITY OF THE SELF-SERVICESCAPE B
CONGRUENCE ...................................................................................................... 177 TABLE 36: VERSION 2-HYPOTHESES 4A-4E: PREDICTING PREFERENCE FOR
SERVICESCAPE B FROM VALUES OF THE SELF-SERVICESCAPE B
CONGRUENCE ...................................................................................................... 177 TABLE 37: VERSION 3-HYPOTHESES 1A-3C: PREDICTING PREFERENCE FOR
SERVICESCAPE C FROM PERSONALITY OF THE SELF-SERVICESCAPE C
CONGRUENCE ...................................................................................................... 190 TABLE 38: VERSION 3-HYPOTHESES 4A-4E: PREDICTING PREFERENCE FOR
SERVICESCAPE C FROM VALUES OF THE SELF-SERVICESCAPE C
CONGRUENCE ...................................................................................................... 190 TABLE 39: RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES TESTING FOR CONGRUENCE AND
INCONGRUENCE EFFECTS ................................................................................ 203 TABLE 40: OVERVIEW OF THE PREDICTIVE STRENGTH COMPARISON OF
PERSONALITY COMPONENTS AND PERSONAL VALUES .......................... 205 TABLE 41: COMPARISONS ON R
2 BETWEEN POLYNOMIAL REGRESSIONS AND
MODERATED POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION MODELS (SERVICESCAPE A)
................................................................................................................................. 207 TABLE 42: MEAN AND SD OF VARIABLE AT HIGH AND LOW LEVELS OF THE
SALIENT STYLE PERSONALITY (SISTYLE) (SERVICESCAPE A) ............... 208 TABLE 43: COMPARISONS ON R
2 BETWEEN POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION AND
MODERATED POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION MODELS (SERVICESCAPE B)
................................................................................................................................. 214 TABLE 44: MEAN AND SD OF VARIABLE AT HIGH AND LOW LEVELS OF THE
SALIENT RESPONSIBILITY VALUE (SIRESPON) (SERVICESCAPE B) ...... 215 TABLE 45: COMPARISONS ON R
S BETWEEN POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION AND
MODERATED POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION MODELS (SERVICESCAPE C)
................................................................................................................................. 217 TABLE 46: MEAN AND SD OF VARIABLE AT HIGH AND LOW LEVELS OF THE
SALIENT PROFESSIONALISM PERSONALITY (SIPROMAN)
(SERVICESCAPE C) .............................................................................................. 218 TABLE 47: SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING FOR THE MODERATING EFFECTS
................................................................................................................................. 220
xv
GLOSSARY
Term Definition (Source)
General Term
Cognition Process by which a living creature obtains knowledge of some
object or becomes aware of its environment (perception, discovery,
recognition, imagining, judging, memorizing, learning, thinking);
knowing, as distinct from volitional or emotional processes; the
product of cognizing or knowing (Eysenck, Arnold & Meili, 1982).
Servicescape Terms
Servicescape is the physical environment and service staff qualities that
characterise the context which houses the service encounter, which
elicits internal reactions from consumers leading to the display of
approach or avoidance behaviours (Harris & Ezeh, 2008, p. 392).
Servicescape
attributes Relate to (1) the physical and intangible environment (e.g., Mattila
& Wirtz, 2001), and (2) service staff quality (e.g., Harris & Ezeh,
2008; Nguyen, 2006), and (3) consumer interactions (Tombs &
McColl-Kennedy, 2003) that influence consumers‘ internal
responses (i.e., their cognition, emotion and physiology) that in turn
influence their approach or avoidance behaviours (Bitner, 1992).
Self-Related Terms
Self One‘s thoughts and feelings, having reference to her/himself as an
object as well as an agent to construe surrounding objects
(Rosenberg, 1979; Kelly, 1955).
Self-concept The cognitive beliefs that an individual holds and learns about
him/herself (Avila & Purkey, 1972).
Actual self What an individual really believes he/she is (Epstein, 1973; Huber,
Vollhardt, Matthes, & Vogel, 2010).
Ideal self How an individual aspires to be (Aaker, 1999; Belk, 1988; Huber, et
al., 2010).
Social self What an individual believes others think of him/her and how they
think they are perceived (Malhotra, 1988).
Values of the self General goals and end states that are the basis of much of our feeling
of authenticity. Being true to one‘s values and principles is being
true to oneself in a fundamental way (Gecas, 2000, p. 102).
Self-Congruity The match between consumers‘ self-concepts and the user image (or
the corresponding self-relevant personality descriptors) of a given
product, brand, store, etc (Kressmann et al., 2006, p. 955).
Self-servicescape
congruence The match between consumer Self (i.e., personality of the Ideal Self,
Actual Self, and Social Self, as well as personal value of the Self)
and the symbolic meanings ascribed to a given servicescape.
Self Theory Asserts that people perceive the world not in isolation but in relation
to one‘s Self; people are motivated to pursue experiences that are
consistent with their concept of Self and avoid experiences that are
inconsistent (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Purkey,
1970; Rosenberg, 1979).
xvi
Term Definition (Source)
Symbolic Interactionism Terms
Symbol
Subjective, complex sets of abstract beliefs associated with an object
or action that represent an entity extrinsic to the physical and/or
intangible forms of objects, events, relationships, thoughts, and
feelings (Allen & Ng, 1999, p. 11).
Symbolic exchange The mutual transfer of psychological, social, or other intangible
entities between two or more parties (Bagozzi, 1975, p. 36).
Symbolic meanings Is defined by social consensus, which is derived from direct social
transactions and through social institutions (Belk, 1988; Dittmar,
1992; Leigh & Gabel, 1992 ; Rochberg-Halton, 1984; Solomon,
1983; Thompson & Hirschman, 1995).
Symbolic
Interactionism Claims that consumers‘ responses to environmental stimuli is not
based on sensory input; rather, the response is based on the
cognition of the environmental stimuli in relation to the Self (Herek,
1986; Hewitt, 2007; Solomon, 1983).
Personal Construct Terms
Construct A construct is an element of knowledge (Cervone & Pervin, 2010, p.
391).
Personal construct A concept used to interpret, or construe the world (Cervone &
Pervin, 2010, p. 391).
Personal Construct
Theory Asserts that individuals construe their environment using their
construct meaning structure, which is formed from their experience
(Bannister, 2003; Butt, 2008; Kelly 2003). An individual‘s meaning
structure reflects his/her existence (Rowe, 1996).
Value Terms
Values Refers to interests, pleasures, likes, preferences, duties, moral
obligations, desires, wants, goals, needs, aversions and attraction,
and many other kinds of selective orientations (Rokeach, 1979). The
core phenomenon of values is the presence of criteria of preference
(Rokeach, 1979, p. 16).
Personal values Abstract structures that involve the beliefs that people hold about
desirable ways of behaving or about desirable end states (Feather,
1995, p. 1).
Human Value Theory Asserts that values are cognitive beliefs by which an individual
orientates him/herself in the environment (Rokeach, 1973; Wade-
Benzoni, et al., 2002).
xvii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet the
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written
by another person except when due reference is made.
_____________________________
Yun-Hsin Chou
on 27 June 2012
xviii
xix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not appear in its present form without the guidance and support of
many people. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have
contributed to the final result in many different ways. Firstly, I would like to express my
heartiest gratitude and appreciation to my excellent supervisory team. To my principle
supervisor, Professor Ian Lings, a big ‗THANK YOU‘ to you for keeping me on the right
track with your constant advice and giving me the confidence to achieve above and
beyond. Your insights and tireless support have enabled me to excel and achieve what I
previously thought was impossible. To my associate supervisor, Dr Dominique Greer, I
am truly and deeply grateful for your wise, encouragement and patience to guide me to
overcome the academic writing difficulty. To my associate supervisor, Dr Ursula
Bougoure, thank you for reading my documents and providing me valuable comments.
And for that I owe the debt of gratitude to you all.
My sincerest thanks are extended to Dr Stephen Cox, for your suggestions and inspiration
which have provided good and smooth methodology basis for my thesis. I would like to
stress the importance of the participants in this study, and thanks your for collaborating
with me and lending your time, knowledge and expertise to be a part of this research
study. The interviews required a great deal of audacity, and I want to thank each one of
you for your willingness to participate. Without you this study would have not been
possible. I also acknowledge the research student officers, Trina Robbie, Carol O‘Brien
and Dennis O'Connell and the language advisors, Jenna Brady and Jonathan Bader for
your advices and assistance throughout this journey.
Thanks to many of my Brisbane friends, whose friendship and support have made this
city more than a temporary place of study. I would especially like to thank Angela
McCabe, Sharine Ling, Marvin Huang, Lucia Drago, Thidi Khai, Pak Damrongsak,
Saysana Sisourth, Ying Zhou, Yuna An, Euejung Hwang, Saranya Labsomboonsiri,
Carlin Guo, Robbie Kivits, Tom Chen, Hani Hamdan, Samantha Murdy, Gabrielle Jess
and Emmy Nozu for your lovely friendship and moral support, as well as Dr Sukanlaya
Sawang for your professional advice and never fading optimism.
Thanks also to my friends in Taiwan with whom I have shared experiences in life. The
warm support of them has enabled me to complete this thesis and to have a wonderful
xx
time along the way. A special thank to Oscar Kerkenaar for your caring presence, sense
of humour, constant encouragement and love I have relied upon during the writing stage
of this thesis.
Thanks to my sisters, Maggie, Sylvia, and Amanda for all of your understanding and for
making this long journey away from home bearable. Lastly, and most importantly, this
thesis is dedicated to my parents, who have always supported and encouraged me to do
my best through all the life changing events that eventually led me back to school. Thanks
to my mum for being my rock and keeping me in touch with reality throughout my
studies. Thanks to my dad for encouraging and inspiring me to reach my dreams. Without
you both, none of this would have even been possible.
1
1 Introduction
To drive sustainable financial profitability (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser Jr, &
Schlesinger, 1994), service firms devote significant effort and investment to creating
a service environment that consumers prefer over the environment of their
competitors. Research on service environments has identified various stimuli that
arouse consumers‘ positive internal affective, physiological and cognitive responses,
which result in approach behaviour (e.g., Bitner, 1992; Harris & Ezeh, 2008:
Rosenbaum, 2005). However, little empirical study has investigated the mediating
role of cognition in the study of the servicescape‘s influence preference. This thesis
argues that consumers cognitively interpret the symbolic meanings present in service
environments, and then evaluate if those meanings are congruent with their sense of
Self, in order to form a preference for the service environment (McGrath, 1998;
Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Sherry, 2000, 1998b; Solomon, 1998). Consequently,
the formation of consumers‘ preference for service environments may be determined
by the congruence between consumers‘ sense of Self and the symbolic meanings
ascribed to service environments. Understanding these antecedents of preference is
the focus of this thesis.
This chapter introduces the idea that the congruence between consumer Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to service environments may be used to predict
consumers‘ preference for a service environment. The chapter outlines the research
problem, rationale, objectives, program, philosophy, ethical considerations, and
contributions to marketing theory and practice presented in this thesis. The overall
structure of the thesis is presented in the final section of the chapter.
1.1 Research Problem
According to Heskett and colleagues (1994), a service firm‘s profitability is driven
by consumers‘ perceptions of the performance of operational inputs, their overall
evaluation of and behavioural intention towards the service, and resulting behaviours.
The Service Profit Chain reinforces the importance of a service firm‘s operational
investment, including physical, technological and human factors, in service quality.
Consumers perceive and evaluate service quality to guide their behaviour, including
patronage duration (Bolton, 1998), repurchase behaviour (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001),
2
duration of stay, and cross-purchasing (Loveman, 1998). These behaviours will
ultimately be associated with consumer retention (Ittner & Larcker, 1998) and
revenue creation (Rucci, Kirn, & Quinn, 1998). Thus, the operational investments
service firms make will directly impact their profitability and growth (Heskett, et al.,
1994).
One operational investment that has a significant impact on consumer attitude and
behaviour is the design of the service environment (e.g., Harris & Ezeh, 2008;
Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011). In the absence of a physical product, consumers
evaluate the service environment with which they interact to form attitudes towards
the service (Hightower, Brady, & Baker, 2002; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011).
Service environments are typically referred to as servicescapes. A servicescape is
defined as ―the physical environment and service staff qualities that characterise the
context which houses the service encounter, which elicits internal reactions from
consumers leading to the display of approach or avoidance behaviours‖ (Harris &
Ezeh, 2008, p. 392).
Servicescapes comprise a variety of environmental stimuli. These stimuli are known
as the attributes of the environment (e.g., music, scent, and seating). Typically, these
attributes relate to (1) the physical and intangible environment (e.g., Mattila & Wirtz,
2001), and (2) service staff quality (e.g., Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Nguyen, 2006), and (3)
consumer interactions (e.g., Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003). These three
dimensions of the servicescape are thought to influence consumers‘ internal
responses (i.e., their cognition, emotion and physiology) that in turn influence their
approach or avoidance behaviours.
The effect of servicescape attributes on consumers‘ internal responses and
subsequent behaviour has been investigated using several holistic servicescape
models. Bitner (1992) initially proposed a framework that focused on the impact of
the physical attributes of the servicescape (discussed in detail in Chapter Two).
Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2003) later suggested an extension of this framework
by adding social attributes as an impactful dimension. Harris and Ezeh (2008) later
empirically tested these holistic models (Bitner, 1992; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy,
2003) and confirmed that physical and social attributes simultaneously influence
consumers‘ attitudes and behaviours.
3
Although researchers have devoted considerable attention to developing and testing
holistic models of servicescape (e.g., Bitner, 1992, Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Rosenbaum
& Massiah, 2011; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003), which are discussed in Chapter
Two, the existing literature mainly focuses on how servicescape attributes arouse
consumers‘ emotional and physiological responses and, in turn, influence their
behaviours. What remains under-investigated (for notable exceptions, see
Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Sherry, 1998b; Thang & Tan, 2003) is how consumers
cognitively interpret and respond to servicescape attributes, which in turn drive their
attitudes to servicescapes, particularly preference for a servicescape.
Consumers‘ cognitive interpretations to servicescapes are worthy of investigation
because servicescapes are not just perceived as a collection of attributes; they are
interpreted holistically as a constellation of attributes that are symbolically
meaningful to consumers‘ sense of Self (McGrath, 1998; Rosenbaum & Massiah,
2011; Sherry, 2000, 1998b; Solomon, 1998). Drawing on Self Theory (Avila &
Purkey, 1972; Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979), this thesis
proposes that it is the congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings
consumers ascribe to servicescapes that drive preference for a specific servicescape.
Self Theory (Avila & Purkey, 1972; Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg,
1979) asserts that environmental attributes are not perceived in isolation; they are
perceived in relation to consumers‘ Self. Further, consumers‘ desire for congruence
between themselves and their environment is so strong, it often takes precedence
over their physiological comfort. Consequently, this thesis proposes that the
congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to
servicescapes is the best determinant of consumer preference for a servicescape.
Thus, the creation of consumer Self-oriented servicescapes may be the most strategic
investment that service managers can make to improve the financial performance of
their organisation.
Prior to investigating the congruence between consumers‘ Self and the symbolic
meanings that consumers ascribe to servicescapes, it is critical to understand which
servicescape attributes are salient to consumers because consumers only ascribe
symbolic meaning to limited attributes at one time. Very little research has identified
salient servicescape attributes, let alone the symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to
4
them. Understanding the symbolic meanings that consumers ascribe to salient
servicescapes attributes is critical for service firms because the servicescape (which
includes the physical and intangible environment, as well as service staff quality) is
one of the few operational inputs that firms can directly manipulate in order to have a
desirable effect on consumer attitudes (particularly preference) and subsequent
behaviours.
Consequently, this thesis seeks to expand our understanding of servicescapes by
achieving three outcomes. The first outcome is to identify what symbolic meanings
are ascribed to salient servicescape attributes. The second outcome is to ascertain
how those symbolic meanings can be measured. The third outcome is to understand
how the congruence between consumers‘ Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to
a servicescape affect preference for the servicescape. These three outcomes drive the
three studies of this thesis.
1.2 Research Rationale
In early marketing literature, consumers were thought to engage in exchange for
utilitarian reasons. This form of exchange is predicated on the economic value of a
product‘s functional utility and the willingness of consumers to purchase the product
to attain that utility (Bettman, Johnson, & Payne, 1991; Fishburn, 1970). Consumers‘
desires are satisfied in this form of exchange when they perceive that their sacrifice
(e.g., the amount of money they pay, the travel time they spend or the risk they take)
is compensated by the expected or unexpected outcomes of the product‘s functional
utility (Fishburn, 1970). For example, a runner will be satisfied when the pair of
sneakers he/she bought meets his/her expectation of comfort while running and thus
they are worth the price paid. Positive attitudes towards a product are a function of
the evaluation of expected utility and anticipated costs.
More recently, however, marketers have discovered that consumers can engage in
exchange for symbolic purposes. Symbols are defined as ―subjective, complex sets of
abstract beliefs associated with an object or action that represent an entity extrinsic to
the physical and/or intangible forms of objects, events, relationships, thoughts, and
feelings‖ (Allen & Ng, 1999, p. 11). Symbolic Interactionism posits that products are
symbols to which consumers respond (Solomon, 1983). From a Symbolic
5
Interactionist perspective, exchange involving a product is not merely for fulfilling
basic physiological needs (i.e., hunger, thirst or physiological comfort). Rather,
exchange revolves around the ascribed symbolic meanings of a product (in a non-
economic sense) that satisfy consumers‘ psychological desires for Self demonstration
(Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Solomon, 1983). For example, wearing sneakers with
a Nike logo is an expression of Self as well as an admission of group membership,
which surpasses merely feeling comfortable (Bhat & Reddy, 1998). This notion of
symbolic exchange can be defined as ―the mutual transfer of psychological, social, or
other intangible entities between two or more parties‖ (Bagozzi, 1975, p. 36).
A symbol is ascribed its symbolic meaning through a socialisation process.
Socialisation occurs when meaning is created and perpetuated by continuous social
interactions; therefore, symbolic meanings possess a high degree of consensual
validity in society (Leigh & Gabel, 1992; Solomon, 1983). On an individual basis,
these socially agreed meanings are learned and then embedded in the cognitive
structure that underpins the beliefs of Self (Goizueta, 2004; Leigh & Gabel, 1992;
Solomon, 1983). Consequently, this thesis argues that consumers interpret
environmental stimuli, ascribe them symbolic meanings based on their cognitive
beliefs of Self, and respond to the holistic environment accordingly (Everett, Pieters,
& Titus, 1994; Rapoport, 1990; Solomon, 1983).
Research on symbolic consumption behaviour has reinforced the view that product
attributes, and their ascribed symbolic meanings, influence consumers‘ attitudes and
decision-making (e.g., Allen, 2002; Solomon, 1983). A consumer‘s evaluation of a
product is often affected by attributes such as appearance, taste, texture, smell or
packaging. These attributes combine to ascribe the product with a clearly defined
image, giving rise to ―personalities‖ that are created for brands (Aaker, 1997).
Consumers purchase specific products because they like the image or because they
feel the image corresponds with their sense of Self (Belk, 1988; Epstein, 1973; Sirgy,
1982).
In general, the higher the degree of perceived congruity between an individual‘s
sense of self and the product, the greater their purchase intentions (Sirgy, 1979, 1982;
Wheeler, Petty, & Bizer, 2005). Hence, consumption is not motivated merely by
acquiring a product, it is rather about satisfying a desire for demonstrating Self
6
through the meaning and symbolism (i.e., personalities) ascribed to product attributes
(Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Sirgy, Grewal, &
Mangleburg, 2000). In this way, a product becomes a socially-defined symbol
associated with certain meanings that consumers use to satisfy higher psychological
desires for self-authenticity (i.e., self-enhancement, self-protection, self-maintenance
or self-extension) due to the social consensus of meanings (Belk, 1988; Epstein,
1985; Huber, et al., 2010).
While significant emphasis has been placed on the symbolic meanings ascribed to
specific products, the symbolic meanings ascribed to services have been long
ignored in the marketing literature (Baker, 1998; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011).
Service environment literature asserts that servicescapes play a significant role in
arousing consumers‘ preference (Bitner, 1992; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Yet, little
research has considered whether the ascribed symbolic meanings of a servicescape
may have a symbolic effect on consumer preference for the servicescape.
This thesis uses Symbolic Interactionist approach to explore the role of servicescape
symbolism and its influence on consumer preference for servicescapes. This
approach particularly considers the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes and
their relationship with consumer Self. The Self refers to one‘s thoughts and feelings,
having reference to her/himself as an object as well as an agent to construe
surrounding objects (Rosenberg, 1979; Kelly, 1955).
Consumer preferences can be explained using three theoretical assertions. First, Self
Theory (Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979) asserts that the desires of the Self typically
take precedence over the desires of the physical body; thus, maintaining, protecting
and enhancing the Self become the dominant motive for all behaviour. Second,
Personal Construct Theory (PCT) (Kelly, 1955, 1991) asserts that the way consumers
construe a servicescape is parallel to the way they would describe themselves. Thus,
consumers will describe servicescapes using personality descriptors. Finally, the
Symbolic Interactionist perspective (Solomon, 1983, 1998) asserts that consumers
can enhance, maintain, and extend their Self through the use and/or possession of
objects (i.e., products and services) because the symbolic meanings ascribed to those
objects are defined by social consensus and thus widely understood (Hewitt, 2007).
7
In light of these assertions, servicescapes can satisfy consumers‘ desires to enhance,
maintain or extend the Self.
Servicescape symbolism is further underpinned by the predictive capacity of the
Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1979, 1982). This model proposes that congruence
between the Self and a chosen object is an effective predictor of consumers‘ attitudes
and behaviours (e.g., Kressmann, et al., 2006). In general, the higher the degree of
congruity between Self and the personality ascribed to an object, the more likely
consumers will be to have a positive attitude towards the object (Wheeler, et al.,
2005).
The Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1979, 1982) has been widely applied in the
marketing literature, yet the findings of these studies are fragmented and diffuse.
Although researchers often use personality descriptors to test the congruence
between Self and the personality ascribed to an object, these descriptors appear to
have a limited ability to predict attitudes (Ekinci & Riley, 2003; Huber, et al., 2010;
Ibrahim & Najjar, 2008). In light of Gecas‘s (2000) view that values underpin
consumer Self (also see Hitlin, 2003; Wojciszke, 1989), particularly universal
Human Values (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994), this thesis uses Human Value Theory
(Schwartz, 1992) to test congruence effects between values of consumer Self and the
ascribed values of servicescapes to address the limitation of personality descriptors.
Given there is a long debate on the predictive strength between personality
descriptors and personal values (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Hitlin, 2003), a test of the
predictive strength of both values of the Self and personality of the Self is critical for
this thesis to gain insights into how consumers‘ servicescape preferences are formed.
In summary, this research underscores the importance of the congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes in determining
preference for servicescapes (e.g., Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Baker, 1998; Sherry,
1998). In order to investigate the congruence effect between consumer Self and the
symbolic meanings consumers cognitively ascribe to servicescapes, Chapter Two
proposes a theoretical framework from a Symbolic Interactionist perspective
(Solomon, 1983) that draws from several existing theories—Self Theory (Epstein,
1973; Rosenberg, 1979; Purkey, 1970), Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955,
1991), Human Value Theory (Rokeach, 1974; Schwartz, 1992), and Self-Congruity
8
Model (Sirgy, 1982)—to guide further research about how the congruence between
consumers Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes forms
preference. Prior to empirically testing this framework, Study One (presented in
Chapter Three) identifies which services attributes are salient, and Study Two
(presented in Chapter Four) ascertains how to measure the symbolic meanings
ascribed to those attributes. Chapter Five then empirically investigates how
(in)congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes drive preference using the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982).
1.3 Research Objective
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the effect of congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes on preference
for servicescapes. Thus, this thesis will address the following broad research question:
How do ascribed symbolic meanings influence servicescape preference?
Researchers are currently unaware of which servicescape attributes are salient to
consumers, what symbolic meanings are ascribed to these salient attributes, how
these symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes can be measured, and how
ascribed symbolic meanings influence servicescape preferences. While researchers
posit that congruence between consumer Self and ascribed symbolic meanings will
influence servicescape preference, this has yet to be fully explored and empirically
demonstrated. To address these gaps in knowledge, this research program will
answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes?
RQ2: How can the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes be measured?
RQ3: How does the congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes influence preference for servicescapes?
By investigating the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes and how they
interact with consumer Self, this thesis answers the call for further study to
9
understand how servicescapes are cognitively interpreted and to empirically
demonstrate the effects of person-place relationships (Harris & Ezeh, 2008;
Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011).
1.4 Research Program
To answer the research questions presented above, a research program comprised
three progressive studies. These studies used a mixed methods research approach
whereby both qualitative and quantitative methods were triangulated to address the
research questions.
1.4.1 Study One
In order to understand what symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to servicescapes,
salient servicescape attributes must first be identified. To do this, Study One was
designed. Nineteen semi-structured, individual depth interviews were conducted.
Both repertory tests (Kelly, 1955; 1991) and laddering techniques (Reynolds &
Gutman, 1988) using 15 servicescape images were employed. This combination of
methods first identified the salient servicescape attributes and then the symbolic
meanings that consumers ascribe to them.
The data were manually analysed using a categorisation strategy (Fishbein, 1963)
and content analysis. The categorisation strategy was first used to categorise salient
attributes, consequences, and end-values. Content analysis was then adopted in light
of Schwartz‘s (1992) Human Values to better validate whether the end-values
ascribed to salient attributes correspond to personal values.
Finally, hierarchical value mapping was used to present the relationship pattern
between salient servicescape attributes, their consequences and their end-values.
Overall, Study One aimed to develop a better understanding of which servicescape
attributes are salient to consumers, and what symbolic meanings are ascribed to these
attributes (answering RQ1).
1.4.2 Study Two
In order to investigate whether the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient
servicescapes attributes (as explored in the Study One) can be measured, Study Two
10
was conducted. Prior to collecting survey data, Study Two required the development
of a set of servicescape stimuli as well as the modification of an existing measure to
capture those ascribed symbolic meanings.
First, a set of stimuli (i.e., servicescape images) were developed. The stimuli were
chosen from the bank of 15 stimuli used in the Study One. By analysing the results
presented in the Hierarchical Value Maps, the three most representative servicescape
images were identified in light of their subtle distinctions of salient attributes and
their ascribed symbolic meanings.
Next, an existing Self-Concept scale (Malhotra, 1981) was modified to developed a
valid and reliable symbolic servicescape meaning scale. Study Two adopted an
integrated scale modification procedure (Churchill, 1979; Lee & Lings, 2008) to
develop a servicescape scale that comprised personality descriptors that captured the
symbolic meanings that consumers ascribed to servicescape images.
To develop the semantic differential symbolic servicescape meaning scale, 28
servicescape symbolic meanings (i.e., personality descriptors) were identified and
their opposing descriptor was created. The selection of semantic pairs to include in
the final scale was determined based on their suitability to describe both the
consumer Self and servicescapes.
Finally, three web-based surveys were developed to test the ascribed symbolic
meanings to three servicescape images. Each survey asked the participants to
evaluate the ascribed symbolic meanings (i.e., personality descriptors) of a
servicescape (represented by a one of the three images). The scale was analysed
using exploratory factor analysis to ensure factorability. Confirmatory factor analysis
was then used to ascertain the psychometric properties of the scale and to test
whether the scale adequately captured the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes. Overall, Study Two aimed to ascertain whether the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes that were identified in Study One can be
measured (answering RQ2).
11
1.4.3 Study Three
Study Three used the modified scale developed in Study Two to test how congruence
between consumer Self and the symbolic meaning ascribed to the servicescape
influence preference for the servicescape. Polynomial regression with response
surface analysis was used to test the hypotheses. This study was designed to test
whether (in)congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed
to the servicescape influences preference (answering RQ3).
Polynomial regression with response surface analysis is an appropriate analytical
technique because it provides persuasive evidence from two perspectives. First, it
demonstrates the effect of congruence between the consumer Self and the ascribed
symbolic meanings of servicescapes on consumer preference. Second, the
explanatory power of the polynomial regression with response surface analysis
provides new insights into incongruence effects. It advances an explanation as to
why self-congruity studies produce inconsistent results when attempting to predict
consumer attitudes and behaviour. An overview of the research program is presented
in Table 1.
12
Table 1: Overview of Research Program
Study Name Objective Research Design Sample Size Method of Analysis Justification
RQ1: What symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape attributes?
Study One
Qualitative
To explore salient
servicescape attributes and
the symbolic meanings
ascribed to those salient
attributes
Repertory Test
Technique Laddering
Technique
Convenience
sampling (n=19)
Fishbein‘s (1963)
categorisation Content analysis
Hierarchical Value
Map (HVM)
Interviews will explore consumers‘ cognition
of what servicescape attributes are salient to
them and how they interpret servicescapes
Analysis of HVM will reveal what meanings
consumers ascribe to salient servicescape
attributes and how those meanings relate to the
Self
RQ2: How can the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attributes be measured?
Study Two
Quantitative
To modify an existing
scale to develop a
symbolic servicescape
meaning scale
Expert judges Online consumers
surveys
Expert judges
(n=3) (n=53)
Consumer panel
(n=430) (n=251)
Exploratory factor
analysis Confirmatory
factor analysis
Surveys will ascertain whether the symbolic
meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes (identified in Study One) can be
measured
Surveys will investigate the psychometric
properties of the servicescape meaning scale
RQ3: How does the congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes influence preference for servicescapes?
Study Three
Quantitative
To investigate the effect of
congruence between
consumer Self and the
symbolic meanings
ascribed to servicescapes
on consumer preference
Online consumer
surveys
Consumer panel (n=203) (n=218) (n=203)
Polynomial
regression with
response surface
analysis
Surveys will demonstrate the joint effect of
Self and ascribed symbolic meanings on
consumer preference for servicescapes
Surveys will validate the research assumption
that the symbolic meanings consumer ascribes
to servicescapes correspond to their Self
13
1.5 Research Philosophy
This thesis was conducted within the post-positivist paradigm (Brown, 1995; Guba &
Lincoln, 2008). This paradigm critically evaluates existing bodies of knowledge
using the epistemology of critical realism (Guba & Lincoln, 2008). Critical realism
posits that consumers‘ perceptions provide a window to reality, albeit imperfectly
apprehensible (Healy & Perry, 2000. To pursue the approximate truth about how
servicescape preferences are formed (Hunt, 1992), this thesis uses critical realism to
probe unobservable phenomena that are under-investigated in the existing marketing
literature.
Given that epistemological orientations determine methodological approaches and
shape the research process (Guba & Lincoln, 2008), the critical realism paradigm
sets the stage for blending qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate the
nature of servicescape symbolism (Holstein & Gubrium, 2000). The initial
qualitative approach will illuminate latent constructs and their relationships through
detailed description (Creswell, 2003; Creswell & Clark, 2007), which allows Self
Theory to be used to develop a conceptual servicescape symbolism model. The
subsequent quantitative studies ensure that the proposed model is not merely an
artefact of measurement but a sound interpretation of the phenomena (Creswell, 2003;
Creswell & Clark, 2007). This mix of methods ensures that the research program is
both insightful and rigorous.
1.6 Ethics Considerations
The three studies of this thesis conform to standard ethical procedures. The research
activities presented no risk to participants. No risk indicates that there was no harm
or discomfort for participants anticipated in the research in comparison with those
ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or
psychological examinations or tests. Ethics clearance was obtained from the
Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee prior to
the commencement of each study. Two reference numbers were issued for
conducting studies; they are no. 1000000190 for Study One and no. 1100000391 for
Study Two and Study Three.
14
With respect to the Study One, consent to participate was provided by informants
prior to the interviews via email as well as before the commencement of the
interviews with the signing of the consent form. Issues relevant to research aims,
interview procedure and the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity were
explained to interviewees before the interviews. To ensure that there was no harm to
informants in self-disclosure (Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999), the interviews were
conducted in secure and private areas. Data were de-identified after each interview.
All analysis was grounded in informants‘ statements and conclusions were drawn
from general (e.g., personality descriptors) rather than at a personal level.
With respect to the Study Two and the Study Three, each survey began with a
participant information sheet that explained the research purpose, merits of the
research and assured anonymity and confidentiality. Participants‘ submission of the
online questionnaire was considered to constitute their consent to participate in the
survey. Participants were informed that they could withdraw their participation any
time before the submission of the survey. In addition, the information sheet
reinforces that there is no conflict of interest with participation and their relationship
with the university. Physical copies of the pretested survey are stored under lock and
key in the university and soft copies for the Study Two and the Study Three are kept
on secure network drives that can only be accessed by the principal researcher. The
information sheet and survey for each study is attached in Appendix A and C.
1.7 Contributions to Marketing Theory and Practice
The findings of this thesis significantly contribute to both marketing theory and
practice. Study One makes three major theoretical contributions to the field: (1) it
illuminates the phenomenon of servicescape symbolism by explaining the
hierarchical relationships between salient attributes and their ascribed symbolic
meanings in relation to the Self; (2) it evidences that socio-servicescape attributes
were as important as physical servicescape attributes because both are ascribed
symbolic meanings by consumers; and (3) it provides an alternative categorisation
structure for salient servicescape attributes based on the symbolic meanings ascribed
to them (rather than their basic characteristics).
15
Study Two makes two major theoretical contributions to the field: (1) it modifies an
existing scale to create a 27-item semantic differential scale that measures the
symbolic meaning ascribed to servicescapes, and (2) it identifies three personality
components (i.e., sociability, professionalism and style) and five self-relevant values
(i.e., life enjoyment, pleasant and pleasure, sense of belonging, responsibility and
recognition) that can be used to examine the joint effects of consumers‘ Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
Study Three makes three major theoretical contributions to the field: (1) it
empirically demonstrates the appropriateness of using Self Theory to explain how
consumer servicescape preference is formed; (2) it explains why prior studies that
used the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) to test self-product congruence had
ambiguous and inconsistent results, as they failed to account for incongruence effects
when forming preference; and (3) it demonstrates that salient personality components
and values moderate Self-Servicescape congruence effects on servicescape
preference.
These findings provide a better understanding of how consumer preference for
servicescapes is developed by taking a Self Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1989; Purkey,
1970; Rosenberg, 1979) approach. The findings also have practical implications for
both servicescape design and service employee training and recruitment (Kamakura,
Mittal, De Rosa, & Mazzon, 2002; Schlesinger & Heskett, 1991).
1.8 Overview of the Thesis
This thesis comprises six chapters that develop a comprehensive research program to
address the three research questions. The five remaining chapters are briefly
summarised below (also shown in Figure 1).
16
Figure 1: Diagram to Overview of the Thesis
Main contribution:
- Create a symbolic servicescape
meaning scale by modifying an
existing self-concept scale
- Identify three personality descriptors
and five self-relevant values
underpinning consumer Self that are
used to describe servicescapes
Link to Study Three:
- The scale, together with the five
values, will be used to test the joint
effects of consumer Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes on preference
Chapter Chapter Outline
Contribution
Chapter One:
Introduction
- Research problem and rationale
- Research objectives
- Research method
Chapter Two:
Literature Review
Chapter Three:
Study One
Method & Results
Chapter Four:
Study Two
Method & Results
Chapter Five:
Study Three
Method & Results
- Servicescape frameworks
- Self Theory
- Personal Construct Theory
- Human Value Theory
- Self-Congruity Model
- Proposed conceptual framework
- Approach: Qualitative
- Data collection: A combined of
repertory tests and laddering
techniques during depth interviews
using 15 servicescape images
- Data analysis: Categorisation and
content analysis
- Data presentation: Hierarchical
Value Maps
- Approach: Quantitative
- Data collection: Three web-based
surveys collect data to modify an
existing scale in order to develop a
symbolic servicescape meaning
scale
- Data analysis: Exploratory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor
analysis
- Approach: Quantitative
- Data collection: Three web-based
surveys are used to test whether
congruence between consumer Self
and the symbolic meanings ascribed
to servicescapes influence
preference
- Data analysis: Polynomial
regression with response surface
analysis
- Overview of the research purpose
- Discussion of the findings of each
study
- Theoretical contribution
- Practical contribution
- Limitation and future research
suggestion
Critique the existing servicescape
frameworks and the relevant theories
to propose the role of servicescape
symbolism for research program
Main contribution:
- Identifies 37 attributes that are
salient to consumers, which re
ascribed 92 consequences and 28
end-values as symbolic meanings
Link to Study Two:
- The 92 consequences and 28 end-
values (ascribed symbolic
meanings) will be used in Study
Two to modify an existing Self-
Concept scale (Malhotra, 1981)
Main contribution:
- Both incongruence and congruence
between consumer Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes influence consumer
preference for servicescapes
- Evidence that the salience of
personality descriptors and personal
values influence the congruence
effects
Theoretical contribution:
- Further the predictive power of Self
Theory and improve the predictive
ability of Self-Congruity Model
- Evidence that human values
underpin consumers‘ sense of Self,
which can be used to segment
consumers and re-categorise
servicescape attributes
Chapter Six:
Discussion
17
Chapter Two provides a theoretical foundation for the role that servicescape
symbolism plays in forming preference. Existing servicescape frameworks are first
reviewed. These comprehensive frameworks highlight a variety of physical and
socio-servicescape attributes that influence consumers‘ cognitive, emotional, and/or
physiological responses to the service environment (Bitner, 1992). However, this
literature review identifies that consumers‘ cognitive interpretation of servicescapes
is under-investigated.
In order to investigate how consumers interpret servicescapes in relation to Self, this
chapter proposes that the symbolism ascribed to servicescapes plays a role in
consumers‘ preference, in accordance with the Symbolic Interactionist (Hewitt, 2007;
Solomon, 1983; Solomon & Assael, 1987). This argument is underpinned by the
three existing theories—Self Theory (Epstein, 1973; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979),
Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955, 1991) and Human Value Theory (Rokeach,
1979; Schwartz, 1992)—that suggest that the symbolic meanings consumers ascribe
to servicescapes are drawn from self-relevant personality descriptors and self-
relevant values. Finally, the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) is reviewed because
self-congruity is the best predictor of servicescape preference. Overall, this chapter
synthesises theories of the Self, self-congruity, and symbolism to explain
servicescape preference.
Chapter Three reports both the research method and findings of Study One. This
study aims to identify which servicescape attributes are salient to consumers and
what symbolic meanings are ascribed to these attributes. To achieve this aim, a
qualitative approach using individual depth interview is conducted. Chapter Three
provides a detailed method and justification for data collection and data analysis,
followed by a report of the findings of Study One.
Chapter Four reports both the research method and findings of Study Two. This
study aims to develop a symbolic servicescape meaning scale by modifying an
existing self-concept scale. To achieve this aim, a quantitative factor analytic
approach using web-based survey data is conducted. Chapter Four provides a
detailed method and presents the data collection and analysis, followed by a report of
the results of Study Two.
18
Chapter Five reports both the research method and the findings of Study Three. This
study builds on Study One and Two, and aims to investigate the relationship between
the ascribed symbolic meaning of the servicescape, consumer Self, and their
preference for the servicescape. To achieve this aim, Chapter Five first presents an
empirical research model and hypotheses. A quantitative approach for data collection
and analysis is then presented and justified, followed by the findings of Study Three.
Chapter Six concludes the thesis. It reviews the overall research purpose and the key
findings of three studies with regard to the research questions. The contributions of
the research program for both marketing theory and practice are discussed. Finally,
the limitations of this research program are presented, followed by the suggestions
for future research directions.
1.9 Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of this thesis, which investigates the role of
servicescape symbolism and its influence on consumer preference for servicescapes.
Specifically, it outlined the research problem, rationale, objectives, program,
philosophy, ethical considerations, and contributions to marketing theory and
practice, and an overview of the structure of the thesis.
19
2 Literature Review
Consumers‘ emotional and physiological responses to servicescapes, and their
subsequent approach or avoidance behaviours, have been well researched across
different service environments (e.g., Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Tombs & McColl-
Kennedy, 2003). Consumers‘ cognitive responses towards servicescapes, however,
are under-investigated. Consumers‘ cognitive responses to servicescapes are worthy
of investigation because consumers cognitively interpret the symbolic meanings
present in service environments, and then evaluate if those meanings are congruent
with their sense of Self, in order to form a preference for the service environment
(Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011).
Consequently, this chapter presents a theoretical foundation of servicescape
symbolism and its relation to the Self. First, the chapter reviews existing
servicescape frameworks to highlight the lack of research into consumers‘ cognitive
interpretations of servicescapes. Second, the chapter takes a Symbolic Interactionist
perspective to argue that servicescape attributes may be ascribed symbolic meanings.
Next, Self Theory (Epstein, 1973; Rosenberg, 1979; Purkey, 1970) is used to explain
that environmental attributes are not perceived in isolation but rather in relation to
consumer Self. Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955; 1991) is then used to
explain how consumers construe servicescapes in relation to personality descriptors
of Self. Given there is significant debate about the predictive ability of personality
descriptors (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Hitlin, 2003), this chapter explores whether
Human Value Theory (Schwartz, 1992) can be used to predict preference for
servicescapes. Finally, this chapter proposes that the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy,
1982) best explains how consumer Self drives preference. Overall, consumers‘ needs
for self-congruity with a servicescape is proposed to be the best determinant of
servicescape preference.
2.1 Examining Servicescape Research
Since the early 1970s, both marketing and environmental psychology researchers
have acknowledged that humans are affected by environmental design (e.g., Baker,
1987; Bitner, 1992; Knez, 2001; Kotler, 1973; Leather, Beale, Santos, Watts, & Lee,
20
2003; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Sundstrom, 1986, 1991). For service firms, the design
of the service environment is particularly important because consumers often
experience and evaluate the service delivery and service environment concurrently.
Further, Berry and Clark (1986) suggest that the servicescape may actually serve as a
pre-consumption cue of a service‘s capabilities and quality.
To identify the environmental attributes that contribute to consumers‘ satisfaction
and positive evaluation of a service, extensive academic research has been conducted
(e.g., Baker, 1987; Harris & Ezeh, 2008). Much of this research has developed
frameworks of servicescape effects. The following section presents the development
of these servicescape frameworks.
2.1.1 Servicescape Frameworks
One of most well-developed and well-cited frameworks of environmental
psychology is Mehrabian and Russell‘s (1974) stimuli-organism-response (S-O-R)
model. This model proposes that sensory stimuli, such as colours and sounds, elicit
three emotional states: pleasure-displeasure, arousal and dominance-submissiveness.
These states, in turn, influence consumers‘ approach to the environment, desire to
affiliate with the environment, arousal-seeking tendency, or avoidance of the
environment (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell & Mehrabian, 1978). For example,
a sunlit healthcare environment decreases patients‘ feelings of anxiety (Lehrner,
Eckersberger, Walla, Pötsch, & Deecke, 2000) and perceptions of stress (Walch et al.,
2005), which causes them to affiliate with the environment.
Building on this model, Bitner (1992) developed a framework of the service
environment, which she referred to as the ―servicescape‖ (Figure 2). The
servicescape was originally defined as ―the total configuration of environmental
dimensions‖ (Bitner, 1992, p. 67). Bitner‘s servicescape model built on the internal
organism reactions of the S-O-R model by adding cognitive responses such as beliefs,
categorisation and symbolic meanings. This addition acknowledges that service
employees and consumers cognitively attend to the servicescape.
21
Figure 2: Mapping Bitner‘s (1992) Servicescape Framework against Mehrabian and
Russell‘s (1974) S-O-R Model
Source: Adapted from Bitner 1992 and Mehrabian and Russell 1974
Bitner‘s (1992) servicescape framework delineates physical attributes that stimulate
employees and consumers‘ internal responses, which lead to behavioural responses
(Bitner, 1992). Bitner proposed that there are three dimensions of environmental
stimuli: ambient conditions, space/function and signs, symbols and artefacts. These
dimensions incorporate attributes of the servicescape such as temperature, ambient
music, furniture, layout, signage and style. The organisms depicted in the framework
are the consumers and employees who act in the service environment and thus have
cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to the servicescape. Finally, the
behavioural responses include affiliation, exploration, longer length of stay,
commitment or avoidance (e.g., Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1986; Booms & Bitner, 1982;
Shostack, 1977; Turley & Chebat, 2002; Turley & Milliman, 2000; Upah & Fulton,
1985; Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985). For
Ambient
Conditions
temperature
air quality
noise
music
odour
etc.
Space/Function
layout
equipment
furnishings
etc.
Signs, Symbols &
Artefacts
signage
personal artefacts
style of décor
etc.
Perceived
Servicescape
Employee
Response
Moderators
Customer
Response
Moderators
ENVIRONMENTAL
DIMENSIONS
HOUSTIC
ENVIRONMRNT
MODERATORS INTERNAL RESPONSES BEHAVIOR
Cognitive
beliefs
categor- isation
symbolic
meaning
Emotional
mood
attitude
Physiological
pain
comfort movement
physical fit
Employee
Responses
Customer
Responses
Cognitive
beliefs
categor-isation
symbolic
meaning
Emotional
mood
attitude
Physiological
pain
comfort movement
physical fit
Approach
affiliation
exploration
stay longer
commitment
carry out plan
Avoid
(opposite of
approach)
Social
Interactions
Between and
Among
Customers and
Employees
Approach
affiliation
exploration
stay longer
commitment
carry out plan
Avoid
(opposite of
approach)
Stimuli Organism Response
22
example, the attribute of slow-tempo background music (stimulus) has been
demonstrated to improve shoppers‘ emotional responses (organism), which results in
them being more willing to spend more time in the shopping environment and
explore more products (Milliman, 1982).
In a meta-analysis of the physical attributes of servicescapes, Turley and Milliman
(2000) further investigated environmental stimuli and identified four categories of
stimuli: store exterior, store layout, general interior design and interior displays (see
Table 2). These stimuli were drawn from a wide body of literature and overlap
significantly with Bitner‘s (1992) environmental stimuli dimensions. Store exterior
variables include everything from micro-variables such as the storefront and display
windows up to macro-variables such as the shopping district and parking. These
variables influence consumers‘ behaviour and service quality perception (Edwards &
Shackley, 1992; Grossbart, Mittelstaedt, Curtis, & Rogers, 1975; Lewis, 1991; Pinto
& Leonidas, 1994). For example, consumers are more satisfied with banks that
provide parking facilities (Lewis, 1991).
23
Table 2: Servicescape Dimensions and Related Attributes in Existing Literature
Servicescape Dimension Attributes
Physical and
intangible
attributes
Exterior variables
Storefront (Oppewal & Timmermans, 1999)
Entrances (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008)
Display windows (Ewards and Shackley, 1992; Ward, Bitner,
& Barnes, 1992)
Building architecture (Bäckström & Johansson, 2006; Gilboa &
Rafaeli, 2003)
Surrounding area (Grossbart, Mittelstaedt, Curtis, & Rogers,
1975)
Parking (Pinto & Leonidas, 1994)
Location (Ownbey, Davis, & Sundel, 1994; Vandell & Carter,
1993)
Store layout and
design variables
Allocation of floor space (Doyle & Gidengil, 1977)
Traffic flow (Sigurdsson, Saevarsson, & Foxall, 2009; Smith &
Burns, 1996; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996)
Department locations (Dudey, 1990; Horton, 1968)
Allocations within departments (Borin, Farris, & Freeland,
1994)
Shelf space (Cox, 1964; Kotzan & Evanson, 1969; Frank &
Massey, 1970; Curhan, 1972, 1974; Chevalier, 1975; Patton,
1982; Wilkinson, Mason, & Paksoy, 1982; Gagnon &
Osterhaus, 1985; Bawa, Landwehr, & Krishna, 1989)
General interior
variables
Flooring (Roos & Hugosson, 2008)
Carpeting (Stafford & Enis, 1969)
Lighting (Areni & Kim, 1994; Baker, Grewal & Parasuraman,
1994; Baker, Levy & Grewal, 192)
Scents (Hirsch, 1995; Mitchell, Kahn, & Knasko, 1995;
Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, 1996)
Sounds (Milliman, 1982, 1986; Morin, et al., 2007; Oakes &
North, 2008)
Temperature (Reimer & Kuehn, 2005)
Cleanliness (Mattila & Wirtz, 2001)
Colour usage (Bellizzi & Hite, 1992; Crowley, 1993; Bellizzi,
Crowley & Hasty, 1983)
Interior display
variables
Product display (Simonson & Winer, 1992)
Point-of-purchase display (Gagnon & Osterhaus, 1985)
Posters and signs (Patton, 1981)
Wall decorations (Wall & Berry, 2007)
Socio-
servicescape
attributes
Human variables
(employees and
consumers
behaviour )
Crowding (Eroglu, Machleit, & Barr, 2005; Eroglu & Machleit,
1990; Eroglu, Machleit, & Chebat, 2005; Harrell, Hutt, &
Anderson, 1980; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Tombs & McColl-
Kennedy, 2003)
Consumer characteristics (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2011; Tombs
& McColl-Kennedy, 2003)
Employee characteristics (Ekinci & Riley, 2003)
Employee Appearance (Baker, Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Bitner,
1990; L. C. Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Solomon, 1985)
Source: Adapted from Bitner, 1992; Berman & Evans, 1995; Turley & Milliman, 2000;
Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003
24
Store layout attributes include allocation of floor space, product groupings, traffic
flow and department locations. These attributes have been demonstrated to influence
consumers‘ decision-making behaviour as well as product sales. For example, shelf
space has a small and positive relationship on product unit sales (Doyle & Gidengil,
1977).
In contrast to the exterior attributes and store layout attributes, the general interior
and interior display attributes have received far more attention in research examining
their impact on consumers‘ approach or avoidance behaviour. General interior
variables include attributes such as flooring material, lighting, temperature and
colour usage; interior displays include product displays, signage and wall decorations.
Many studies have shown that general interior attributes influence consumers‘
internal responses and behaviours. For example, certain odours have been found to
enhance casino patrons‘ gambling mood and increase the time they were willing to
stay at the casino (Hirsch, 1995). Similarly, point-of-purchase displays have been
found to increase the sales by up to 388% (Gagnon & Osterhaus, 1985).
In addition to physical attributes, Berman and Evans (1995) argue that socio-
servicescape attributes are critical to a holistic understanding of the servicescape.
Socio-servicescape attributes refer to the social interactions between people in the
servicescape (Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Turley & Milliman, 2000). While Bitner (1992)
acknowledged that social interactions are a behavioural outcome of the servicescape,
Berman and Evans (1995) argue that socio-servicescape attributes are in fact stimuli.
As a result, the servicescape framework has been re-defined to encompass ―the
physical environment and service staff qualities that characterise the context which
houses the service encounter, which elicits internal reactions from consumers leading
to the display of approach or avoidance behaviour‖ (Harris & Ezeh, 2008, p. 392).
Compared to the physical and intangible attributes (i.e., store exterior, store layout,
general interior design and interior displays), socio-servicescape attributes have
received relatively little attention (e.g., Rosenbaum & Montoya, 2007; Tombs &
McColl-Kennedy, 2003). Two main dimensions have been used to classify socio-
servicescape attributes: the influence of other consumers and the influence of service
employees. These two dimensions were identified because service delivery processes
25
involve interactions between employees and consumers, as well as between
consumers themselves (Nguyen, 2006; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003; Turley &
Milliman, 2000). In fact, consumers may find it easier to evaluate service employees‘
characteristics, as opposed to inanimate products or brands due to the participation
that services require (Ekinci & Riley, 2003). Moreover, consumers‘ satisfaction may
be negatively influenced by the severity of the other consumer failure experience
(Huang, 2008).
The literature suggests that employees‘ appearance and behaviour critically influence
consumers‘ attitudes and behaviour (Ekinci & Riley, 2003; Harris & Ezeh, 2008;
Nguyen, 2006). For example, hospitality employees‘ physical attractiveness and
competence have been found to influence consumers‘ loyalty intention towards the
service (Nguyen, 2006; Harris & Ezeh, 2008). However, employee behaviour needs
to be considered as part of the broader servicescape. Harris and Ezeh (2008)
empirically demonstrated that human variables must be investigated as part of
servicescape design because consumers evaluate physical and socio-servicescape
attributes concurrently during service delivery.
The influence of other consumers, on the other hand, refers to perceived crowding
and other consumers‘ characteristics. For example, perceived crowding negatively
influences consumers‘ satisfaction (Eroglu & Machleit, 1990), postpones their
shopping (Grossbart, Hampton, Rammohan, & Lapidus, 1990) and reduces
excitement and quality perceptions (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996, 1999). These
perceptions do not require any interaction between consumers to be formed.
Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2003) argue that consumer-to-consumer interactions
also influence emotions in the servicescape. Consumers‘ interaction and
characteristics, such as their susceptibility to emotional contagion, will in turn
influence their displayed emotions and their perceptions of social density. For
example, consumers‘ who display happiness and excitement positively influence the
emotions of other consumers (Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003).
Despite the fact that servicescapes are a holistic collection of both physical and
socio-servicescape dimensions, research generally examines the impact of one or two
26
predetermined servicescape attributes, such as music or aroma, on consumers‘
emotional, physiological and behavioural responses (e.g., Akhter, Andrews, &
Durvasula, 1994; Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, & Nesdale, 1994; Grossbart, et al.,
1990; Ward, et al., 1992). While servicescape frameworks acknowledge that both
service employees and consumers cognitively interpret and respond to the service
environment, most research (as well as this research program) focuses on consumers‘
responses because their approach behaviour is integral to the profitability and growth
of service organisations. However, such research ignores the fact that consumers
respond to holistic environments rather than a single attribute in isolation (Mehrabian
& Russell, 1974). This results in the endless generation of servicescape attributes to
study, which makes the evaluation of holistic servicescape design difficult.
Taking a more holistic perspective, Harris and Ezeh (2008) empirically demonstrated
that a combination of physical, intangible and socio-servicescape attributes influence
consumers‘ loyalty intention in a restaurant setting. Although these findings
demonstrate that multiple physical, intangible and socio-servicescape attributes are
evaluated concurrently, it does not identify which servicescape attributes are salient
to consumers‘ servicescape evaluations (Dijkstra, Pieterse, & Pruyn, 2008).
Moreover, the results lack some external validity because the study focuses on the
evaluation of a single, specific service environment (Harris & Ezeh, 2008).
In order to address these limitations, this thesis suggests that servicescapes are not
just a collection of attributes; rather, servicescapes are perceived as a constellation of
attributes that are symbolically meaningful to consumers‘ sense of Self. This thesis
proposes that it is these symbolic meanings that drive preference for a specific
servicescape. This chapter argues that consumers interpret servicescape attributes,
ascribe them symbolic meaning based on their cognitive beliefs of Self, and respond
to the holistic servicescape accordingly.
2.1.2 Symbolism in Servicescape
Traditional servicescape research examines the impact of predetermined attributes on
consumers‘ approach or avoidance intention (e.g., Harris & Ezeh, 2008). Prior
servicescape attributes, such as colours, scents, aesthetic settings, shelf space,
27
numbers, point-of-purchase display, service personnel‘s appearance and facial
expressions and social density, have been found to influence consumers‘ internal
responses and behavioural outcomes (Donthu & Yoo, 1998; e.g., Doyle & Gidengil,
1977; Gagnon & Osterhaus, 1985; Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Hirsch, 1995; Lehrner, et al.,
2000; Newman, 2007; Patterson & Smith, 2003; Rosenbaum, 2005; Titus & Everett,
1995; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003; Usunier & Lee, 2005; Walch, et al., 2005;
Winsted, 1997). This range of attributes is extensive to the point of being infinite.
In reality, however, consumers‘ attention to environmental attributes is selective:
they typically only attend to six to eleven salient attributes at a time (Bell, Greene,
Fisher, & Baum, 2001; Fishbein, 1967; Mehrabian, 1977; Reed II, 2002). Thus,
research that relentlessly investigates endless servicescape attributes and how they
relate to superior customer satisfaction is flawed. Conversely, identifying salient
servicescape attributes is critical to understanding service firms‘ success because of
what they represent. Salience is ―the degree to which the self as an object is
prominent in one‘s mind, is at the forefront of attention‖ (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 283).
Using their sense of Self, consumers may cognitively ascribe symbolic meanings to
salient servicescape attributes.
Although Bitner‘s (1992) servicescape framework alludes to the importance of
consumers‘ cognition of symbolic meanings (see Figure 2), the symbolic meanings
that consumers ascribe to salient servicescape attributes, and how these meanings
influence consumers‘ attitudes (particular preference), and thus behavioural
intentions, remains unknown. How consumers cognitively attend to and construe a
servicescape may explain their subsequent behaviour.
2.2 The Self
Consumer Self may be an avenue to better understand how consumers cognitively
perceive a servicescape (Bitner, 1992; Friedmann, 1986; Rapoport, 1990; Sirgy, et al.,
2000). This section draws on Self Theory (Epstein, 1973; Gecas, 1982; Grubb &
Stern, 1971; Malhotra, 1981, 1988; Purkey, 1970) to explain why consumers prefer
particular servicescapes. By synthesising existing knowledge of Self, this section
introduces theoretical grounding to explain which attributes are salient to consumers
28
and what symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to these attributes. This section
argues that personal values underpin consumer Self (Gecas, 2000; Hitlin, 2003;
Wojciszke, 1989) and that values of the Self, together with the personality of the Self
(Aaker, 1997, 1999; Malhotra, 1981), may influence consumers‘ servicescape
preferences.
2.2.1 Self Theory
An individual‘s internal view of their personal existence is called the ‗Self‘ (Epstein,
1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979). Psychologists view Self as ―the totality
of a complex and dynamic system of learned beliefs which each individual holds to
be true about his or her personal existence and which gives consistency to his or her
personality‖ (Purkey, 1970). In light of this definition, the cognitive beliefs that an
individual holds and learns about him/herself, is known as self-concept (Avila &
Purkey, 1972). Self Theory asserts that people perceive the world not in isolation but
in relation to one‘s Self; people are motivated to pursue experiences that are
consistent with their concept of Self and avoid experiences that are inconsistent
(Epstein, 1973, 1985; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979).
The pursuit of self-concept often takes precedence over one‘s physical comfort and
safety (Purkey, 1970). For example, wearing high heels may enhance one‘s self
image of femininity but may result in physical discomfort and increase the risk of
injury. The self-concept is so powerful that its enhancement, maintenance and
protection motivates behaviour and affects decision-making (Epstein, 1973, 1985;
Schlenker, 1982; Tedeschi, 1986).
An individual may perceive their Self as having up to three components: actual self
(also called bodily self), ideal self (also called spiritual self), and social self (Gecas,
1982; Goffman, 1967; Hattie, 1992; Kelly, 1991; Markus, 1977; Markus & Wurf,
1987; Maslow, 1954; Sirgy, 1982; Sullivan, 1953). The actual self is defined as what
an individual really believes he/she is (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Huber, et al., 2010). The
ideal self relates to how an individual aspires to be (Aaker, 1999; Belk, 1988; Huber,
et al., 2010). Finally, the social self is defined as what an individual believes others
think of him/her and how they think they are perceived (Malhotra, 1988).
29
The three components of Self are ordered hierarchically (James 1898, cited by Hattie
1992). The foundation of Self is the actual self, which is then built upon by the social
self. Hattie (1992) states that the social self is set above the actual self because
individuals care more for their honour, their family and their friends than their actual
self. At the top level of the hierarchy, the ideal self is a supreme state. James (1898)
proposes that individuals would give up family, friends, fortune, properties and even
life itself for the pursuit of their ideal self (Hattie, 1992).
2.2.2 Self and Symbols
Many advances have been made in an effort to understand how Self is formed.
Psychologists suggest that the Self can be understood based on how individuals
respond to the environment (Tedeschi, 1986). Several frameworks, such as the
stimulus-response (S-R) model, were proposed to explain individuals‘ behaviours
(Guthrie, 1952). This S-R model proposes that consumers act when they are
stimulated by environmental stimuli such as objects, other human beings and events.
However, this model is considered too simple to explain complex behaviours.
In order to overcome the limitations of the S-R model, the Symbolic Interactionist
perspective posits that there is a missing piece between stimuli and response in the S-
R model. This perspective proposes that individuals possess a systematic array of
cognitive beliefs (referred to as organism, represented by O) that underpin the Self
and actively guide behaviour. This perspective is broadly encompassed in Mehrabian
and Russell‘s (1974) S-O-R model.
In an attempt to identify the relationship between S (stimulus) and O (organism‘s
cognitive beliefs), Symbolic Interactionism posits that consumers ascribe meaning to
and interpret environmental stimuli using their cognitive beliefs (i.e., their values and
personality) and respond accordingly (Blumer, 1969; Everett, et al., 1994; Rapoport,
1990; Solomon, 1983). Thus, environmental stimuli are symbolically meaningful to
consumers.
Symbolic meanings are defined by social consensus, which is derived from direct
social transactions and through social institutions (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992;
Rochberg-Halton, 1984; Solomon, 1983). This definition explicitly reinforces that a
30
consensus of symbolic meaning is formed through constant social and cultural
practices, rather than driven by situational affective constructs such as interests or
sentiments (Blumer, 1969; Cardador & Pratt, 2006; Elsbach, 2003; Finegan, 2000;
Hewitt, 2007; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Solomon & Buchanan, 1991).
While individuals‘ cognitive beliefs of Self are developed through social interaction
that results in a consensus of meaning in society (Goizueta, 2004; Leigh & Gabel,
1992; Solomon, 1983), Symbolic Interactionism further claims that consumers‘
responses to environmental stimuli are not based on sensory input (Herek, 1986;
Hewitt, 2007; Leigh & Gabel, 1992; Solomon, 1983). Rather, the response is based
on the cognition of the environmental stimuli in relation to the Self. This mirrors the
assertion of Self Theory that consumers evaluate their environment in relation to
their Self (Purkey, 1970).
Symbolic Interactionism also posits that environmental stimuli are symbols. As
mentioned in the previous chapter, a symbol is defined as ―subjective, complex sets
of abstract beliefs associated with an object or action that represent an entity extrinsic
to the physical and/or intangible forms of objects, events, relationships, thoughts, and
feelings‖ (Allen & Ng, 1999, p. 11). Symbols do not exist in isolation because
consumers do not interact with only one symbol at a time in real social settings (e.g.,
Hewitt, 2008). Thus, a symbolic meaning may be ascribed to a constellation of
symbols that guide behaviour (Allen, 2002; Allen & Ng, 1999; Rochberg-Halton,
1984; Solomon, 1983; Solomon & Assael, 1987). Consequently, a constellation of
symbols (for this thesis, servicescape attributes) are ascribed a symbolic meaning and
are interpreted in relation to the Self.
As discussed previously, consumers‘ desires to extend, maintain and enhance the
Self typically take precedence over the desires of the physical body (Purkey, 1970).
Thus, the maintaining, protecting and enhancing Self become a powerful determinant
of consumers‘ behaviours. Given that consumers‘ cognitive beliefs of Self are
assumed to be the symbolic meanings consumers ascribed to servicescapes,
consumers may be motivated to approach those ascribed symbolic meanings of
servicescapes that are congruent to their Self. Conversely, they may avoid those
ascribed symbolic meanings of servicescapes that are against their Self. Thus,
31
consumers‘ desires of Self may be the best determinant to predict their preference for
a specific servicescape.
Self theorists posit that Self is an abstract construct that can be inferred from
evidence rather than articulated (Purkey, 1970; Wilska, 2002). This echoes Kelly‘s
(1955, 1991) Personal Construct Theory (PCT) assumption that the way individuals
construe their environment is a way to better understand their Self. Thus, PCT is a
useful theory to explore the relationship between environmental attributes and their
ascribed symbolic meanings in relation to individuals‘ Self (Butt, 2008). This theory
has been adopted in different disciplines to investigate how individuals construe their
environment using their own language (e.g.,Caldwell & Coshall, 2002; Fransella,
Bell, & Bannister, 2004). The results suggest that individuals actually use their
personal construct system when they are asked to describe environments (Butt, 2008).
2.2.3 Personal Construct Theory
Just as Self Theory asserts that individuals perceive certain environmental attributes
based on their cognitive beliefs about Self, PCT (Kelly, 1955, 1991) asserts that
individuals construe their environment using their construct meaning structure,
which is formed from their experience (Bannister, 2003; Butt, 2008; Kelly 2003).
Constructs are elements of knowledge (i.e., meanings) that individuals use to
interpret or construe their world (Cervone & Pervin, 2010; Kelly, 1955, 1991). An
individual‘s meaning structure reflects his/her existence (Rowe, 1996). According to
PCT, individuals make sense their environment by organising constructs into
dichotomies of similarities and differences (Burr & Butt, 1992). Thus, an
individual‘s construct system is a set of bipolar constructs; he/she never affirms
anything without denying something else simultaneously (Fransella, et al., 2004).
Butt (2008) asserts that individuals‘ behaviour can be predicted by understanding
their construct system, particularly by investigating which constructs individuals
prefer. To predict how an individual will respond to a particular stimulus, researchers
must first understand how it compares and contrasts with other stimuli, and then
which differentiating construct is preferred. An individual‘s construct system not
only governs their preference, but also makes explicit their sense of Self (Kelly,
32
1991). This is because individuals interpret the world in reference to their sense of
Self.
There may be a considerable consensus between different individual‘s construct
systems. One of the corollaries of PCT, the commonality corollary, asserts that a
considerable consensus exist between patterns of relationships among constructs
within people (Adams-Webber, 2003). Different individuals employ similar
constructs to differentiate events, objects, things and people. The commonality
corollary echoes the premise of Symbolic Interactionism that meanings ascribed to
symbols are developed through a constant immersion in society and culture
(Solomon, 1983). Consumers adopt and store these meanings in their cognitive
system and then ascribe these meanings to other environmental attributes in order to
make communal sense of the environment and orient their behaviours (Kozinets,
2001; Solomon, 1983). Consequently, symbolic meanings become shared and
understood in society. For example, red traffic lights are universally recognised to
mean ―stop‖ in modern society (Strong, 1999).
Just as Symbolic Interactionism posits that not all environmental attributes are
perceived (Hewitt, 2007), PCT (Kelly, 1955, 1991) asserts that individuals can only
construe a finite range of environmental attributes (Kelly, 2003). This is known as
the range corollary (Kelly, 1955, 1991). This corollary assumes that everyone has a
set of aggregated constructs that serve as indicators of perception when they describe
the environment (Kelly, 2003). For example, in the context of restaurants, white
tablecloths and subdued lighting are widely aggregated to form a quality indicator
(Bitner, 1992). As a result, only those attributes that are ascribed symbolic meaning
in relation to consumer Self become salient attributes that drive consumer behaviour
(Gecas, 1982; Goizueta, 2004; Grubb & Stern, 1971; Stryker, 2000; Verhoeven, van
Rompay, & Pruyn, 2009).
Even though Self theorists assert that consumers may have difficulty articulating
their Self (Epstein, 1973; Purkey, 1970), the way consumers construe their
environment using their construct system is likely to be the most meaningful
mechanism to understand how consumers describe their sense of Self (Butt, 2008;
Feist & Feist, 2002). Specifically, Butt (2008) asserts that individuals use their own
33
language to describe the environment in a way that in parallel to descriptions of their
own personality.
2.2.4 The Self and Personality
The marketing and consumer behaviour literature largely applies Self Theory to
investigate the relationships between products/brands and consumer Self, as well as
to predict consumer preferences and behaviour towards products/brands (e.g., Belk,
1988; Elliott, 1997; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Grubb
& Grathwohl, 1967; Levy, 1999; Malhotra, 1988; Richins, 1994; Sirgy, 1979, 1982;
Sirgy & Danes, 1982). The main approach that these researchers use to predict
consumer behaviour is based on personality descriptor-based theories. This approach
asserts that the Self is a set of self-perceived personality descriptors that reflect a
system of cognitive thoughts and beliefs about the Self (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Epstein,
1973; Malhotra, 1988). These descriptors are often described using adjectives such as
friendly, rugged, honest, spirited, reliable, and feminine (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, &
Garolera, 2001).
Products/brands can be ascribed personality descriptors. Consequently,
understanding what personality descriptors are ascribed to products/brands and how
they relate to consumer Self is one approach to understand the fundamental interplay
between the Self and preference for products/brands (Belk, 1988; Belk, Bahn, &
Mayer, 1982; Hewitt, 2007; Leigh & Gabel, 1992; Solomon, 1983; Thompson &
Hirschman, 1995). By identifying personality descriptors that are common to both
products and consumers, products‘ symbolic meanings and consumers‘ hypothetical
constructs of Self can be delineated and scientifically examined (Epstein, 1989).
Many personality descriptors have been identified. For example, Malhotra (1981)
described personality using bipolar adjectives such as excitable-calm, complex-
simple, colourless-colourful, modest-vain, youthful-mature, and formal-informal.
Alternately, Aaker (1997) developed a set of personality descriptors (e.g., down-to-
earth, daring, reliable, upper class, outdoorsy) that are associated with brands.
To obtain unequivocal evidence of the effect of personality of the Self on attitudes
and behaviour, the literature suggests that three components of self (i.e., ideal self,
34
actual self and social self) should be taken into account (Aaker, 1997; Malhotra,
1988). However, research in this field has not yet reached consensus about which self
has better predictive ability. Some researchers suggest that consumers‘ sense of Self
may lie in the ideal self rather than actual self (e.g., McCarthy & Hoge, 1984).
Graeff (1996a, p. 16) claims that ideal self may be more relevant to publicly
consumed (rather than privately consumed) products. Moreover, ideal self is
demonstrated to better predict brand preferences among different product categories
(Hong & Zinkhan, 1995). Conversely, Ekinci and Riley (2003) found that while the
ideal self had more impact on consumer overall attitude, satisfaction and the
perception of service quality towards restaurants, actual self was a better predictor
for those attitudes and behaviours towards hotels or restaurants (Ekinci & Riley,
2003). The discrepant results may be caused by different methods between the two
studies.
From yet another perspective, some researchers argue that ideal self and actual self
have the same influence on brand attitudes. For example, Huber and his colleagues
(2010) found that brand congruities with ideal self and actual self both predict short-
term consumer-brand relationship quality. Thus far, the predictive abilities of actual
self and ideal self remains unknown.
Consumers‘ desire for social self has only recently received attention. Advocates in
this field emphasise the importance of consumer social self because they cannot
escape the marketplace in modern society (Holt, 1997; Holt & Thompson, 2004;
Kleine III, Kleine, & Kernan, 1993; McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002;
Muñiz Jr & Schau, 2005; Schouten, 1991; Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). In fact,
groups of consumers regularly sacrifice their time and money to engage with the
product community due to the consensual meaning embedded in the product
(Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Belk, et al., 1982; Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2003;
Kozinets, 2001). In this sense, the influence of social self may be more significant
than the other two self constituents, particularly in a product/brand community,
because social self is enhanced through community consensus and admission
(Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Leigh, Peters, & Shelton, 2006; Muñiz Jr & Schau,
2005; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004). For example, a study of MG car consumption
35
found that the MG owners‘ social self can be enhanced/extended through purchasing
the car, experiencing driving the car, being a car club member, attending club events
and guiding other owners in how to repair their cars (Leigh, et al., 2006). Through
these experiences, MG owners obtained a sense of Self accomplishment and a sense
of Self mastery, so their desires for social self were satisfied (Leigh, et al., 2006).
Although many personality descriptors ascribed to products/brands can be identified
and the predictive strength of three components of the Self has been investigated, our
understanding of the impact of personality of the Self on consumers‘ attitude and
behaviour is fragmented, incoherent and highly diffuse (Sirgy, 1982; Reed II, 2002).
A review of the relevant studies has identified two deficiencies in the literature.
First, research has not yet identified the association between salient attributes of
products and the related personality descriptors (Allen & Ng, 1999; Reed II, 2004).
Research suggests that the importance of product attributes can only be understood
by their ascribed personality descriptors (Allen & Ng, 1999; Reed II, 2004).
However, using personality descriptors to examine self-congruity with products,
brands and services may be too superficial to predict consumer attitudes and
behaviours (Butt, 2008).
Second, there is a lack of consensus about which constituent of the Self better
predicts consumers‘ preference. Given the predictive ability of the personality of the
Self on consumer preference is weak and remains contentious, a test of the effects of
both personality of the Self and values of the Self on attitudes/behaviours is critical
for understanding either personality or personal values better predictive strength.
In fact, a review of the pertinent literature found that the meanings consumers ascribe
to salient servicescape attributes may in fact be drawn from personal values rather
than simply personality descriptors. Personality is theorised as a means towards
higher end values (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994). Thus, personal values may be
embedded at the heart of individuals‘ personality and may be the cognitive beliefs
that underpin Self (Epstein, 1989; Finegan, 2000; Gecas, 2000; Hitlin, 2003;
Kamakura & Novak, 1992; Knippenberg, Knippenberg, Cremer, & Hogg, 2004; Pitts
& Woodside, 1991; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002; Wojciszke, 1989). This thesis
36
therefore posits that personal values define the distal element of Self that, together
with personality descriptors, may significantly influence consumer attitudes and
subsequent behaviours.
2.2.5 Personal Value Theory
Personal values are cognitive beliefs by which an individual orientates him/herself in
the environment. As such, personal values are ideal to unearth consumers‘ needs and
desires in consumption. Personal values are defined as ―abstract structures that
involve the beliefs that people hold about desirable ways of behaving or about
desirable end states‖ (Feather, 1995, p. 1). Personal values tend to be relatively
enduring, relatively trans-situational and thus act as criteria to guide behaviour
(Gecas, 2000; Rokeach, 1979; Wade-Benzoni, et al., 2002).
Personal values consist of two distinct sets of constructs (Rokeach, 1968, 1973). The
first relates to end-states, phrased as nouns that people strive for, which are known as
―terminal values‖. The second consists of modes of behaviour, phrased as adjectives,
which are known as ―instrumental values‖. Rokeach (1968) identified 18 terminal
values, such as an exciting life, a sense of accomplishment, freedom, pleasure and
happiness, as well as 18 instrumental values, such as honest, ambitious, clean,
cheerful, imaginative, polite and responsible. ―Freedom‖ is an example of a terminal
value indicating an individual‘s independence and free choice, whereas ―independent‖
is an instrumental value leading to individuals self-sufficient behaviour.
Although psychologists assert that there is a clear distinction between terminal and
instrumental values (e.g., Rokeach, 1968), little evidence supports this assertion.
Weishut (1989) argues that terminal and instrumental values can be transformed into
one another. For example, the terminal value ―independence‖ is in the noun form of
the adjective ―independent‖. Schwartz (1992) also demonstrated that the separation
of terminal and instrumental values had no effects on the personal values of
individuals.
Schwartz (1992, 1996) employed a circular model that draw explicitly on Rokeach‘s
values to construct ten universal human values: power, self-direction, stimulation,
hedonism, achievement, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and
37
universalism. These values are considered culturally invariant, although the priority
of values may be different between individuals. In a social interaction, consumers‘
expressed behaviours are motivated by the values they hold (Schwartz, 1992;
Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).
Schwartz‘s circular value model comprises two dimensions: self-enhancement versus
self-transcendence and conservation versus openness, which depicts the latent
conflicts and the compatibility among personal values. That is, the self-enhancement
dimension includes values promoting achievement and power whereas the self-
transcendence dimension includes values promoting benevolence and universalism.
For example, the pursuit of equality of opportunity (the dimension of self-
transcendence) conflicts with the pursuit of authority (the dimension of self-
enhancement). Conversely, the pursuit of social order (the dimension of self-
enhancement) is compatible with the pursuit of the obedience (the dimension of self-
transcendence) (Schwartz, 1992, 1996). In general, the pursuit of a particular value is
varied among individuals.
In a separate stream of concurrent research, Kahle and his colleagues developed the
list of consumer values (LOV) (Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1991; Kahle, Beatty, &
Homer, 1986) based on Maslow‘s hierarchy needs (Maslow, 1954) and Social
Adaptation Theory (Kahle, 1983). According to Kahle (1996, p.135), values are the
"most abstract type of social cognition that people use to store and guide general
responses to classes of stimuli". The LOV consists of nine values including self
respect, security, warm relationship with others, sense of accomplishment, self
fulfilment, sense of belonging, being well respected, fun and enjoyment in life, and
excitement.
The relationship between values, attitudes and behaviour has been demonstrated in
the literature on organisational behaviour and social psychology. Organisational
Behaviour researchers have demonstrated that value congruence can be used to
predict employee attitudes toward organisations and behavioural outcomes (Edwards
& Cable, 2009; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Social psychology
researchers have demonstrated that value congruence predicts social relationship
quality, relationship affective commitment, partner liking, marital satisfaction and
38
relationship-maintaining behaviour (Aron, Steele, Kashdan, & Perez, 2006; Arthur,
Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006; Byrne, 1997). Hence, personal values have been
demonstrated to be effective in predicting attitudes and subsequent behavioural
intentions.
2.2.5.1 Personal Values and the Self
The idea that personal values underpin consumer Self is not new (Brunsø, Scholderer,
& Grunert, 2004; Howard, 1995; Kahle, et al., 1986; Maio, 2010; Rokeach, 1973;
Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Drawing on Smith‘s (1963)
discussion of Self values as components of self-definition and standards that people
use for self-evaluation (aslo see Turner, 1968), Gecas (2000) proposed the existence
of values of the Self. The concept of values of the Self suggests that ―general goals
and end states are the basis of much of our feeling of authenticity. Being true to one‘s
values and principles is being true to oneself in a fundamental way‖ (Gecas, 2000, p.
102).
From a marketing perspective, research on product symbolism has found that the
symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to products do correspond with personal
values (e.g., Ennis & Zanna, 1993; Rose & Orr, 2007; Schouten & McAlexander,
1995; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). As shown in
39
Table 3, Vigneron and Johnson (1999) found that consumer needs for uniqueness and
the enhancement of social relationships result in prestige-seeking behaviour. In this
example, ―sense of uniqueness‖ corresponds to the personal value of ―self-direction‖
because it refers to the individual‘s need for mastery (Schwartz, 1992). Meanwhile,
the ―enhancement of social relationships‖ corresponds to the personal value of
―social recognition‖, which refers to an individual‘s need for the approval of others
(Schwartz, 1992).
40
Table 3: Symbolic Meanings and Their Correspondence to Personal Values
Researchers
(year) Objects/Events Symbolic Meanings
Correspondence to
Human Values
Yamauchi &
Templer (1982)
Money Acquisition
Recognition
Achievement
Social power
Social recognition
Achievement
Prentice (1987) Possessions Recreational Self-expressive
Prestigious
Culture
Pleasure
Social power
Tradition
Belk &
Wallendorf
(1990)
Money Self sacrifice
Hard work
Conscientiousness as virtuous
Self-indulgence
Selfishness as evil
Benevolence
Conformity
Hedonism
Self-direction
Ennis & Zanna
(1993)
Automobile
function
Family
Luxury
Sport
Family security
Social recognition
Excitement
Schouten &
McAlexander
(1995)
Product
(Harley-
Davidson
motorcycles)
Personal freedom
Patriotism
Machismo
Freedom
National security
Bhat & Reddy
(1998)
Product brand Symbolic, Prestigious, Exciting,
Status symbols, Distinctive
Social power
Achievement
Excitement
Vigneron &
Johnson (1999)
Prestige brand
consumption
Conspicuous, Unique, Social
relationships, Emotional
Quality
Social recognition
Self-direction
Sense of belonging
Conover &
Feldman (2001)
Political
tendency
Status quo, Capitalism,
Disadvantaged, Radical left
Reformist left, Social control
Social power
Influential
McAlexander,
Schouten &
Koenig (2002)
Mosaic brand
communality
(Jeep)
Fun, Protecting the
environment, Authenticity,
Access to off-road trails
Pleasure
Environmental protection
Choosing one‘s own goal
Lievens &
Highhouse
(2003)
Organisational
attractiveness to
employees
(banks)
Honest, sincere, Daring, trendy,
exciting, cool, spirited, young
Secure, intelligent, reliable
Upper-class, prestigious
Masculine, strong, robust
Honest
Daring
Self-direction
Security
Intelligent and smart
Responsible
Rosenbaum
(2005)
Ethnic and
homosexual
consumption
Nostalgia, Community and
acceptance, Free to be (i.e. feel
safe and gay-friendly),
Connection to culture, Place
avoidance
Sense of belonging
Security
Tradition
Benevolence
Kressmann, et al.
(2006)
Brand
relationship
quality
Love/passion, Interdependence
Intimacy, Partner quality
(interpersonal attachment)
Sense of belonging
True friendship
Helpful
O‘Cass &
McEwen (2006)
Products
(fashion
clothing &
sunglasses)
Success, Prestige, Wealth,
Achievement, Interested in
status
Achievement
Social power
Wealth
Rose & Orr
(2007)
Money Status, Achievement, Worry,
Security
Social power
Achievement
Self-discipline
Security
41
Although the symbolic meanings ascribed to products and brands may correspond to
personal values, research has yet to fully identify what personal values may be
ascribed to services. Further, an identification of several aggregations of salient
service attributes should occur prior to identifying the personal values ascribed to
servicescapes (Reed II, 2002, 2004). Given that consumers hold different values, it
may be difficult to identify what personal values are most common and relatively
important in relation to servicescape evaluations. Thus, an identification of an
aggregation of salient attributes and their association to common personal values
may be a more significant predictor of consumers‘ servicescape preferences. As
services are perishable, intangible and cannot be separated from persons and physical
environments involved in the service delivery processes, the attributes ascribed with
values and embedded in servicescapes may become salient and attractive to the
extent that they facilitate consumer Self (Kleine III, et al., 1993; Spencer, 1981;
Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003). It is assumed that along with the identification of salient
servicescape attributes, consumer values of the Self and its relation to the perceived
values of salient attributes can be unearthed.
In conclusion, the preceding theoretical discussion focused on the influence that
personal values have on attitudes and behaviour. Given the assumption that personal
values are the symbolic meanings that underpin consumer Self (Gecas, 2000; Hitlin,
2003), values of the Self may be an alternative to understand how consumers‘
servicescape preferences are formed. An extensive literature review has shown that
no servicescape research has used values of the Self as an independent variable in
conjunction with the perceived servicescape values to predict servicescape
preferences. Thus, this may be a valuable line of inquiry.
In comparison to the limitations of personality descriptors that were presented in the
previous section, values of the Self may be a better predictor of servicescape
preference for several reasons. First, they are less situation bound (Brunsø, et al.,
2004; Rokeach, 1968, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Second, personal values are
relatively enduring in adults to motivate behaviour (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Kahle,
Rose, & Shoham, 2000, Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach, 1973). Third, the values of the
Self allows consumers to enhance or extend their Self in the social interaction
42
scenarios because ―values develop in social contexts, draw on cultural significantly
symbolic materials, and are experienced as a necessary and fundamental, but non-
coerced, aspect of self‖ (Hitlin, 2003, p. 121). Therefore, this rationale suggests that
consumers carry values of the Self across situations, predisposing them to perceive
and act in situations in line with values of the Self (e.g., Stryker, 2000).
2.3 Self-Congruity Model
As mentioned previously, consumers‘ evaluations of a product are often affected by
the symbolic meaning they ascribe to the product (e.g., Bhat & Reddy, 1998). Given
that consumers use products for enhancing, extending, protecting and/or maintain
their Self (Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Leigh & Gabel, 1992; Piacentini & Mailer,
2004; Sirgy, et al., 2000; Solomon, 1983), preference and purchase behaviour can be
predicted by the perceived congruity between consumer Self (whether that is the
personality or values of the Self) and the ascribed symbolic meaning of the product.
Consumers are likely to prefer (and thus purchase) a product because they perceive
the symbolic meanings ascribed to that product extend their sense of Self or match
certain aspects their Self (Belk, 1988; Epstein, 1973; Sirgy, 1982).
The marketing literature widely applies the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) to
investigate the effect of congruence between consumer Self (i.e., Ideal Self, Actual
Self, and/or Social Self) and the product‘s symbolic meaning on preference and
purchase behaviour (Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy & Danes, 1982). Self-congruity
is defined as ―the match between consumers‘ self-concepts and the user image (or the
corresponding self-relevant personality descriptors) of a given product, brand, store,
etc‖ (Kressmann, et al., 2006, p. 955). The Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982)
serves as a predictor of whether a consumer‘s desire for enhancing, extending and/or
maintaining Self is satisfied (Kressmann, et al., 2006). This model tests how well a
consumers‘ sense of Self matches with the symbolic meanings ascribed to a given
product (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy & Danes, 1982; Sirgy, et al., 2000; Sirgy & Su, 2000),
brand (Huber, et al., 2010) or service (Harris & Fleming, 2005; Zhang & Bloemer,
2008). This model posits that the greater the degree of self-congruity with a given
product, brand or service, the greater the likelihood that preference is developed and
43
purchase will occur (Kressmann, et al., 2006; Sirgy & Su, 2000; Wheeler, et al.,
2005).
The Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) has been used to predict consumers‘
positive attitudes and approach behaviours towards products and brands (e.g., Graeff,
1996a, 1996b; Stanton & Lowenhar, 1974). It predicts consumers‘ occupational
mobility needs with clothes preference (Ericksen & Sirgy, 1992); preference and
purchase intentions for automobiles, beer, magazines and cigarettes (Birdwell, 1964;
Dolich, 1969; Graeff, 1996a; Grubb, 1965; Grubb & Stern, 1971; Hong & Zinkhan,
1995; Sirgy, 1985; Stanton & Lowenhar, 1974); brand choice and satisfaction
(Ericksen & Sirgy, 1992; Jamal, 2004; Jamal & Al-Marri, 2007; Jamal & Goode,
2001; Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, & et al., 1997; Sirgy, Johar, Samli, &
Claiborne, 1991); brand loyalty (Kressmann, et al., 2006); house preference
(Malhotra, 1988); satisfaction with holiday destinations (Chon, 1992); brand
relationship quality (Huber, et al., 2010; Kassarjian & Sheffet, 1991); retail purchase
intentions (Ibrahim & Najjar, 2008; Stern, Bush, & Hair, 1977); and perceptions of
value for money (O'Cass & Grace, 2008).
Although the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) has been widely used to
investigate congruence effects, little research investigates incongruence effects,
particularly incongruence between consumer Self and a given object (Edwards,
2009). To date, consumer research using the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) is
limited because most of the results focus on the effect of maintenance and protection
the Self (i.e., the more congruity, the better degree of the preference), rather than
incongruity. Consequently, this research will investigate the impact of both congruity
and incongruity between the Self and the symbolic meaning ascribed to servicescape
as this (in)congruence is likely to be a strong predictor of servicescape preference. In
this thesis, Self-Servicescape congruence is defined as ―the match between consumer
Self (i.e., personality of the Ideal Self, Actual Self, and Social Self, as well as the
values of the Self) and the symbolic meanings ascribed to a given servicescape‖.
Further discussion of this idea, as well as an empirical model and associated
hypotheses, will be presented in Chapter Five.
44
2.4 Conclusion
Given that servicescape attributes may be ascribed symbolic meanings in relation to
consumers‘ sense of Self, this thesis proposes that the (in)congruence between
consumer sense of Self and the symbolic meanings they ascribe to servicescapes
affects their preference for servicescapes. The proposed role of servicescape
symbolism is grounded in the three existing theories—Self Theory (e.g., Epstein,
1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970), Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955, 1991) and
Human Value Theory (Rokeach, 1979; Schwartz, 1992)—that suggest that the
symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to servicescapes are drawn from self-relevant
personality descriptors (Kelly, 1955, 1991), as well as self-relevant values (Gecas,
2000; Hitlin, 2003). Values of the Self, together with personality of the Self (Aaker,
1997), form the evaluative criteria for servicescape performance. Consequently, the
Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) is used to investigate the (in)congruence
between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings (i.e., self-relevant personality
descriptors and personal values) ascribed to servicescapes in order to predict
preference.
The review of the existing servicescape literature illustrates that prior research has
focused on investigating how servicescape attributes arouse consumers‘ emotional
and physiological responses and, in turn, influence their approach behaviours (e.g.,
Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003). What remains under-
investigated is how self-relevant symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescape
attributes influence consumer perceptions of self-congruity/incongruity with the
servicescape, which in turn inform their preference for the servicescape.
In an effort to advance knowledge about the role of servicescape symbolism and its
influence on servicescape preference, this thesis seeks to investigate three issues: (1)
which servicescape attributes are salient to consumers and what symbolic meanings
consumers ascribe to those salient attributes, (2) how the symbolic meanings
ascribed to salient servicescape attributes can be measured and (3) how the joint
effect of consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to a servicescape
influences consumer preference for the servicescape. These issues will be
investigated in the three studies of this thesis.
45
3 STUDY ONE
While the previous chapter provided a theoretical foundation of servicescape
symbolism, this chapter presents the research method and findings of Study One.
Study One uses individual depth interviews to gain an insight into what symbolic
meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape attributes. This chapter discusses the
research objective, research design and justification, research procedure, method of
data analysis, and findings. The chapter concludes with an overview of salient
servicescape attributes and the symbolic meanings ascribed to those attributes.
3.1 Research Objective
In order to understand how consumer servicescape preference is formed, it is first
necessary to explore the symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to servicescapes.
Study One investigates which servicescape attributes are salient to consumers and
what symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to those attributes (Mason, 2002;
Tharenou, Donohue, & Cooper, 2007). Thus, the objective of the study is to answer
the following research question:
RQ1. What symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape attributes?
3.2 Research Design and Justification
In order to achieve the research objective presented above, a qualitative approach
was used. Qualitative approaches provide richness and detail about a phenomenon of
interest, which allows researchers to build theoretical explanations of a phenomenon
using informants‘ perceptions (Tharenou, et al., 2007). Researchers typically
interpret qualitative data subjectively, which raises questions about data
generalisability and rigour (Lee & Lings, 2008). However, using rigorous qualitative
methods and triangulating qualitative data with quantitative data (such as later data
presented in this thesis) ensures the validity and reliability of exploratory studies.
Qualitative research can be conducted using several different methods: individual
depth interviews, focus groups, case studies and secondary sources of data (Churchill,
1996; Creswell, 2003; Tharenou, et al., 2007). Individual depth interviews mainly
46
use open, direct, verbal questions to elicit concrete individual perceptions, feelings
and opinions, as well as to generate narratives that focus on specific research
questions (Miller & Crabtree, 2004, p.188-189). This method permits the researcher
to search much deeper into the research problem as well as allows more outspoken
discourse on the part of interviewees (Churchill, 1996). However, the conduct of
individual depth interviews generally costs more than other qualitative methods.
To ensure that the information obtained from interviews addresses the research
question, a protocol to guide interviews is typically developed (Lee & Lings, 2008).
The protocol can be an unstructured or semi-structured topic guide. Researchers may
only use a few brief topics to prompt the interviewee in totally unstructured
interviews; however, they may find it difficult to generate useful data because the
interview may contain some irrelevant data (Lee & Lings, 2008). Conversely,
researchers who conduct semi-structured interviews may find their data to be
particularly useful if they already have a clear theoretical comprehension of research
topics (Lee & Lings, 2008; Zikmund, 2003).
Alternately, focus groups are often ―conducted among a small number of individuals;
the interview relies more on group discussion than on directed questions to gather
data‖ (Churchill, 1996, p. 121). Although focus groups are easy to set up and a more
cost- and time-effective way to generate qualitative data, they are difficult to
moderate and interpret. Further, evidence suggests that researchers‘ preconceived
positions often bias their interpretation of group discussions (Churchill, 1996).
Meanwhile, informants‘ comments may be influenced because they may be
unwilling or feel too intimidated to share their views if they are different from others
in the group (Churchill, 1996).
A case study ―involves the intensive study of selected cases of the phenomenon
under investigation‖ (Churchill, 1996). There are many ways to examine selected
cases, including examining existing records, observing the phenomenon as it occurs
and conducting unstructured interviews (Churchill, 1996; Lee & Lings, 2008; Mason,
2002). Case studies are advantageous for seeking explanations for particular
phenomenon rather than testing explanations. However, the selection of cases must
be based on solid theoretical reasoning. Although case studies obtain sufficient
47
information to explain the unique features of the cases being studied, the validity,
reliability and generalisability of case studies is a constant debate among researchers.
Finally, secondary sources of data involve the analysis of pre-existing data rather
than active data collection (Lee & Lings, 2008). Secondary sources include public
and private documents such as the minutes of meetings, newspapers and personal
journals (Tharenou, et al., 2007). Documentation is often considered to be a
supplementary source of information that can be used to triangulate primary data or
counteract the biases of other methods (Lee & Lings, 2008).
In order to gain insight into the role of servicescape symbolism, Study One with the
exploratory nature was conducted using individual depth interviews. This method
permits the study to approach servicescape research from a different angle (i.e.,
identifying salient attributes) and in greater depth (Mason, 2002). To collect
pragmatic data, a semi-structured interview protocol was developed using projective
techniques.
Projective techniques ―are a non-directive interview technique where the informant
can project himself onto another and thus reveal some of the informant‘s own
thoughts, feelings and fears‖ (Boddy, 2005, p.241). Consumer researchers have
borrowed projective techniques from psychoanalysis and clinical psychology to
uncover real consumer attitudes and behaviours (Boddy, 2005; Donoghue, 2000;
Livingston, 2003; Steinman & Karpinski, 2009). These techniques are appropriate
for this study because they are able to stimulate consumers‘ free flow of associations
between servicescape attributes and the symbolic meanings ascribed to these
attributes.
Two projective techniques are used in this study: the repertory test technique (Kelly,
1955, 1991) and the laddering technique (Gutman, 1982, 1991, 1997). The Repertory
Test technique involves systematic, but flexible, data collection known as a triadic
exploratory technique. This process asks informants to describe the similarity and the
difference between a triad of things (e.g., objects, events or people) in their own
language (Fransella, et al., 2004). Alternately, the Laddering technique forces
48
informant to ascend a mental hierarchy from a concrete object to a more abstract
belief, which informs their preference for a given object.
In order to collect the qualitative data required to answer RQ1, Study One employs
repertory tests and then the laddering technique to better elicit informants‘ complex
cognitive values (i.e., servicescape symbolic meanings) from abstractions that
underlie salient servicescape attributes. The data is subsequently analysed using
Fishbein‘s (1963) categorisation, content analysis and presented using Hierarchical
Value Maps (HVM) (Guman, 1982). The details of the Repertory Test and Laddering
techniques are described in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Phase One: Repertory Test Technique
The Repertory Test technique was originally designed to operationalise Personal
Construct Theory (PCT) (Kelly, 1955, 1991). As discussed in Chapter Two, PCT
(Kelly, 1955, 1991) asserts that the way individuals construe their environment is an
expression of their personalities (Bannister, 2003; Butt, 2008; Kelly, 2003), which is
also known as an individual‘s construct system. Constructs are meanings and reasons
that individuals use to construe their environment (Kelly, 1955, 1991). Individuals
construe elements of their environment, such as events, activities, objects or people,
by organising them into dichotomous categories: similarities and differences (Burr &
Butt, 1992). An individual‘s construct system thus comprises a set of bipolar
constructs, which means that an individual can never affirm their preference for
something without rejecting a preference for its opposite (Fransella, 2003; Fransella,
et al., 2004). As a result, consumers‘ behaviour can be predicted by understanding
which constructs are being affirmed by them (Butt, 2008).
Although all individuals have complex personal construct systems, most are unable
to articulate their system to others. Consequently, Repertory Tests were designed to
use triads of elements to elicit and understand individuals‘ personal construct system.
The Repertory Tests technique requires individuals to use their own language to
describe the similarities and difference in a triad of elements. By describing these
similarities and differences, individuals are actually expressing their personal
construct system (Jankowicz, 2004). Further, an individual‘s preference for a
49
construct is informed by their view about their self (Butt, 2008; Fransella, et al., 2004;
Marsden & Littler, 2000a). For example, if an individual construe a triad of people as
either nice or nasty, and he/she chooses to interact with people who are considered
nice rather than people who are considered nasty, then he/she is likely to consider
his/herself a nice person. Such construal also operates in the wider environment:
individuals‘ responses to the environment can be predicted based on the meanings
they describe from the affirmed and denied environmental stimuli.
3.2.2 Phase Two: Laddering Technique
Once the preferred pole of a construct is identified, laddering technique can be
conducted to more deeply understand what symbolic meanings underlie the preferred
construct. The Laddering Technique is an elicitation technique devised by Gutman
(1982, 1997) to elicit means-end chain data. This technique allows researchers to
systematically identify consumers‘ hierarchical associations between a given object‘s
means (i.e., attributes, in this research), consequences and end-values (Gutman, 1982,
1997; Naoi, Airey, Iijima, & Niininen, 2006; Olson & Reynolds, 1983).
Means are products, characteristics or feature with which consumers engage during
decision-making. Consequences are the desired benefits that result from the product
characteristics or features, such as sexual appeal, that satisfy consumers‘ need for
value acquisition (Gutman, 1982). These consequences result in consistent situation
decision-making processes (Brunsø, et al., 2004). At the top of a consumer‘s
hierarchy, end-values are the mental states that govern broad choice patterns
(Gutman, 1982, 1997; Rokeach, 1968). Consumers‘ end-values are often internalised
in an abstract form and are trans-situational (Brunsø, et al., 2004).
Consequently, the Laddering technique is often used to uncover consumers‘ means-
end chains. This technique assist consumers to articulate the connections between
means, consequences and their personal cognitive values by repeatedly being asked
questions such as ―Why is that important to you?‖, ―What‘s the benefit of that?‖ and
―How would you define what you just described?‖ This technique was developed
because consumers often found it difficult to verbalise their enduring personal values
in personal interviews (Allen, 2002; Marsden & Littler, 2000b). With the iterative
50
inquiries, means become meaningful representations of values. In the marketing
literature, this technique has been widely adopted to map the associations between
the products or brand attributes and consumers‘ cognitive values (Dibley & Baker,
2001; Reynold, Gengler, & Howard, 1995; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002).
3.2.3 Justification of a Combination of Repertory Test and Laddering
Techniques
Combining the two projective techniques of Repertory Tests and Laddering to
identify the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attributes is
justifiable for three reasons. First, conducting individual depth interviews with two
projective techniques (i.e., repertory test and laddering techniques) allows
researchers to more deeply understand informants‘ attitudes, motivations and
characteristic ways of responding to environments (Marsden & Littler, 2000b;
Zikmund, 2003). As the attitudes, motivations and characteristic environmental
responses elicited by Repertory Tests alone have been criticised for their deficiency
of richness and complexity, the laddering technique assists researchers to more
deeply understand the repertory test data (Marsden & Littler, 2000b).
Second, the combination of the two techniques minimise researchers‘ subjectivity
biases and lack of experience due to the way the data is collected (Naoi, et al., 2006).
The combined techniques require informants to compare and contrast environment
elements (such as events, activities, objects or people), which encourages informants
to describe elements using their own language without researcher interference
(Marsden & Littler, 2000b). Consequently, the data elicited from informants is
considered to be more objective.
Finally, the marketing literature has previously applied this joint method to
investigate consumers‘ perceptions of chocolate brands (Dibley & Baker, 2001) and
grocery shops (Hudson, 1974). These perceptions were meaningful when analysing
individuals‘ decision-making processes about their choice of products, brands and
services. The use of Repertory Tests and Laddering in the marketing literature is
gaining ground because they can effectively illuminate consumers‘ choices; thus, this
51
combination of projective techniques is appropriate to systematically explore salient
servicescape attributes and their symbolic meanings.
3.3 Research Procedure and Justification
In order to explore which symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes, a semi-structured interview protocol combining repertory tests and the
laddering technique was designed. The protocol design assisted informants to
generate meaningful knowledge about their servicescape preferences.
3.3.1 Interview Protocol
The first step of the interview was to present the informant with triads of elements.
Elements can comprise anything (i.e., inanimate objects or human beings) relevant to
the domain of interest (Butt, 2008) and in Study One, servicescape images served as
elements. In a typical repertory test, elements are determined by the informants
rather than pre-selected by the researcher (Marsden & Littler, 2000b). However, a
researcher‘s subjective thinking is an essential part of the research process to
understand the phenomenon of interest (Kelly, 1969). Thus, this study used elements
that were pre-selected by the researcher.
The pre-selection of elements required three conditions to be satisfied. First, the
elements should evenly cover the entire domain of the research topic (Jankowicz,
2004). Second, elements should be able to elicit differentiated constructs to increase
overall predictive capacity (Adams-Webber, 1996), given that construct complexity
has a generalisable component that is applicable to other elements using a similar
constructs (Zinkhan & Biswas, 1988). Finally, the number of elements should vary
from a minimum of eight to a maximum of 30, although 16 to 20 is optimum
(Sampson, 1972). Element categories should be determined by literature review or
the research question (Jankowicz, 2004).
To satisfy the three conditions, 15 generic servicescape images (including images of
retail stores, banks, coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, department stores,
shopping arcades, hairdressers, and legal services) were selected to guide the
interviews (Darby & Karni, 1973). These images were printed in full colour on A4
52
cards. The selection of images aimed to cover the extensive domain of service
environments. Further, the images were considered an appropriate tool to allow
informants to search, recognise, and infer information (Larkin & Simon, 1987)
because the variety of services represented in the images, including search-based,
experience-based and credence-based services, had two advantages. First, the wide
selection of images covered the whole field of interest evenly (Fransella, et al., 2004;
Jankowicz, 2004), which was considered appropriate for the study to identify the
association between salient servicescape attributes and relevant values. Second, the
selection of 15 images across three service types facilitated large amounts of
information to identify and compare. Thus, the significance and complexity of
elicited servicescape attributes can be ensured to generate the interviews‘ overall
predictive capacity (Adams-Webber, 1996; Gengler, Klenosky, & Mulvey, 1995).
In order to present triads of images, the optimal triadic combination of the 15
servicescape images needed to be determined. Using a balanced incomplete design
(Burton & Nerlove, 1976), the number of triadic combinations was reduced from a
possible 455 triads to 35 triads (as shown in Table 4). The 35 triadic combinations
were determined in accordance with Burton and Nerlove (1976).
Table 4: Presentation of the Set of Triads Using Balanced Incomplete Block Design
Base sets Derived sets
A: 1, 2, 3 ABC (1,5, 8) (2, 4, 7) (3, 6, 9)
B: 4, 5, 6 ABD (1, 6, 11) (2, 5, 10) (3, 4, 12)
C: 7, 8, 9 ABE (1, 4, 14) (2, 6, 15) (3, 5, 13)
D: 10, 11, 12 ACD (1, 7, 12) (2, 9, 11) (3, 8, 10)
E: 13, 14, 15 ACE (1, 9, 15) (2, 8, 13) (3, 7, 14)
ADE (1, 10, 13) (2, 12, 14) (3, 11, 15)
BCD (6, 8, 12) (5, 7, 11) (4, 9, 10)
BCE (6, 7, 13) (5, 9, 14) (4, 8, 15)
BDE (6, 10, 14) (5, 12, 15) (4, 11, 13)
CDE (8, 11, 14) (7, 10, 15) (9, 12, 13)
To ensure that each of the 35 triads had equal chance of being used, the sequence of
triad use had to be determined before conducting any interviews. Consequently, the
researcher first numbered the base sets and the derived sets of triads from one to 15.
The 15 numbers was then input into a website (www.random.org/sequences) that
calculates random sequences. Once the sets of three triads had been established, each
triad was numbered one to three and the random sequence generator was used to
53
decide the sequence in which the triads were presented to informants. The final
sequence of triads‘ usage was obtained.
Once the informants were given a triad of servicescape images at the start of the
interview, they were asked to break the triad in two and describe in a short phrase or
sentence how two servicescape images were alike but different from the third. In
describing the similarities and differences using their personal construct system,
informants identified servicescape attributes that were salient to them and thus
ascribed symbolic meanings to those attributes. This process describes a repertory
test.
Once the informant had described an attribute in a bipolar manner, they were asked
to nominate which side of the bipolar attribute they preferred the most. After they
nominated their preference, the laddering technique was introduced. Informants were
repeatedly asked why the pole they had chosen was preferable to them. By repeating
the question ―why‖ for newly emerged construct favoured by the informants, the
informants‘ cognitive end-values that were associated with environmental attributes
emerged. Once the end-value was reached, a new triad was presented and the same
questions were asked until informants could not identify any further unique
servicescape attributes (Fransella, et al., 2004; Marsden & Littler, 2000b).
3.3.2 Sample
Given its exploratory nature, this study aimed to collect the broadest range of
information possible as opposed to achieving sample precision (Allen & Ng, 1999;
Ericksen & Sirgy, 1992; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Thus, a purposeful sampling
strategy, which is a non-probability sampling strategy is useful for naturalistic
enquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), was used to recruit informants. Although
purposeful sampling may result in an unrepresentative sample (Marshall & Rossman,
2006), Patton (2002) suggests that the sampling strategy for qualitative research
should be determined by the purpose and rationale of the research (also see Zikmund,
Ward, Lowe, & Winzar, 2007). Purposeful sampling results in a sample that is
meaningful and relevant to the research problem (Mason, 2002). Such sampling was
54
consequently considered an appropriate strategy for collecting rich information with
respect to the exploration of meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attributes.
While large samples are not required in qualitative research, the number of
interviews conducted was based on both a sense of redundancy and the theoretical
saturation of significant data from additional informants (Dibley & Baker, 2001;
Guba & Lincoln, 2008; Patton, 2002; Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Information-poor cases were also considered for elimination during
data analysis. In order to achieve data redundancy and theoretical saturation (Dibley
& Baker, 2001; Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), 19 interviews were
conducted. Informants were recruited using flyers distributed on the campus of one
of Australia's largest universities. Informants comprised six males and 13 females,
aged between 26 and 64 (see Table 5).
Table 5: Employment, Gender and Age of the Informants of Study One
Code Employment/Gender Age Code Employment/Gender Age
001 Part-time student (F) 42 011 Part-time employment (M) 27
002 Full-time student (F) 36 012 Self employed (M) 27
003 Unemployed (F) 32 013 Full-time employment (F) 27
004 Full-time student (M) 32 014 Full-time student (F) 28
005 Full-time employment
(F) 34 015 Full-time student (F) 26
006 Full-time employment
(F) 34 016 Full-time employment (F) 53
007 Full-time student (F) 38 017 Self employed (F) 66
008 Full-time student (F) 29 018 Full-time employment (M) 63
009 Part-time employment
(F) 61 019 Full-time employment (M) 39
010 Full-time employment
(M) 62 ------- ----------------------------------- ------
3.3.3 Data Collection
Each interview was scheduled at a time and place of convenience for the informants.
All interviews were audio taped after receiving informants‘ permission. An initial
introduction to the research aims was critical to develop rapport between the
informants and the interviewer, as well as to encourage their cooperation during
55
interviews (Rao & Perry, 2003). Next, each informant was presented with a consent
form that described the research purpose and the confidentiality and anonymity
afforded to him or her during the interviews. The interviews began after informants
signed the consent forms.
At the beginning of the interview, the researcher described what a service
environment attribute was (Marsden & Littler, 2000a; McCrae & Costa, 1987;
Solomon, 1985, 1998). The informant was then presented with a series of
servicescape image triads. He/she was asked to take a moment to examine each triad
and was then asked, ―Can you think of one phrase or one sentence that describe
something that two of the images have in common, and in which they differ from the
third, in terms of the service environment characteristic?‖ (Fransella, et al., 2004;
Jankowicz, 2004). In general, the number of new attributes generated in a single
interview declined with each informant. In the first and second interviews, for
example, the informants generated 22 of the final 48 salient attributes (45.8 percent
of the total data). The number of new salient attributes significantly decreased until
Informant 010, who did not generate any new attributes (as shown in Appendix B).
This method gives rise to descriptions of salient servicescape attributes that are
essentially semantic differentials, as the description of the attribute common to the
two servicescapes falls at one end of the continuum and the description of the
attribute of the third servicescape falls at the other end. After identifying a salient
attribute, the informants were asked, ―Which description do you prefer?‖ Once the
preferred attributes were established, a laddering technique was initiated by the
researcher repeatedly asking ―Why is that favourable/important for you?‖ or ―What
is the benefit of that for you?‖. As the purpose of the laddering was to elicit
informants‘ values ascribed to salient attributes, the laddering questions were
repeated until data saturation occurred (Coshall, 2000; Marsden & Littler, 2000a).
Data saturation was achieved when the informants could provide no further
information. On average, this occurred after 8-12 triads. Note that for the second and
subsequent triads, informants were asked to identify a previously unmentioned
similarity/difference (Coshall, 2000; Sampson, 1972).
56
At the end of each interview, the informants were asked to complete a demographic
information form because it may influence the interview content they offered. On
average, each interview lasted approximately one hour. To prepare for data analysis,
the audio recording of each interview was transcribed, and then each transcription
was subject to rigorous error inspection.
3.4 Method of Data Analysis
The method of data analysis for this study was inductive. The analysis comprised
three stages: (1) sorting the data points into attributes, consequences and end-values,
(2) categorising the attributes and labelling their themes using Fishbein‘s (1963)
categorisation technique, and (3) categorising the consequences and end-values using
content analysis, and then labelling themes for each category using Fishbein‘s (1963)
categorisation technique.
Hierarchical Value Maps (HVM) were then constructed to graphically represent the
relationships between salient attributes and consumers‘ end-values (Marsden &
Littler, 2000a). A HVM consists of three tiers: attributes (Tier 1) are located at the
bottom of the map, consequences (Tier 2) are presented in the middle of the map, and
end-values are displayed at the top of the map (Tier 3) (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
In this study, the HVM comprised three tiers of procedural knowledge about how
consumers routinely act upon the meaning system that underpins a service product
(Brunsø, et al., 2004). On Tier 1, servicescape images act as situation-specific stimuli
to elicit salient attributes from informants. Tier 2 presents an intervening system of
cognitive structures that connect the salient attributes to increasingly abstract
cognitive categories. From a top-down perspective, the end-values on Tier 3 are the
driving force in orientating behaviour that is consistent across contexts and situations
(Rokeach, 1968). Using the laddering technique, the abstract end-values underlying
consumers‘ meaning systems can be systematically identified. Thus, categorisation,
content analysis and Hierarchical Value Mapping (HVM) are discussed in the
following subsections.
57
3.4.1 Sort Data Points
Data points within each transcript were initially sorted into one of three tiers:
attributes (A), consequences (C) or end-values (V). Two decision rules were used to
sort the data points into the tiers (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). First, the distinction
between an attribute and its consequences (i.e., the first cut-off point) was
determined to be the point at which informants started stating the reasons why the
favoured attributes were important to them. For example, if ―spacious walkway‖ was
a favourable attribute of the service environment to the informant, ―easy to access‖
may have been the consequence indicating why it was important. The frequency of
each elicited attribute was calculated to determine the degree of the salience across
informants. Second, the distinction between consequences and values (i.e., the
second cut-off point) was determined to be the point at which informants could no
longer generate a higher level of reasoning about why the favoured attribute was
important to them. Although in many instances the distinction between consequences
and values was not clear-cut, frequently informants did reach a level where they were
describing their own values (Gutman, 1991, 1997).
3.4.2 Categorise and Theme Attributes
Once the attributes had been sorted, they were grouped into themes using Fishbein‘s
(1963) categorisation technique. Several criteria were applied to categorise the
attributes. Starting with the most obvious features (Fishbein, 1963; Reynolds &
Gutman, 1988), the first criterion grouped attributes based on their association with
the physical environment (i.e., anything inanimate) or the social environment (i.e.,
anything relevant to human beings). Once attributes had been ascribed to either the
physical environment or social environment, further categorisation occurred. When
the physical environment category was examined, its fundamental functions were
determined to be the next categorisation criterion. Conversely, when the social
environment category was examined, the role of the relevant actors was determined
to be the categorisation criterion. In addition, the frequency of each attribute was
calculated as an indicator of the degree of salience. Idiosyncratic attributes (i.e.,
those occurring in only a few interviews) were not analysed further, whereas
common attributes were grouped together into themes.
58
3.4.3 Categorise and Theme Consequences and End-Values
Once the attributes had been categorised and themed, content analysis (Holsti, 1969;
Kassarjian, 1977; Kerlinger, 1964 ; Krippendorff, 2004) was adopted to categorise
and theme the consequences and the end-values. Content analysis is defined as ―a
research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other
meaningful matter) to the context of their use‖ (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 18). As this
study aimed to identify the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes, content analysis was considered to be an appropriate method to interrogate
the data using the parent theories of Self Theory and Human Values Theory
(Creswell, 2003; Mason, 2002).
The consequences were first examined to see whether they were similar to the human
personalities traits described in Self Theory (Epstein, 1973; Gecas, 1982; Grubb &
Stern, 1971; Malhotra, 1981, 1988; Sirgy, 1979). Recall from Chapter Two that
personality descriptors are considered to be a relevant criterion to group
consequences because consumers describe themselves and their environments in
similar terms. Next, the systematic content analysis used Schwartz‘s (1992)
Universal Human Value Types to further group the consequences and ladder up to
universal human values. Once the consequences and end-values were categorised,
Fishbein‘s (1963) categorisation technique was used to theme each category of
consequences.
3.4.4 Data Presentation
After the data points were sorted, categorised and themed, the next step involved
examining the original attribute categories to determine whether there was a logical
fit between the categories of attributes, the categories of consequences and the final
end-values using Hierarchical Value Maps (HVMs) (Reynold & Gutman, 1988).
HVMs were constructed for each of the themes that emerged from categorising the
attributes. As the means-end information represented the content and structure of
informants‘ cognitive values (Gutman, 1991), informants‘ personal values were
identified as meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attributes, which were
explored in the interviews.
59
By illustrating means-end data in a HVM (Grunert & Grunert, 1995; Reynolds &
Gutman, 1988), the data set is transformed into information that is more meaningful.
Specifically, HVMs provided a perspective on how the servicescape was interpreted
from a motivational perspective (i.e., the desires of the vales self) so that the
underlying reason why an attribute was important could be uncovered (Gutman,
1982; 1997; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
3.4.5 Method Summary
In sum, Study One used a combination of repertory tests and the laddering technique
within individual depth interviews to elicit informants‘ end-values. This research
design uncovered the symbolic meanings that are embedded in consumers‘ cognitive
value system, which informants may not consciously know or be able to explain.
Thus, the study objective was achieved through the identification of salient
servicescape attributes and the symbolic meanings that consumers ascribe to these
attributes. Through the construction of HVMs, the relationships between salient
attributes, consequences and values were graphically presented.
3.5 Findings
From the transcripts of 19 depth interviews, 211 data points were initially
distinguished as a servicescape attribute (Tier 1), consequence (Tier 2) or end-value
(Tier 3) (see Appendix B). To develop the three tiers of the HVMs, the data was then
divided into three groups for analysis using Fishbein‘s (1963) categorisation strategy
and content analysis. Data points that were homogenous were grouped together and
their frequency was recorded. For example, if two observations, such as ‗subdued
lighting‘ and ‗the lighting is not bright; it‘s a little bit dark so you cannot see through
the space‘ were homogeneous, they were combined into one data point named
‗subdued/indirect lighting‘ and marked with a frequency of two for further analysis.
After coding, idiosyncratic data points (i.e., those that didn‘t occur more than once;
see bolded in Appendix B) or data points that were not directly relevant to describing
the servicescape were deleted. This analysis identified 37 salient attributes, 92
consequences and 28 end-values (as shown in Figure 3). Once the categorisation was
60
completed and each category was labelled with a theme, HVMs were created to
represent the data.
Figure 3: Relationship between Attributes, Consequences, and End-values
3.5.1 Tier 1: Salient Attributes
Of the 37 salient attributes identified, the most salient servicescape attribute was staff
eye contact with consumers (mentioned by 12 informants). This may be salient for
two reasons. First, informants perceived that face-to-face interaction with staff would
be friendly, helpful and patient. This mirrors findings in the servicescape literature,
which claims that staff facial expressions and behaviour are equally as important as
physical service environment attributes because consumers perceive and evaluate
them simultaneously (Bitner, 1992; Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Turley & Milliman, 2000).
Further, staff facial expressions and behaviour have the power to alter consumers‘
prior cognitions (i.e., perceptions and attitudes) before they engage with services
(e.g., Brady & Cronin, 2001). Thus, staff behaviour allows consumers‘ aggregated
expectations to become experience-based evaluations (Halstead, 1999).
Second, staff eye contact implies that service staff will actively participate in the
service exchange and thus gives consumers confidence that they will achieve their
service goals. This is reflected in a number of comments by informants, including ―I
61
can achieve my goal by coming to this service‖ (Informant 011) and ―I can get what I
want to know here‖ (Informant 008). Put simply, an engaged conversation between
staff and a consumer influences the consumer‘s perception of control over the
outcomes of the service (Grewal, Gopalkrisnan, Gotlieb, & Levy, 2007; Thompson,
1981) and subsequently determines if he/she is likely to achieve the expected goal of
the service exchange process.
The second most salient attributes were (1) subdued/indirect lighting, (2) an outdoor
atmosphere with fresh air and sunshine, and (3) lots of space (each mentioned by
nine informants, respectively). Informants perceived that subdued lighting would
make them feel relaxed (Informants 001, 003, 015, 018 and 019), whereas an outdoor
atmosphere with fresh air and sunshine would put them in a more positive mood
(Informants 006, 007, 012 and 013). This mirrors findings in the servicescape
literature that sunshine helps to reduce perceptions of stress (Walch, et al., 2005) and
feelings of anxiety (Lehrner, et al., 2000).
The provision of space in the servicescape meant that informants perceived they
would be able to move without constraint and thus exercise control over their
behaviour (Informant 002, 003 and 010). This mirrors the findings of an
experimental study on retail environments (van Rompay, Galetzka, Pruyn, & Garcia,
2008), which demonstrated that consumers‘ perceptions of spatial density
significantly influence their feelings of control over their environment (van Rompay,
et al., 2008). Given that consumers‘ feelings of control facilitate goal achievement
(Hui & Bateson, 1991; Ward & Barnes, 2001), it is not surprising that lots of space
was a strongly salient servicescape attribute to informants.
The third most salient attributes mentioned were (1) plain or less formal interior
design, (2) a variety of products/shops, (3) many other consumers that look busy with
different activities, (4) other consumers are smiling, and (5) service staff are smiling
(each mentioned by eight informants, respectively). Informants perceived that a plain
or less formal interior design would be a less intimidating environment (Informants
004 and 005). Alternately, informants perceived that a store with a variety of
products or an area with lots of shops would be a convenient ―one stop‖ shop
(Informants 017 and 018). The final three attributes (i.e., busy, smiling consumers
62
and smiling staff) meant informants perceived that they would not be alone
(Informants 002, 003, 007, 008, 009 and 010). Smiling consumers were salient
because they brought a sense of energy and liveliness to the servicescape, which in
turn would bring happiness to informants (Informants 014 and 018). Similarly,
smiling service staff look friendly and give informants a warm and inviting feeling
about the servicescape (Informants 001 and 019). These three salient attributes add
weight to prior findings that others in the servicescape influence the consumer‘s
emotions and subsequent behaviours (e.g., Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003).
Fourth, colourful décor and furnishings were salient to informants (mentioned by six
informants). Colourful décor arouses informants‘ desires to approach the
servicescape; subsequently, they reported that they would be more likely to spend
time searching in the servicescape because such an environment would be novel
(Informants 001 and 17). Theoretically, our understanding of the direct effect of
colour on consumer behaviour maybe scant; however, the indirect influence of
individual colours on consumer purchase intention have been investigated (Bellizzi,
Crowley, & Hasty, 1983; Bellizzi & Hite, 1992; Kaya & Epps, 2004). Bellizzi and
Hite (1992) found that consumers purchase more in a blue environment than a red
environment. In addition, Bellizzi, Crowley and Hasty (1983) found that subjects did
not find the colour red to be pleasant, although they were drawn to the warm colour.
On the other hand, Kaya and Epps (2004) found the colour green evoked positive
consumer emotions, such as feelings of relaxation and comfort. They explain this
effect using the association between the colour green and nature, which is thought to
be emotionally soothing (Kaya & Epps, 2004).
Once the degree of salience for each attribute had been established, Fishbein‘s (1963)
categorisation strategy was further used to group common attributes into
heterogeneous themes (see Table 6). First, attributes were grouped based on their
association with the physical environment (i.e., anything inanimate) or the social
environment (i.e., anything relevant to human beings). Next, physical environment
attributes were grouped into outdoors and indoors, and social environment attributes
were grouped into those relating to staff and other consumers. Finally, the attributes
in each of the four categories were grouped into heterogeneous themes. At the end of
63
the three-step categorisation process, 11 heterogeneous themes were identified:
outdoor atmosphere, colour, architectural design, furnishing, cleanliness, layout and
space, certification, staff behaviour, staff appearance, consumer behaviour, and
consumer appearance. Once these themes were established, the consequences were
examined.
64
Table 6: Emergent Themes Derived from Salient Attributes Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Themes Attributes (frequency of informant elicitation)
Ph
ysi
cal
En
vir
on
men
t A
ttri
bu
tes
Outdoors Outdoor
atmosphere
An outdoor atmosphere including fresh air and sunshine (9)
Flowers and trees (2)
Indoors
Colour
Interior design is plain, less formal and doesn‘t looks expensive
(8)
Colourful décor and furnishings (6)
Colour red (2)
The colour of the tiles (2)
Architectural
design
High ceilings (5)
Atrium with natural light (3)
Historical architecture with painting, fretwork, railings, old
glasses, balconies, old style hanging light, and a mezzanine floor
(6)
Furnishing
Subdued/indirect lighting (9)
Soft arm sofa (6)
The high standard quality and material of furnishings (6)
Bright lighting (5)
Tables and chairs (3)
Wooden furnishings (2)
Cleanliness Clean (2)
Layout and
space
Lots of space (9)
Products were organised and clearly displayed with price tags (6)
The enclosed area/private area with curtains or doors (5)
There is no counter or no partition or no curtains (5)
The layout is wide and easy to access (2)
The sign is written in a foreign language (2)
Various products/shops (8)
Variety of products in one shop (4)
Certification Certificates and qualifications on the wall (5)
So
cial
en
vir
on
men
t at
trib
ute
s
Staff
Staff
behaviour
One-to-one/face-to-face interaction with eye contact (12)
Service staff are smiling (7)
Service staff are visible (3)
Service staff are invisible (2)
Staff
appearance
Service staff wear formal attire/uniforms (4)
Service staff wear casual clothes (3)
Other
consumers
Consumer
behaviour
Smiling consumers (8)
Many other consumers that look busy with different activities (8)
Consumers are hanging around without a particular aim (7)
Consumers that appear healthy and active (5)
Consumer
appearance
Consumers are dressed up (2)
Consumers have different colour hair/from different countries (3)
65
3.5.2 Tier 2: Consequences
Once the attributes in Tier 1 had been categorised and themed, a content analysis and
categorisation of the consequences in Tier 2 were conducted. The consequences are
useful to understand how cognitive structures connect salient attributes to abstract
end-values. Initially, 92 consequences were identified. Next, content analysis using
Self Theory (Epstein, 1973; Purkey, 1970) and Universal Human Value Theory
(Schwartz, 1992) categorised those consequences into 28 categories (see Table 4). In
order to label each category, Fishbein‘s (1963) categorisation strategy then was used.
This strategy labels themes using the most frequently occurring consequence within
each category (Fishbein, 1963) (see Table 7).
66
Table 7: Consequence and the Themes
Consequences (with themes in bold)
1. It is attractive and stylish
Gives a feeling of high-end elegance
How people evaluate my looks is important (I would like to have a good public image +Others
may see me beautiful)
2. I would receive the staff’s full attention when I want
The staff have to pay attention to me
I feel that I am a special customer and would receive exclusive service
People should consider how others see you
I am important to the service provider
The service provider would treat me better/with respect
3. I feel free to communicate with others and present myself (+ I perform better)
I can have better, detailed, less ambiguous information
I feel less barriers
I feel free to ask for service
I feel that I am not left behind
4. The environment helps me to meet my goals (life goals, career goals or the goal of
attending to the service)
People are engaged with each other (+ They commit to each together)
It means triumphs and trust (+ The commitment implies success)
I am a task-oriented person
5. I can buy valuable products
I use my money wisely
It helps me to use my time efficiently (+ save me time)
It (the modern facility/furnishing) is up-to-date, gives a feeling of intelligence and
sophistication
Everything is organised and well-planned
6. People’s smiling face create a positive mood
This environment gives a feeling of a life and energy (I feel this environment is full of life and
full of energy + It gives you energy)
7. I am relaxed, comfortable and not in a rush I feel content and satisfied
I am happy, enjoying myself and having fun
8. The environment gives you the opportunities to indulge yourself
You cannot take your health for granted (pamper yourself)
9. The exploration of unfamiliar area/countries is exciting It‘s full of enthusiasm and enjoyment
10. Interested in different cultures and histories
It (the old style architecture/décor) provides an opportunity to experience another lifestyle from
our normal life, to detach from real life temporarily
11. They induce my desire and make me want to go in and buy something
I am curious
12. I have control over my own space
Everything is visible and nothing is hidden
I am not intermingle with others; I have freedom of movement
It means that people have hopes and the choice to do whatever they want to do
It (the organised environment) maintains my serenity and patience to shop
It gives a feeling of less pressure
I don‘t feel comprised
I would have confidence to make decisions
The environment helps me to clear my mind (+ It makes me calm)
It allows you to have certain privacy or keep your privacy
It allows me to find directions and I know where to ask for service or to buy products
I take my time and I am not in a rush to make an order
13. I will be able to get my job done without asking for help
I have confidence to make decisions
67
Consequences (with themes in bold)
I will be able to share an experience and learn a new trend
I am independent and autonomous
14. It inspires my imagination
I feel that I am not limited (I have no limits for doing things + I feel my imagination is
unlimited)
I will be able to observe others and make up their stories
Observing others‘ activities stimulates my imagination and makes me more enlivened
15. We should protect the environment
People should appreciate the environment (I feel appreciative of the environment + It would be
better if the store uses recycled wood for the counter or furnishing design)
16. I feel I am part of the nature I feel peaceful (feeling peace of mind)
I am emotionally comfortable
17. Everyone is equal and has their own rights and values
There is no status in the environment
18. I feel I am more inclined to take others’ suggestion
It (modern facilities, socialising with people) gives me opportunities to learn new technology,
improve my knowledge, open my mind
19. We share stories and experience
I might develop good relationship with the staff or customers here
20. This is honest, real, practical and down to earth
I won‘t lose the contact with real world
I can be truthful of myself and I don‘t need to pretend
21. People should remember the history and respect different cultures We need to protect heritage buildings and relevant things
I like to connect history and old fashion stuff
22. Everyone knows the rules and follows the rules
The situation is predicable so that I know how to respond and behave
23. I feel safe
I am less guarded when staying in the spacious room
I have no fear to stay in the environment
It allows me to avoid the risk comparing to staying in the outdoor environment
24. I don’t feel alone (even I don’t know others)
People understand what I am talking about
It (the dim light) has an intimate atmosphere, gives a feeling of warm and feels like home (+ I
would like to attend to the environment that people I am familiar with)
It is like the store just around the corner that I am familiar with
I feel that someone would look after me and/or support me when I need assistance (+ It‘s
always good to pass time with families and friends)
Feel warm and inviting in the environment
The environment tells about stories, reminds me my childhood memories (+ I feel like that I am
back to my childhood)
This is a friendly environment
25. I feel healthier; it’s good to my health
I can react and I‘m not vulnerable
26. I would receive the service as I expect, a satisfied return
27. I will be able to help others
28. It looks professional and reliable
I am confident with the service (+ I trust those service staff because they have professional
knowledge)
(+ Customers would receive high quality service) I cannot allow my family to suffer
68
3.5.3 Tier 3: Values
As informants thought critically about their preferences for salient attributes, they
often reached a point where they start describing their values (Gutman, 1991, 1997;
Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). When an end-value is established, the underlying reason
why an attribute is important to informants is uncovered. These end-values are self-
relevant, and thus are known as personal values (Rokeach, 1973). Personal values are
enduring beliefs that guide consumer behaviour across specific situations (Vinson,
Scott, & Lamont, 1977). Their centrality to a consumer‘s cognitive system means
they can predict consumer evaluation and choice (Rokeach, 1973). Given this, end-
values are essential to this thesis because they are likely to predict consumers‘
servicescape preference.
Once the consequences in Tier 2 had been categorised, a content analysis of the end-
values in Tier 3 occurred. The end-values are the symbolic meanings ascribed to
salient servicescape attributes. Overall, 28 end-values were elicited from informants
(as shown in Table 8). Although consumers often have difficulties identifying their
own values, or articulating reasons why some things are important or beneficial to
them (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988), all informants (except 007 and 011) were able to
describe their cognitive values.
The most common end-value elicited was ―sense of belonging‖ (mentioned by 16
informants). This value corresponds to Schwartz‘s (1992) universal human value of
Security. The second most common value elicited was ―a pleasurable experience and
pleasant mood‖ (mentioned by 15 informants). This value corresponds to Schwartz‘s
(1992) human value of Hedonism, which reinforces human needs for enjoyment and
happiness. The third most common value elicited was ―feelings of control over the
environment‖ (mentioned by 12 informants). This value corresponds to Schwartz‘s
(1992) human value of self-direction, which refers to the need for control over the
environment. The full list of elicited values and their relationship to Schwartz‘s
(1992) human value types are shown in Table 8.
69
Table 8: Values and Their Themes in Corresponding to Schwartz‘s (1992) Value Types
Universal Values (Schwartz, 1992)
Elicited end-values
Power Enhances and maintains public image Needs for recognition
Achievement Capability Success Intelligent and smart
Hedonism Pleasure and pleasant Enjoying life Self-indulgent
Stimulation An exciting life A varied life
Self-direction
Creation and imagination Have control Independent Curiosity
Universalism
Environmental protection Harmony with nature Equality/fairness Open minded/broad minded
Conformity Self-discipline
Benevolence Responsible/reliable True friendship Helpful
Tradition To be true to self (Accepting my portion in life) Honouring culture and history
Security
Sense of belonging Reciprocation Healthy Feeling of safety
3.6 Development of Hierarchical Value Maps
The next step in the data analyses was to map the relationships between attributes,
consequences and end-values using the Hierarchical Value Maps (HVMs). HVMs
allow these relationships to be identified at a glance. Using the 28 consequence
themes and 10 value themes, a HVM was constructed for each of the 11 salient
attribute themes (see Table 9 for theme codes). Each HVM illustrates how one
attribute theme ladders up to particular consequence themes and end-value themes.
The HVMs are now presented according to how salient each attribute was to the
respondents.
70
Table 9: Themes and Themed Codes for Attributes, Consequences and End-values
Tier Themes and themed codes for attributes, consequence and end-values
Tier 1:
Salient
attributes
A1. Outdoors
A2. Colour
A3. Architectural design
A4. Furnishing
A5. Cleanliness
A6. Layout and space
A7. Certification
A8. Staff behaviour
A9. Staff appearance
A10. Consumer behaviour
A11. Consumer appearance
Tier 2: Consequences
C12. It is attractive and stylish
C13. I would receive the staff‘s full attention when I want
C14. I feel free to communicate with others and present myself
C15. The environment helps me to meet my goals
C16. I can buy valuable products
C17. People‘s smiling faces create a positive mood
C18. I am relaxed, comfortable and not in a rush
C19. The environment gives you the opportunities to indulge yourself
C20. The exploration of unfamiliar area/countries is exciting
C21. Interested in different cultures and histories
C22. Those things induce my desire and make me want to go in and buy something
C23. I have control over my space
C24. I will be able to get my job done without asking for help
C25. It inspires my imagination
C26. We should protect the environment
C27. I feel I am part of the nature
C28. Everyone is equal and has their own rights and values
C29. I feel I am more inclined to take others‘ suggestion
C30. We share stories and experience
C31.This is honest, real, practical and down-to-earth
C32. People should remember the history and respect different cultures
C33. Everyone knows the rules and follows the rules
C34. I feel safe
C35. I don‘t feel alone (even I don‘t know others)
C36. I feel healthier; it‘s good to my health
C37. I would receive the service as I expect, a satisfied return
C38. I will be able to help others
C39. It looks professional and reliable
Tier 3:
End-values
V40. Power
V41. Achievement
V42. Hedonism
V43. Stimulation
V44. Self-direction
V45. Universalism
V46. Benevolence
V47. Tradition
V48. Conformity
V49. Security
71
3.6.1 Staff Behaviour (A8)
The first attribute theme, staff behaviour (A8), was strongly associated with nine
consequences:
I would receive the staff‘s full attention when I want (C13)
I feel free to communicate with others and present myself (C14)
The environment helps me to meet my goals (C15)
I can buy valuable products (C16)
People‘s smiling face create a positive mood (C17)
We share stories and experience (C30)
I don‘t feel alone (C35)
I would receive the service as I expect, a satisfied return (C37)
It looks professional and reliable (C39).
These consequences informed six end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
These end-values are power (V40), achievement (V41), hedonism (V42), self-
direction (V44), benevolence (V46), and security (V49) (as shown Figure 4).
Figure 4: Staff Behaviour and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
72
This theme (A8) comprises the most salient attribute to respondents: one-to-one/face-
to-face interaction with eye contact (mentioned by 12 informants), The HVM
indicates that face-to-face interaction with eye contact during service interaction
satisfies informants‘ desires for capability, success, reliability, and trust. For example,
Informant 011 pointed out that:
―…I would prefer this one-to-one interaction [A8] scenario, because two parties
are engaged with each other [C15], involving more detailed information. This is
easier to get information across without distraction.… You can clearly discuss the
key issues you want to get or you want to solve and both parties understand to each
other… In this case, you can achieve your goal for the service [V41] easily.‖
- Informant 011 (Male, 27yo)
Additionally, this attribute theme (A8) comprises another attribute: the smiling
service staff (mentioned by seven informants). Informants perceived this attribute
created a positive atmosphere in the servicescape, which is potentially contagious.
Smiling service staff (A8) have a range of positive consequences, including positive
mood (C17) and warm and welcoming feelings (C35). These consequences were
associated with three end-values: capability, pleasure, and sense of belonging. For
example, informants perceived that smiling service staff help them to achieve their
goals for the service, which corresponds to the universal human value of
achievement. Informant 006 pointed out that:
―…the service lady is smiling [A8]; it looks like she is inviting people to come
in….It just makes me feel very positive even before receiving the service…. If this
was my work environment, I would want to receive positive feelings from another
party [C17]. It just makes me perform better [C14] if I am in a good mood. Of
course, if I perform better, I would expect I can achieve the goal that I want to
achieve [V41]. For example, a promotion, and in the service environment, I suppose
that I feel free to ask questions and get the product that I want.‖
- Informant 006 (Female, 34yo)
73
3.6.2 Furnishing (A4)
The second attribute theme, furnishing (A4), was strongly associated with 11
consequences:
It is attractive and stylish (C12)
I am relaxed, comfortable and not in a rush (C18)
The environment gives you the opportunities to indulge yourself (C19)
I have control over my space (C23)
We should protect the environment (C26)
I feel I am more inclined to take others‘ suggestion (C29)
People should remember the history and respect different cultures (C32)
I feel safe (C34)
I don‘t feel alone (C35)
I will be able to help others (C38)
It looks professional and reliable (C39).
These consequences informed seven end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
These end-values are power (V40), hedonism (V42), self-direction (V44),
universalism (V45), benevolence (V46), tradition (V47), and security (V49) (as
shown in Figure 5).
Figure 5: Furnishing and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
74
This theme (A4) comprises a salient attribute, subdued/indirect lighting (mentioned
by nine informants), which was strongly associated with two consequences: feeling
warm and inviting in the environment, I feel safe (C34) and I am not alone (C35).
These relationships indicate that subdued/indirect lighting embedded in a service
environment satisfied informants‘ desires for a sense of belonging. For example,
Informant 003 pointed out that:
―…the subdued lighting [A4] makes me feel warm and invited [C34]. I feel like I
am at home. I feel safe [V49] …. If the lighting is bright, I would feel
uncomfortable and cold.‖
- Informant 003 (Female, 32yo)
In addition, this theme (A4) comprises another salient attribute, soft arm sofas
(mentioned by six informants), which was strongly associated with three
consequences: it gives a feeling of high-end elegance (C12); I am relaxed,
comfortable and not in a rush (C18); and I am more inclined to take others‘
suggestions (C29). These relationships indicate that the soft arm sofas were salient to
informants with the values of enjoying life, maintaining and/or enhancing public
image, and open-minded/broad-minded. For example, Informant 010 stated that:
―…it (sofa arm sofas) [A4] contributes to your mood. You are relaxed [C18] and
are probably more inclined to take on some suggestions [C29]. I mean that you
are probably more open to others’ suggestions [V45].‖
- Informant 010 (Male, 62yo)
3.6.3 Outdoors (A1)
The third attribute theme, outdoors (A1), was strongly associated with 13
consequences:
I feel free to communicate with others and present myself (C14)
I can buy valuable products (C16)
The exploration of unfamiliar area/countries is exciting (C20)
Interested in different cultures and histories (C21)
75
Those things induce my desire and make me want to go in and buy something
(C22)
I have control over my space (C23)
I will be able to get my job done without asking for help (C24)
It inspires my imagination (C25), I feel I am part of the nature (C27)
Everyone is equal and has their own rights and values (C28)
I feel I am more inclined to take others‘ suggestion (C29)
I don‘t feel alone (C35)
I will be able to help others (C38).
These consequences informed informants‘ seven end-values (i.e., universal human
value types). These end-values are achievement (V41), stimulation (V43), self-
direction (V44), universalism (V45), benevolence (V46), conformity (V48) and
security (V49) (as shown in Figure 6).
Figure 6: Outdoors and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
76
This theme (A1) comprises the salient attribute, an outdoor atmosphere with fresh air
and sunshine (mentioned by nine informants), which was associated with two
consequences: helps people clear their mind (C23) and inspire imagination (C25).
These consequences were subsequently associated with six end-values: achieve
career goal, satisfy one‘s ambition of creation and imagination, have control over the
environment, allow one to feel harmony with nature, improve one‘s personal health,
and gain a sense of belonging. For example, Informant 016 stated that:
―I don‘t really like artificial air-con environments. I feel emotionally comfortable
[C27] when I am outdoors [A1]. I think it is the age thing because I grew up in this
kind of environment. We did not really have shopping malls when I was young. You
know, all shops were on the street; you go to a shop, exit the shop onto the street, and
go to another shop, all outdoors. This is what I am used to and I feel that I am
back at the place where I come from [V49].‖
- Informant 016 (Female, 53yo)
3.6.4 Layout and Space (A6)
The fourth attribute theme, layout and space (A6), was strongly associated with 12
consequences:
I feel free to communicate with others and present myself (C14)
I can buy valuable products (C16)
I am relaxed, comfortable and no in a rush (C18)
The environment gives you the opportunities to indulge yourself (C19),
Those things induce my desire and make me want to go in and buy something
(C22)
I have control over my space (C23)
I will be able to get my job done without asking for help (C24)
We should protect the environment (C26)
I feel I am more inclined to take others‘ suggestion (C29)
Everyone is equal and has their own rights and values (C32)
I feel safe (C34)
77
It looks professional and reliable (C39).
These consequences informed seven end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
These end-values are achievement (V41), hedonism (V42), self-direction (V44),
universalism (V45), benevolence (V46), tradition (V47) and security (V49) (as
shown in Figure 7).
Figure 7: Layout and Space and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A6) comprises the salient attribute, lots of space (mentioned by nine
informants), which was strongly associated with four consequences: I do not
intermingle with others, I have freedom of movement, I have control over my own
space, and I have certain privacy or keep my own privacy (C23). These relationships
indicate that a spacious environment enabled informants to have end-value of control
over their service environment and safety. For example, Informant 011 pointed out
that:
―This is the place where you can have your own privacy [C23]. No one knows
who you are, but you are still part of activities, probably don‘t feel lonely… you have
78
your own choice to explore something or not. You have control over the
environment [V44]‖
- Informant 011 (Male, 63yo)
In addition, this theme (A6) comprises another salient attribute, products are
organised and clearly displayed with price tags (mentioned by six informants), which
was strongly associated with nine consequences: I can buy valuable products (C16), I
use my money wisely (C16), it helps me to use my time efficiently (C16), everything
is organised and well-planned (C16), I am happy, enjoying myself and having fun
(C18), those things induce my desire and make me want to get in and buy something
(C22), it maintains my serenity and patience to shop (C23), and have confidence to
make decision (C24). These relationships indicate that this attribute was ascribed
symbolic meaning in relation to informants‘ four end-values: success, capability,
enjoying life and curiosity. For example, Informant 016 pointed out that:
―…the environment is organised and well-planned with clear price tags on
products [A6]…you won‘t feel lost. You can compare the prices and have
confidence to make decisions [C24]. And you got whatever you want [V41]‖
- Informant 016 (Female, 53yo)
Another salient attribute, variety of products and shops (mentioned by eight
informants)(A6), was associated with four consequences: I can buy valuable products
(C16), I use my money wisely (C16), helps me to use my time efficiently (C16),
people have choice to do whatever they want (C23). These consequences were
associated to three end-values including intelligent and smart (V42), control (V44),
and equality and fairness (V45). For example, Informant 006 pointed out that:
―…I can get everything I want in one place rather than go do different places
for different things [A6]. This environment helps me to save my time and money
I have lots of choices and I can choose value for money and quality [C16] [V41].‖
- Informant 006 (Female, 34yo)
79
3.6.5 Colour (A2)
The fifth attribute theme, colour (A2), was strongly associated with nine
consequences:
It is attractive and stylish (C12)
I feel free to communicate with others and present myself (C14)
I am relaxed, comfortable and no in a rush (C18)
Those things induce my desire and make me want to go in and buy something
(C22)
I have control over my space (C23)
I will be able to get my job done without asking for help (C24)
It inspires my imagination (C25)
Everyone is equal and has their own rights and values (C28)
This is honest, real, practical and down-to-earth (C31).
These consequences informed five end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
These end-values are achievement (V41), hedonism (V42), self-direction (V44),
universalism (V45), and tradition (V47) (as shown in Figure 8).
Figure 8: Colour and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
80
This theme (A2) comprises the salient attribute, plain and less formal interior design
(mentioned by eight informants), which relates to six consequences: I feel less
barriers (C14), I am relaxed, comfortable and not in a rush (C18), the environment
helps me to clear my mind (C23), there is no status in the environment (C28), the
environment is practical, real and honest (C31), and I can be truthful of myself and I
don‘t need to pretend (C31). These relationships show that a plain and less formal
servicescape satisfied informants‘ end-values such as enjoying life, having control,
equality and fairness, and being true to self. For example, Informant 019 stated that:
―The benefit of waiting for this service (in a bland environment) [A2] is that you
enjoy the peace, quiet, and non-stimulating atmosphere [C18]. You are not
worried about the passage of time. You are relaxed and not in a rush [V42]. You
have more patience to wait for the service.‖
- Informant 019 (Male, 39yo)
3.6.6 Consumer Behaviour (A10)
The sixth attribute theme, consumer behaviour (A10) was strongly associated with
five consequences:
People‘s smiling face create a positive mood (C17)
I am relaxed, comfortable and no in a rush (C18)
Those things induce my desire and make me want to go in and buy something
(C22)
I feel safe (C34)
This is honest, real, practical and down-to-earth (C35).
These consequences informed four end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
These end-values are hedonism (V42), stimulation (V43), self-direction (V44), and
security (V49) (as shown in Figure 9).
81
Figure 9: Consumer Behaviour and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A10) comprises the salient attribute: many people look busy with
different activities, which was perceived by informants as company in the service
environment. This company was associated with end-values of enjoying life, a sense
of belonging, and a feeling of safety in the servicescapes. These end-values were
established from four consequences: I am happy, enjoying myself and having fun
(C18); I have no fear staying in this environment (C34); I feel safe (C34); and I don‘t
feel alone (even I don‘t know others) (C35). These relationships indicate that
informants perceived a busy service environment as full of company. For example,
Informant 009 pointed out that:
―…(in this busy environment) [A10] even if you are there by yourself, you don’t
really feel alone [C35]. You can observe people even if you are not part of the
thing…. It’s always interesting to see people coming and going [C18]. You‘re
enjoying yourself [V42]‖
- Informant 009 (Female, 61yo)
82
In addition, another salient attribute, smiling consumers (mentioned by seven
informants) (A10), had five consequences: positive mood (C17); full of life and full
of energy (C17); I am happy, enjoying myself and having fun (C18); I don‘t feel
alone (C35); and feel warm and invited in the environment (C35). These
consequences were laddered to informants‘ end-values of pleasure and pleasant
mood and sense of belonging, because smiling consumers created a positive
atmosphere that may be contagious to other consumers. For example, Informant 014
stated that:
―...people are smiling [A10]. It makes you happy; it’s contagions [C18]. If you
see someone smiling it makes you smile. It’s positive, and enjoyable [V42]. It
cheers you up. If you feel tried and sad, they can make you smile.‖
- Informant 014 (Female, 28yo)
3.6.7 Architectural Design (A3)
The seventh attribute theme, architectural design (A3), was strongly associated with
six consequences:
It is attractive and stylish (C12)
The environment gives you the opportunities to indulge yourself (C19)
Interested in different cultures and histories (C21)
It inspires my imagination (C25)
People should remember the history and respect different cultures (C32)
I don‘t feel alone (C35).
These consequences informed five end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
They are achievement (V41), hedonism (V42), stimulation (V43), self-direction
(V44), tradition (V47), and security (V49) (as shown in Figure 10).
83
Figure 10: Architectural Design and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A3) comprises the salient attribute, historical architecture (mentioned by
seven informants) (A3), which was associated with eight consequences: attractive
and stylish (C12), elegance with high quality (C12), opportunities to indulgence
yourself (C19), opportunities to experience different lifestyle from normal life and to
detach from real life temporary (C21), we should protect heritage buildings and
relevant things (C32), I like to connect history and old-fashioned stuff (C32), people
should remember the history and respect different cultures (C32), and it tells about
stories (C35). These consequences informed end-values including self-indulgence,
enhances and/or maintains public image, a varied life, honouring culture and history,
and sense of belonging.
The HVM indicates that historical architecture and its features made informants feel
inclined to indulge themselves; they considered their image to be enhanced, felt
surrounded by culture and history, belonged to the place, and were able to experience
a varied life. For example, Informant 019 stated that:
―….the atmosphere (i.e., having history) [A3] is taken from your real world and
everyday life… It allows you to connect with the history, removed from your
daily life [C21]. Like escaping daily life temporarily, escaping the reality [V43].‖
- Informant 019 (Male, 39yo)
84
3.6.8 Certification (A7)
The eighth attribute theme, certification (A7), was strongly associated with four
consequences:
I feel free to communicate with others and present myself (C14)
I can buy valuable products (C16)
I would receive the service as I expect, a satisfied return (C37)
It looks professional and reliable (C39).
These consequences informed three end-values (i.e., universal human value types).
These end-values are achievement (V41), benevolence (V46), and security (V49) (as
shown in Figure 11).
Figure 11: Certification and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A7) comprises the salient attribute, certificates and qualifications on the
wall (mentioned by five informants), which was associated with three consequences:
I have confidence to make decision such as my investment plan (C14), I may have a
satisfied return, I may gets extra return from my investment when doing business
with this service provider (C37), and this service provider looks reliable and
professional (C39). These consequences satisfy informants‘ desires to be capable,
responsible, and reciprocal. For example, Informant 005 stated that:
85
―…qualifications on the wall [A7]. It‘s got the high standard customer service. …
because it will be better customer service and value for the money [C16]. You
want to spend money on something you’ll have a satisfied return [V49], I think.‖
- Informant 005 (Female, 34yo)
3.6.9 Consumer Appearance (A11)
The ninth attribute theme, consumer appearance (A11), was strongly associated with
three consequences: the exploration of unfamiliar area/countries is exciting (C20),
interested in different cultures and histories (C21), and it inspires my imagination
(C25). These consequences informed two end-values (i.e., universal human value
types). These end-values are stimulation (V43) and self-direction (V44) (as shown in
Figure 12).
Figure 12: Consumer Appearance and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A11) comprises the salient attributes, people are dressed up and people
have different colour hair or from different countries, which have three consequences:
I can explore an unfamiliar country and that makes me feel exciting (C20), I am
interested in different cultures (C21), and I observe others and make up their stories
(C25). These consequences resulted in informants‘ anticipation of a different
86
experience in consumption that satisfied their end-values of an exciting life and
stimulating one‘s curiosity and creativity. For example, Informant 012 stated that:
―…people may be from different countries [A11]… It is important to experience
different cultures because you learn about things you never knew before [C21];
that‘s exciting. And you learn about other cultures, food, different way they are
living, in every way. You make your life different and varied [V43].‖
- Informant 012 (Male, 27yo)
3.6.10 Staff Appearance (A9)
The tenth attribute theme, staff appearance (A9), was strongly associated with two
consequences: I am relaxed, comfortable and not in a rush (C18) and it looks
professional and reliable (C39). These consequences informed three end-values (i.e.,
universal human value types). These end-values are achievement (V41), hedonism
(V42), and benevolence (V46) (as shown in Figure 13).
Figure 13: Staff Appearance and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A9) comprises two salient attributes: service staff wear uniforms and
service staff wear casual clothes. These two attributes were ascribed two different
end-values. On one hand, informants perceived staff wearing casual clothes as
relaxed and not in a rush (C18), which laddered up to the value of enjoying life. On
87
the other hand, informants perceived staff wearing uniforms as professional and
reliable (C39), which satisfied their need for responsibility. For example, Informant
006 stated that:
―…the service person wearing uniform [A9] appears to be professional. It looks
organised [C39]. These elements reflect the quality of service and products. … it is
worth of money that you pay because you expect to pay for the quality of
services [V41]. With the good quality of services or products, I would actually have
long term usage of that service...‖
- Informant 006 (Female, 34yo)
3.6.11 Cleanliness (A5)
The final attribute theme, cleanliness (A5), was strongly associated with two
consequences: I feel safe (C34) and I feel healthier, so it‘s good to my health (C36).
These consequences informed the end-value of security (V49) (as shown in Figure
14).
Figure 14: Cleanliness and Its Association with Consequences and End-Values
This theme (A5) comprises the salient attribute, cleanliness, which was perceived by
informants as an indicator for a healthy environment. It fulfilled informants‘ basic
needs for health. For example, Informant 003 stated that:
88
―… I think it‘s about personal physical and mental health [V49]. We should have
no fear [C34] staying in a place... I think the cleanliness [A5] is an indicator because
you can actually see it is clean or not‖
- Informant 003 (Female, 32yo)
Overall, the HVMs highlighted that 28 end-values represented the symbolic
meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attributes. These values correspond to
Schwartz‘s 10 Universal Human Value Types (Schwartz, 1992), which are explored
along with the identification of salient servicescape attributes and their consequences.
3.7 Conclusion
This chapter outlined the method and findings of Study One. The study aimed to
fulfil its research objective by identifying (a) which servicescape attributes are salient
to consumers, and (b) what symbolic meanings are ascribed to those attributes. To
address the research objective, the study used individual depth interviews to gain
insight into the role of servicescape symbolism.
The study identified 37 servicescape attributes that were salient to consumers. They
are physical attributes, such as an outdoor atmosphere environment, general and
plain interior design, subdued lighting, lots of space, as well as social attributes, such
as one-to-one interaction with eye contact, service staff and other consumers are
smiling. These salient attributes are ascribed 92 consequences (i.e., symbolic
meanings) by informants that relate to 28 end-values (i.e., symbolic meanings).
These end-values include a sense of belonging, life enjoyment, pleasure, being
recognised by others, responsibility, capability, open minded, a varied life and
curiosity. Further, these end-values ascribed to salient attributes correspond to 10
universal human value types (Schwartz, 1992), which exist in consumers‘ cognitive
systems. By identifying salient servicescape attributes, as well as their ascribed
symbolic meanings in relation to their end-values, this study answered the following
research question:
RQ1. What symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape attributes?
89
The next study aims to expand Study One‘s findings by modifying an existing scale
to measure the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
90
91
4 STUDY TWO
The purpose of Study One was to identify salient servicescape attributes and the
symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to those attributes. In order to investigate
whether those symbolic meanings can be measured, this study modifies an existing
self-concept scale using factor analysis to measure the symbolic meanings ascribed
to servicescapes. This chapter presents the method and results of this study. Specially,
this chapter discusses the research objective, research design and justification,
research procedure, data collection, methods for data analysis, and findings for Study
Two.
4.1 Research Objective
Having identified what symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes, and with the overall objective of investigating whether consumers‘
preference for service environments can be determined by the congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to service environments, it is
important to ascertain how symbolic meanings can be measured. Building on Study
One, Study Two answers the following research question:
RQ2: How can the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes be measured?
Study Two aims to modify an existing self-concept scale to measure the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
4.2 Research Design and Justification
In order to achieve the research objective outlined above, a quantitative approach
was used. Quantitative approaches ―seek the facts or causes of social phenomena
without advocating subjective interpretation‖ (Deshpande, 1983, p. 103). This
approach was considered appropriate for this study as it aims to empirically modify
an existing scale (Zikmund, 2003).
92
There are two major quantitative approaches: experimental designs and cross-
sectional designs (Lee & Lings, 2008; Tharenou, et al., 2007; Vogt, 2011). Studies
that use experimental designs to collect data ―are normally conducted away from
where the phenomenon usually occurs, and attempts are made to control as many
extraneous influences as possible in that setting‖ (Tharenou, et al., 2007, p. 17). This
design allows researchers to manipulate independent variables as well as randomly
assign cases to treatment and control groups (Tharenou, et al., 2007; Vogt, 2011). As
a result, experimental designs ensure the accuracy of causal inferences about the
relations among variables (i.e., high level of internal validity) (Vogt, 2011).
Although experimental designs provide more convincing evidence of casual
relationships than other designs, this approach has three critical issues. First, it is
difficult to control extraneous influences (Churchill, 1996). Second, the cost to
implement an experimental study may be high (Churchill, 1996). Finally, the time
required for an adequate experimental study may be substantial (Churchill, 1996).
Alternately, cross-sectional (survey) designs ―involve researching a sample of
elements selected from the population of interest‖ (Churchill, 1996, p.141). This
design is similar in nature to experimental designs in that they examine the
relationship between variables; however, it has two different features. First, data
collected in cross-sectional designs normally occur at a single point in a time. Second,
studies that use cross-sectional designs must observe variation in the relevant
variables by examining multiple cases (Lee & Lings, 2008). By examining a large
sample of cases at one time, cross-sectional designs achieve a higher level of external
validity that allows researchers to conclude tentative causalities between variables
(Lee & Lings, 2008).
To ensure that data collected in Study Two had a high level of external validity, a
cross-sectional design (i.e., survey) was undertaken. This design was suitable for this
study for two reasons. First, it examined whether the symbolic meanings ascribed to
salient servicescape attributes are valid to a large sample of consumers. Second, it
evidenced the solid theoretical and statistical base of the symbolic meanings ascribed
to servicescapes (Tharenou, et al., 2007).
93
Surveying is the most suitable data collection technique for studies aiming to
generate large-scale quantitative data to test research hypotheses. It is also the most
cost-effective and efficient way to gather written data via self-report ratings
(Tharenou, et al., 2007). Accordingly, the selection and design of questions for a
survey should be based on theoretical frameworks or theories that underlie the
proposed phenomenon being examined (Lee & Lings, 2008; Tharenou, et al., 2007).
The purpose of each question has to be clear in order to properly measure the
theoretical constructs.
In general, survey questions are designed using two different response categories:
closed-ended and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions are often adopted in
structured surveys as they emphasise participants‘ answers on rating scales
(Tharenou, et al., 2007). Open-ended questions are often adopted in unstructured
questionnaires as they require participants to freely discuss their attitudes towards
research issues rather than being restricted to selecting from a set of options
(Churchill, 1996). However, both open- and closed-ended questions can be used in
semi-structured surveys, with probing questions to clarify and confirm answers to
closed questions (Tharenou, et al., 2007). Given that the objective of this study is to
modify an existing self-concept scale, this study used a structured survey with
closed-end questions (derived from the results of Study One).
Surveys can be administered using several techniques: face-to-face, telephone, mail,
and web (Zikmund, 2003). Face-to-face and telephone interviews have the advantage
of ensuring that every survey question will be answered; however, it may be
inefficient and costly. Mail surveys can target samples to ensure external validity;
however, low response rates are often a concern. Web-based surveys utilises the
internet to assess target samples. They are considered the most cost-effective and
efficient way to collect survey data. Questions in web-based surveys can be
presented in a variety of formats, including text, images, graphics, and video. Like
other techniques, however, online surveys may suffer from untruthful reporting and
low response rates.
To collect data in order to modify an existing self-concept scale to measure the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes, this study adopted web-based, self-
94
report survey. This technique provided two advantages. First, it allowed a
servicescape image to be presented as stimulus (Zikmund, 2003). Second, was
programmed to prevent missing data. With the use of forced answering software,
participants were required to answer every question before moving to the next
section of the survey.
Once the quantitative data is collected, Study Two employed Exploratory and
Confirmatory Factor Analysis to assess the effectiveness of the modified measure,
specifically its ability to measure the symbolic meaning ascribed to servicescapes.
Factor analysis is used to derive the underlying dimensions of symbolic meanings
ascribed to servicescapes that collectively represent the holistic concept of
servicescape symbolism (a latent variable) (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2010).
4.3 Research Procedure
In order to modify an existing scale to measure the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes, a reliable and well-designed survey is critical (Creswell, 2003).
Building on the results of Study One, this study required a structured survey
comprising three stages: (a) selecting stimuli, (b) developing and selecting items for
the survey, and (c) finalising the survey layout and instructions. These three elements
are now discussed in detail.
4.3.1 Stage One: Selecting Stimuli
The stimuli refer to a selection of representative servicescape images. In order to
demonstrate that the ascribed symbolic meanings (i.e., 92 consequences and 28 end
values) ascribed to salient servicescape attributes in Study One are valid and
generalisable, the three most representative servicescape images were selected from
the bank of 15 servicescape images (developed for Study One). In order to be
selected as a representative image, each image had to fulfil three eligibility criteria
(Mindak, 1961).
First, the selected images should show both salient physical and socio-servicescape
attributes, because consumers interact with physical and socio-servicescape attributes
95
concurrently in service consumption. Second, the selected images had to collectively
encapsulate as many salient attributes as possible. Finally, the images had to be
significantly different from one another so that they represented different symbolic
meanings (i.e., 92 consequences and 28 end values).
In light of the eligibility criteria, three servicescape images were selected (as shown
in Table 10). Servicescape A comprised five salient attributes: (1) one-to-one/face-
to-face interaction with eye contact, (2) certificates and qualifications on the wall, (3)
private areas, (4) service staff wearing formal attire or uniforms, and (5) no counter
between the service personnel and the consumer. Servicescape B comprised three
different salient attributes: (1) many people in the servicescape that look busy with
different activities, (2) general interior design, and (3) lots of space. Servicescape C
comprised seven salient attributes: (1) an outdoor atmosphere, (2) smiling service
staff, (3) service staff are visible, (4) service staff wearing casual clothes, (5) smiling
consumers, (6) people hanging around without a particular aim, and (7) tables and
chairs.
Table 10: Three Representative Servicescape Images
Servicescape A Servicescape B Servicescape C
4.3.2 Stage Two: Developing Items and Selecting the Scaling Format
In order for participants to evaluate a phenomenon (i.e., the symbolic meanings
ascribed to servicescapes), a reliable scale is critical (Mitchell, 1985). A scale is ―a
continuous spectrum or series of categories to present an item‘s, a person‘s or an
event‘s place in the spectrum‖ (Zikmund, 2003, p. 300). For this study, an existing
Self-Concept scale (Malhotra, 1981) was modified to measure the ascribed symbolic
meanings that consumers used to evaluate servicescapes (identified in Study One).
96
The existing scale was a semantic differential scale that comprised 15 pairs of
personality descriptors, and was developed to evaluate the self-concept of people and
products (Malhotra, 1981).
Using the personality descriptors identified in Study One, the 15 pairs of personality
descriptors in the Self-Concept scale (Malhotra, 1981) were examined to see whether
they covered the scope of the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
Recalling that PCT (Kelly, 1955, 1991) asserts that consumers construe
servicescapes in parallel to the way they would describe themselves (Butt, 2008), this
study compared the personality descriptors identified in the Tier 2 consequences
presented in the HVMs with the existing 15 pairs of items. Initially, 145 Tier 2
personality descriptors were identified in Study One (Mindak, 1961).
In order to avoid data redundancy and create a parsimonious basis for comparison,
four criteria were used to scrutinise the 145 Study One personality descriptors
systematically in order to assess their compatibility and appropriateness for
measuring both the Self and servicescapes accurately. The first criterion aimed to
avoid synonymous terms. Consequently, descriptors that had the same substantial
meaning were combined to one adjective based on both the logic informants
generated in the interviews and a dictionary. For example, the descriptors ―practical‖
and ―down-to-earth‖ were synonymous in servicescape usage and were combined to
one item that referred to a down-to-earth personality.
The second criterion considered the idiosyncrasy and representativeness of the
descriptors. Practically speaking, each adjective should be idiosyncratic to a
particular value. This meant that any personality descriptor that has been laddered to
different personal values was excluded because its meaning was not distinctive to a
specific value. For example, informants laddered the personality descriptor
―unpredictable‖ up to two contrasting instrumental values: ―an exciting life‖ and
―feeling of safety‖. Consequently, the personality descriptor ―unpredictable‖ was
excluded from further analysis.
The third criterion aimed to ensure the descriptors were applicable to both consumers
and servicescapes. For example, the descriptor ―ornate‖ was appropriate to describe
97
servicescapes but it was not applicable to consumers‘ personality. Such specific
terms were deleted from further analysis.
The final criterion aimed to evaluate the ambiguity of personality descriptors, as
some terms had less meaning when informants used them to describe servicescape
images. For example, a servicescape being described as ―interesting‖ did not
explicate the informant‘s attitude to that attribute. Thus, ―interesting‖ was excluded
from analysis as it could not imply a positive or negative attitude towards
servicescapes.
Using these four criteria, the 145 initial personality descriptors identified in Study
One were reduced to 28 personality descriptors that could delineate between the
three servicescape images selected as stimuli. These 28 personality descriptors
corresponded to one of nine self-relevant values (shown in Table 11).
98
Table 11: Servicescape Images and Their Corresponding Personality Descriptors and Self-
Relevant Values
Selected Servicescape Images Personality
Descriptors (28) Self-Relevant Values (9)
A Impressive Being recognised by others
Elegant
Organised
Capable Calm
Modern
Sophisticated
Reliable
Responsible
Formal
Serious
Private
Professional
B Autonomous Independent
Self-reliant
Flexible
Choose you own goal/
Perceived control
Informal
Control over
Care-free
Straightforward
Honest Down-to-earth
Uncomplicated
C Pleasant Pleasant and pleasure
Positive
Relaxed
Life enjoyment Comfortable
Self-indulgence
Friendly
Sense of belonging Welcoming
Sociability
Once the 28 personality descriptors had been identified, Malhotra‘s (1981) 15 pairs
of Self-Concept items were compared to the personality descriptors to assess how
well they overlapped. Five pairs (i.e., rugged/delicate, colourless/colourful,
rational/emotional, youthful/mature, orthodox/liberal) were deemed to be irrelevant
to servicescapes and the Self, and thus were excluded from further analysis. Ten
pairs of items were deemed appropriate to measure 12 of the personality descriptors
identified in Study One (shown in Table 12).
99
Table 12: A Comparison Between 28 Personality Descriptors and Malhotra‘s (1981) 15
Pairs of Self-Concept Items
28 Personality Descriptors
identified in Study One Malhotra’s (1981)
15 Pairs of Self-Concept Items
Ov
erla
pp
ing
Ite
ms
Autonomous Dominating/Submissive Calm Excitable/Calm
Comfortable Uncomfortable/Comfortable Down-to-earth Self-indulgence
Thrifty/Indulgent
Formal Informal
Formal/ Informal
Impressive Modest/Vain
Modern Contemporary/Non-contemporary
Organised Organised/Unorganised
Pleasant Pleasant/Unpleasant
Uncomplicated Complex/Simple
Non
-over
lappin
g I
tem
s
Care-free
Control Over Elegant Flexible Friendly Positive Private
Professional Relaxed Reliable
Self-reliant Serious Sociable
Straightforward Sophisticated Welcoming
Rugged/Delicate Colourless/Colourful Rational/Emotional
Youthful/Mature Orthodox/Liberal
After assigning Malhotra‘s (1981) 15 pairs of Self-Concept items to 12 personality
descriptors, semantic differential items were then developed for the remaining 16
personality descriptors (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2005). Given that the choices of the
opposing descriptors did not simply involve creating opposite terms, an English
linguist contributed to this process by selecting and evaluating the representativeness
of the opposing descriptors and their applicability for both consumers and
servicescapes (Churchill, 1979; Churchill & Iacobucci, 2005; Mindak, 1961;
100
Zikmund, 2003). The appropriateness of those opposing descriptors was further
assessed to ensure both criterion validity and content validity was achieved.
As a result, 27 bipolar items were developed to form the initial servicescape meaning
scale (see Table 13). The scale measured 27 personality descriptors as two
descriptors, formal and informal, overlapped in one of Malhotra‘s bipolar items (i.e.,
formal-informal). Thus, these two descriptors were collapsed into a single item. In
addition, the phrase ―sense of community‖ was replaced with the adjective ―sociable‖
and its bipolar meaning was nominated to be ―unsociable‖ in order to make all items
meaningful descriptors of consumers. The 27 pairs of personality items were
considered suitable for further testing to evaluate consumers‘ sense of Self and
servicescape meanings.
Table 13: Bipolar Personality Descriptors
The next step was to determine the scaling format. Four main scaling formats have
been used in the marketing literature: simple attitude scales, category scales, Likert-
type scales and semantic differential scales. According to Zikmund (2003), a simple
attitude scale requires participants to agree or disagree with a statement using yes or
no answers, whereas a category scale uses a descriptive or evaluative dimension to
obtain participants‘ attitudes. A Likert-type scale is designed to ―allow participants to
indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the constructed statements that
range from very positive to very negative towards an attitudinal object‖ (Zikmund,
Bipolar Personality Descriptors Bipolar Personality Descriptors
1 Autonomous/Dependent 15 Down-to-earth/Idealistic 2 Calm/Excitable 16 Uncomplicated/Complex 3 Carefree/Worried 17 Positive/Negative 4 Comfortable/Uncomfortable 18 Relaxed/Tense 5 Controlling/Unpredictable 19 Reliable/Untrustworthy 6 Elegant/Plain 20 Independent/Restricted
7 Flexible/Inflexible 21 Serious/Frivolous
8 Formal/Informal 22 Self-indulgent/Thrifty
9 Impressive/Ordinary 23 Sociable/Unsociable
10 Modern/Classic 24 Sophisticated/Unsophisticated 11 Organised/Unorganised 25 Straightforward/Mysterious 12 Pleasant/Unpleasant 26 Friendly/Unfriendly 13 Professional/Nonprofessional 27 Welcoming/Inhospitable
14 Private/Public
101
2003, p. 312). Finally, a semantic differential scale uses a series of descriptive
bipolar adjectives scale to assess a construct. Semantic differential scales are
considered an efficient means for collecting consumers‘ attitudes towards a concept
(Mindak, 1961).
Many Likert-type scales of both Self and objects have been widely used in the
marketing literature to measure constructs such as brand personality (Aaker, 1997)
and store personality (d'Astous & Lévesque, 2003). Semantic differential scales,
however, have been widely adapted to delineate product profiles and characteristics
in order to investigate consumer preference (e.g., Ekinci & Riley, 2003; Malhotra,
1988). Consequently, this study adopted a seven-point semantic differential scale to
measure the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes (see Table 14) because it is
a versatile measurement tool. Further, semantic differential scales have been widely
used in image studies (Zikmund, 2003).
102
Table 14: Seven-Point Semantic Differential Symbolic Servicescape Meaning Scale
Descriptors 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Descriptors
1 Autonomous Dependent
2 Calm Excitable
3 Carefree Worried
4 Comfortable Uncomfortable
5 Controlling Unpredictable
6 Elegant Plain
7 Flexible Inflexible
8 Formal Informal
9 Impressive Ordinary
10 Modern Classic
11 Organised Unorganised
12 Pleasant Unpleasant
13 Professional Nonprofessional
14 Private Public
15 Down-to-earth Idealistic
16 Uncomplicated Complex
17 Positive Negative
18 Relaxed Tense
19 Reliable Untrustworthy
20 Independent Restricted
21 Serious Frivolous
22 Self-indulgent Thrifty
23 Sociable Unsociable
24 Sophisticated Unsophisticated
25 Straightforward Mysterious
26 Friendly Unfriendly
27 Welcoming Inhospitable
The final part of the survey collected basic demographic information about survey
participants. It comprised six questions about the participants‘ demographic
information such as gender, age, educational background, marital status, and
occupation. These items were important for the analysis because participants‘
demographic characteristics may influence the way they answered in the survey
(Brangule-Vlagsma, Pieters, & Wedel, 2002).
103
4.3.3 Stage Three: Finalising Survey Layout and Instructions
Three structured surveys were developed for data collection (an example of the
survey is shown in Appendix C). Each survey consisted of two sections. The first
section was the servicescape evaluation, which comprised one of the three
servicescape images and then the symbolic servicescape meaning scale. This section
aimed to obtain participants‘ evaluation of the symbolic meanings ascribed to one
servicescape image. The participants were guided with the following instruction:
“The above picture represents a customer and a service provider interaction in a
service environment. People would describe this environment with some
characteristics. How would you describe the characteristics of the service
environment (as in the picture)? The service environment refers to the whole
environment including physical setting and people who interact in the environment.
Please indicate what best represents your view of the characteristics of the service
environment.”
The second section collected the demographic information of participants. Each
survey comprised 39 items in total, and was designed to ensure better quality of
responses. In practice, a small survey is easier to complete and less likely to cause
participants to discontinue their participation in the survey (Churchill & Iacobucci,
2005).
4.3.4 Survey Pre-Testing
Before surveys are distributed for data collection, pre-testing is imperative. There are
several kinds of pre-tests: protocol interviews with experts or potential participants
(DeVellis, 2003; Lee & Lings, 2008; N. Reynolds & Diamantopoulos, 1998) and a
pilot study with small numbers of potential participants. The aim of pre-testing is to
uncover questions in which the wording could be improved or the sequence changed
for clarity (Churchill, 1996).
This study conducted a two-stage pre-test to ensure that the survey was clear and
concise. The first pre-test was a sequence of face-to-face interviews with marketing
academics (i.e., protocol interviews) (Churchill & Iacobucci 2005; DeVellis 2003;
104
Lee & Lings 2008). Six marketing academics were invited to examine the draft
surveys. Their feedback on item wording and the overall survey was solicited to
detect problems pertaining to item wording, question content, question sequence,
question difficulty and the instructions for the survey (Blair & Presser, 1992;
Reynolds & Diamantopoulos, 1998). This ensured the clarity of the survey and that
ambiguous wording and implicit assumptions were identified and removed (Malhotra,
Hall, Shaw, & Oppenheim, 2006).
The revised surveys were then pre-tested with small number of students (i.e., pilot
study with potential participants). This pilot study was distributed using the similar
method to the main data collection procedure (Malhotra, et al., 2006). A convenience
sample of 53 participants was gathered from the student population of the summer
school program of a university in Australia. They were solicited to fill one of the
three surveys and provide their feedback.
Although convenience samples and student samples are not always considered
representative, efforts were made to resolve general bias by recruiting students from
summer school programs (Cestre & Darmon, 1998). In general, students who enrol in
summer programs are employed full time, thus avoiding biases due to limited
financial resources and student lifestyle. In addition, the small sample size for this
pilot study met the minimum requirement of 50 of the target sample (i.e., people
aged 18 years or older) (Lee & Lings, 2008).
Two kinds of errors were identified in the pretesting: semantic issues and task errors
(Blair & Presser, 1992; DeVellis, 2003; Reynolds & Diamantopoulos, 1998).
Semantic problems were errors in the question wording whereas task errors referred
to the difficulty of completing the survey even when participants understand the
question wording.
In terms of the semantic problems, three pairs of personality items were found to be
problematic. First, the negative personality descriptor ―disingenuous‖ was considered
inappropriate to pair with the positive personality descriptor ―straightforward‖.
―Disingenuous‖ was replaced by the descriptor ―mysterious‖ because pre-test
105
respondents felt that inappropriate vocabulary may lead to missing data (Reynolds &
Diamantopoulos, 1998).
Second, at least five participants declared that they did not know how to rate the
environment using the pair of the personality descriptors: ―self-reliant‖ and ―reliant‖.
Thus, these bipolar descriptors were replaced by another pair of descriptors:
―independent‖ and ―restricted‖. Both of these alternative terms were present in the
content analysis conducted in Study One. Thus, the replacement did not change the
original meaning informants used to describe the salient servicescape attributes.
One final semantic error was found in the descriptor ―inelegant‖, which was
considered inappropriate to describe an environment even though it was proposed as
the negative meaning to the descriptor ―elegant‖. Consequently, the descriptor ―plain‖
replaced ―inelegant‖ to better describe the service environments.
In terms of the task errors, some participants stated that they had difficulties relating
the service environment to the opening pair of personality descriptors ―autonomous‖
and ―dependent‖. Although it would have been appropriate to move this pair of
personality descriptors down the scale (as suggested by one experienced academic), a
practice task in filling in a semantic differential scale was instead provided, which
used an iPhone as an example. This allowed participants to gain a better
understanding of how to use a semantic differential scale to evaluate a servicescape,
but did not bias the responses because iPhones are not part of general servicescapes.
Overall, the pretesting ensured the logic of the question sequence and the
comprehension of the survey (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2005; Lee & Lings, 2008).
4.4 Data Collection
4.4.1 Sample Size and Sampling Strategy
The sample size for extracting valid symbolic meanings across three servicescape
images was determined according to the number of variables in the study (DeVellis,
2003; Hair, et al., 2010; Malhotra, et al., 2006; Nunnally, 1978). As a rule of thumb,
the acceptable sample size would have a minimum of 10 cases per item in the study
(Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2001; Hair, et al., 2010). The symbolic servicescape
106
meaning items initially consisted of 27 pairs of variables, requiring an overall
minimum sample size of 270 participants for three surveys to conduct subsequent
statistic analysis.
Next, an adequate sampling strategy must be used to ensure data validity (Mitchell,
1985). To best address the study objective, purposive sampling, a non-probability
sampling strategy, was adopted. It enabled the researcher to select potential
participants (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2005; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007;
Zikmund, 2003) who meet the recruitment criteria. Adults who were over the age of
18 years were recruited for the study, which was consistent with the informant
recruitment criteria for Study One. This measure ensures the external validity of the
purified symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
To recruit the target sample, consumer panel data was purchased from a private
market research company. This recruitment strategy was appropriate because this
study aims to ascertain whether the ascribed symbolic meanings are valid and
generalisable to servicescapes among adult consumers (Churchill, 1996; Ericksen &
Sirgy, 1992).
4.4.2 Survey Administration
As stated previously, this study distributed surveys online. Three URLs were created
for three versions of the surveys using Queensland University Technology (QUT)
Key Survey software. Each URL corresponded to one version of the survey. They
were then used to recruit participants through the consumer panel. Each of the three
links was randomly distributed to 250 panel consumers respectively. After an
introduction page with a participant information sheet, participants were asked if
they were over the age of 18 years. Once they passed the screening question, they
were directed to the main survey.
The administration of web-based surveys was completed in June 2011. With an
average response rate at around 91%, 681 participants completed the surveys: 232
participants for Version 1(Servicescape A), 215 participants for Version 2
(Servicescape B), and 234 participants (Servicescape C) for Version 3.
107
4.5 Methods for Data Analysis
To further ascertain the validity and generalisability of the symbolic servicescape
meaning scale, a purification of items was first conducted. The most common way to
purify scale items is by factor analysis (Hair, et al., 2010). Several criteria were
adopted to determine the factor structure. This statistical measure ensured the
internal consistency of the scale and eliminates ―garbage items‖ (Hair, et al., 2010).
In addition, the purification process ensured that the scale covered the elements best
delimiting the three servicescape images (Mindak, 1961).
4.5.1 Factor Analysis
To ascertain whether the personality descriptors are valid and generalisable to
measure the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes, survey data was analysed
using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (Churchill, 1979; Hair, et al., 2010). Both
conceptual and statistical assumptions were taken into account to ensure the
appropriateness of applying EFA. From the conceptual standpoint, the overriding
conceptual concern was to ascertain whether the symbolic meanings ascribed to
salient servicescape attributes (as identified in Study One) are valid and generalisable
across a range of servicescapes. While the personality descriptors for servicescape
meaning evaluation were determined based upon the findings of Study One, the
conceptual validity of the underlying theoretical structures in the set of pre-identified
personality descriptors (i.e., symbolic meanings) can be tested.
From the statistical standpoint, factor analysis is a technique that ensures the quality
of factor structures by defining sets of variables (for this study, personality
descriptors) that are highly interrelated and subsets that are relatively independent of
each other (Hair, et al., 2010). Each factor comprises a number of specific variables
(i.e., for this study, personality descriptors), which in turn allow the factors to be
interpreted and described. Hence, statistical evidence was critical to justify the
intercorrelation among the overall measures as well as variables-specific measures.
To better justify the application of factor analysis, an initial step ensured that the data
matrix was sufficiently correlated (Hair, et al., 2010). Three statistical outputs,
108
including the anti-image correlation matrix, Bartlett test of sphericity and measure of
sample adequacy (MSA), were used to diagnose the factorability of the data (Hair, et
al., 2010). The anti-image correlation matrix is the negative value of the partial
correlation in a data matrix provided by SPSS. By inspecting the correlation matrix
visually, any correlation values below .3 indicate that factor analysis would be
inappropriate. Bartlett test of sphericity is a statistical test for the correlation matrix
among the variables (Hair, et al., 2010). It is an indicator that shows the statistically
significant correlations among some of the variables in the matrix. A value of
significance smaller than .05 indicates the correlations that are sufficient among the
variables. However, the use of Bartlett‘s was suggested only if there were less than
five cases per variable because of its dependence on sample size (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). Finally, the measure of sample adequacy (MSA) quantifies the degree
of intercorrelations among the observed variables that indicates the appropriateness
of factor analysis. It looks at both the correlations and the patterns between variables.
The index ranges from zero to one. Having values approaching one is considered
good factor analysis as it indicates that each variable can be predicted without error
by the other variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Any variables with values less
than .05 should be deleted from the factor analysis one at a time (Hair, et al., 2010).
In addition, all MSA values should surpass .05 for both the overall test and each
individual variable.
While EFA has been widely applied to ascertain the psychometric properties of
scales (Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000), it was considered suitable for this study
because it sought to ascertain the ascribed symbolic meanings for servicescape
evaluation. Along with the personality descriptors for servicescapes‘ evaluation, the
abstract symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes (i.e., self-relevant values) can
be identified systematically based on the findings of Study One.
4.5.2 Method for Factor Extraction
Before conducting EFA, the factor extraction method was determined (Hair, et al.,
2010). Principal components analysis was used for prediction purpose. This analysis
summarises the original information in a minimum number of components. In
addition, this analysis considers the total variance and derived components that
109
contained small proportions of unique variance and error variance (Hair, et al., 2010).
Conversely, common factor analysis is mainly used to identify latent factors
presenting the common or shared variance among variables. This analysis does not
take the unique variance and error variance into account when defining the structure
of the variables (Hair, et al., 2010).
A continuous debate has been made as to which factor analysis is better to apply
(Arrindell & van der Ende, 1985; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Hair, et al., 2010). This
study used the principle component factor (PCA) analytic model, which is most
appropriate for data reduction when the goal is to extract as much variance as
possible in the least amount of factors (Floyd & Widaman, 1995; Hair, et al., 2010).
As such, PCA was adopted to ascertain the underlying evaluative personality
descriptors for servicescapes that took the unique and error variances into account
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
4.5.3 Factor Interpretation
Factor interpretation aims to understand the underlying factor that unifies the set of
variables loading onto it (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In practice, it is an iterative
process. Researchers need to use three fundamental tools in factor analysis: factor
rotation, factor loading and factor interpretation, and re-specification. Factor analysis
starts with an unrotated factor matrix. Factor loadings are the degree of similarity
between each variable and the factor that can be used to interpret the role each
variable play in defining each factor. The unrotated factor matrix, however, may not
be able to provide sufficient information to interpret the variables adequately.
In contrast, the extraction technique of factor rotation can reduce the ambiguous
variables, simplify the structure and allow precise interpretation. Thus, factor rotation
is the second tool to achieve a simpler but theoretically meaningful factor pattern.
Two rotation techniques—orthogonal factor rotation and oblique factor rotation—are
most commonly used to obtain factors.
Orthogonal factor rotation maintains the rotated axes at 90 degrees using three
techniques: varimax, quartimax and equamax (Hair, et al., 2010). Varimax rotations
simplify the factors by maximising the variance of the loadings within factors across
110
variables, whereas quartimax simplifies the variables by increasing the dispersion of
the loadings within variables across factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). By
simplifying factors and variables simultaneously, equamax tends to produce unstable
results, which may only be adopted when the researcher can confidently specify the
number of factors. In practice, varimax is the most common application because
researchers are usually more interested in simplifying factors rather than variables.
Oblique rotation is similar to orthogonal rotation, but it produces a continuous range
of correlation between factors without maintaining independence of each rotated
factor (Hair, et al., 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The amount of correlation
between factors is determined by an indicator called delta (δ). When the value is less
than zero, solutions are increasingly orthogonal and when the value is about -4, the
solution is orthogonal. When the value is zero, solutions can be fairly highly
correlated. Values near 1 indicate that factors are very highly correlated (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007).
Accordingly, the decision to choose either orthogonal or oblique rotation should be
determined by the research problem (Hair, et al., 2010). Instead of an oblique
rotation, an orthogonal solution with varimax rotations was used in this study to
ensure the variables (i.e., 27-pair personality descriptors) were uncorrelated with
each other to the best possible extent (Hair, et al., 2010).
In addition, the rotated loading matrix presents other relationships such as
communality, proportion of variance and proportion of covariance. Communality is
the sum of squared loadings (SSL) for a variable across factors, which explains a
variable‘s variance degree that is predicted by the factors. When an orthogonal
rotation was adopted for this study, the sum of squared loadings for the factor
divided by the number of variables showed the proportion of variance in the set of
variables explained by a factor.
Finally, the proportion of covariance is the SSL for the factor divided by the sum of
communalities. Overall, these relationships show the difference between the
unrotated and the rotated factor matrices, which is called the residual correlation
matrix. A ―good‖ factor analysis shows small numbers of the residual correlation
111
matrices that indicates little difference between the unrotated and the rotated
correlation matrices (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Once the significance of correlations (i.e., interpretability of the factors) is achieved,
the final stage concerns the interpretation of the factor matrix. Loadings obtained
from the orthogonal rotation are correlations between variables and factors. Rules of
thumb suggest that the greater the loading value, the more the variable is a measure
of the factor (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Accordingly, loadings above .71
(indicating 50 percent overlapping variance) are considered excellent. In addition,
only variables with correlation values (i.e., factoring loadings) in excess of .32 can be
interpreted (Comrey & Lee., 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Overall, the factor
interpretation process requires several iterations in order to process the data.
4.5.4 Missing Data
Missing data can be estimated, deleted or analysed using a pairwise correlation
matrix (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For this study, missing data patterns were
checked using descriptive statistics. Missing data comprised less than 2 percent of
the survey. Thus, respondents with missing data were excluded from the study.
4.5.5 Criteria to Extract Factors
In the process of factor interpretation, the decision to retain a number of factors
should be based on both theoretical and statistical considerations. The theoretical
consideration, also known as the predetermined criterion, should indicate the number
of factors to extract prior to undertaking the factor analysis (Hair, et al., 2010). The
predetermined criterion can then be combined with other statistical criteria, including
the latent root, the percentage of variance, the scree test and the heterogeneity of the
participants, when determining the number of factors (Hair, et al., 2010).
First, the latent root criterion is the most commonly used criterion as it examines
eigenvalues. Only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 are considered significant.
Accordingly, using the eigenvalues to evaluate the cutoff point is reliable when the
numbers of variables are between 20 and 50 (Hair, et al., 2010). Second, the
percentage of variance is another criterion used to retain adequate numbers of factors
112
based on meeting a specified cumulative percentage at 60% or higher of total
variance extracted by enough factors. Third, the scree test of eigenvalues plotted
against factors is a commonly used criterion to determine the optimum number of
factors. Here, the point at which the curve begins to reach approximately horizontal
is considered an indication of the maximum number of factors to extract (Hair, et al.,
2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Finally, shared variance across the entire sample
can also be used to decide on the number of factors. Factors that are less beneficial in
discriminating among sample subgroups should be eliminated.
Researchers often use more than one criterion to determine how many factor to
extract. However, it is suggested that researchers should compare and contrast
different approaches to achieve the best structure of data interpretation (Hair, et al.,
2010).
4.5.6 Label Factors
Once an acceptable factor structure is obtained, labelling factors is the last step of
factor analysis. The labelling involves considering a factor‘s replicability, utility, and
complexity (Hair, et al., 2010). For example, a researcher may consider if the final
solution can be replicated with different groups or at other times (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). In general, factor labels are developed intuitively so they are
appropriate to represent the factors. The labelling for this study relied on the factors‘
correspondence with the theoretically defined personal values.
4.5.7 Reliability and Validity
Once a factor structure had been determined, the symbolic servicescape meaning
scale was then tested for reliability and validity (Churchill, 1979). The reliability of
the symbolic servicescape meaning scale was assessed using Cronbach alpha.
Cronbach alpha is a common measure used to evaluate the scale reliability (Churchill,
1979; Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). It assesses the quality of scales with
multiple items and an interval level of measurement (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
With the Cronbach alpha, a set of items‘ internal consistency and the degree of
correlations among a set of items can be examined (Cortina, 1993). Rules of thumb
suggest that the lower limit for Cronbach alpha levels is .70; however, it is
113
acceptable if the level is decreased to .60 in exploratory research (Hair, et al., 2010;
Nunnally, 1978).
Establishing construct validity for the extracted factor structure is essential because
the factors derived from EFA are statistical rather than theoretical outputs (Hair, et
al., 2010). Validity is defined as ―the extent to which a scale accurately represents the
concept of the research interest‖ (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 689). Four components
constitute construct validity: convergent validity, discriminant validity, nomological
validity and face validity.
Convergent validity is ―the extent to which indicators of a specific construct
converge or share a high proportion of variance in common‖. Three values—
standardised loadings, variance extracted, and reliability—can be estimated to ensure
convergent validity. Factor loadings should be .5 or higher, and ideally .7 or higher.
When the loading of an observed variable is below │.5│, it is considered a candidate
for deletion. Variance extracted (VE) is referred to as communities and indicates the
―total amount of variance a measured variable has in common with the constructs
upon which it loads‖. As suggested, the value of VE should be .5 or greater to
suggest adequate convergent validity. Construct reliability should be .7 or higher to
indicate adequate convergence or internal consistency.
Discriminant validity is ―the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from other
constructs‖. When VE estimates for two factors are greater than the square of the
correlation between the two factors, they provide evidence for the construct
discriminant validity.
Face validity is established before any theoretical testing. As underscored by Hair et
al. (2010), only when the researchers understand every item‘s meaning and that they
are consistent with the construct definition, can face validity be achieved.
Nomological validity is a direct investigation of the consistency of the constructs and
the measure by means of a formal theoretical framework and a set of hypotheses
from theory (Peter, 1981). This validity is established when the relationships between
constructs are as hypothesized through a further empirical study. For this research
114
program, nomological validity was verified in Study Three, in which the formulated
research hypotheses are tested and the nomological validity is subsequently verified.
The psychometric properties of the modified scale and the stability of the factors can
be estimated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation
modeling (SEM) (Hair, et al., 2010). CFA is used to examine reality with regard to a
researcher‘s theoretical pattern of factor loadings. In this study, it allows either the
confirmation or rejection of the preconceived factor structure obtained from EFA.
For Study Two, AMOS 18.0 was used to test the construct validity of the extracted
factors (i.e., personality descriptors ascribed to servicescapes that correspond to
personal values) and the related observed variables.
4.6 Findings
4.6.1 Sample Characteristics
A total of 681 participants were recruited for the study, resulting in a response rate of
91%. In order to test the factor structures extracted from EFA using CFA, an
additional sample was required. Since the required sample for the scale item
reduction (i.e., 27-pair personality descriptors, so 270 respondents) was met, the
original sample was randomly split up to two samples. The first sample consisted of
431 participants and was used to conduct the EFA. The second sample consisted of
250 participants and was used to conduct the CFA.
Between two samples, the five demographic background items were similar. The
EFA sample consisted of more female participants (259, 60.1%) than male
participants (172, 39.9%), which was similar to the CFA sample (165 or 66%
females). The majority of participants were born in Australia (68.7% for EFA sample;
69.2% for CFA sample). In both samples over half (55%) of the participants were
aged between 26 and 45 years (see Table 15).
115
Table 15: Overview of Two Sample Characteristics of Participants
EFA Samples
CFA Samples for
Validity Testing Variable Items Total
Number Percentage
Total
Number Percentage
Gender Female 259 60.1% 165 66.0% Male 172 39.9% 85 34.0% Total 431 100.0% 250 100.0%
Age 18-25 82 19.0% 46 18.4% 26-35 142 32.9% 89 35.6% 36-45 97 22.5% 56 22.4% 46-55 59 13.7% 28 11.2% 56-65 39 9.0% 26 10.4% 66+ 12 2.8% 5 2.0% Total 431 100.0% 250 100.0%
Country
of Birth Australia 296 68.7% 173 69.2% Overseas 134 31.1% 77 30.8% Total 430 99.8% 250 100.0%
Education Post graduate degree or
equivalent 96 22.3% 73 29.2%
Undergraduate degree or
equivalent 115 26.7% 58 23.2%
Diploma 54 12.5% 33 13.2% Certificate IV 47 10.9% 23 9.2% Year 12 Higher School
Certificate 64 14.8% 35 14.0%
Year 10 School
Certificate 44 10.2% 21 8.4%
Others 11 2.6% 7 7.0% Total 431 100.0% 250 100.0%
Work
Situation Home duties 44 10.2% 24 9.6% Unemployed 18 4.2% 7 2.8% Self employed 27 6.3% 20 8.0% Full time employed 176 40.8% 99 39.6% Part time employed 49 11.4% 29 11.6% Casual employed 25 5.8% 18 7.2% Fulltime Student 59 13.7% 36 14.4% Retired 33 7.7% 17 6.8% Total 431 100.0% 250 100.0%
4.6.2 Intercorrelations
To assess the item intercorrelations (an assumption of EFA), a visual inspection of
the correlations between the 27 pairs of variables was conducted. Among the 27 pairs
of variables, the overall MSA value was appropriate (with a value of .912). A visual
inspection identified that all variables had moderate anti-image values (i.e., all of
them were above .60). As the whole set of variables exceeded the minimum
acceptable MSA level (above .50), they were all retained as they were deemed
116
appropriate for factor analysis (see Table 16). Further, the data set was deemed
suitable for factor analysis because the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy was above the minimum threshold (value of .738, which is above .6) and
Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity was significant (see Table 17).
117
Table 16: Inter-Item Corrections and MSA Values Between Variables
Anti-image
Correlation Impressive
/Ordinary Modern /Classic
Professional
/Nonprofess
-ional
Private /Public
Positive /Negative
Serious /Frivolous
Friendly /Unfriendly
Welcoming
/Inhospitable Elegant /Plain
Impressive/ Ordinary
.726a
Modern/ Classic
-.115 .694a
Professional/ Nonprofessional
-.096 -.062 .657a
Private/ Public
-.003 .146 -.286 .744a
Positive/ Negative
-.033 -.011 -.154 -.035 .864a
Serious/ Frivolous
-.074 -.012 -.428 -.257 .037 .718a
Friendly/ Unfriendly
-.024 -.114 -.106 .078 -.180 .139 .746a
Welcoming/ Inhospitable
-.067 .105 -.044 .138 -.317 .078 -.633 .725a
Elegant/ Plain
-.456 -.113 .000 -.176 -.135 .102 -.033 .010 .685a
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)
118
Table 17: KMO and Bartlett's Test Across Three Versions of Surveys
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .738
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1347.619
df 6
Sig. .000
4.6.3 Final Scale Structure
After numerous iterations of principle components analysis to purify the scale, a final
scale structure for the symbolic servicescape meaning scale was determined (see
Table 18). The final scale comprised nine bipolar items. Principle components
analysis revealed the presence of three components with eigenvalues exceeding 1
(3.015, 2.142, 1.112 respectively). Component 1 consisted of the personality
descriptors welcoming/inhospitable, friendly/unfriendly and positive/negative.
Component 2 consisted of the personality descriptors private/public,
serious/frivolous and professional/nonprofessional. Component 3 consisted of the
personality descriptors elegant/plain, impressive/ordinary and modern/classic. An
inspection of the scree plot revealed a clear break after the third component. The
three component solution explained explained nearly 70 percent (cumulative
variance= 69.646%) of the total variance. The rotated solution revealed the presence
of simple structure, with the three components showing a number of strong loadings
(i.e., over .6) and all variables loaded substantially on only one component (Hair, et
al., 2010). The final component structure was considered acceptable for the
subsequent study.
119
Table 18: Final Three-Component EFA Structure for Symbolic Servicescape Meaning Scale
Item Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Communalities
Welcoming/ Inhospitable
.905 .856
Friendly/ Unfriendly
.879 .826
Positive/Negative .828 .725
Professional/
Nonprofessional .799 .726
Serious/Frivolous .793 .700
Private/ Public .783 .664
Elegant/Plain .755 .640
Impressive/ Ordinary
.741 .649
Modern/Classic .673 .483
Eigenvalue 3.015 2.142 1.112
% of variance 33.497 23.796 12.353
Cumulative % 33.497 57.293 69.646
Cronbach Alpha .881 .702 .587
Self-relevant
Values
Pleasant and
pleasure, Life
enjoyment,
Sense of
belonging
Responsibility
Being
recognised by
others
Extraction method: Principle component factoring Rotation method: Orthogonal rotation
4.6.4 Qualitative Interpretation of the Three-Component Structure
The final three-component solution was interpreted theoretically and qualitatively
(see Table 19) in order to label the components. The first component comprised the
personality descriptors positive, friendly and welcoming. Consequently, this
component was labelled Sociability, which reflects three Self-relevant values:
pleasant and pleasure, life enjoyment and sense of belonging (DeVellis, 2003). The
second component comprised the personality descriptors serious, private and
professional. Consequently, this component was labelled professionalism, which
reflects the Self-relevant value of responsibility. The third component comprised the
personality descriptors impressive, elegant and modern. Consequently, this
component was labelled style, which reflects the Self-relevant value of recognition.
120
Overall, this three- component structure was considered statistically and theoretically
sound and thus valid for subsequent tests of Self-congruity.
Table 19: Servicescape Personality Descriptors, the Extracted Factors and the
Corresponding Self-Relevant Values
Component (3) Items of Personality
Descriptors (9) Self-Relevant Values (5)
Sociability
Positive Pleasant and pleasure Life enjoyment
Sense of belonging Friendly
Welcoming
Professionalism
Serious
Responsibility Private
Professional
Style
Impressive Being recognised by others
(Recognition) Elegant
Modern
4.6.5 Reliability and Validity of the Measure
In order the test the scale reliability, internal consistency with tested. Only two
components—sociability and professionalism—showed a high level of internal
consistency (Cronbach‘s alpha=.881 and .701 respectively). The third component—
style—exhibited less internal consistency (below .6); however, it was considered
acceptable for this study because the three were theoretically sound in light of
Universal Human Values Theory (Schwartz, 1992). In addition, they corresponded
with the findings of Study One.
To investigate scale validity, confirmatory factor analysis was used. The Maximum
Likelihood (ML) method was applied to the CFA model because the multivariate
normality assumption was not critically violated. This method reduces bias even
when the condition that data be missing at random is not completely satisfied (Little
& Rubin, 2002) and it improves parameter estimates to minimise a specified fit
function (Hair, et al., 2010). The results for the SEM measurement model
demonstrated reasonable fit, although it fell just short of the desired threshold (x2=
110.741, df= 24, x2/df = 4.614, CFI=.899, NFI=.877, RMSEA=.120) (shown in Table
20).
121
Table 20: CFA Model Fit (N=250)
Goodness-of-fit statistics The proposed model Desired values for good fit
X2/df 110.741/24=4.614 <3.00
CFI .899 >.90
NFI .877 >.90
RMSEA .120 <.08
Construct validity of the purified symbolic servicescape meaning scale was
confirmed because the scale was modified from an existing Self-Concept scale
(Malhotra, 1981) and then developed based on the findings of Study One and
relevant theoretical insights. Convergent validity was confirmed using factor loading
estimates (i.e., standardized regression weights in AMOS) and average variance
extracted (AVE). All factors loadings for constructs were over the minimum
threshold (at least .5) and were significant (p<.001), except the bipolar item
modern/classic (see Table 21). However, the item was retained for theoretical
reasons.
Table 21: Regression Weights (N=250)
Factors and variables Standardised
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Sociability
Welcoming/inhospitable .919 .092 32.887 ***
Friendly/unfriendly .883 .089 34.501 ***
Positive/negative .755 .087 37.544 ***
Professionalism
Private/public .894 .127 35.796 ***
Serious/frivolous .685 .091 40.443 ***
Professional/nonprofessional .538 .087 37.594 ***
Style
Impressive/ordinary .874 .091 49.000 ***
Elegant/plain .654 .092 47.298 ***
Modern/classic .245 .097 43.123 ***
*** Significantly different from zero at the .001 level.
The average variance extrated from the CFA exceeded the minimum threshold
(over .5) (see Table 22). In addition, all average variance-extracted estimates were
greater than the corresponding inter-construct squared correlations (the squared of
122
correlation estimates between style and professionalism was .29; between style and
sociability was .354) (see Table 22). Thus, discriminant validity was confirmed.
Overall, the confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the scale exhibited high
convergent and discriminant validity and was replicable using a validation sample.
Table 22: Correlations, Squared Correlations and VE of CFA Model (N=250)
Correlations Among Latent Construct (Squared)
Measure Style Professionalism Sociability VE
Style 1.00 .892
Professionalism .291** 1.00 .542
Sociability .354*** -.225** 1.00 .1080
a. ** Correlation is significant at the .05 level. *** Correlation is significant at the .001 level.
b. All VE exceed .50, showing convergent validity. c. All VE are greater than the square correlation estimates, showing discriminant validity.
4.7 Conclusion
The aim of Study Two was to modify an existing Self-Concept scale (Malhotra, 1981)
to create a symbolic servicescape meaning scale. The study used quantitative surveys
to ascertain whether the ascribed symbolic meanings identified in Study One
captured the domain of the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes. By
identifying three personality components (i.e., sociability, professionalism and style)
as well as five corresponding self-relevant values (i.e., life enjoyment, pleasant and
pleasure, sense of belonging, responsibility and being recognised by others ascribed
to servicescapes), Study Two answered the following research question:
RQ2: How can the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes be measured?
The results suggest that the symbolic servicescape meaning scale is a valid and
reliable measure for the evaluation of consumers‘ sense of Self and the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
123
5 Study Three
The purpose of Study Two (Chapter Four) was to modify an existing scale in order to
develop a symbolic servicescape meaning scale to measure the symbolic meanings
ascribed to servicescapes and consumers‘ sense of Self. Having ascertained that three
personality components and five corresponding self-relevant values capture the
symbolic meanings that consumers ascribe to servicescapes, Study Three utilities a
descriptive survey design to investigate the effect of congruence between the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes and consumer Self on preference. This
chapter presents both the method and findings of Study Three. Specially, it addresses
the research objectives and hypotheses, research design and justification, research
procedure, method of data analysis and justification, and the findings. Finally, a
conclusion for Study Three is presented.
5.1 Research Objective and Hypotheses
As stated in Chapter Two, Self Theory (Epstein, 1973; Gecas, 1982; Purkey, 1970)
posits that servicescapes are perceived as a constellation of attributes that are
symbolically meaningful to consumers‘ sense of Self. In fact, self-concept is so
powerful that its enhancement, maintenance and protection motivates behaviour and
affects decision-making. This thesis consequently argues that consumers are more
likely to prefer (and thus purchase) a service that either matches or extends their
sense of Self.
Although the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) has been widely used to
investigate the consequences of the desire to maintain and protect the Self by
pursuing congruent products and environments, little research has investigated the
consequences of the desire to extend the Self by pursuing incongruent products and
environments. Consequently, this research investigates the impact of both congruity
and incongruity between the Self and the symbolic meaning ascribed to the
servicescape because this (in)congruence is likely to be a strong predictor of
servicescape preference. Recall that Self-Servicescape congruence is defined as ―the
match between consumer Self (i.e., personality of the Ideal Self, Actual Self, and
124
Social Self, as well as personal value of the Self) and the symbolic meanings
ascribed to a given servicescape‖.
Study Three has three aims. First, this study aims to examine the joint effects of four
components of consumer Self—(1) personality of the Ideal Self, (2) personality of
the Actual Self, (3) personality of the Social Self and (4) values of the Self—and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescape on preference. Second, this study aims
to test the predictive capacity of both personality components and Self-relevant
values on preference. Third, this study aims to examine the moderating effects of the
salience of each personality component and personal value on the Self-Servicescape
congruence effects.
With regard to the second aim, as discussed in Chapter Two, scant research has
tested whether personality components or personal values better predict preference.
Given that both personality components and personal values underpin Self, a test of
their predictive strength is critical because the former have questionable influence on
attitudes and behaviours. Given that personal values are relatively enduring, trans-
situational and thus act as criterion to guide behaviour (Brunsø, et al., 2004; Gecas,
2000; Wade-Benzoni, et al., 2002), testing the predictive strength of values of the
Self on preference may provide a better alternative to enhance the predictive power
of the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982).
Having confirmed that three personality components (i.e., sociability,
professionalism and style) and five corresponding self-relevant values (i.e., pleasant
and pleasure, life enjoyment, responsibility, sense of belonging and recognition)
capture the symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to servicescapes (as found in
Study Two), an empirical framework is developed to guide this study (see Figure 15).
This framework comprises (1) the joint effects of the personality of the Actual, Ideal
and Social Self and the personality ascribed to the servicescape, (2) the joint effects
of Self-relevant individual values and the value ascribed to the servicescape, and (3)
the corresponding moderating effect of each personality or value component on
servicescape preference.
125
Figure 15: Empirical Framework of Symbolic Servicescape
(Source: Developed for this thesis)
H7c
H7b
H7a
H6a
H6b
H6c
H5c
H5b
H5a
H8e
H8d
H8c
H8b
H8a
H4e
H4d
H4c
H4b
H4a
H3c
H3b
H3a
H2c
H2b
H2a
H1c
H1a
H1b
Salience of
Professionalism
Salience of
sociability
Salience of style
Salience of life
enjoyment
Salience of pleasant
and pleasure
Salience of sense
of belonging
Salience of
responsibility
Salience of
recognition
126
By examining the effects of Self-Servicescape congruence, Study Three will address
the following research question:
RQ3: How does the congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes influence preference for servicescapes?
5.1.1 Personality of the Self and Servicescape Preference
The idea that a servicescape can be designed to satisfy consumers‘ social needs is not
new. In fact, research has conceptualised ―social servicescapes‖ to underscore the
importance of social elements embedded in servicescapes (Rosenbaum, 2005, 2009;
Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Rosenbaum & Montoya, 2007; Tombs & McColl-
Kennedy, 2003). For example, the perceived social support in a servicescape may
enhance consumers‘ positive attitude and approach behaviour (Oldenburg, 1999;
Rosenbaum, 2009; Rosenbaum, Ward, Walker, & Ostrom, 2007).
However, scant research has empirically tested the joint effect of sociability of the
consumer Self and sociability ascribed to the servicescape on preference. By taking
the three components of consumer Self into account, consumers‘ preference for
servicescapes may be better predicted using the sociability ascribed to a servicescape
because consumers are likely to prefer an environment that allows them to
demonstrate their sociability (in accordance with the Actual Self) or their aspirations
for sociability (in accordance with their Ideal or Social Self). Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1: The congruence between the sociability of the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self, and
(c) Social Self, and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape.
The idea that consumers desire professionalism during services consumption is also
not new. In fact, professionalism corresponds to several service quality dimensions
such as reliability, responsiveness, competence, credibility, security and
understanding (Grönroos, 1982; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). Research
on service quality has long recognised the importance of professionalism during
127
service delivery process (Kasper, Helsdingen, & Gabbott, 2006; Parasuraman, et al.,
1985).
Consumers‘ needs for professionalism has been theorised to have significant impact
on attitudes, such as satisfaction, and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Vinagre & Neves,
2008), such as approach intensions (e.g., Jang & Namkung, 2009). For example,
Vinagre and Neves (2008) demonstrated that the perceived service quality of
reliability and employee assurance led to patient satisfaction.
However, scant research has empirically tested the joint effect of the professionalism
of the consumer Self and professionalism ascribed to the servicescape on preference.
By taking the three components of consumer Self into account, consumers‘
preference for servicescapes may be better predicted using the professionalism
ascribed to a servicescape because consumers are likely to prefer an environment that
allows them to either demonstrate their professionalism (in accordance with the
Actual Self) or their aspirations for professionalism (in accordance with their Ideal or
Social Self). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: The congruence between professionalism of the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self,
and (c) Social Self, and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape.
The servicescape literature has previously identified that style in an impactful
element of servicescapes. For example, Creighton (1998) showed that consumers
perceive some servicescapes as ―sleek‖, ―sophisticated‖, ―aesthetically attractive‖
d‘Astous and Levesque (2003) found that sophistication is one of the main
dimension of retail store personality. Although consumers reportedly aspire to be
stylish (McGrath, 1998), scant research has empirically tested the joint effect of the
style of the consumer Self and the style ascribed to the servicescape on preference.
By taking the three components of consumer Self into account, consumers‘
preference for servicescapes may be better predicted using the style ascribed to a
servicescape because consumers are likely to prefer an environment that allows them
to either demonstrate their style (in accordance with the Actual Self) or their
128
aspirations for style (in accordance with their Ideal or Social Self). Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: The congruence between the style of the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self, and (c)
Social Self, and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape.
5.1.2 Values of the Self and Servicescape Preference
The servicescape personality component sociability corresponds to the Universal
Human Values of hedonism and security. First, the literature on consumer
consumption motivation has referred to the pursuit of fantasies, feelings and fun as
hedonic consumption (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; O‘Shaughnessy &
O‘Shaughnessy, 2002). Based on this paradigm, consumers are satisfied by
experiencing playful leisure activities, sensory pleasures and/or daydreams. Research
further underscores that servicescapes can be designed to satisfy the pursuit of
pleasure. For example, toy store servicescapes use animation and regional
embeddedness to attract and maintain consumers (Wallendorf, Lindsey-Mullikin, &
Pimentel, 1998). Given that hedonism embodies the two Self-relevant values of life
enjoyment and pleasant and pleasure, this research hypothesises that:
H4a: The congruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life
enjoyment value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to preference for the
servicescape.
H4b: The congruence between the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the
pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to
preference for the servicescape.
Second, servicescapes has been found to be third places that have therapeutic value
when consumers seek friendships or social support from service employees and other
consumers (Day, 2000; Price & Arnould, 1999; Rosenbaum, 2006; Rosenbaum et al.,
2007; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011). Such a third place satisfies a need for the
Universal Human Value of security, which is defined as ―safety, harmony and
stability of society, of relationships and of self‖ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 9). For example,
129
consumers may become regular patrons of a particular service because they have
formed friendships with the service staff and/or other consumers (Rosenbaum et al.,
2007). Thus, servicescapes may satisfy consumers‘ needs for sense of belonging.
Thus, this research hypothesises that:
H4c: The congruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense
of belonging value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to preference for
the servicescape.
The Universal Human Value of benevolence (Schwartz, 1992) is defined as the
―preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in
frequent personal contact‖ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 11). Consumers who value
benevolence may behave prosocially as they desire positive servicescape interactions
and affiliations. The literature on service quality has long recognised the influence of
reliability, responsiveness and credibility on consumer satisfaction, approach
intention and word-of-mouth (Kasper, et al., 2006). Thus, this study hypothesises
that:
H4d: The congruence between the responsibility value of the Self and the
responsibility value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to preference for
the servicescape.
The Universal Human Value of power (Schwartz, 1992) is defined ―the attainment of
social status and prestige, and control or dominance over people and resources
including authority, wealth, social power, preserving my public image and social
recognition‖ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 9). Literature suggests that consumers may value
being recognised by others in a servicescape because it reflects their desire for status
and conspicuous consumption (Henry, 2002; O'Cass & McEwen, 2004). This stream
of research argues that the usage of specific products may denote status. Thus, the
acquisition of products becomes an indicator of social success that is used to secure
positions of status. Research has further evidenced that consumers‘ desires to
reinforce their social class may be integrated into their Self and will drive
conspicuous consumption behaviour (Henry, 2002). Thus, this research hypothesises
that:
130
H4e: The congruence between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition
value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to preference for the
servicescape.
5.1.3 Moderating Effect of Salient Personality Components on Preference
The salience of personality components may influence the effect of the congruence
between Self and other (i.e., other people and objects) on preference (Bono &
Colbert, 2005). The literature demonstrates that salient self-esteem and self-efficacy
descriptors are highly correlated with job satisfaction, life satisfaction and job
performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoreson, 2002).
Furthermore, these personality descriptors influence individuals‘ motives for self-
enhancement (Bono & Colbert, 2005). In an attempt to investigate the influence of
salient personality descriptors on self-congruity effects, Bono and Colbert (2005)
found that salient personality descriptors moderated the effect of self-other
congruence on goal commitment. Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses
about the moderating effects of salient personality components on the effect of
congruence between personality of the Self and personality ascribed to servicescapes
on preference for servicescapes.
H5: The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape
congruity of sociability on servicescape preference for the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual
Self and (c) Social Self, respectively.
H6: The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-
servicescape congruity of professionalism on servicescape preference for the (a)
Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self and (c) Social Self, respectively.
H7: The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape
congruity of style on servicescape preference for the (a) Ideal Self (b) Actual Self
and (c) Social Self, respectively.
131
5.1.4 Moderating Effect of the Salient Personal Values on Preference
The salience of personal values may also moderate the effect of Self-Servicescape
congruence on preference. Personal values are organised in hierarchies of importance
(Schwartz, 1996). Thus, some values are more important than others in determining
attitudes and behaviours, particularly when values conflict (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz
& Bilsky, 1987). Consumers prioritise their personal values differently and
behaviours may express only one primary value or more than one value. For example,
consumers who value hedonism more than security would tend to engage in
pleasurable activities rather than avoiding them (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003).
When examining preference formation, the degree of the salience of personal values
may moderate the effect of the Self-servicescape congruence because consumers
cognitively evaluate the pros and cons of the value they pursue (Bardi & Schwartz,
2003; McClelland, 1985). Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses about
the moderating effects of salient personal values:
H8a: The salience of life enjoyment significantly moderates the effect of the
congruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value
ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8b: The salience of pleasant and pleasure significantly moderates the effect of the
congruence between the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and
pleasure value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8c: The salience of sense of belonging significantly moderates the effect of the
congruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of
belonging value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8d: The salience of responsibility significantly moderates the effect of the
congruence between the responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value
ascribed to servicescape on preference.
132
H8e: The salience of recognition significantly moderates the effect of the congruence
between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to
servicescape on preference.
5.1.5 Summary
In summary, this section presented an empirical framework of servicescape
symbolism. Twenty-eight hypotheses (see Table 23) were formulated to be tested in
Study Three. The research design and justification, the research procedure, the
method for data analysis and justification, and the findings of this study are reported
in the following sections.
133
Table 23: Summary of Hypotheses for Study Three
Code Personality /Values Hypotheses
H1 Sociability The congruence between the sociability of the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self, and (c) Social Self, and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is
positively related to preference for the servicescape.
H2 Professionalism The congruence between professionalism of the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self, and (c) Social Self, and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is
positively related to preference for the servicescape.
H3 Style The congruence between the style of the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self, and (c) Social Self, and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively
related to preference for the servicescape.
H4a Life enjoyment The congruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to servicescape is positively related to
preference for the servicescape.
H4b Pleasant and pleasure The congruence between the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to servicescape is positively
related to preference for the servicescape.
H4c Sense of belonging The congruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related
to preference for the servicescape.
H4d Responsibility The congruence between the responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to
preference for the servicescape.
H4e Recognition The congruence between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to a servicescape is positively related to preference
for the servicescape.
H5 Sociability The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on servicescape preference for the (a)
Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self and (c) Social Self, respectively.
H6 Professionalism The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism on servicescape preference for
the (a) Ideal Self, (b) Actual Self and (c) Social Self, respectively.
H7 Style The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape preference for the (a) Ideal Self (b)
Actual Self and (c) Social Self, respectively.
H8a Life enjoyment The salience of life enjoyment significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life
enjoyment value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8b Pleasant and pleasure The salience of pleasant and pleasure significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and
the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8c Sense of belonging The salience of sense of belonging significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the
sense of belonging value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8d Responsibility The salience of responsibility significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the responsibility value of the Self and the
responsibility value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
H8e Recognition The salience of recognition significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition
value ascribed to servicescape on preference.
134
5.2 Research Design and Justification
In order to investigate the joint effect of the Self and the ascribed symbolic meanings
of servicescapes on consumer servicescape preference, Study Three was conducted
using a quantitative approach. As discussed in Chapter Four, quantitative approaches
―seek the facts or causes of social phenomena without advocating subjective
interpretation‖ (Deshpande, 1983, p. 103). Such an approach is suitable for this study
because it aims to empirically and objectively investigate the role of servicescape
symbolism on consumers‘ preference for servicescape using a large sample (Lee &
Lings, 2008).
Surveys are the most popular method for quantitative approaches. Surveys are
―typically guided by hypothesis which concerns with determining the frequency with
which something occurs or the extent to which two variables covary‖ (Churchill,
1996, p.115). A survey is appropriate for this study for two reasons. First, it allows
the validity and reliability of the data interpretation in Study One and Study Two to
be tested (Cooper, 1998). Second, it provides better confidence for drawing
conclusion about the causality between variables (Lee & Lings, 2008).
To test the research question and hypotheses, surveys usually require measures of
several independent variables and one or more dependent variables (Tharenous,
Donohue & Cooper, 2007). Strong measures with systematic and standardised
measurement of variables across multiple cases are critical for quantitative studies to
examine the variation between variables (Lee & Lings, 2008). Building on Study
One and Study Two, Study Three adopted the purified nine-item symbolic
servicescape meaning scale to evaluate both consumers‘ sense of Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes. By using the same measure to evaluate
two constructs, the joint relationship between consumer sense of Self and the
ascribed symbolic meanings of servicescape and its influence on servicescape
preference can be better understood (Edwards, 2009).
135
5.3 Research Procedure
Three web-based versions of the survey were developed for Study Three. Each
survey consisted of four sections. In Section 1, participants were first asked to
evaluate the three different components of themselves (i.e., personality of their Ideal
Self, Actual Self and Social Self). Next, participants were asked to examine a
servicescape image and then evaluate which personality components they would
ascribe to the servicescape. Third, participants were asked to evaluate the salience of
the personality components. In Section 2, participants were first asked to visualise
the kind of person who possessed the values listed, and then evaluate themselves in
relation to those values. Next, participants were asked to evaluate the values evident
in the servicescape image. Third, participants were asked to evaluate the salience of
the personal values listed. In Section 3, participants were asked to evaluate their
preference for the servicescape. In Section 4, participants were asked to complete
their demographic information such as gender, nationality, age, marital status, their
highest level of education and current work situation.
To summarise, the participants‘ task sequence for Study Three was as follows (see
Appendix D):
Evaluation of personality of the Self, salient personality components and
personality ascribed to the given servicescape image
Evaluation of values of the Self, salient values and values ascribed to
the given servicescape image
Preference for the given servicescape image
Demographics
The measures for this survey are presented in Table 24.
136
Table 24: Survey Measures
Personality of the Self & Servicescape Source of Measures Scaling Format 1 Elegant- Plain
Symbolic Servicescape
Meaning Scale
developed in Study
Two (modified from
Malhotra‘s (1981) Self-
Concept Scale)
7-point semantic
differential scale (3-2-1-0-1-2-3)
2 Friendly- Unfriendly 3 Impressive- Ordinary 4 Modern- Classic
5 Positive - Negative 6 Private - Public 7 Professional- Nonprofessional
8 Serious- Frivolous
9 Welcoming- Inhospitable
Salient Personality Component Source of Measures Scaling Format
1 Being ‗sociability‘ is an important
part of who I am. Modified self-important
personality descriptors
(Bono & Colbert, 2005)
7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree to
7= Strongly agree) 2
Having a ‗professionalism‘ is an
important part of who I am.
3 Having ‗style‘ is an important part
of who I am.
Values of the Self & Servicescape Source of Measures Scaling Format
1 I am a person who enjoys life. /
This place would be enjoyable.
Items are adapted from
Schwartz‘s (1992)
Universal Human Value
Scale
7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree to
7= Strongly agree)
2 I am a person who seeks pleasure. /
This place would be pleasurable.
3 I am a responsible person. / This
place would be responsible.
4 I have a sense of belonging. / This
place would give me a sense of
belonging.
5 I am recognised by others. / This
place would give me a sense of
recognition.
Salient Personal Values Source of Measures Scaling Format
1 Life enjoyment (enjoying leisure,
food, etc.)
Schwartz‘s (1992)
Universal Human Value
Scale
9-point Likert scale (-1= contradict my
values, 0= not
important, 1=
important, 6= very
important to 7=
supremely important)
2 Pleasuring seeking (gratification of
desires)
3 Responsibility (dependable and
reliable)
4 Need to belong
5 Need to be recognised by others
Servicescape Preference Source of Measures Scaling Format
1 Bad-Good Items adopted from the
literature of Day &
Stafford, 1997;
Gregory, Munch &
Peterson, 2002; & Kim,
Allen & Kardes, 1996
5-point semantic
differential scale (2-1-0-1-2)
2 Unpleasant-Pleasant
3 Unattractive-Attractive
4 Disagreeable-Agreeable
5 Negative-Positive
137
The consolidated surveys were pre-tested with five adults. This ensured the
questionnaires‘ content and face validity as well as uncovered problems regarding
web-based survey administration (Churchill, 1996). Some wording issues were found
and corrected based on the pre-test feedback. The first issue related to the wording
for the evaluation of servicescapes‘ values. The second issue related to participants
who may have difficulties when asking how they believe others see them (i.e., the
evaluation of Social Self). The pre-test participants indicated that a definition should
be given to define ―others‖. Thus, a definition of ―others‖ was added in the
introduction that was in line with the definition of Social Self. The added definition
was ―others refers to important people to you, such as your family or your friends‖.
5.3.1 Sample and Data Collection
To ensure external validity, adult consumers were recruited for Study Three, which is
consistent with the sampling strategy of Study Two. Each version of the survey was
distributed online to 360 consumers over the age of 18 years that were members of
the consumer panel of a private marketing company. Participants indicated that they
consented to participate in the study by completing their survey. In order to conduct
the polynomial regression with response surface analysis, a minimum sample size of
200 participants for each version of the questionnaire was required. The final
responses and the demographics for each survey are listed in Table 25.
The sample for the first survey comprised 203 participants (117 women, 86 men).
Over 80 percent of participants were born in Australia and the majority (52%) were
aged from 26 to 45 years old. Nearly half of the participants were full-time or part-
time employed. Participants came from a variety of educational backgrounds:
participants variously held a post-graduate degree or equivalent (n = 27),
undergraduate degree or equivalent (n = 51), diploma (n = 28), Certificate IV (n =
26), Year 12 Higher School Certificate (n = 35), or Year 10 School Certificate (n =
34).
The sample for the second survey comprised 214 participants (119 women, 95 men).
Similar to Version 1, nearly 80 percent of the participants were born in Australia and
138
over 44 percent of the participants were aged from 26 to 45 years old. Nearly half of
the participants were full-time or part-time employed. Participants came from a
variety of educational backgrounds: participants variously held a post graduate
degree or equivalent (n = 32), undergraduate degree or equivalent (n = 61), diploma
(n = 32), Certificate IV (n = 19), Year 12 Higher School Certificate (n = 37), or Year
10 School Certificate (n = 23).
Finally, the sample for the third survey comprised 203 participants (115women, 88
men). Over 80 percent of the participants were born in Australia and over half of the
participants were aged from 26 to 45 years old. Nearly half of the participants were
full-time or part-time employed. Participants came from a variety of educational
backgrounds: participants variously held a post graduate degree or equivalent (n =
29), undergraduate degree or equivalent (n = 54), diploma (n = 27), Certificate IV (n
= 25), Year 12 Higher School Certificate (n = 29), or Year 10 School Certificate (n =
28). Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between samples (see
Table 25).
139
Table 25: Overview of Sample Characteristics for Study Three Version 1
Servicescape A
Version 2
Servicescape B
Version 3
Servicescape C
Variable Items Total number % Total number % Total number %
Gender Female 117 57.6% 119 55.6% 115 56.7%
Male 86 42.4% 95 44.4% 88 43.3%
Total 203 100.0% 214 100.0% 203 100.0%
Age 18-25 28 13.8% 33 15.4% 27 13.3%
26-35 56 27.6% 45 21.0% 51 25.1%
36-45 54 25.1% 54 23.8% 60 29.6%
46-55 38 18.7% 33 15.4% 32 15.8%
56-65 20 9.9% 39 18.2% 28 13.8%
66+ 10 4.9% 13 6.1% 5 2.5%
Total 203 100.0% 214 100.0% 203 100.0%
Country of
birth
Australia 164 80.8% 169 79.0% 171 84.2%
Overseas 39 19.2% 45 21.0% 32 15.8%
Total 203 100.0% 214 100.0% 203 100.0%
Education Post graduate degree or equivalent 27 13.3% 32 15.0% 29 14.3%
Undergraduate degree or equivalent 51 25.1% 61 28.5% 54 26.6%
Diploma 28 13.8% 32 15.0% 27 13.3%
Certificate IV 26 12.8% 19 8.9% 25 12.3%
Year 12 Higher School Certificate 35 17.2% 37 17.3% 29 14.3%
Year 10 School Certificate 34 16.7% 23 10.7% 28 13.8%
Others 2 1.0% 10 4.7% 11 5.4%
Total 203 100.0% 214 100.0% 203 100.0%
Work
situation
Home duties 35 17.2% 37 17.3% 26 12.8%
Unemployed 17 8.4% 20 9.3% 17 8.4%
Self employed 10 4.9% 17 7.9% 14 6.9%
Full time employed 92 45.3% 85 39.7% 95 46.8%
Part time employed 30 14.8% 29 13.6% 30 14.8%
Casual employed 11 5.4% 14 6.5% 9 4.4%
Fulltime Student 8 3.9% 12 5.6% 12 5.9%
Total 203 100.0% 214 100.0% 203 100.0%
140
5.4 Methods for Data Analysis and Justification
Polynomial regression with response surface analysis was adopted to analyse the data.
This joint method is drawn from the management literature because it is considered
an effective technique to test the effect of congruence between individuals, such as
employees, and their perceptions, such as his/her perception of company (also known
as P-E fit) (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards & Parry, 1994; Edwards & Cable,
2009; Shanock, Baran, Gentry, Pattison, & Heggestad, 2010). Polynomial regression
with response surface analysis results in a better explanation of the impact of the
degree of congruency between of two predictor variables on an outcome variable
(Edwards & Parry, 1994; Shanock, et al., 2010).
Using polynomial regression with response surface analysis, Study Three examines
the effects of congruence in three ways. First, the study investigates how the degree
of congruence between two predictor variables relates to an outcome. Congruence
occurs when the levels of two predictor variables are identical. Second, the study
investigates how the degree of incongruence between two predictor variables relates
to an outcome variable. The degree of incongruence indicates the extent to which the
levels of two predictor variables differ from one another. For this study, the level of
consumer servicescape preference (i.e., the outcome variable) can be ascertained
using the degree of the convergence and divergence between the self and the ascribed
symbolic meaning of the servicescape (i.e., the two predictor variables). Third, the
study investigates how the direction of incongruence between two predictor variables
relates to an outcome variable. The direction of incongruence refers to which
predictor is higher than the other. For example, while the Self is higher than the
ascribed symbolic meaning of the servicescape, an over-evaluation is exhibited;
when the Self is lower than the ascribed symbolic meanings of the servicescape, an
under-evaluation is exhibited (e.g., Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998;
Yammarino & Atwater, 1997).
141
5.4.1 Polynomial Regression
In this study, the polynomial regression depicts the joint relationship between the
Self (X) and the ascribed symbolic meanings of the servicescape (Y) with the
servicescape preference (Z) on a three-dimensional surface (Cable & Edwards, 2004;
Edwards, 2007; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Edwards & Parry, 1993). The squared
difference model is chosen to represent X-Y fit:
Z=bz0 + bz1X + bz2Y + bz3X2 + bz4X*Y + bz5Y
2 + ez, (1)
where Z represents the servicescape preference; X and Y are the Self and the
ascribed symbolic meaning of the servicescape for one of the three personality
components (or, for one of the five personal values). The term X2, XY and Y
2 were
included along with X and Y to determine whether the effects of the Self and the
servicescape meanings (that is, personality components or personal values) can be
interpreted as a congruence effect. However, the results of this approach are difficult
to interpret.
5.4.2 Response Surface Analysis
Edwards (2002, 2007) overcomes the difficulty of interpreting polynomial regression
by using the response surface technique to interpret the three-dimensional surfaces of
unstandardised regression equations and shapes for hypothesised relationships
(Edwards & Parry, 1993). A response surface diagram is obtained by calculating the
unstandardised coefficients of a polynomial regression model that is depicted in a
three-dimensional visual diagram to represent the response surface pattern. It
implicitly assumes that the joint relationship between congruence and other variables
is curvilinear (Edwards, 1994).
The response surface technique (Box & Draper, 1987) can identify subtle differences
in the joint relationships of two predictor variables (in this study, the Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to the servicescape) to an outcome variable (in this
study, the servicescape preference) (Shanock, et al., 2010). In their study of the joint
relationship between individual employee values and the perceived organisational
142
values, Edwards and Cable (2009) illustrated an idealised response surface pattern
(shown in Figure 16). This three-dimensional diagram comprises two conceptual
relationship lines (i.e., individual and organisational values) at the base of the graph.
The first congruence line depicts a perfect match between individual and
organisational values. The slope of this line shows the various levels of the outcome
variable for individuals whose levels of the two predictor variables are essentially
alike across the continuum from low ratings on both predictors to high ratings on
both individual and organisational values. The line perpendicular to the line of
congruence is the incongruence line, which depicts a discrepant relationship between
individual and organisational values (Edwards, 2007). The outcome variable
decreases when individual and organisational values differ from each other in either
left- or right-hand sides. The curvature of the surface along this line shows how the
degree of incongruence between individual and organisational values will influence
the outcome variable (Shanock, et al., 2010). In this example, the surface is curved
downward along the incongruence line.
Figure 16: A Representation of Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Pattern
(Source: Edwards & Cable, 2009)
The ridge in the three-dimensional diagram illustrates the peak of the surface along
the congruence line, indicating that the outcome variable is maximised at the point of
congruence between all levels of individual and organisational values. Moreover,
when the surface is flat along the congruence line, the level of the outcome is the
same despite low or high levels of the joint relationships between individual value
143
and organisational value. In sum, by depicting the polynomial regression results in a
three-dimensional graph (Edwards & Parry, 1993), the nuances of how congruence
between two predictor variables relates to an outcome variable can be demonstrated
(Edwards, 2007).
5.4.3 Assumptions of the Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis
Three assumptions have to be met when using polynomial regression with response
surface analysis (Edwards, 2002). First, the two predictor variables must be drawn
from the same conceptual domain to allow a meaningful interpretation of any
differences. This study developed a symbolic meaning scale that was applied to both
predictor variables: consumer Self and the symbolic meaning ascribed to
servicescapes. As a result, the effect of the congruence between the Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes will be meaningful because the
measures were derived from the same conceptual domain.
Second, the predictor variables must be measured on the same numeric scale to
determine their degree of correspondence (Edwards, 2002; Shanock et al., 2010). In
this study, a seven-point semantic differential scale was used for the evaluations of
personality of the Self and the personality components ascribe to servicescapes. A
seven-point Likert type scale of personal values was used for the evaluation of values
of the Self and the values ascribed to servicescapes. Both satisfy the second
assumption for the use of polynomial regression analysis.
Finally, the four basic assumptions of traditional moderated regression must be met
when the analysis of congruence effects is conducted (Edwards, 2002; Shanock, et al.,
2010). These specify the linearity of the phenomenon, constant variance of the error
terms, independence of the error terms and normality of the error term distribution
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Linearity of the phenomenon refers to ―the linearity of the relationship between
dependent and independent variables represented the degree to which the change in
the dependent variable is associated with the independent variable‖ (Hair, et al.,
2010). Since the concept of correlation is based on the linear relationship, any
144
violation of the linearity has to be corrected before conducting regression analysis.
Three corrective remedies for non-linear data include data value transformation,
polynomial terms creation and using nonlinear regression to accommodate the
curvilinear effects of independent variables or other more complex nonlinear
relationships.
Constant variance of the error terms indicates the presence of equal variances. The
equality of variance needs to be confirmed when conducting regression analysis, so
issues such as nonlinearity and heterscedasticity need to be corrected. Accordingly,
the procedure of weighted least squares is employed when the violation is attributed
to a single independent variable. Alternatively, variance-stabilising transformation is
employed to allow transformed variables to exhibit homoscedasticity, which can then
be used directly in the regression model (Hair, et al., 2010).
5.4.4 Justification of the Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis
Polynomial regression with response surface analysis has been proposed as a solution
for the problems caused by using difference scores to analysing discrepancies in
ratings (Edwards, 1994, 2002, 2009; Edwards & Parry, 1993). Difference scores
include the algebraic, squared or absolute difference between two scores as well as
the absolute or squared difference among a profile of scores.
In comparison to traditional difference scores, the use of polynomial regression has
two main benefits. First, the independent effect of each predictor variable can be
retained by conducting polynomial regression. It benefits the examination of the
extent to which either X or Y contributes to variance in the outcome, which helps to
overcome problems with ambiguous interpretation and confounded effects.
Difference scores confound the effects of each of the predictor variables on the
outcome by combining two predictor variables into one score. That is, difference
scores cannot be used to identify whether X or Y (in this study, the Self and the
ascribed symbolic meanings of servicescape) contributed more to an outcome (Z) (in
this study, the preference for servicescapes), or whether it was better or worse for Z
to have more X than Y or vice versa.
145
Second, response surface analysis explains more about how the combinations of the
two predictor variables may affect the outcome variable. Traditional regression
analysis with a two-dimensional graph does not allow researchers to determine if
there is a non-linear relationship along the line of perfect congruence related to the
outcome variable. To elaborate, a two-dimensional graph may not provide nuanced
information about how the continual changes of incongruence between two predictor
variables may influence to the outcome variable. Response surface analysis, however,
depicts how an increasing degree of incongruence between predictor variables relates
to outcome. For example, the increasing distance from the line of perfect congruence
in either direction indicates the degree of incongruence between the predictor
variables (Shanock, et al., 2010). In other words, some valuable information may
lose when representing the congruence result in two-dimensional diagrams.
Taken together, polynomial regression with response surface analysis has several
benefits. First, it provides more rigorous and comprehensive test of the congruence
hypotheses (Edwards, 2002; Edwards & Cable, 2009; Edwards & Parry, 1993;
Griffith & Myers, 2005). For this study, it allows a better identification of nuanced
differences in the level of the self-servicescape congruence and its effects on
consumers‘ preference for servicescapes. Second, it helps to overcome the
limitations of individual congruence evaluation. Moreover, it minimises the effect of
common method variance on the results of the study. Finally, it provides a solution to
the issue of linear interpretation of congruence models. For example, it allows the
study to compare and contrast the moderation effects between high levels and low
levels of the salience of personality components/personal values. Although
polynomial regression with response surface analysis has been demonstrated to have
better explanatory power to explain congruence effects (e.g., Edward, 2002; Edward
& Parry, 1993), its explanatory power for incongruence effects has received far less
attention (Shanock, et. al., 2010). To the best of our knowledge, no research has
applied this joint method to examine the congruence/incongruence effect in the
marketing literature.
146
5.4.5 Data Analysis Procedure
To analyse data using polynomial regression with response surface analysis, seven
steps were undertaken.
Step 1: Scale-Centring Predictors and Creating Quadratic and Interactions Terms
The first step was to scale-centre the predictor variables—the Self (X) and the
ascribed symbolic meanings of servicescape (Y)—at the midpoint of their respective
scales (Edwards, 1994). The study first subtracted four (4) from each score because
X and Y were measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale. Although there
are a variety of ways to centre data, such as using the mean and the midpoint of the
scale (Aiken & West, 1991), centring the midpoint of the scale aids interpretation
and reduces the potential for multicollinearity, so it was recommended for use in
polynomial regression with response surface analysis (Aiken & West, 1991; Edwards,
1994).
Three new variables for each model were then created: (a) the square of the centred
X variable, (b) the cross-product of the centred X and Y variable and (c) the square
of the centred Y variable. These terms were transformed into weighted linear
composite variables based on the estimated unstandardised regression coefficients.
Step 2: Data Screening for Outliers and Influential Observation
The second step was to identify outliers in the data. Each equation (of 42 equations
in total) was screened for outliers using leverage (i.e., the diagonal values of the hat
matrix) and Cook‘s D statistic (Belsley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980; Fox, 1991). The
identification of outliers was important because they may substantially change
coefficients and/or fitted values in the regression model, so they are also known as
influential observations (Belsley, et al., 1980). Observations that exceeded the
minimum cut-off on the two outlier criteria (Bollen & Jackman, 1990) and were
clearly discrepant on plots were excluded from the equation.
In addition, cubic terms were created to diagnose variance. When conducting
polynomial regression, it is recommended to conduct a sequence of tests once the
147
significant variance is found in the quadratic terms. Thus, a set of cubic terms has to
be added into the equations for testing the significant variance (Hair, et al., 2010). If
a cubic term adds variance, then a quadratic term should be added to the test.
However, it is rare to have higher-order effects beyond cubic terms in practice (Hair,
et al., 2010).
Step 3: Run Polynomial Regression in SPSS and Calculate the Surface Values
In the third step, the polynomial regression analysis was conducted using the newly-
created variables. For personality of the Self-Servicescape congruence effects, the
analysis depicted the joint relationship between (a) Actual Self (AS), (b) Ideal Self
(IS) and (c) Social Self (SoS) and the servicescape meaning evaluation (SME) with
the servicescape preference (SP) on three three-dimensional surface graphs (Edwards
1993; Edwards 1994; Edwards & Parry 1993). Squared difference models were
chosen to represent the congruence effects:
SP=b0 + b1AS + b2SME + b3AS2 + b4AS*SME + b5SME
2 + e, (2)
SP=b0 + b1IS + b2SME + b3IS2 + b4IS*SME + b5SME
2 + e, (3)
SP=b0 + b1SoS + b2SME + b3SoS2 + b4SoS*SME + b5SME
2 + e, (4)
where SP represented servicescape preference, and AS, IS, SoS and SME were the
evaluation of the Self and the ascribed symbolic meanings of servicescape for one of
the three personality components. The term AS2, IS
2, SoS
2, AS*SME, IS*SME,
SoS*SME and SME 2 were included along with the Self in three different
components and SME to determine whether the effects of the Actual Self/Ideal
Self/Social Self and the personality components ascribed to servicescapes can be
interpreted as a personality congruence effect.
In terms of values of the Self-Servicescape congruence effects, the analysis depicted
the combinations between values of the Self (VS) and values ascribed to
servicescape (SVE) with the servicescape preference (SP) on one-three-dimensional
surface graphs (Edwards 1993; Edwards 1994; Edwards & Parry 1993). The squared
difference model to represent the congruence effects was:
148
SP=b0 + b1VS + b2SVE + b3VS2 + b4VS*SVE + b5SVE
2 + e, (5)
where VS and SVE were the evaluation of values of the Self and values ascribed to
servicescape for one of five personal values. The term VS2, VS*SVE and SVE
2 were
included along with values of the Self and SVE to determine whether the effects of
values of the Self and values ascribed to servicescape can be interpreted as a value
congruence effect. Fourteen hypotheses were tested three times using each of the
three servicescape images.
Step 4: Interpret the Surface Values and Graph
In the fourth step, the response surface diagram was introduced. Polynomial
regression alone does not examine the regression coefficients to explain the results
(Edwards 2002). Rather, four surface test values (a1, a2, a3, a4) were adopted to better
analyse the congruence effects. As shown in Figure 16, the slope of the line of
perfect congruence (X=Y) as related to the outcome variable was assessed by
calculating a1= (b1+b2), where b1 was the unstandardised beta coefficient for the
centred X variables and b2 was the unstandardised beta coefficient for the centred Y
variable. Curvature along the line of perfect congruence as related to the outcome
variable was given by a2 = (b3+b4+b5), where b3 was the unstandardised beta
coefficient for the centred X squared, b4 was the unstandardised beta coefficient for
the cross-product of the centred X and centred Y, and b5 was the unstandardised beta
coefficient for the centred Y squared. The curvature of the line of incongruence as
related to the outcome variable, showing the degree of difference between X, Y, and
the outcome, was assessed by calculating a4 = (b3-b4+b5). The slope of the line of
incongruence as related to the outcome variable, showing the direction of the
difference (X>Y or X<Y), was assessed by calculating a3= (b1-b2).
Step 5: Tests of Confidence Intervals and Significance
The fifth step of the data analysis is the tests of confidence intervals and significance.
Bootstrapping was used to calculate the standard errors and means for these terms
(i.e., X, Y, X*Y, X2 and Y
2) (Efron, 1979; Efron & Tibshirani, 1986; Hinckely,
1988). It is this technique that validates a multivariate model by drawing a large
149
number of subsamples and estimating models for each subsample, then determining
the values for the parameter estimates from the set of models by calculating the mean
of each estimated coefficient across all the subsample models (Hair, et al., 2010).
The bootstrap procedure was used instead of R2 because the equations for these terms
contain nonlinear combinations of regression coefficients. More formally, the
standard errors for certain parameter estimates such as the stationary point, principal
axes and slopes along the principal axes cannot be used in studies in which
polynomial regression with response surface analysis were conducted. Hence, the
bootstrap standard error was adopted to construct confidence intervals and conduct
significance tests to draw inferences about the parameter estimates (Edwards &
Cable, 2009; Kalliath, Bluedorn & Strube, 1999) by means of an excel file provided
by Shanock, et al., (2010).
Step 6: Comparing the Predictive Strength of Personality Components and Personal
Values
The sixth step in the data analysis compares the predictive strength of personal
values and personality components. The statistic R2 change was used to compare the
predictive strength of each value in the Self-congruity model compared to each
personality component in the Self-congruity model. For example, to compare the
predictive ability of sociability of the Ideal Self and the life enjoyment value of the
Self on preference, two model‘s equation terms (i.e., X, Y, X2 XY Y
2 for one model)
were considered as a set respectively and were input into two regression analyses
interchangeably. The resulting two R2 change and related statistics then were
compared and evaluated for significance and differences. The larger the value of R2
change, the better predictive strength was demonstrated.
Step 7: Moderator Test on the Congruence Effects
The final step was to examine the moderator effects. The moderating effect of W was
captured by the five terms WX, WY, WX2, WXY and WXY
2 as a set, suggested by
Edwards and Rothbard (1999). The moderation effects were tested by assessing the
150
increment in R2
yielded by the terms WX, WY, WX2, WXY and WXY
2, which
amounts to testing whether the R2
from Eq. (6) was larger than the R2 from Eq. (1).
Z=b0+b1X+b2Y+b3X2+b4XY+b5Y
2+b6W+b7WX+b8WY+b9WX
2+b10WXY+b11WY
2+e (6)
Determining the moderation effect depends on the increment in R2 yielded by the
five terms WX, WY, WX2, WXY and WXY2. Edwards and Rothbard (1999) suggest
that if the R2 is statistically significant and sufficiently large from a substantive
perspective, it is appropriate to interpret the form of the moderating effect yielded by
the moderator (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999).
To further determine the strength of the moderating effects, Study Three examined
the response surface relating the Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescape ratings to servicescape preference at high (above the mean) and low
(below the mean) levels of the evaluation of the salience of each personality
components and personal values, respectively. In general, high and low scores were
determined by adding and subtracting 1 SD to the mean of the variables of interest
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). However, this study
did not adopt this analysis because a single-item scale was used to evaluate the
degree of the salience for each personality component and personal values
respectively. This study simply used the mean values to divide the responses on the
evaluation of the salience of personality components and personal values into two
groups. Here, individuals with low level of the salient personality
components/personal values were those below the mean. Individuals with high level
of the salient personality components/personal values were those above the mean.
5.5 Findings
This section begins with a brief description of the outliners and influential
observations, as well as higher-order curvatures tests. The main hypotheses tests
using polynomial regression with response surface analysis are then presented using
42 response surface figures. A summary table of the results of hypotheses tests
across the three servicescape images is then presented. The predictive strength of the
personality components and personal values are reported, followed by the
151
moderating polynomial regression analyses on the congruence/incongruence effects.
Among the moderating polynomial regression model, only significant moderating
models are presented and discussed.
5.5.1 Preliminary Data Preparation
Prior to the analysis, the treatment of missing data was conducted. The surveys were
administrated online and so participants were forced to answer all questions before
continuing. Although some missing values were still found in the data, no more than
five cases were found per variable in three surveys respectively. The listwise
function was consequently adopted to conduct the regression analysis.
To determine whether any outliers may be influential cases, each equation (i.e., 42
equations) was screened for outliers (e.g., Cook‘s D) (Edwards & Parry, 1993;
Kalliath, Bluedorn, & Strube, 1999). This screening procedure found that no more
than five observations per equation, or less than 2.5% of the sample used in each
analysis, were outliers. Consequently, neither data transformations nor smoothing
methods were necessary.
Next, cubic terms were created and entered into the polynomial regression models to
rule out the presence of higher-order curvatures (Kalliath, et al., 1999). The cubic
terms were entered in to polynomial regression test. Overall, no higher-order
curvatures were found, which indicated that the models were significant (Edwards
1994, p. 73). In addition, the interdependence of the error terms and normality of the
error term distributions were confirmed. The information about the means, standard
deviations, intercorrelations of variables, and internal consistency (i.e., alpha
coefficients) of measures used in the study are shown in Table 26 to Table 31. The
alpha coefficients (arranged along the diagonal) ranged from 0.54 to 0.93. Most
predictor variable scales were considered internally consistent (ranging from alpha
coefficient ranged from 0.63 to 0.91), except the scale for professionalism. Its alpha
coefficients ranged from 0.54 to 0.69, indicating marginal scale reliability. The
preference scale had alpha coefficients at 0.93. The distributions were positively
skewed for most of the measures, suggestive of an overall tendency to score in the
152
upper ranges of the measures. The intercorrelations between most variables were
positive.
153
Table 26: Means, Standard Deviation, Intercorrelation and Alpha Coefficients Between Personality Components Variables (Version 1: Servicescape A) Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Independent variable
Sociability
1Ideal Self 6.11 1.02 .91
2Actual Self 5.34 1.16 .447** .81
3 Social Self 5.25 1.27 .415** .831** .85
4 SP1 4.12 1.17 -.053 .161* .175** .88
Professionalism
5 Ideal Self 5.03 0.95 .425** .253** .230** .112 .54
6Actual Self 5.03 0.97 .261** .294** .277** .145** .631** .56
7Social Self 5.25 1.07 .255** .285** .315** .160* .574** .746** .58
8 SP1 5.35 0.97 .126 .206** .236** .245** .101 .188** .126 .69
Style
9 Ideal Self 4.32 1.04 .563** .315** .302** .088 .452** .271** .301** .083 .63
10 Actual
Self 4.23 1.11 .101 .524* .480** .254** .260** .358** .337** .058 .517** .75
11Social Self 4.32 1.17 .126 .504** .604** .255** .258** .369** .395** .110 .138** .783** .74
12 SP1 3.88 1.20 .219** .165* .163* .647** .140* .122 .154* .315** .013 .385** .219** .73
Dependent variable
13 Preference 3.01 0.87 -.109 .076 .087 .608** -.016 .048 .059 .218** .026 .179* .178* .457** .93
1. SP equals to the personality ascribed to Servicescape A
154
Table 27: Means, Standard Deviation, Intercorrelation and Alpha Coefficients Between Personal Values Variables (Version 1: Servicescape A) Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Independent variable
Life enjoyment
1The value of the Self 5.29 1.40
2 SV1 3.04 1.42 .194**
Pleasant and pleasure
3 The value of the
Self
5.00 1.41 .642** .125
4 SV1 2.88 1.39 .133 .868** .185**
Responsibility
5 The value of the
Self
5.74 1.26 .399** .076 .307** .072
6 SV1 5.04 1.25 .073 .166** .130 .180** .173*
Sense of belonging
7 The value of the
Self
5.04 1.53 .677** .261** .499** .216** .500** .142*
8 SV1 3.38 1.54 .111 .745** .150* .739** .084 .358** .257**
Recognition
9 The value of the
Self
4.82 1.47 .612** .212** .564** .192** .352** .150* .698** .227**
10 SV1 3.87 1.60 .083 .618** .172* .573** .027 .412** .224** .786** .196**
Dependent variable
11 Preference 3.01 0.87 .096 .646** .105 .538** .002 .239* .194** .587** .153* .532** .93
1. SV equals to the value ascribed to Servicescape A
155
Table 28: Means, Standard Deviation, Intercorrelation and Alpha Coefficients Between Personality Components Variables (Version 2: Servicescape B) Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Independent variable
Sociability
1Ideal Self 6.19 0.95 .84
2Actual Self 5.42 1.07 .598** .81
3 Social Self 5.33 1.18 .563** .789** .83
4 SP1 4.49 1.08 .138** .169** .152* .82
Professionalism
5 Ideal Self 5.19 0.92 .410** .352** .258** .074 .49
6Actual Self 5.13 1.06 .356** .225** .174** .132* .729** .66
7Social Self 5.00 1.09 .310** .172** .224** .057 .607** .760** .67
8 SP1 3.91 0.94 .070 .116* .113* .530** .204** .233** .192** .51
Style
9 Ideal Self 5.06 1.13 .511** .273** .262** .105 .381** .317** .331** .179** .67
10 Actual
Self
4.18 1.15 .238* .464** .369** .252** .306** .313** .282** .290** .585** .76
11Social
Self
4.30 1.20 .243** .362** .474** .157* .303** .312** .350** .274** .526** .796** .80
12 SP1 3.80 1.32 .091 .116* .121* .617** .122* .201** .178** .604** .155* .238** .189** .84
Dependent variable
13
Preference
3.29 0.89 .79 .148* .145* .650** .016 .044 -.007 .343** -.067 .096 .032 .559** .94
1. SP equals to the personality ascribed to Servicescape B
156
Table 29: Means, Standard Deviation, Intercorrelation and Alpha Coefficients Between Personal Values Variables (Version 2: Servicescape B)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Independent variable
Life enjoyment
1 Values of the
Self 5.27 1.33
2 SV1 3.81 1.41 .154*
Pleasant and pleasure
3 Values of the
Self 5.00 1.22 .552** .021
4 SV1 3.65 1.38 .152* .842** .092
Responsibility
5 Values of the
Self 5.76 1.30 .577** .060 .411** .046
6 SV1 4.38 1.30 .189** .505** .115* .459** .137*
Sense of belonging
7 Values of the
Self 5.06 1.50 .662** .205** .445** .202** .527** .147*
8 SV1 3.52 1.51 .157* .723** .063 .732** .049 .582** .180**
Recognition
9 Values of the
Self 4.87 1.35 .543** .135* .464** .131* .450** .151* .598** .084
10 SV1 3.28 1.52 .103 .697** .092 .715** .034 .551** .174** .877** .107
Dependent variable
11 Preference 3.29 0.89 .109 .673** -.078 .627** .029 .426** .113* .574** .107 .566** .94
1. SV equals to the value ascribed to Servicescape B
157
Table 30: Means, Standard Deviation, Intercorrelation and Alpha Coefficients Between Personality Components Variables (Version 3: Servicescape C)
Mea
n S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Independent variable
Sociable
1Ideal Self 6.13 0.95 .88
2Actual
Self 5.35 1.10 .630** .81
3 Social
Self 5.30 1.28 .509** .762** .88
4 SP1 5.39 0.97 .367** .235** .183** .84
Professionalism
5 Ideal Self 5.07 1.00 .435** .271** .149* .177** .59
6Actual
Self 5.02 1.02 .311** .179** .147* .142* .707** .54
7Social
Self 4.89 1.19 .258** .214** .272** .094 .545** .738** .65
8 SP1 3.50 1.03 -.077 .135* .093 .167** .194** .173** .298** .65
Style
9 Ideal
Self
5.09 1.72 .501** .284** .136* .226** .416** .211** .038 -.005 .72
10 Actual
Self 4.15 1.10 .162* .134** .263** .081 .260** .213** .147* .188** .551** .76
11Social Self 4.28 1.14 .182** .325** .516** .104 .206** .256** .298** .169** .431** .700** .71
12 SP1 4.04 1.14 -.018 .135* .130* .322** .155* .154* .148* .578** .067 .214** .258** .72
Dependent variable 13
Preference 3.79 0.78 .231** .175** .086 .593** .190** .177** .119* .263** .205** .051 .004 .376** .93
1. SP equals to the personality ascribed to Servicescape C
158
Table 31:Means, Standard Deviation, Intercorrelation and Alpha Coefficients Between Personal Values Variables (Version 3: Servicescape C)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Independent variable
Life enjoyment
1The value of the Self 5.28 1.37
2 SV1 4.81 1.38 .276**
Pleasant and pleasure
3 Values of the Self 5.09 1.20 .584** .196**
4 SV1 4.72 1.39 .261** .885** .221**
Responsibility
5 Values of the Self 5.75 1.29 .488** .201** .338** .124*
6 SV1 4.40 1.25 .291** .604** .247** .588** .226**
Sense of belonging
7 Values of the Self 5.06 1.51 .688** .353** .365** .314** .522** .356**
8 SV1 4.07 1.42 .108 .545** .114 .520** .142* .507** .235**
Recognition
9 Values of the Self 4.83 1.45 .592** .324** .455** .244** .449** .286** .728** .136*
10 SV1 3.73 1.50 .103 .392** .103 .401** .105 .449** .196** .784** .199**
Dependent variable
11 Preference 3.79 0.78 .092 .488** .109 .458** .169** .376** .143* .403** .079 .377** .93
1. SV equals to the value ascribed to Servicescape C
159
5.5.2 Hypotheses Testing
This section reports the tests of congruence effects of the Self and the ascribed
symbolic meanings of servicescape on the servicescape preference for each survey
(i.e., each servicescape) sequentially. Each survey produced 14 models; thus, 42
models are presented. A summary of the results is presented in Table 32.
160
Table 32: Results of Hypotheses Testing for Congruence and Moderating Effects
Code Personality/
Values1
Congruence Hypotheses SA
2 SB
2 SC
2
Congruity/Incongruity
H1a
Sociability
The congruence between the sociability of the Ideal Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. N/N N/Y Y/Y
H1b The congruence between the sociability of the Actual Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related
to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H1c The congruence between the sociability of the Social Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H2a
Professionalism
The congruence between professionalism of the Ideal Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related
to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/N Y/N
H2b The congruence between professionalism of the Actual Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related
to preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/N Y/N
H2c The congruence between professionalism of the Social Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related
to preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/N Y/N
H3a
Style
The congruence between the style of the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H3b The congruence between the style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H3c The congruence between the style of the Social Self and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H4a Life enjoyment The congruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to servicescape is
positively related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H4b Pleasant and
pleasure
The congruence between the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to
servicescape is positively related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/N
H4c Sense of
belonging
The congruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to a
servicescape is positively related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H4d Responsibility The congruence between the responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to a servicescape is
positively related to preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/N Y/Y
H4e Recognition The congruence between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to a servicescape is positively
related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
161
Code Personality/
Values1
Moderating Hypotheses SA2 SB
2 SC
2
H5a
Sociability
The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on servicescape
preference for the Ideal Self. Y Y Y
H5b The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on servicescape
preference for the Actual Self. Y Y Y
H5c The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on servicescape
preference for the Social Self. Y Y Y
H6a
Professionalism
The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism on
servicescape preference for the Ideal Self. Y Y Y
H6b The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism on
servicescape preference for the Actual Self. Y Y Y
3
H6c The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism on
servicescape preference for the Social Self. Y Y Y
H7a
Style
The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape preference
for the Ideal Self. Y
3 Y Y
H7b The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape preference
for the Actual Self. Y
3 Y Y
H7c The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape preference
for the Social Self. Y
3 Y Y
H8a Life enjoyment The salience of life enjoyment significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the life enjoyment value of
the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
H8b Pleasant and
pleasure
The salience of pleasant and pleasure significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the pleasant and
pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
H8c Sense of
belonging
The salience of sense of belonging significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the sense of belonging
value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
H8d Responsibility The salience of responsibility significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the responsibility value of the
Self and the responsibility value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y
3 Y
H8e Recognition The salience of recognition significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the recognition value of the Self
and the recognition value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
1. The shaded rows are personality component (while others are values).
2. SA= Servicescape A, SB= Servicescape B, SC= Servicescape C. 3.
The moderator significantly influences the congruence effects on preference and will be reported in the findings.
162
5.5.2.1 Servicescape A (Version 1)
This section reports the results of 14 self-servicescape congruity models pertaining to
Servicescape A. The polynomial regression with response surface analyses showed
that 12 out of 14 self-servicescape congruity models for Servicescape A had
significant effects on preference. The two exceptions were found for the congruence
effects of the Ideal Self and the ascribed personality of Servicescape A along the
components of sociability and style. Table 33 and Table 34 display the parameter
estimates and standard error estimates for Hypotheses 1a to 4e for the prediction of
preference for Servicescape A.
The following 14 surface diagrams represent the congruence effect of the consumer
Self and the ascribed personality of servicescape on preference for three components
of Self (Ideal Self, Actual Self and Social Self) and five values of the Self,
respectively. Each surface was plotted using understandarised coefficients.
163
Table 33: Version 1-Hypotheses 1a-3c: Predicting Preference for Servicescape A from Personality of the Self-Servicescape A Congruence Sociability (1a -1c) Professionalism (2a -2c) Style (3a -3c)
Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self
Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
X= Y line Slope (a1)
0.17 0.32 0.40*** 0.07 0.46*** 0.06 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.17 -0.04 0.17 0.20 0.11 0.33*** 0.06 0.37*** 0.06
Curvature (a2)
0.01 0.15 -0.04 0.05 -0.07 0.04 0.10* 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.06
X= -Y line
Slope (a3)
-0.46 0.27 -0.36*** 0.10 -0.39*** 0.09 -0.63*** 0.15 -0.38* 0.16 -0.39** 0.15 -0.15 0.13 -0.20* 0.09 -0.15 0.09
Curvature (a4)
-0.13 0.15 -0.16** 0.05 -0.15** 0.04 -0.05 0.10 -0.23* 0.09 -0.22** 0.08 -0.12 0.08 -0.11 0.08 -0.15** 0.06
P<.05; P<.01; P<.001
Table 34: Version 1-Hypotheses 4a-4e: Predicting Preference for Servicescape A from Values of the Self-Servicescape A Congruence Life enjoyment (4a) Pleasant and pleasure (4b) Responsibility (4c) Sense of belonging (4d) Recognition (4e) Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self
Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error
X= Y line
Slope (a1) 0.31*** 0.06 0.24*** 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.32*** 0.06 0.30*** 0.05
Curvature (a2)
-0.02 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.07 -0.02 0.04 -0.04 0.04
X= -Y line
Slope (a3) -0.25** 0.12 0.03 0.12 -0.13 0.10 -0.22** 0.09 -0.27 0.08
Curvature (a4)
-0.08** 0.04 -0.17*** 0.04 -0.07** 0.02 -0.05 0.04 0.00 0.04
P<.05; P<.01; P<.001
164
Figure 17 illustrates the response surface relating the sociability of the Ideal Self and
the sociability ascribed to Servicescape A. Moving along the X=Y line from the front
of the graph to the back, the line of perfect congruence as related to servicescape
preference had a positive slope but is insignificant. The lowest level of servicescape
preference was at the front corner of the graph where the sociability of the Ideal Self
and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape A were both low. However, the surface
along the congruence line waved and the high point of the wave did not show that the
increasing higher toward the back of the graph where the sociability of the Ideal Self
and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape A were both in the congruence and high.
Meanwhile, Figure 17 shows that towards the left and right of the graph, where the
sociability of the Ideal Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape A became
more discrepant, the preference for Servicescape A decreased. The wave surface
indicated that no significant effect was found along the Ideal Self-Servicescape A
congruence line, nor the Ideal Self-Servicescape A incongruence line, for the
personality component of sociability.
Figure 17: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Sociability of the Ideal Self &
Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 18 illustrates the surface relating the professionalism of the Ideal Self and the
professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A. Moving along the X=Y line from the
front of the graph to the back, the line of perfect congruence as related to preference
for Servicescape A had a positive slope but insignificant. This indicated that the
lowest level of preference for Servicescape A was at the front corner of the graph
where the professionalism of the Ideal Self and the professionalism ascribed to
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2
-4
X
(Centered
ISsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
165
Servicescape A were both low. However, the curvature of surface along the X=Y line
showed that a positive effect (curvature=.10, p <.05), indicating that the increasing
higher toward the back of the graph where the professionalism of the Ideal Self and
the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A were both in the congruence and
significantly high. In addition, another significant effect was found along the X= -Y
line in the professionalism personality component. The slope of the surface along the
incongruence line (slope= -.63, p< 001) showed that when the professionalism of the
Ideal Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A became more and
more discrepant, the preference for Servicescape A decreased. In sum, the hypothesis
is supported pertaining to the congruence on professionalism between the Ideal Self
and the professionalism ascribed to servicescape that had positive and significant
effect on consumers‘ preference for Servicescape A.
Figure 18: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Ideal
Self & Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 19 represents the surface relating the style of the Ideal Self and the style
personality component ascribed to Servicescape A. The response surface waved
along the congruence line, indicating insignificant congruence effect of the style of
the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A on preference for
Servicescape A. Although the slop and the curvature of the surface along the
incongruence line showed that the more discrepancy between the style of the Ideal
Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A, the degree of preference for
Servicescape A decreased, but the test of p-value shows that no significant effect of
the joint relationship.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
166
Figure 19: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Style of the Ideal Self & Style
Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 20 shows the surface relating the sociability of the Actual Self and the
sociability ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the surface corresponding to the
X=Y line was significant for H1b (slope= 0.40, p < .001) and but the curvature of the
surface was not significant. Yet, the slope and the curvature of the surface
corresponding to the X= -Y line were both significant (slope= -.036, p < .001;
curvature = -0.16, p < .001). Two substantive features in Figure 20 are concluded.
First, high amount of the sociability of the Actual Self sociability and the sociability
ascribed to Servicescape A predicted higher levels of preference for Servicescape A,
while low amount of both the sociability of the Actual Self and the sociability
ascribed to Servicescape A produced lower levels of preference for Servicescape A.
Second, the curvature of the surface corresponding to the congruence line did not
support the hypotheses pertaining to the congruence of the sociability of the Actual
Self and the sociability personality ascribed to Servicescape A predicting consumers‘
preference for Servicescape A. The convex surface corresponding to the
incongruence line, however, indicated the misfit between the sociability of the Actual
Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape A strongly affected consumers‘
preference for Servicescape A.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
167
Figure 20: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Sociability of the Actual Self
& the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 21 shows the surface relating the professionalism of the Actual Self and
professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope and curvature of the surface
corresponding to the X= Y line was not significant which is against the H2b. This
means the congruence between the professionalism of the Actual Self and
professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A did not predict preference.
However, the slope and the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line
were both significant (slope= -0.38, p < .05; curvature = -0.23, p < .05), indicating
that the higher degree of discrepancy between the professionalism of the Actual Self
and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A, the lower preference for
Servicescape A occurred. The bowl shape surface along the incongruence line
provided another nuanced congruence effect, indicating that the incongruence of the
professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape
A strongly predicted consumers‘ preference for Servicescape A.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
168
Figure 21: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Actual
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 22 shows the surface relating the style of the Actual Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line
was significant for H3b (slope= 0.33, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface
corresponding to the congruence line did not show a significant effect. Analogously,
the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant (slope= -0.20,
p < .05) but not for the curvature.
These features indicated that the congruence of the style of the Actual Self and style
ascribed to Servicescape A predicts maximum the degree of preference for
Servicescape A. Thus, the results strongly support for Hypothesis H3b,
demonstrating that the Actual Self-Servicescape A congruity on style predicts
consumers‘ preference for Servicescape A. Moreover, the incongruence between the
style of the Actual Self and style ascribed to Servicescape A predicts the degree of
the preference for Servicescape A.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASpromannerScale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
169
Figure 22: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Style of Actual Self & Style
Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 23 illustrates the surface relating the sociability of the Social Self and the
sociability ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the surface corresponding to the
X=Y line was significant for H1c (slope= 0.46, p < .001) and but the curvature of the
surface did not show a significant effect. Moreover, the slope and the curvature of
the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line were both significant (slope= -.039, p
< .001; curvature = -0.15, p < .001). Two substantive features in Figure 23 were
concluded.
First, high amount of the sociability of the Social Self and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape A predicted higher levels of preference for Servicescape A, while lower
levels of both the sociability of the Social Self and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape A produced lower levels of preference for Servicescape A. Second, the
convex surface along the congruence line indicated strong support for the hypotheses
pertaining to the congruence between the sociability of the Social Self and the
sociability ascribed to Servicescape A strongly predicting consumers‘ preference for
Servicescape A.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASstyle cale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
170
Figure 23: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Sociability of the Social Self
& the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 24 shows the surface relating the congruence of the professionalism of the
Social Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope and the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line did not support H2c. That is,
the congruence between the professional of the Social Self and the professionalism
ascribed to Servicescape A did not predict the preference for Servicescape A. Yet,
the slope and the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line were both
significant (slope= -.039, p < .05; curvature = -0.22, p < .05), indicating that the more
discrepancy between the professionalism of the Social Self and the professionalism
ascribed to Servicescape A, the less preference for Servicescape A.
Figure 24: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Social
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 25 illustrates the surface relating the style of the Social Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line
was significant for H3c (slope= 0.37, p < .001). However, the curvature of the
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSpromanner
Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
171
surface along the congruence line did not show a significant effect simultaneously.
The curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line, on the other hand, was
significant (curvature = -0.15, p < .05) even though the slope along the incongruence
was insignificant. According to these features, Figure 25 indicated that high amount
of the style of the Social Self and the style personality component ascribed to
Servicescape A predicted higher levels of preference, while lower levels of both the
style of the Social Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A produced lower
levels of preference for Servicescape A. In addition, the convex surface curved
downward along the incongruence line indicated that the incongruence between the
style of the Social Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A decreases consumers‘
preference for Servicescape A.
Figure 25: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Style of the Social Self & the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
The following figures show the congruence effects of values of the Self and values
ascribed to Servicescape A along five personal values respectively. Figure 26
illustrates the surface relating the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life
enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the surface corresponding
to the X=Y line was significant for H4a (slope= 0.31, p < .001) but the curvature of
the surface was insignificant. However, the slope and the curvature of the surface
corresponding to the X= -Y line were both significant (slope= -0.25, p < .05;
curvature = -0.08, p < .05). These three substantive figures are discussed.
First, high amount of the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment
value ascribed to Servicescape A predicted higher levels of preference for
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
172
Servicescape A, while lower levels of both the life enjoyment value of the Self and
the life enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape A produced lower levels of
preference for Servicescape A. Second, the convex surface curved downward along
the incongruence line indicated that the higher degree of incongruence between the
life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to
Servicescape A, the level of preference for Servicescape A decreased.
Figure 26: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Life Enjoyment Value of the
Self & the Life Enjoyment Value Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 27 illustrates the surface relating the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self
and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the
surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H4b (slope= 0.24, p < .001)
but the curvature of the surface did not enhance this congruence effect
simultaneously. While the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was
insignificant either, the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line
showed a significant effect (curvature = -0.17, p < .001).
These two substantive figures showed that, in Figure 27, high amount of the pleasant
and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to
Servicescape A predicted higher levels of preference for Servicescape A, while lower
levels of both the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and
pleasure value ascribed to Servicescape A produced lower levels of preference for
Servicescape A. In addition, the convex surface curved downward along the
incongruence line indicated the incongruence between the pleasant and pleasure
value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to Servicescape A in
predicting preference.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V1 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV1 Scale)
173
Figure 27: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Pleasant and Pleasure Value of
the Self & the Pleasant and Pleasure Value Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
Figure 28 illustrates the surface relating the responsibility value of the Self and the
responsibility value ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope and the curvature of the
surface corresponding to the X=Y line were both insignificant that rejected H4d
pertaining to the join effect between the responsibility value of the Self and the
responsibility value ascribed to Servicescape A will positively maximum the degree
of preference for Servicescape A.
Meanwhile, although the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was
also insignificant, the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line
showed a significant effect (curvature = -0.07, p < .05). The convex surface curved
downward along the incongruence line, indicating that the incongruence between the
responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility ascribed to Servicescape A
significantly minimised consumers‘ preference for Servicescape A.
Figure 28: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Responsibility Value of the
Self & the Responsibility Value Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V2 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV2 Scale)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V3 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV3 Scale)
174
Figure 29 shows the surface relating the sense of belonging value of the Self and the
sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape A. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H4c (slope = 0.32, p < .001) but
the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line did not show the same
effect. That is, moving along the X=Y line from the front of the graph to the back,
the line of perfect congruence as related to servicescape preference had a positive
and significant effect. The lowest level of preference for Servicescape A was at the
front corner of the graph where the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense
of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape A are both low. Moreover, the level of
preference increasing higher toward the back of the graph where the sense of
belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape
A were both in the congruence and high.
The join effect on incongruence was also significant. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant (slope = -0.22, p < .05) but not for
the curvature. This indicated that the higher degree of discrepancy towards left or left
between the Self-Servicescape A congruity on the value of sense of belonging, the
lower the degree of preference for Servicescape A. In sum, these feature indicated
that both congruence and incongruence between the sense of belonging value of the
Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape A predicted
preference for Servicescape A.
Figure 29: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Sense of Belonging Value of
the Self & Sense of Belonging Value Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V4 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV4 Scale)
175
Figure 30 illustrates the response surface relating the recognition value of the Self
and the recognition value ascribed to Servicescape A. The Figure denotes two
substantive points. First, the slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was
significant for H4e (slope = 0.30, p < .001).The curvature of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was insignificant in which it was concluded that the
height of the surface varies along the congruence line. The Figure shows that the
surface curved down along the congruence line. It indicated that the lowest level of
preference was at the front corner of the graph where the recognition value of the
Self and the recognition value ascribed to Servicescape A were both low. The degree
of preference for Servicescape A was increasing higher toward the back of the graph
where the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to
servicescape were both in the congruence and in high.
Second, the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant
(slope = -0.27, p < .05) but not for the curvature. It indicated that incongruence of the
recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to Servicescape A
also predicted preference for Servicescape A. An unexpected phenomenon was found
that when the recognition value of the Self at a relatively low point corresponding to
the highest point of the recognition ascribed to Servicescape A results in a maximum
level of the preference for Servicescape A.
Figure 30: Preference for Servicescape A as Predicted by the Recognition Value of the Self
& Recognition Value Ascribed to Servicescape A Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V5 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV5 Scale)
176
5.5.2.2 Servicescape B (Version 2)
This section reports the effect results of 14 Self-Servicescape B congruity models
sequentially in Version 2 survey. The polynomial regression with response surface
analyses showed that all 14 Self-Servicescape B congruity models had significant
effects on the preference for Servicescape B. Table 35 and Table 36 display the
parameter estimates and standard error estimates for Hypotheses 1a to 4e for the
prediction of preference for Servicescape B.
The following 14 surface diagrams represent the congruence effects of the consumer
Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to Servicescape B on preference along three
personality components on the Ideal Self, Actual Self and Social Self and five values
on values of the Self, respectively. Among the 14 models, in particular, the
congruence between pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and pleasant and
pleasure value ascribed to Servicescape B exhibited strong effect on consumers‘
preference for Servicescape B.
177
Table 35: Version 2-Hypotheses 1a-3c: Predicting Preference for Servicescape B from Personality of the Self-Servicescape B Congruence Sociability (1a -1c) Professionalism (2a -2c) Style (3a -3c)
Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self Ideal Self- Actual Self Social Self Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error X= Y line
Slope (a1)
0.21 0.18 0.60*** 0.11 0.62*** 0.10 0.36* 0.15 0.24* 0.11 0.23* 0.11 0.27** 0.08 0.34*** 0.05 0.32*** 0.05
Curvature (a2)
0.10 0.06 -0.02 0.06 -0.04 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05
X= -Y line
Slope (a3)
-0.30* 0.13 -0.43*** 0.10 -0.45*** 0.10 -0.17 0.19 -0.13 0.17 -0.22 0.16 -0.38** 0.12 -0.50*** 0.08 -0.50*** 0.08
Curvature (a4)
-0.16* 0.06 -0.08 0.06 -0.05 0.06 -0.06 0.10 -0.12 0.09 -0.08 0.09 -0.03 0.05 0.13* 0.05 0.08 0.05
P<.05; P<.01; P<.001
Table 36: Version 2-Hypotheses 4a-4e: Predicting Preference for Servicescape B from Values of the Self-Servicescape B Congruence Life enjoyment (4a) Pleasant and pleasure (4b) Responsibility (4c) Sense of belonging (4d) Recognition (4e)
Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self
Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error
X= Y line
Slope (a1) 0.39*** 0.05 0.28*** 0.07 0.22** 0.08 0.37*** 0.05 0.39*** 0.06
Curvature (a2)
0.04
0.04 0.10* 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04
X= -Y line
Slope (a3) -0.39*** 0.08 -0.34*** 0.09 -0.15 0.10 -0.28** 0.08 -0.25** 0.08
Curvature (a4)
0.00 0.04 -0.08* 0.04 -0.09 0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.02 0.04
P<.05; P<.01; P<.001
178
Figure 31 illustrates the response surface relating the joint relationship between the
sociability of the Ideal Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B. Moving
along the X=Y line from the front of the graph to the back, the line of perfect
congruence as related to the preference for Servicescape B is insignificant. To
illustrate, the slope and the curvature of the surface along the congruence line did not
show significant congruence effects in prediction of consumer servicescape
preference. Rather, the slope and the curvature of the surface along the X= -Y line
(slope= -0.30, p< .05, curvature= -.016, p< .05) was demonstrated a significantly
effect on preference for Servicescape B. Towards the right and left of the graph, the
degree of the preference for Servicescape B decreases where the sociability of the
Ideal Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B become more and more
discrepant. Here, the lowest level of preference is at the front corner of the graph
where the sociability of the Ideal Self and the sociability ascribed Servicescape B are
both low.
Figure 31: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Sociability of the Ideal Self &
the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 32 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationships between the
professionalism of the Ideal Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape B.
Moving along the X=Y line from the front of the graph to the back, the line of
perfect congruence as related to servicescape preference had a positive and
significant effect (slope= 0.36, p < .05). This indicated that the highest level of the
preference for Servicescape B was at the back top corner of the graph the
professionalism of the Ideal Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape B
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
179
were both high. However, the curvature of surface along the X=Y line showed that
no significant effect. In addition, no significant effect was found along the X= -Y
line in the professionalism personality component. The hypothesis H2b was
supported pertaining to the congruence between the professionalism of the Ideal Self
and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape B that had positive and significant
effect on consumers‘ preference for Servicescape B.
Figure 32: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Ideal
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 33 represents the surface relating the joint relationship between the style of
the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape B. The figure showed a
significant congruence effect between the style of the Ideal Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape B on the preference for Servicescape B. The slope of the
surface along the congruence line (slope= 0.27, p<.05) indicated the highest point of
servicescape preference shows where the style of the Ideal Self and the style ascribed
to Servicescape B were both high. However, the deviated surface along the
congruence line exhibited no significant join effect on preference.
A similar result was found in the slope and the curvature of the surface along the
incongruence line. A significant congruence effect was found on the slope along the
X= -Y line, indicating that the incongruity between the style of the Ideal Self and the
style ascribed to Servicescape B predicts the preference. That is, the lowest point of
the preference for Servicescape B showed where the style of the Ideal Self and the
style ascribed to Servicescape B were both low. However, the test of p-value on the
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISpromanner scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner scale)
180
curvature of the surface along the incongruence line showed no significant effect of
the joint relationship.
Figure 33: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Style of the Ideal Self & the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 34 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the sociability of
the Actual Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B. The slope of the
surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H1b (slope= 0.60, p < .001)
and but the curvature of the surface was not significant. This indicated that high
amount of the sociability of the Actual Self and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape B predicted higher levels of preference for Servicescape B, while lower
levels of both the sociability of the Actual Self and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape B produced lower levels of preference for Servicescape B. Yet, the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the congruence line did not show the same
effect.
Another similar feature was found that the slope of the surface corresponding to the
X= -Y line was significant (slope= -.043, p < .001). Along the incongruence line
towards the right-hand corner, Figure 34 indicated that the lowest level of preference
for Servicescape B would occur where the sociability of the Actual Self was at the
highest point but and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B was at the lowest
point. This further enhances that the misfit between the sociability of the Actual Self
and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B strongly affect consumers‘ preference.
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
181
Figure 34: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Sociability of the Actual Self
& the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 35 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the
professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape
B. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X= Y line was significant (slope=
0.24, p < .05) which supported the H2b. This means the congruence between the
professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape
B did affect consumers‘ preference for Servicescape B. That is, the congruence
between the professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to
Servicescape B strongly predicted consumers‘ preference for Servicescape B.
However, the saddle-shaped surface along the congruence line did not show the same
effect nor the slope and the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line.
Figure 35: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Actual
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 36 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the style of the
Actual Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape B. The slope of the surface
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
182
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant (slope= 0.34, p < .001). This indicated
that high amount of the style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape
B predicted higher levels of the preference for Servicescape B, while lower levels of
both the style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape B produced
lower levels of preference. However, the curvature of the surface corresponding to
the congruence line did not show a significant effect.
On the other hand, the slope and the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=
-Y line were both significant (slope= -0.20, p < .05; curvature=0.13, p<.05). This
indicated that the maximum degree of the preference for Servicescape B is occurred
where the style of the Actual Self was low but and the style ascribed to Servicescape
B was high. Overall, the results support for Hypothesis 3b, demonstrating that the
Actual Self-Servicescape B congruity on the personality of style predicted consumers‘
preference for Servicescape B.
Figure 36: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Style of the Actual Self & the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 37 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the sociability
of the Social Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B. The slope of the
surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H1c (slope= 0.62, p < .001)
but the curvature of the surface did not show a significant effect. Analogously, the
slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant (slope= -.045, p
< .001) but the curvature of the surface did not show a significant effect.
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
183
Two substantive features in Figure 37 were concluded. First, the high amount of the
sociability of the Social Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B predicted
higher levels of preference, while lower levels of both the sociability of the Social
Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape B produced lower levels of
preference. Second, the slope of the surface corresponding to the incongruence line
indicated that the degree of the preference for Servicescape B was high where the
sociability of the Social Self was the lowest point but and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape B was at a corresponding high point.
Figure 37: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Sociability of the Social Self &
the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 38 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the
professionalism of the Social Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape B.
The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line supported H2c (slope=.023,
p<.05). That is, the congruence between the professionalism of the Social Self and
the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape B predicts preference for Servicescape
B. Yet, the slope and the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line
showed no significant effect on the prediction of preference for Servicescape B.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
184
Figure 38: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Social
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 39 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the style of the
Social Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape B. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H3c (slope= 0.32, p < .001).
However, the curvature of the surface along the congruence line did not show a
similar significant effect. The similar effects were found on the slope and the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line. The slope of the surface
along the incongruence line was significant (slope = -0.50, p < .001) although the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was insignificant.
Accordingly, Figure 39 indicated that high amount of the style of the Social Self and
the style ascribed to Servicescape B predicted higher levels of preference for
Servicescape B, while lower levels of both the style of the Social Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape B produced lower levels of preference for Servicescape B.
Figure 39: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Style of the Social Self –the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
185
In the following figures, the congruence effects between values of the Self and
values ascribed to servicescapes along five personal values are represented
respectively. Figure 40 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between
the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to
Servicescape B. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was
significant for H4a (slope= 0.39, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface was
insignificant. On the other hand, the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y
line was also significant (slope= -.039, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface
corresponding to the incongruence line did not show the same effect.
Two implications were found in Figure 40. First, the high amount of the life
enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape B
predicted higher levels of preference for Servicescape B, whereas the lower levels of
both the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to
Servicescape B produced lower levels of preference for Servicescape B. Second, the
discrepancy between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment
value ascribed to Servicescape B also predicted the preference. Preference for
Servicescape B was high while the life enjoyment value of the Self was low but the
life enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape B was high. In addition, the degree of
reference for Servicescape B became low where the life enjoyment value of the Self
was high but the life enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape B was low.
Figure 40: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Life Enjoyment Value of the
Self & the Life Enjoyment Value Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V1 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV1 Scale)
186
Figure 41 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the pleasant
and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to
Servicescape B. Among the 14 congruence models‘ test on Servicescape B, the four
indicators of the congruence on value of pleasant and pleasure showed significant
effect on the preference for Servicescape B. The slope and the curvature of the
surface corresponding to the X=Y line were both significant for H4b (slope= 0.28, p
< .001; curvature = 0.10, p < .05). Meanwhile, the slope and the curvature of the
surface corresponding to the X= -Y line were also both significant (slope= -0.34, p
< .001; curvature = -0.08, p < .05).
Figure 41 showed two substantive features. First, high amount of the pleasant and
pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to
Servicescape B predicted higher levels of servicescape preference, while lower levels
of both the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure
value ascribed to Servicescape B produced lower levels of preference. Second, the
incongruence of the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and
pleasure value ascribed to Servicescape B also predicted the preference for
Servicescape B.
Figure 41: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Pleasant and Pleasure Value of
the Self & the Pleasant and Pleasure Value Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 42 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the
responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility ascribed to Servicescape B.
Among the four indications, only the slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y
line was significant for H4d. This indicates that when the responsibility value of the
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V2 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV2 Scale)
187
Self and the responsibility ascribed to Servicescape B are both at their high points;
the degree of the preference for Servicescape B is also in a maximum point.
Figure 42: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Responsibility Value of the
Self & the Responsibility Value Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 43 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the sense of
belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape
B. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H4c
(slope = 0.37, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y
line did not show the same effect. Moving along the X=Y line from the front of the
graph to the back, the line of perfect congruence as related to preference for
Servicescape B had a positive and significant effect. In line with the congruence line,
the increasing higher toward the back of the graph showed that the sense of
belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape
B were both in the congruence and high where the preference for Servicescape B
reaches the highest level.
Meanwhile, the join effect on incongruence was also significant. The slope of the
surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant (slope = -0.28, p < .05) but
not for the curvature. This indicated that the moves of the discrepancy towards left or
left between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging
value ascribed to Servicescape B predicted preference for Servicescape B.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V3 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV3 Scale)
188
Figure 43: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Sense of Belonging Value of
the Self & the Sense of Belonging Value Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
Figure 44 illustrates the response surface relating the recognition value of the Self
and the recognition value ascribed to Servicescape B. The Figure denotes two
substantive points. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was
significant for H4e (slope = 0.39, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was insignificant. Second, the slope of the surface
corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant (slope = -0.25, p < .05) but not for
the curvature.
These points indicated that the lowest level of preference for Servicescape B was at
the front right-hand corner of the graph where the recognition value of the Self was
high but the recognition value ascribed to Servicescape B was low. Thus, the
incongruence between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value
ascribed to Servicescape B also predicted consumers‘ preference for Servicescape B.
Moreover, along the congruence line, the increasing higher toward the back of the
graph where the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to
Servicescape B were both in the congruence and high, preference for Servicescape B
was at its highest level.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V4 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV4 Scale)
189
Figure 44: Preference for Servicescape B as Predicted by the Recognition Value of the Self
& the Recognition Value Ascribed to Servicescape B Discrepancy
5.5.2.3 Servicescape C (Version 3)
This section reports the effect results of 14 self-servicescape congruity models
sequentially in Version 3 survey pertaining to the image of Servicescape C. The test
on the polynomial regression with response surface diagrams showed that all 14 Self-
Servicescape C congruity models for Servicescape C had significant effects on the
preference. Table 37 and Table 38 display the parameter estimates and standard error
estimates for Hypotheses 1a to 4e for the prediction of the preference for
Servicescape C.
The following 14 response surface diagrams represent the congruence effect of the
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to Servicescape C on preference
along three personality components on Ideal Self, Actual Self and Social Self and
five values on values of the Self, respectively. Each surface was plotted using
understandarised coefficients.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V5 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV5 Scale)
190
Table 37: Version 3-Hypotheses 1a-3c: Predicting Preference for Servicescape C from Personality of the Self-Servicescape C Congruence Sociability (1a -1c) Professionalism (2a -2c) Style (3a -3c)
Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self Ideal Self Actual Self Social Self
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error Coefficient
Standard Error
Coefficient Standard
Error
X= Y line Slope (a1)
0.57*** 0.13 0.69*** 0.12 0.52*** 0.12 0.44*** 0.11 0.28* 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.46*** 0.08 0.23** 0.07 0.16** 0.05
Curvature (a2)
-0.05 0.04 -0.09* 0.04 -0.03 0.06 -0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.13** 0.05 -0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.06
X= -Y line Slope (a3)
-0.57** 0.21 -0.47*** 0.12 -0.63*** 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.12 -0.20* 0.10 -0.29*** 0.07 -0.37*** 0.08
Curvature (a4)
0.06 0.07 -0.02 0.04 -0.03 0.06 -0.08 0.07 -0.05 0.06 -0.09 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.06
P<.05; P<.01; P<.001
Table 38: Version 3-Hypotheses 4a-4e: Predicting Preference for Servicescape C from Values of the Self-Servicescape C Congruence Life enjoyment (4a) Pleasant and pleasure (4b) Responsibility (4c) Sense of belonging (4d) Recognition (4e)
Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self Values of the Self
Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error Coefficient Standard Error
X= Y line
Slope (a1) 0.22*** 0.05 0.24** 0.07 0.21** 0.08 0.21*** 0.04 0.18** 0.06
Curvature (a2)
0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.04
X= -Y line
Slope (a3) -0.28** 0.08 -0.15 0.09 -0.25* 0.10 -0.07* 0.07 -0.19** 0.06
Curvature (a4)
0.06 0.04 -0.01 0.04 0.10* 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.04
P<.05; P<.01; P<.001
191
Figure 45 illustrates the response surface relating the joint relationship between the
sociability of the Ideal Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape C. Moving
along the X=Y line from the front of the graph to the back, the line of perfect
congruence as related to servicescape preference had a positive and significant for
H1a (slope= 0.57, p< 001). The lowest level of the preference for Servicescape C
was at the front corner of the graph where the sociability of the Ideal Self and the
sociability ascribed to Servicescape C were both low. Moving along the X= -Y line,
on the other hand, the slope of the surface corresponding to this incongruence line
(slope= -.57, p< 05) showed that the lowest level of the preference for Servicescape
C is occurred where the sociability of the Ideal Self was high but the sociability
ascribed to Servicescape C was low. However, when the sociability of the Ideal Self
was decreasing but the sociability ascribed to Servicescape C was getting higher, the
degree of the preference for Servicescape C was increasing.
Figure 45: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Sociability of the Ideal Self &
the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 46 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the
professional of the Ideal Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C.
Moving along the X=Y line from the front of the graph to the back, the line of
perfect congruence as related to preference for Servicescape C was positive and
significant for H2a (slope= 0.44, p< 001). This indicated that the increasing higher of
the preference for Servicescape C toward the back of the graph where the
professional of the Ideal Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C
were both in the congruence and significantly high. However, the slope and the
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
192
curvature of the surface corresponding to the discrepancy line did not show
significant effect on preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 46: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Ideal
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 47 represents the surface relating the joint relationship between the style of
the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape C. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H3a (slope= 0.46, p < .001) but the
curvature of the surface was not significant. This indicated that the degree of the
preference reaches the highest point where the style of the Ideal Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape C were both high and vice versa. In addition, the slope of
the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was also significant (slope= -.020, p
< .05). The response surface along the incongruence line indicated the degree of the
preference for Servicescape C was high where the style of the Ideal Self was low but
the style ascribed to Servicescape C was high.
Figure 47: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Style of the Ideal Self & the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
193
Figure 48 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the sociability of
the Actual Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape C. The slope and the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line were both significant for H1b
(slope= 0.69, p < .001; curvature= -0.09, p< .05). The incongruence also predicted
consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C. The slope of the surface corresponding to
the X= -Y line was significant (slope= -0.47, p < .001). Figure 48 denotes that high
amount of the sociability of the Actual Self and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape C predicted higher levels of preference for Servicescape C, while lower
levels of both the sociability of the Actual Self and the sociability ascribed to
Servicescape C produced lower levels of preference. Moreover, the sociability of the
Actual Self exceeded the sociability ascribed to Servicescape C as the incongruence
line extended to the right-hand corner, indicating the lowest point of consumers‘
preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 48: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Sociability of the Actual Self
& the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 49 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the
professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape
C. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X= Y line showed a positive and
significant effect on consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C. Therefore, H2b was
supported. The congruence between the professionalism of the Actual Self and the
professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C showed its effects on consumers‘
preference for Servicescape C. The higher degree of congruence between the
professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape
C, consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C increased. However, the discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
194
between the professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to
Servicescape C did not show its influence on preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 49: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Actual
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 50 shows the surface relating the style of the Actual Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape C. Both congruence and discrepancy relationships have
impact on consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H3b (slope= 0.23, p < .05) but the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the congruence line did not show a
significant effect. This feature indicated that the degree of the preference for
Servicescape C was in a maximum level where the style of the Actual Self and the
style ascribed to Servicescape C were both at their highest levels.
Analogously, the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant
(slope= -0.29, p < .001) but the curvature along the incongruence line did not show
the same effect. The incongruence between the style of the Actual Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape C reduced the degree of the preference for Servicescape C.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
195
Figure 50: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Style of the Actual Self & the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 51 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the sociability
of the Social Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape C. The slope of the
surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H1c (slope= 0.52, p
< .001); however, the curvature of the surface did not show a significant effect.
Similarly, the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant
(slope= -.063, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface corresponding the
incongruence line did not show the same effect.
Figure 51 demonstrated two features. First, high amount of the sociability of the
Social Self and the ascribed sociability of Servicescape C predicted higher levels of
the preference for Servicescape C, while lower levels of both the sociability of the
Social Self and the sociability ascribed to Servicescape C produced lower levels of
preference for Servicescape C. Second, the slope of the surface along the congruence
line indicated that the discrepancy between the sociability of the Social Self and the
sociability ascribed to Servicescape C predicts consumers‘ preference for
Servicescape C.
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
196
Figure 51: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Sociability of the Social Self &
the Sociability Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 52 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the professional
of the Social Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C. Only the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line showed a significant effect on
consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C. An interesting feature was found that the
ridge of the surface corresponding to the congruence line shows the degree of
preference for Servicescape C was in a maximum point where the professional of the
Social Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C were both at their
negative points.
Figure 52: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Professionalism of the Social
Self & the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 53 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the style of the
Social Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape C. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H3c (slope= 0.16, p < .05).
However, the curvature of the surface along the congruence line did not show a same
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSsociable Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSsociable Scale)
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSpromanner
Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
197
significant effect. The slope of the X= -Y line, on the other hand, was significant
(slope = -0.37, p < .001) although the curvature of the surface along the
incongruence was insignificant.
The two significant slope figures showed that high amount of the style of the Social
Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape C predicted higher levels of the
preference for Servicescape C, while lower levels of both the style of the Social Self
and the ascribed style of Servicescape C produced lower levels of the preference for
Servicescape C. In addition, the slope of the surface along the incongruence line
indicated that the incongruence between the style of the Social Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape C predicts consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C. For
example, while the style of the Social Self was low but the style ascribed to
Servicescape C was high, the degree of their preference for Servicescape C was high.
Figure 53: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Style of the Social Self & the
Style Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
For the evaluation of Servicescape C, the following figures show the congruence
effect between values of the Self and values ascribed to Servicescape C along five
personal values on the preference, respectively. Figure 54 illustrates the surface
relating the joint relationship between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the
life enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape C. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H4a (slope= 0.22, p < .001) but the
curvature of the surface for the congruence effect was insignificant. Similarly, the
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
198
slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant as well (slope= -
0.28, p < .05).
The two substantive figures in Figure 54 indicated that both congruence and
incongruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment
value ascribed to Servicescape C had effects on the preference for Servicescape C.
First, high amount of the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment
value ascribed to Servicescape C predicted higher levels of preference for
Servicescape C, while lower levels of both constructs produced lower levels of
preference. Second, the degree of incongruence between the life enjoyment value of
the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to Servicescape C resulted in the
decrease of the preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 54: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Life Enjoyment Value of the
Self & the Life Enjoyment Value Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 55 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the pleasant
and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to
Servicescape C. Only the slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was
significant (slope= 0.24, p < .001). The curvature of the surface corresponding to the
congruence line did not show this congruence effect. Moreover, neither the slope nor
the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant. Thus,
H4b was supported because high amount of the pleasant and pleasure value of the
Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to Servicescape C predicted higher
levels of the preference for Servicescape C. In addition, lower levels of both
constructs produced lower levels of preference for Servicescape C.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V1 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV1 Scale)
199
Figure 55: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Pleasant and pleasure Value of
the Self & the Pleasant and Pleasure Value Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Figure 56 illustrates the surface relating the joint relationship between the
responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to Servicescape
C. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant
(slope=0.21, p<.05) supported H4d pertaining to the congruence effect between the
responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to Servicescape
C positively influence the preference for Servicescape C. Moreover, the slope and
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line were both significant
(slope= -0.25, p<.05; curvature = 0.10, p < .05). The concave surface slightly curved
upward along the incongruence line, indicating that the incongruence between the
responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to Servicescape
C significantly minimised consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 56: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Responsibility Value of the
Self & the Responsibility Value Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V2 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV2 Scale)
-4
0
4 1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V3 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV3 Scale)
200
Figure 57 shows the surface relating the joint relationship between the sense of
belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape
C. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H4c
(slope = 0.21, p < .001) but the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y
line did not show the same effect. That is, moving along the X=Y line from the front
of the graph to the back, the line of perfect congruence as related to the preference
for Servicescape C has a positive and significant effect. When the level of the
preference for Servicescape C was low, the sense of belonging value of the Self and
the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape C were both low. The
increasing higher of preference for Servicescape C toward the back of the graph
where the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value
ascribed to Servicescape C were both in the congruence and high.
The join effect on incongruence was also significant. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X= -Y line was significant (slope = -0.17, p < .05) but the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the incongruence line did not show a
significant effect. This indicated that the higher degree of discrepancy towards left or
left between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging
value ascribed to Servicescape C predicted consumers‘ preference. Thus, both
congruence and incongruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and
the sense of belonging value ascribed to Servicescape C predicted consumers‘
preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 57: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Sense of Belonging Value of
the Self & the Sense of Belonging Value Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V4 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV4 Scale)
201
Figure 58 illustrates the response surface relating the joint relationship between the
recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to Servicescape C.
The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line was significant for H4e
(slope = 0.18, p < .05) but the curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line
was insignificant. The level of the preference for Servicescape C was at its highest
level in the back of the graph where the recognition value of the Self and the
recognition value ascribed to Servicescape C were both in the congruence and in
high.
On the other hand, the slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line was
significant (slope = -0.27, p < .05) but not for the curvature. It showed that that the
lowest level of preference for Servicescape C is at the front right-hand side of the
graph where the recognition value of the Self was high but the recognition value
ascribed to Servicescape C was low. Therefore, both congruence and incongruence
between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to
Servicescape C predicted consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C.
Figure 58: Preference for Servicescape C as Predicted by the Recognition Value of the Self
& the Recognition Value Ascribed to Servicescape C Discrepancy
Overall, Study Three showed a considerable amount of support for the congruence
effect between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes
on preference for three servicescape images. In addition to the congruence between
two predictor variables that predicts consumers‘ preference for servicescapes, the
incongruence between two predictor variables also predicts the preference.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V5 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV5 Scale)
202
Table 39 summarises the test of the congruence hypotheses across three servicescape
images. Three main implications are found along with each servicescape image. For
the evaluation of Servicescape A (version 1), neither congruence nor incongruence
between the personality of the Ideal Self and the ascribed personality of the
servicescape on sociability and style exhibited significant effects on consumers‘
preference for Servicescape A. However, the more discrepancy of professionalism
and responsible between the personality of the Self and the ascribed personality of
Servicescape A, the less preference for Servicescape A formed.
For the evaluation of Servicescape B (version 2), all congruence tests were supported
except the congruence effect between the sociability of the Ideal Self and the
ascribed sociability of Servicescape B, which did now show significant effect on the
preference for Servicescape B. While most of incongruities have shown their effect
on preference, the incongruence between the professionalism and responsibility of
the Self and the professionalism and responsibility ascribed to Servicescape B did
not predict consumers‘ preference for Servicescape B.
For the evaluation of Servicescape C (version 3), all congruence models have effects
on consumer servicescape preference. Moreover, the incongruities between the Self
and the symbolic meanings ascribed to Servicescape C along the personality
components (sociability and style) as well as the values (sense of belonging, life
enjoyment, responsibility and being recognised (i.e., recognition) also predict
consumers‘ preference for Servicescape C.
203
Table 39: Results of Hypotheses Testing for Congruence and Incongruence Effects
1. The shaded rows are personality components (while others are values)
2. SA= Servicescape A, SB= Servicescape B, SC= Servicescape C
Code Personality/
Values1
Congruence Hypotheses SA
2 SB
2 SC
2
Congruity/Incongruity
H1a
Sociability
The congruence between the sociability of the Ideal Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. N/N N/Y Y/Y
H1b The congruence between the sociability of the Actual Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H1c The congruence between the sociability of the Social Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H2a
Professionalism
The congruence between professionalism of the Ideal Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/N Y/N
H2b The congruence between professionalism of the Actual Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related
to preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/N Y/N
H2c The congruence between professionalism of the Social Self and sociability ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related
to preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/N Y/N
H3a
Style
The congruence between the style of the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H3b The congruence between the style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H3c The congruence between the style of the Social Self and the style ascribed to a servicescape, is positively related to
preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H4a Life enjoyment The congruence between the life enjoyment value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to servicescape is
positively related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H4b Pleasant and
pleasure
The congruence between the pleasant and pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to
servicescape is positively related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/N
H4c Sense of
belonging
The congruence between the sense of belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to a
servicescape is positively related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
H4d Responsibility The congruence between the responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to a servicescape is
positively related to preference for the servicescape. N/Y Y/N Y/Y
H4e Recognition The congruence between the recognition value of the Self and the recognition value ascribed to a servicescape is positively
related to preference for the servicescape. Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y
204
5.5.3 Predictive Strength of Personality Components and Personal Values
This section presents the results of examining the predictive strength of personality
descriptors and personal values. The predictive strength of each personality
component in the Self-congruity model was compared with its corresponding value
in the Self-congruity model by examining the statistic R2 change. Accordingly, the
larger the value of R2 change, the better predictive strength can be demonstrated
(Hair, et al., 2010). Given that each survey produced 15 models for the predictive
strength comparisons of personality components and personal values, 45 comparison
models were produced (see Appendix E). Table 40 provides an overview of the
predictive strength comparisons of each personality component and its corresponding
personal values across three servicescape images.
Overall, the results suggest that personality components and personal values are
equally good predictors of consumers‘ servicescape preference. Although the table
shows that there is no significant evidence that either personality components or
personal values have better/consistent level of predictive power for preference,
personal values are likely to be a better real world predictor of preference because
values are likes, desires, wants, goals, and needs that are relatively enduring, and
thus should be relatively trans-situational and consistent compared to personality
components (Rokeach, 1979).
205
Table 40: Overview of the Predictive Strength Comparison of Personality Components and
Personal Values
Personality component
vs. Personal value
Servicescape A (Version 1)
Servicescape B (Version 2)
Servicescape C (Version 3)
Th
e P
erso
nal
ity
of
the
Idea
l S
elf
vs.
T
he
val
ue
of
the
Sel
f
Sociability vs.
Life enjoyment √ √ ○
Sociability vs.
Pleasant and pleasure ○ √ ○
Sociability vs.
Sense of belonging ○ √ ○
Professionalism vs.
Responsibility ○ √ √
Style vs.
Recognition √ ○ ○
The
Per
sonal
ity o
f th
e A
ctual
Sel
f vs.
T
he
val
ue
of
the
Sel
f
Sociability vs.
Life enjoyment √ √ ○
Sociability vs.
Pleasant and pleasure ○ √ ○
Sociability vs. Sense of belonging
○ ○ ○
Professionalism vs.
Responsibility ○ √ √
Style vs.
Recognition √ ○ √
Th
e P
erso
nal
ity
of
the
Soci
al S
elf
vs.
T
he
val
ue
of
the
Sel
f
Sociability vs.
Life enjoyment √ √ ○
Sociability vs.
Pleasant and pleasure ○ √ ○
Sociability vs.
Sense of belonging ○ ○ ○
Professionalism vs.
Responsibility ○ √ √
Style vs.
Recognition √ ○ ○
Note: √ indicates the personal value has better predictive strength on preference; whereas ○
indicates the personality component has better predictive strength on preference.
206
5.5.4 Testing the Moderating Effects
This section reports on tests of the moderating effects of salience on the joint
influence of the Self and symbolic meanings ascribed of servicescapes on preference.
For each servicescape image, the salience of each personality component/personal
value was regressed with the corresponding 14 polynomial regression models. The
moderated polynomial regression analyses produced an R2
statistic for each model,
which was compared to the original R2
(i.e., the non-moderated polynomial
regression models). In the following paragraphs, only the significant moderating
effect models with their response surface figures are discussed. Specifically, the
discussion focuses on high and low levels of moderating effect.
5.5.4.1 Servicescape A
For the evaluation of Servicescape A (Version 1), 13 out of 14 personality
components/personal values moderated the congruence effects of the Self and
Servicescape A. The only exception was the salient responsibility, which did not
moderate the congruence or incongruence effects on consumers‘ preference for
Servicescape A. Among the 13 moderated polynomial regression models, the
salience of style showed its influence on Ideal Self-, Actual Self- and Social Self-
congruities with the style ascribed to Servicescape A (as shown in Table 41). Here,
the increment R2 was sufficiently large to interpret the moderating effect yielded by
the salience of style personality. This study therefore divided Version 1 responses
into two groups in light of the high and the low level of the salient style in relation to
the mean of the total sample. The high and low moderating results are reporting next.
207
Table 41: Comparisons on R 2 between Polynomial Regressions and Moderated Polynomial
Regression Models (Servicescape A)
Component of
Self
Personality/Value
s
R2 Moderated R
2
Personality of the
Idea Self
Sociability .427** .468**
Professionalism .116** .152**
Style .238** .325**
Personality of the
Actual Self
Sociability .425** .462**
Professionalism .100** .133*
Style .233** .327**
Personality of the
Social Self
Sociability .420** .466**
Professionalism .118** .149**
Style .238** .329**
Values of the Self
Life enjoyment .427** .443**
Pleasant and
pleasure
.387** .404**
Responsibility .070* .084
Sense of belonging .349** .413**
Recognition .299** .353**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Complete descriptive statistics for consumers‘ Self and Servicescape A evaluation
level, preference at low and high levels of the salient style are reported in Table 42.
A main effect of the salient style personality on preference for low and high level of
the salience of style personality was found (average servicescape preference for low
and high level of the salience of style personality =2.92 and 3.15, respectively).
While the non-moderated joint relationship between the style of the Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape A showed significant effect on the preference for
Servicescape A, the salience of style personality further enhanced the congruence
effects of Ideal Self-, Actual Self- and Social Self-Servicescape A.
208
Table 42: Mean and SD of Variable at High and Low Levels of the Salient Style Personality
(SIstyle) (Servicescape A)
Low SIstyle High
SIstyle
The Evaluation of the Style of the Ideal Self
M 4.73 5.54
SD .88 1.09
N 123 80
The Evaluation of the Style of the Actual Self
M 3.85 4.80
SD .95 1.11
N 123 80
The Evaluation of the Style of the Social Self
M 3.88 5.00
SD .97 1.13
N 123 80
The Evaluation of the Style Ascribed to Servicescape A
M 3.83 3.95
SD 1.09 1.36
N 123 80
Preference for Servicescape A
M 2.92 3.15
SD .80 .96
N 123 80
NB. Individuals with low salient style personality are those below and between the mean.
Individuals with high salient style personality are those above the mean.
To fully appreciate the interaction between the style of the Self-Servicescape A joint
relationships and the salience of style personality, three comparisons on Ideal Self,
Actual Self and Social Self for low level of the salience of style personality (as
shown in Figure 59, Figure 61 and Figure 63), as well as for high level of the salient
style personality (as shown in Figure 60, Figure 62 and Figure 64) are provided and
discussed.
Figure 59 (low level of the salient style personality) and Figure 60 (high level of the
salient style personality) revealed the interaction results between the style of the
Ideal Self-Servicescape A congruity effect and the salience of style personality.
Figure 59 illustrated the congruence effects among participants with low salience of
style personality that denoted two important features. First, the slope of the surface
209
corresponding to the X=Y line (slope= 0.31, p<.05) showed significant influence on
preference for Servicescape A. The degree of the preference for Servicescape A was
at its highest point where the style of the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to
Servicescape A were both high. Second, the curvature of the surface corresponding
to the X= -Y line (curvature= -0.24, p<.05) significantly demonstrated that the more
discrepancy between the style of the Ideal Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape
A from either direction, the less preference for Servicescape A was formed.
Figure 59: Low Levels of the Salient Style on Personality of Ideal Self (SIstyle)
Figure 60 illustrated the congruence effects among participants with high salience of
style personality. The Figure denoted an important feature in relation to the
incongruent effects. Although the slope and the curvature of the surface
corresponding to the X=Y line did not show significant effect on preference for
Servicescape A. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line (slope= -
0.45, p<.05) exhibited significant effect on preference for Servicescape A. Along
with the incongruence line towards the right-hand corner, where the style of the Ideal
Self was at the highest level but the style ascribed to Servicescape A was at the
lowest level, consumers‘ preference for Servicescape A was also at the lowest level.
The findings showed that high salience of style personality moderated the level of
preference for Servicescape A more when the discrepancy between the style of the
Ideal Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A was occurred.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
210
A comparison between Figure 59 and Figure 60 also revealed that the high salience
of style personality groups had the highest level of the preference when the style of
the Ideal Self was congruent with the style ascribed to Servicescape A.
Figure 60: High Levels of the Salient Style on Personality of Ideal Self (SIstyle)
As shown in Table 41, the moderated polynomial regression R2 showed that the
salience of style personality substantive influenced the congruence effect between
the style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A on consumers‘
preference. Figure 61 (low level of the salience of style personality) and Figure 62
(high level of the salience of style personality) revealed the interaction results
between the style of the Actual Self-Servicescape A joint relationships and the
salience of style personality.
The congruence effect test on the group with low level of the salience of style
personality did not show much difference from the non-moderated model as shown
in Figure 61. The slope of the surface corresponding to the X=Y line (slope=0.40,
p< .001) was significant. Moving along with the congruence line, the low level of the
salience of style personality group showed that the preference for Servicescape A
reached its highest level where the style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to
Servicescape A were both at their positive and highest levels.
The curvature of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line (curvature = -0.32,
p< .05) enhanced the discrepant effect on the preference evaluation. Among the low
level of the salience of style personality group, the more discrepancy between the
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ISstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
211
style of the Actual Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A from either left or
right direction, the less preference for Servicescape A was formed.
Figure 61: Low Levels of the Salient Style on Personality of Actual Self (SIstyle)
On the other hand, Figure 62 shows that the group with high level of the salience of
style personality did not enhance the congruence effect between the style of the
Actual Self and the style ascribed to Servicescape A. Conversely, it enhanced the
incongruence effect on preference for Servicescape A. The slope of the surface
corresponding to the X=-Y line (slope =-0.81, p< .05) was improved that denoted an
important feature. In the high level of the salience of style personality group,
participants who evaluated the style of the Actual Self at a low level but the style
ascribed to Servicescape A at a high level, their preference for Servicescape A was at
high level.
Figure 62: High Levels of the Salient Style on Personality of Actual Self (SIstyle)
Figure 63 (low level of the salience of style personality) and Figure 64 (high level of
the salience of style personality) revealed the interaction result between the style of
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
212
the Social Self-Servicescape A congruity effect and the salience of style personality.
The congruence effects were tested again on the high and low level of the salience of
the style personality groups. In the low level of the salience of style personality
group, the level of the preference did not show much difference from the non-
moderated results as shown in Figure 63. The slope of the surface corresponding to
the X=Y line (slope=0.36, p< .05) was significant, demonstrating that when the style
of the Social Self and the style personality ascribed to Servicescape A were both at
high amount, the preference for Servicescape A was also high. Meanwhile, the
curvature of the surface corresponding to the X=-Y line (curvature = -0.28, p< .05),
showing that the more discrepancy between the style of the Social Self and the style
ascribed to Servicescape A from either direction, the less preference for Servicescape
A was formed.
Figure 63: Low Levels of the Salient Style on Personality of Social Self (SIstyle)
On the other hand, in the high level salience of style personality group, participants
who formed high level of preference for Servicescape A when their style of the
Social Self were low but the style ascribed to Servicescape A were high (as shown in
Figure 64). The slope of the surface corresponding to the X= -Y line (slope =-0.60,
p< .05) demonstrated this incongruent effect.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
213
Figure 64: High Levels of the Salient Style on Personality of Social Self (SIstyle)
5.5.4.2 Servicescape B (Version 2)
For the evaluation of Servicescape B (Version 2), all 14 moderated polynomial
regression models moderated the congruence effects between the Self and
Servicescape B. Among the 14 moderated polynomial regression models, the
salience of responsibility value showed its influence on the congruence effect
between the responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to
Servicescape B (as shown in Table 43). The increment R2 was sufficiently large to
interpret the moderating effect yielded by the salience of personal value on
responsibility.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
SoSstyle Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSstyle Scale)
214
Table 43: Comparisons on R2 between Polynomial Regression and Moderated Polynomial
Regression Models (Servicescape B)
Self Personality
Components/Values R
2 Moderated R2
Personality of the
Idea Self
Sociability .443** .458**
Professionalism .134** .156**
Style .370** .387**
Personality of the
Actual Self
Sociability .430** .456**
Professionalism .133** .153**
Style .338** .362**
Personality of the
Social Self
Sociability .428** .448**
Professionalism .134** .152**
Style .339** .363**
Values of the Self
Life enjoyment .455** .501**
Pleasant and pleasure .453** .468**
Responsibility .199** .255**
Sense of belonging .343** .380**
Recognition .335** .385**
* p < .05, ** p < .01
Version 2 samples then were divided into two groups in light of the high and the low
salience of responsibility value that was judged by the mean of the overall sample.
The high and low moderating results are reporting next respectively. Completed
descriptive statistics for Self and Servicescape B evaluation level, preference at low
and high levels of the salience of responsibility value are reported in Table 44. The
average figures of servicescape preference for low and high level of the salience of
responsibility value are 3.25 and 3.30, respectively. The following Figure 65 (low
level of the salience of personal value on responsibility) and Figure 66 (high level of
the salience of personal value on responsibility) illustrated the interaction between
the responsibility value of the Self-Servicescape B congruence effect and the salience
of responsibility value.
215
Table 44: Mean and SD of Variable at High and Low Levels of the Salient Responsibility
Value (SIrespon) (Servicescape B)
Low SIrespon High
SIrespon
The Evaluation of the Responsibility Value of the Self
M 5.07 6.28
SD 1.17 1.07
N 87 124
The Evaluation of the Responsibility Ascribed to Servicescape B
M 4.22 4.50
SD .99 1.44
N 87 123
Preference for Servicescape B
M 3.25 3.30
SD .77 .96
N 87 124
Note. Individuals with low salient responsibility value are those below and between the
mean. Individuals with high salient responsibility value on are those above the mean.
The comparison revealed that the highest point of preference for Servicescape B was
occurred for participants who had low level of the salience of responsibility value as
shown in Figure 65(slope= 0.43, p<.001). The curvature of the surface corresponding
to the incongruence line was significant (curvature= -0.28, p<.05) in Figure 65,
indicating that the discrepancy between the responsibility value of the Self and the
responsibility value ascribed to Servicescape B resulted in the lowest level of
preference for Servicescape B.
Figure 65: Low Levels of the Salient Responsibility on Values of the Self (SIrespon)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V3 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV3 Scale)
216
On the other hand, Figure 66 showed the curvature of the surface corresponding to
the incongruence line was also significant. This denoted that the discrepancy
between the responsibility value of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to
Servicescape B predicted preference for Servicescape B for participants who had
high level of the salience of responsibility value. For example, while the
responsibility value of the Self was high and the responsibility value ascribed to
Servicescape B was low, the level of preference for Servicescape B was low.
However, while the responsibility value of the Self was low where the responsibility
value ascribed to Servicescape B was high, the level of preference for Servicescape
B increased.
Figure 66: High Levels of the Salient Responsibility on Values of the Self (SIrespon)
5.5.4.3 Servicescape C (Version 3)
For the evaluation of Servicescape C (Version 3), all 14 moderated polynomial
regression models moderated the congruence effects between the Self and
Servicescape C. Among 14 moderated polynomial regression models (Table 45), the
interaction between the salience of professionalism personality and the responsibility
value of Self-Servicescape C congruity had statistically significant influence on
preference for Servicescape C. The increment R2 was sufficiently large to interpret
the moderating effect yielded by the salience of professionalism personality.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
V3 Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SV3 Scale)
217
Table 45: Comparisons on R s between Polynomial Regression and Moderated Polynomial
Regression Models (Servicescape C)
Self Personality/Value
s
R2 Moderated R
2
Personality of the
Idea self
Sociability .359** .369**
Professionalism .117** .184**
Style .200** .237**
Personality of the
Actual Self
Sociability .364** .373**
Professionalism .095* .163**
Style .147** .198**
Personality of the
Social Self
Sociability .363** .381**
Professionalism .113** .179**
Style .176** .204**
Values of the Self
Life enjoyment .280** .326**
Pleasant and
pleasure
.268** .292**
Responsibility .183** .248**
Sense of belonging .205** .269**
Recognition .185** .221**
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Version 3 samples then were divided into two groups in light of the high and the low
level of the salience of professionalism that was judged by the mean of the overall
sample. Complete descriptive statistics for the Self and Servicescape C evaluation
level, the average figures of preference at low and high levels of the salience of
professionalism personality are reported in Table 46. To better appreciate the
interaction between the salient professionalism personality and the congruity rating, a
comparison of Figure 67 (low level of the salience of professionalism personality)
and Figure 68 (high level of the salience of professionalism personality) were
informative.
218
Table 46: Mean and SD of Variable at High and Low Levels of the Salient Professionalism
Personality (SIproman) (Servicescape C)
Low SIproman High
SIproman
The Evaluation of the Professionalism of the Actual Self
M 4.54 5.37
SD .96 .92
N 84 119
The Evaluation of the Professionalism Ascribed to Servicescape C
M 3.49 3.52
SD 1.01 1.05
N 84 119
Preference for Servicescape C
M 3.69 3.85
SD .77 .77
N 84 119
Note. Individuals with low level of the salience of professionalism personality are those
below and between the mean. Individuals with high level of the salience of professionalism
personality are those above the mean.
The comparison revealed that the lowest level of preference for Servicescape C was
occurred for the group with high level of the salience of professionalism personality.
Figure 67 (i.e., those individuals with low level of the salience of professionalism
personality) showed that the joint relationship had no significant effect on the
preference for Servicescape C. It demonstrated that the low level of the salience of
professionalism personality did not moderate the effect of thecongruence between
the professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to
Servicescape C on preference.
Figure 67: Low Levels of the Salient Professionalism on Actual Self (SIproman)
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
219
Conversely, Figure 68 showed that the curvature of the surface corresponding to the
X=-Y line was significant (curvature= -0.20, p< .05). This indicated that moving
along the incongruence line in Figure 68 (i.e., the group with high level of the
salience of professionalism personality), the more discrepancy between the
professionalism of the Actual Self and the professionalism personality ascribed to
Servicescape C from either direction, the less preference for Servicescape C was
formed.
Figure 68: High Levels of the Salient Professionalism on Actual Self (SIproman)
Overall, the test of moderating effects of the salient personality component or
personal values showed its influence on the effect of the congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes on preference.
Table 47 summarises the test of the moderating hypotheses across three servicescape
images.
-4
0 4
1
2
3
4
5
4 2 0 -2 -4
X
(Centered
ASpromanner Scale)
Z
(Preferences)
Y
(Centered SSpromanner Scale)
220
Table 47: Summary of Hypotheses Testing for the Moderating Effects Code Personality/Values
1 Moderating Hypotheses SA
2 SB
2 SC
2
H5a
Sociability
The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on
servicescape preference for the Ideal Self. Y Y Y
H5b The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on
servicescape preference for the Actual Self. Y Y Y
H5c The salience of sociability significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of sociability on
servicescape preference for the Social Self. Y Y Y
H6a
Professionalism
The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism
on servicescape preference for the Ideal Self. Y Y Y
H6b The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism
on servicescape preference for the Actual Self. Y Y Y
3
H6c The salience of professionalism significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of professionalism
on servicescape preference for the Social Self. Y Y Y
H7a
Style
The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape
preference for the Ideal Self. Y
3 Y Y
H7b The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape
preference for the Actual Self. Y
3 Y Y
H7c The salience of style significantly moderates the effect of self-servicescape congruity of style on servicescape
preference for the Social Self. Y
3 Y Y
H8a Life enjoyment The salience of life enjoyment significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the life enjoyment
value of the Self and the life enjoyment value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
H8b Pleasant and pleasure The salience of pleasant and pleasure significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the pleasant and
pleasure value of the Self and the pleasant and pleasure value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
H8c Sense of belonging The salience of sense of belonging significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the sense of
belonging value of the Self and the sense of belonging value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
H8d Responsibility The salience of responsibility significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the responsibility value
of the Self and the responsibility value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y
3 Y
H8e Recognition The salience of recognition significantly moderates the effect of the congruence between the recognition value of
the Self and the recognition value ascribed to servicescape on preference. Y Y Y
1. The shaded rows are personality components (while others are values).
2. SA= Servicescape A, SB= Servicescape B, SC= Servicescape C. 3.
The moderator significantly influences the congruence effects on preference and was reported in the findings.
221
5.5.5 Summary of the Findings
Study Three investigated how symbolic meanings influence consumers‘ preference
for servicescapes. This was achieved using three types of empirical tests. First, the
tests of the relationship between the Self and a servicescape showed its congruence
effects on consumers‘ preference for the servicescape. Second, personal values were
hypothesised to be a better predictor of consumers‘ preference for servicescapes,
compared to personality components. However, both personal values and personality
components predicted preference equally well. Third, the salience of personality
components and personal values were hypothesised to moderate the effect of the
congruence between the Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes on
preference that were also tested. The overall congruence hypotheses were supported,
with five exceptions.
Considered as a whole, the joint effects of personality of the Self/values of the Self
and the personality/values ascribed to the servicescapes significantly influenced
preference for servicescapes. However, professionalism and responsibility of the Self
and their congruities with Servicescape A does not predict preference for
Servicescape A. Moreover, the degree of consumers‘ preference for Servicescape A
decreased, while their professionalism/responsibility of the Self and the
professionalism/responsibility ascribed to Servicescape A were discrepant from each
other.
Conversely, the effects of the incongruence between the Self (across personality of
the Self and values of the Self) and the symbolic meanings (both personality and
values) ascribed to servicescapes on preference was demonstrated. The analysis
demonstrated that the degree of discrepancy between two independent variables also
predict consumers‘ preference for servicescapes. As shown in Figure 47, the
response surface along the incongruence line indicated the degree of preference for
Servicescape C was high where the style of the Ideal Self was low but the style
ascribed to Servicescape C was high.
With regard to the moderating effects, the response surface diagrams from Figure 59
to Figure 68 provided information about the impact of the salience of personality and
personal values on the congruence between the Self and the symbolic meanings
222
ascribed to servicescapes on preference. Five moderation hypotheses (H5 to H8e)
were all supported across three servicescape images.
The salience of style and professionalism, as well as the salience of responsibility,
were demonstrated to significantly moderated Self-Servicescape congruity effects on
preference. First, in the group with high levels of the salience of style, the more the
discrepancy was found between the style of the Self (for Ideal Self, Actual Self and
Social Self) and the style ascribed to Servicescape A, the less preference was formed.
In particular, a high degree of Servicescape A preference was produced in the group
with high level of the salience of style when their style of the Self was low where the
style ascribed to Servicescape A was high.
Second, for the group with low level of the salience of responsibility, the level of
preference for Servicescape B remained low when their responsibility of the Self was
low, no matter the level of responsibility ascribed to Servicescape B. For participants
who did not consider responsibility to be a salient value of their Self, their preference
for Servicescape B was not influenced by the responsibility value ascribed to
Servicescape B.
Third, in the group with low levels of the salience of professionalism, neither
congruence nor incongruence between the professionalism of the Actual Self and the
professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C had an effect on preference for
Servicescape C. Conversely, for the group with high levels of the salience of
professionalism, the more the discrepancy was found between the professionalism of
the Actual Self and the professionalism ascribed to Servicescape C, the less the
preference for Servicescape C was formed.
Taken together, both personality of the Self- and values of the Self-servicescape
congruities were demonstrated to be evaluative criteria of servicescape performance,
which inform consumer preference for servicescapes. In addition, the degree of the
salience of personality and personal values were found to moderate the congruence
effect on preference.
223
5.6 Conclusion
This chapter tested an empirical framework of servicescape symbolism and its
relevant hypotheses, and outlined the method and findings of Study Three. This
study aimed to fulfil its research objective by testing how the joint effect of
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes influences
consumers‘ preference for servicescapes. To address the research objective, Study
Three conducted web-based surveys.
Three servicescape images were used as stimuli to test the nine-item servicescape
personality scale and the corresponding five personal values (ascertained in Study
Two). The study resulted in 42 models of the effects of Self-servicescape congruity
on preference. The predictive ability of personality components and personal values,
as well as the moderating effects of the salience of personality components/personal
values, were then reported sequentially. By using polynomial regression with
response surface analysis to analyse the effects of Self-servicescape congruence,
most of the research hypotheses were supported. This study answered the following
research question:
RQ3: How does the congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes influence preference for servicescapes?
The next chapter discusses findings of three studies and presents theoretical and
managerial implication of this thesis.
224
225
6 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the effect of congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes on preference
for servicescapes. In order to understand consumer preference, this thesis examined
(1) which servicescape attributes are salient to consumers and what symbolic
meanings consumers ascribe to those salient attributes; (2) how the symbolic
meanings ascribed to salient servicescape attribute can be measured; and (3) how the
congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to a
servicescape influence consumer preference for the servicescape.
In fulfilling this aim, this thesis proposes three key outcomes: first, that salient
servicescape attributes are ascribed symbolic meanings in relation to consumers‘
sense of Self (as presented in Chapter Three: Study One); second, that the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes can be measured using a modified self-concept
scale (as presented in Chapter Four: Study Two); and third, that both congruence and
incongruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to a
servicescape influence consumer preference for a servicescape (as presented in
Chapter Five: Study Three).
These findings are significant because service firms devote considerable effort and
investment to creating a service environment that consumers will prefer over the
environment of their competitors. Given consumers‘ desire to use the environment to
present their Self authentically, servicescape symbolism can be used as a direct
operational input to enhance consumers‘ service quality perceptions and drive
sustainable financial profitability (Heskett, et al., 1994).
This chapter concludes this thesis by discussing the overall contribution of the three
studies. First, the overall research purpose is reviewed, then the findings of the three
studies‘ are discussed. Next, the theoretical contributions of this thesis are presented,
followed by the managerial implications. Finally, this chapter discusses the
limitations of the thesis and presents future research directions.
226
6.1 Overall Research Purpose
Prior to this research program being conducted, research on service environments
identified various stimuli that arouse consumers‘ positive internal affective and
physiological responses, which result in approach behaviour (e.g., Bitner, 1992;
Harris & Ezeh, 2008). This thesis, however, argued that consumers cognitively
interpret the symbolic meanings present in service environments, and evaluate if
those meanings are congruent with their sense of Self, in order to form a preference
for the service environment (McGrath, 1998; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Sherry,
1998b; Solomon, 1998). These symbolic meanings correspond to the personality and
values of the Self (e.g., Hitlin, 2003; Kelly, 1955, 1991). Given that the enhancement,
protection, and maintenance of consumer Self takes precedence over the
physiological needs that motivate consumer behaviour (e.g., Purkey, 1970), the
congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to a
servicescape are the best predictor of consumer preference and behaviour.
Consequently, how consumers cognitively interpret servicescapes and how this
subsequently influences preference for servicescapes needed to be identified and
synthesised into extant servicescape research in order to develop a better
understanding of the formation of servicescape preference.
Understanding how consumers form a preference for a servicescape is critical to
services managers because preference is theorised to result in desirable consumer
behaviour such as loyalty (Harris & Ezeh, 2008), repurchase (Mittal & Kamakura,
2001), patronage (Bolton, 1998) and cross-purchasing (Loveman, 1998), which in
turn translate into higher service firm profits (Heskett, et al., 1994; Kamakura, et al.,
2002). Consequently, the overall purpose of this thesis was to investigate the joint
effect of consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes on
preference for servicescapes. This purpose was captured by the broad research
question posed in Chapter One:
How do ascribed symbolic meanings influence servicescape preference?
A review of the development of the field in Chapter Two resulted in three specific
research questions:
227
RQ1: What symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes?
RQ2: How can the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient servicescape
attributes be measured?
RQ3: How does the congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes influence preference for servicescapes?
To address these research questions, a three-stage, multi-method study was designed.
Study One answered RQ1 using a combination of repertory tests and laddering
techniques within 19 individual depth interviews. Fishbein‘s (1963) categorisation
and content analysis identified 37 salient servicescape attributes that were ascribed
92 consequences and 28 self-relevant values. Following Study One, Study Two
answered RQ2 by using factor analysis to ascertain whether the symbolic meanings
ascribed to salient servicescape attributes could be measured using a modified self-
concept scale. Finally, Study Three answered RQ3 by demonstrating that ascribed
symbolic meanings and consumer Self have a joint effect on servicescape preference.
Using polynomial regression with response surface analysis, the impact of
(in)congruity between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes on preference was illuminated.
6.2 Discussion of the Research Findings
The findings of this research program significantly contribute to our understanding of
servicescape symbolism and how it informs consumers‘ preferences for
servicescapes. The findings and contributions of these integrated studies will now be
discussed.
6.2.1 Study One: Exploring the Symbolic Meanings Ascribed to Salient
Servicescape Attributes
In order to investigate the role of servicescape symbolism, it was first necessary to
identify which servicescape attributes were salient to consumers and what symbolic
meanings were ascribed to those attributes. In conducting this investigation, Study
One resulted in three major contributions to the field: (1) it illuminated the
228
phenomenon of servicescape symbolism by explaining the hierarchical relationships
between salient attributes and their ascribed symbolic meanings in relation to the Self;
(2) it evidenced that socio-servicescape attributes were as important as physical
servicescape attributes because both are ascribed symbolic meanings by consumers;
and (3) it provided an alternative categorisation structure for salient servicescape
attributes based on the symbolic meanings ascribed to them (rather than their basic
characteristics).
The first and the most prominent contribution of Study One was the illumination of
the hierarchical relationships between servicescape attributes and the Self, which
evidenced the phenomenon of servicescape symbolism (Gutman, 1982, 1997).
Hierarchical value maps were used to graphically present the laddering from salient
servicescape attributes to their consequence and end-values. These maps illustrated
how symbolic meanings are ascribed to salient servicescape attributes in relation to
consumer Self (Gutman, 1982, 1991; 1997; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). In doing so,
they show that the symbolic meanings ascribed to salient attributes correspond to a
relatively concrete aspect of self-relevant personality, as well as to more abstract
self-relevant values. This finding provides evidence for the assumption in Self
Theory that attributes are not just perceived; they are perceived and then evaluated in
relation to sense of Self (Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979). As such, salient attributes
and their ascribed symbolic meanings can illuminate how consumers cognitively
respond to servicescapes.
The second contribution of Study One was that it provided evidence that both socio-
servicescape attributes and physical servicescape attributes may be ascribed symbolic
meanings. Previous literature has demonstrated that physical attributes such as layout,
furnishings, cleanliness and colour usage influence consumers‘ emotional and
physiological responses to a service environment. For example, a retail environment
with poor layout, which leads to crowding, results in consumers avoiding the service
environment (Pan & Siemens, 2011). However, Study One provided a new insight
into the critical role of socio-servicescape attributes because they are perceived and
evaluated together with physical attributes in a holistic manner that informs
consumers‘ overall evaluation of servicescapes. This finding provided support for the
theoretical claim that environmental attributes (for this study, both social and
229
physical servicescape attributes) are not evaluated in isolation (Bell, et al., 2001;
Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Rapoport, 1990). Thus, socio-servicescapes attributes should
not be ignored because they are equally as salient as physical attributes that are
cognitively interpreted by consumers.
The third contribution of Study One was that it resulted in an alternative
categorisation structure for salient servicescape attributes. Rather than categorising
attributes by their physical or social characteristics, the full constellation of attributes
can now be categorised by their ascribed symbolic meanings. This contribution
provides evidence for earlier theorising that symbols do not exist in isolation but
rather are meaningful in combinations that guide behaviour (Rochberg-Halton, 1984;
Solomon, 1983; Solomon & Assael, 1987). Salient physical and socio-servicescape
attributes that have quite different characteristics were found to share the same
symbolic meanings and thus in future be categorised together.
Overall, the findings of Study One first identify which servicescape attributes were
salient to consumers, and then what symbolic meanings they ascribed to those
attributes, thus answering RQ1. Moreover, the symbolic meanings were identified by
laddering salient attributes up to the personality descriptors and values that underpin
consumers‘ sense of Self.
6.2.2 Study Two: Modifying a Measure to Evaluate the Symbolic Meanings
Ascribed to Servicescapes
In order to investigate the congruence between the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes and consumer Self, it is first necessary to develop a scale that measures
the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes. Having identified which
servicescape attributes are salient to consumers and the symbolic meanings ascribed
to those attributes, Study Two used web-based surveys to modify an existing Self-
Concept scale (Malhotra, 1981) to create a symbolic servicescape meaning scale that
measures the joint effect of consumers‘ Self and the symbolic meaning ascribed to
the servicescape.
Study Two resulted in two major contributions to the field: (1) it modified an
existing scale to create a 27-item semantic differential scale that measures the
230
symbolic meaning ascribed to servicescapes, and (2) it identified three personality
components (i.e., sociability, professionalism and style) and five self-relevant values
(i.e., life enjoyment, pleasant and pleasure, sense of belonging, responsibility and
recognition) that can be used to examine the joint effects of consumers‘ Self and the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
The first and the most prominent contribution of Study Two was the modification of
an existing scale to create a measure of symbolic servicescape meaning. The 27
bipolar items were not predetermined but rather were derived from the salient
servicescape attributes identified in Study One. In measuring attributes that were
previously identified as salient to consumers, this scale is superior to existing scales
because it was systematically developed based on the relationship between salient
attributes, personality components and the Self.
The second contribution of Study Two was the identification of three servicescape
personality components. These components comprised:
1. Sociability (comprising the bipolar personality items of friendly-unfriendly,
positive-negative, and welcoming-inhospitable)
2. Professionalism (comprising the bipolar personality items of professional-
nonprofessional, serious-frivolous, and private-public)
3. Style (comprising the bipolar personality items of elegant-plain, impressive-
ordinary, and modern-classic).
These purified personality components correspond to five personal values of the Self
that may also be ascribed to servicescapes:
1. Life enjoyment (comprising the bipolar personality items friendly-unfriendly,
positive-negative, and welcoming-inhospitable ),
2. Pleasant and pleasure (comprising the bipolar personality items friendly-
unfriendly, positive-negative, and welcoming-inhospitable),
3. Sense of belonging (comprising the bipolar personality items friendly-unfriendly,
positive-negative, and welcoming-inhospitable),
4. Responsibility (comprising the bipolar personality items professional-
nonprofessional, serious-frivolous, and private-public),
231
5. Recognition (comprising the bipolar personality items elegant-plain, impressive-
ordinary, and modern-classic).
Both the personality components and the self-relevant values capture the symbolic
meanings ascribed to servicescapes. The first two self-relevant values, life enjoyment
and pleasant and pleasure, correspond to the Universal Human Value of hedonism,
which is defined as ―need for pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself‖
(Schwartz, 1992, p.8). Consuming to satisfy the value of hedonism has been well
researched in the marketing literature (e.g., Hirschman, 1980; Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982; O‘Shaughnessy & O‘Shaughnessy, 2002). For example,
Hopkinson and Pujari (1999) argue that consuming sports, arts, leisure and
entertainment satisfies consumers‘ need for hedonism rather than having utility. They
further demonstrate that consumers‘ sport consumption satisfied self-expression,
achievement, social belonging and the need for exciting life.
Study Two furthers previous findings (e.g., Hopkinson & Pujari, 1999;
O‘Shaughnessy & O‘Shaughnessy, 2002) by demonstrating that consumers‘ desire
for hedonism in services consumption may be satisfied if and when they perceive
that their hedonic value of the Self that can be enhanced, extended, protected and/or
maintained through a servicescape. To be perceived with the ascribed value of
hedonism, a service environment often includes physical attributes such as
welcoming colours, inviting furnishings, natural elements such as flowers and green
foliage, as well as social attributes such as smiling service staff and consumers. The
aggregation of those salient attributes embedded in servicescapes satisfies consumers‘
desires for the hedonic value of the Self, and thus, their preference for this
servicescape is increased.
The third self-relevant value, sense of belonging, corresponds to the Universal
Human Value of security, which is defined as the ―basic individual and group
requirement of safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self‖
(Schwartz, 1992, p. 9). Previous research has identified that the perception of
acceptance and safety in a service environment may lead consumers to approach the
environment (e.g., Rosenbaum, 2005). The findings of Study Two confirm this
previous research and suggest that a safe and secure service environment can be
232
created using salient attributes such as one-to-one/face-to-face interaction with good
eye contact and bright lighting. When aggregated, these attributes are ascribed with
the value of security, which can be used to facilitate consumers‘ desires for
belonging, which further affirms their sense of Self.
The fourth self-relevant value, responsibility, may also influence consumer
evaluation and preference for servicescapes. Responsibility corresponds to the
Universal Human Value of benevolence, which concerns ―the welfare of close others
in everyday interaction‖ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 11). A servicescape can be designed to
appeal to the value of responsibility through attributes such as service staff wearing
uniforms. Thus, when consumers evaluate themselves as responsible, or aspire to be
responsible, they will look for signals such as staff uniforms or certification. An
aggregation of these salient attributes are ascribed the value of responsibility and
thus influence preference for a servicescape.
The last self-relevant value, recognition, corresponds to the Universal Human Value
of power, which is defined as the ―identification of social status and prestige and
dominance over people and resources‖ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 8). The marketing
literature has demonstrate that consuming services satisfies consumers‘ needs for
power (Usunier & Lee, 2005; Winsted, 1997). For example, consumers tend to
associate service formality with service satisfaction because they consider formality
to be a symbol that signifies their social status (Winsted, 1997). Study Two furthers
our knowledge of the association between service formality, social status and
consumers‘ needs for the value of recognition. For example, when services staff pay
individual attention to them, consumers perceive that they are being recognised. To
ensure that consumers‘ desire for the value of recognition of the Self is met, a
servicescape can be designed with salient socio-servicescape attributes such as
visible service staff, as well as the physical attributes such as high quality
furnishings.
Overall, the findings of Study Two affirm that the symbolic meanings ascribed to
salient servicescape attributes can be measured, thus answering RQ2. These ascribed
symbolic meanings are interpreted in relation to Self and thus are used to evaluate
servicescapes, which may result in a preference for a servicescape. In applying Self
233
Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979) to understand
servicescape preference, Study Two provided insight into how to best measure the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes.
6.2.3 Study Three: Testing the Joint Effects of Consumer Self and Symbolic
Meanings Ascribed to Servicescapes on Preference
Having identified the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes and developed a
scale to measure those ascribed symbolic meanings, Study Three investigated the
joint effects of consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes
on preference. In conducting this investigation, Study Three made three major
contributions to the field: (1) it empirically demonstrated the appropriateness of
using Self Theory to explain how consumer servicescape preference is formed; (2) it
explained why prior studies that used the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) to test
self-product congruence had ambiguous and inconsistent results, as they failed to
account for incongruence effects when forming preference; and (3) it demonstrated
that salient personality components and values moderate Self-Servicescape
congruence effects on servicescape preference.
The first contribution of Study Three was the demonstration of the effectiveness and
appropriateness of using Self Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg,
1979) to explain how consumers‘ Self influences the interpretation of servicescapes
and how this interpretation informs preference. This theory suggests that the
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes correspond to consumers‘ personality
descriptions, as well as their values, which underpins their sense of Self. Further,
these values were found to correspond with Schwartz‘s (1992) Universal Human
Values, which are the basic motivators of behaviour (Schwartz, 1992). As a result,
Self Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979) is a useful
theoretical framework to explain how consumers‘ cognitive interpretations of
servicescapes that are (in)congruent with their sense of Self will inform their
preference.
The second and most prominent contribution of Study Three was that it explained
why the predictive capacity of the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy &
Danes, 1982), was questionable. In applying the polynomial regression with response
234
surface analysis (Edwards, 2007; Edwards & Cable, 2009), the deficiency of the
predictive strength of the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) was discovered. The
results empirically demonstrated that incongruity, as well as congruity, between Self
and servicescape can predict positive attitudes (which in this study was preference).
For example, consumer preference for Servicescape C (a hospitality environment)
was high when they evaluated the style of their Ideal Self as low, but perceived the
style of the servicescape was high. This study evidenced that although a consumer
may not aspire to being stylish, a stylish hospitality service setting may still be
considered desirable and preferential, which will increase approach behaviour. This
illustrates the predictive strength of the incongruence effects and presents a more
parsimonious theoretical explanation of preference based on consumers‘ desires for
self-enhancement and/or self-extension.
The third contribution of Study Three was that it demonstrated that salient
personality components and values moderate Self-Servicescape congruence effects
on servicescape preference. The findings showed that most salient personality and
personal values moderated the effects of Self-Servicescape congruity on servicescape
preference. These findings advance our theoretical understanding of Self-congruity
effects taking into consideration the importance of personality components and
values, which underpin Self. In fact, these findings provide empirical evidence for
the assertion that different degrees of salience of personality components and values
will have different amounts of influence behaviours (e.g., Aquino & Reed II, 2002).
In demonstrating these moderation effects, the findings suggest that style (which
corresponds to the value of recognition) and professionalism (which corresponds to
the value of responsibility) are the most important personality components for
servicescape evaluation. Thus, to improve preference for a servicescape, service
managers should concentrate on imbuing their servicescapes with these personality
traits.
Overall, the hypotheses testing in Study Three proved that the congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes influence
preference for servicescape, thus answering RQ3. Data analysis indicated that
consumers‘ preference for servicescapes are formed when they perceive that the
235
symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes are (in)congruent with the personality
components and/or personal values of their Self. These findings present a
parsimonious theoretical explanation of preference, based on consumers‘ desires for
Self authenticity in services consumption and the desire to maintain, enhance, extend
and/or protect their Self.
Although there is no significant evidence has shown that either personality
components or personal values has better predictive ability on preference, values of
the Self are arguably better for predicting servicescape preference (and thus
behaviours) in comparison with personality of the Self for two reasons. First, values
are experienced as part of one‘s Self, to which he/she internally commits, whereas
personalities are external attributions that distinguish individuals (Bilsky & Schwartz,
1994). Second, personal values are likes, desires, wants, goals, and needs that are
relatively enduring, and thus should be relatively trans-situational and consistent
compared to personality components (Rokeach, 1979). Thus, consumers‘ desires for
values of the Self promote the congruent attitudes and behaviours, which reinforce
their values of the Self.
Further, the superior predictive ability of values of the Self may emerge when
consumers confront social or psychological conflict between values. Theoretically, it
may be difficult for a consumer to identify the relationship between his/her values
and the behaviours; however, his/her attitudes and choices are often formed based on
the most salient value they hold, if and when the value conflict occurs (Schwartz,
1996). The salience of values of the Self will be further discussed later in the chapter.
6.3 Contributions to Theory
This thesis makes three major contributions to theory. The first contribution furthers
the explanatory capacity of Self Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970;
Rosenberg, 1979) by using it to explain how consumers‘ servicescape preference is
formed. The second contribution evidences that human values underpin consumers‘
sense of Self, and relate to servicescape evaluation. The third contribution
demonstrates both effects of self-incongruity and self-congruity with the
environment on preference. These contributions are now discussed.
236
6.3.1 Self Theory
Prior to this research program being conducted, Self Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1985;
Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979) had not been applied to explain the formation of
consumers‘ preference for commercial servicescapes. By providing both qualitative
and quantitative evidence that consumers cognitively interpret servicescapes in
relation to their sense of Self, this thesis furthers our theoretical understanding about
servicescapes.
Servicescapes were initially viewed as a form of nonverbal communication (Bitner,
1992; Broadbent, Bunt, & Jencks, 1980; Rapoport, 1990) for service firms to deliver
information to their customers (Bitner, 1992). Although previous researchers have
proposed that consumers‘ cognition of servicescapes influence their approach or
avoidance intentions (e.g., Bitner, 1992; Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990), the
scope of the pertinent literature is highly diffuse as it investigates the effect of only
one or two attributes at a time and assumes that consumers are passive respondents.
Given that consumers actively interpret their environment (Arnould & Thompson,
2005) and respond to the environment holistically, rather than attending to individual
attributes (Rapoport, 1990), this thesis provides new insights into our understanding
of servicescapes by empirically evidencing that servicescapes are ascribed self-
relevant symbolic meanings for consumers to maintain, protect, extend and/or
enhance themselves.
By integrating this new insight into current theorising about servicescapes, this thesis
advances the predictive power of Self Theory (Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970;
Rosenberg, 1979), particularly the role of servicescape symbolism. Using
underutilised investigative techniques, the role of servicescape symbolism was
revealed by identifying servicescape attributes that are salient to consumers, as well
as the symbolic meanings consumers ascribe to those aggregated salient attributes
(Gutman, 1982, 1991, 1997).
These findings echo the tenets of Consumer Culture Theory (CCT) (Arnould &
Thompson, 2005; Cova & Dalli, 2009; Kozinets et al., 2004), which makes two
assertions. First, CCT proposes that consumers are meaning producers and/or
interpretation agents of the environments. Thus, consumers actively extract a
237
product‘s meanings (imbued by marketers or firms). They then reframe and store
these meanings in their cognitive value system, and then subsequently use these
meanings to describe to other objects (Cova & Dalli, 2009). Second, CCT proposes
that consumers‘ Self is developed through a constant, overlapping immersion process
in the experiential, social and cultural meanings attached to products (Arnould &
Thompson, 2005; Kozinets, 2001; Kozinets & Handelman, 2004), which has become
a dominant reason for consumption (e.g., Halton & Rumbo, 2007).
The findings of this thesis provide empirical evidence for the assertions of CCT
(Arnould & Thompson, 2005; Cova & Dalli, 2009; Kozinets, et al., 2004) by
demonstrating that consumers actively ascribe meanings to salient servicescape
attributes in order to pursue their goal of Self authenticity with the environment,
rather than simply responding to the meanings provided by marketers. Further, these
ascribed meanings correspond to consumers‘ personality and values of the Self,
which influence their preference for servicescapes. Given that such preference drives
consumers‘ subsequent behaviour such as loyalty, purchase and word-of-mouth, a
servicescape may be created to correspond with the target customers‘ values of the
Self (i.e., create a customer value-oriented servicescape).
6.3.2 Human Value Theory
Within the framework of Universal Human Value Theory (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003;
Schwartz, 1992), this thesis also adds to our theoretical understanding of the
formation of Self. The findings empirically affirm recent theorising (Gecas, 2000;
Hitlin, 2003) that asserts that consumers‘ sense of Self is derived from their
increasing abstraction of cognitive values (Cova & Dalli, 2009; Schwartz, 1992).
Values are theorised to be relatively stable in adults (compared to personality
components) and have been empirically demonstrated to be universally and cross-
culturally valid (Schwartz, 1992). Consequently, values are so influential and
consistent that they result in individuals possessing a sense of Self that is
consolidated, trans-situational, and a strong guide to behaviour (Hitlin, 2003).
For example, formal dressing in the work environment can be seen as an act that
reflects that an individual‘s valuing of social recognition (i.e., the value of power);
however, it more strongly reflects their desire for their sense of Self to be recognised
238
by others (Gecas, 2000). This thesis advances this theoretical assertion by
empirically demonstrating that five self-relevant values underpin consumers‘ sense
of Self and are used to interpret servicescapes. The predictive power of values of the
Self is also demonstrated because consumers pursue specific values of the Self that
will guide their attitudes and behaviour.
Given this evidence that values underpin sense of Self (Gecas, 2000; Hitlin, 2003),
the limitations of current servicescape frameworks become clear. Turley and
Milliman (2000) divide servicescape attributes into two main categories: physical
and social. However, the findings of this thesis suggest that attributes across
categories share the same symbolic meanings, which means the existing categories
have limited explanatory power for consumer behaviour.
Consequently, this thesis suggests that servicescape attributes should be re-
categorised according to their ascribed symbolic meanings. The re-categorisation is
not based on spurious servicescape characteristics such as the physical, intangible or
social characteristics that are utilised within the existing literature (Berman & Evans,
1995; Bitner, 1992; Turley & Milliman, 2000); rather, it is determined by the self-
relevant values ascribed to salient servicescape attributes. This newly developed
categorisation of servicescape attributes provides a more parsimonious and
meaningful alternative for investigating consumers‘ holistic evaluations of
servicescapes. Further, the findings provide support for the assertion in
environmental psychology that consumers respond to their environment holistically
(Bell, et al., 2001; Rapoport, 1990).
6.3.3 Self-Congruity Model
In using polynomial regression with response surface analysis, this thesis uncovers
the predictive power of the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy & Danes, 1982)
by demonstrating that Self-Servicescape incongruence is just as powerful in
explaining preference as Self-Servicescape congruence. Given that the predictive
capacity of the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) is weak (Goldsmith, 2002;
Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004; Kressmann, et al., 2006; Summers, Belleau, & Xu,
2006), this thesis used a novel method to unpack the difference between self
239
maintenance through congruence with the environment and self enhancement and
extension through incongruence with the environment.
This thesis provides revelatory evidence that incongruence plays a strong role in
enhancing and extending the Self when consumers aspire to the values ascribed to a
servicescape, and thus this aspiration can drive preference (Belk, 1988; Belk, et al.,
2003; Solomon, 1983, 1998). For example, although consumers may not perceive
their Social Self (i.e., their extend self) to be stylish, they may prefer a servicescape
that they perceive to be stylish because the servicescape will reflect a stylish image
back on them (Solomon, 1998). Thus, the effects of Self-incongruity may be a
fruitful area for further research to predict consumer attitudes and behaviour.
Considered as a whole, this thesis significantly advances our theoretical and
methodological understanding of the role of servicescape symbolism and its
influence on consumer preference (Whetten, 1989). When a service product takes no
physical form, servicescapes become the physical cue that consumers use to evaluate
service performance (Reimer & Kuehn, 2005; Sherry, 1998a; Verhoeven, et al.,
2009). This thesis moved beyond the dominate focus on service quality
(Parasuraman, et al., 1985) and store image or personality (d'Astous & Lévesque,
2003) to advance our knowledge of how to better create servicescapes according to
consumers‘ values of the Self and their need for Self authenticity.
6.4 Contributions to Practice
Alongside its theoretical contributions, the findings of this thesis have a range of
practical implications for marketing managers. These implications cluster around the
design of servicescapes and its aggregate effects on consumer preference, and service
employee training and recruitment.
6.4.1 Implication for Segmentation and Servicescape Design
First, this thesis offers practical implications for creating value-oriented
servicescapes to improve customers‘ servicescape preference. Given that five self-
relevant values will be used to ascribe meanings to servicescapes, this thesis suggests
that these values can be used to segment service consumers. Although personal
240
values have been widely used as a strategy to segment consumers (e.g., Kahle, et al.,
1986), little research has identified which values are relevant to servicescape
evaluation. Service managers can then use these values to create value-oriented
servicescapes in order to satisfy their target customers‘ desires for values of the Self.
This newly developed segmentation strategy is quite different from traditional
segmentation variables such as demographics (e.g., Heckman, Sherry, & De Mejia,
2010) and lifestyle characteristics (e.g., Kucukemiroglu, 1999; Orth, McDaniel,
Shellhammer, & Lopetcharat, 2004). By identifying the key value that target
customers possess, service managers will be able to strategically create a value-
oriented servicescape that will fulfil target customers‘ desires of specific values of
the Self (Ailawadi, Neslin, & Gedenk, 2001; Vinson, et al., 1977). Given that
consumers‘ desires of values of the Self motivate their behaviours (Gecas, 1982,
2000; Purkey, 1970), this newly-developed segmentation strategy should result in the
attraction of more profitable customers (Kamakura, et al., 2002).
Alongside this newly developed consumer value segmentation, an alternative to
categorise salient servicescape attributes can be proposed. Service managers may
first identify their target customers‘ value and what salient attributes they would
ascribe the value, and thus design a customer value-oriented service environment to
satisfy their customers‘ desires for Self authenticity. Given that both Self-
Servicescape incongruence and congruence significantly influence servicescape
preference, service managers should also constantly examine and identify salient
attributes to improve servicescape performance with maximum level of specific
values in order to retain target customers‘ attention and increase their preference for
servicescapes.
This thesis offers a strategy about how to better create value-oriented servicescapes
by accounting for the symbolic meanings of salient attributes and target customers‘
values. By doing this, target customers‘ preference, satisfaction, loyalty and
repurchase behaviours will be further enhanced. Consequently, a firm‘s sustainable
competitive advantage can be strengthened, which drives the firm‘s long-term
financial outcomes (Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Zeithaml, 2000).
241
6.4.2 Implication for Service Employee Training and Recruitment
Second, this thesis has practical implications for service employee training and
recruitment. Previous literature reports that employee behaviour and appearance
significantly influence consumers‘ internal responses to servicescapes, which in turn
impact their approach or avoidance behaviour (Harris & Ezeh, 2008; Turley &
Milliman, 2000). While the Service Profit Chain (e.g., Schlesinger & Heskett, 1991)
alludes to the importance of service employees in driving customer behaviour, this
thesis presents empirical evidence that the way employees interact with consumers is
one of the most salient attributes consumers use to evaluate servicescape
performance. Consequently, this thesis highlights the critical role that service
employees play in servicescape design.
The findings of this thesis suggest that four personal values are relevant to service
employee behaviours. These values are pleasure and pleasant, sense of belonging,
responsibility and recognition. Given these recognised values, service managers
should recruit employees who can deliver value-oriented service. Such employees
would need to display a pleasant attitude, encourage customers to feel a sense of
belonging to the service, appear responsible to their customers, and acknowledge
their customers as soon as they enter the servicescape. While all of this value-driven
behaviour can be trained, such skills will become key competences to create a
sustainable competitive advantage in services (Bove & Smith, 2006; Rosenbaum,
2005).
Further, service managers must also consider the triangular relationship between
service environment, customer values of the Self and service employees’ values of
the Self. The service environment is not only where consumers purchase the service
but also where employees perform it. Consequently, identifying which attributes are
salient to both customers and employees, and what symbolic meanings employees
ascribe to these salient attributes may be critical to better understand employees‘ job
satisfaction. Given that servicescape preference is driven by Self-relevant values,
service managers should recruit employees whose values of Self match the service
environment in which they will work.
242
6.5 Limitations and Future Research Directions
This thesis has a number of limitations that may be addressed in future research. The
first limitation relates to the role of service employees in the servicescape framework
(Bitner, 1992; Parish, Berry, & Lam, 2008). Prior to Bitner‘s (1992) servicescape
framework being proposed, office layout design was found to influence employee
behaviours such as friendship formation, small group interaction, and communication
patterns (e.g., Holahan, 1986; Sundstrom, 1986, 1991). Given that the focus of this
thesis is the role of consumers‘ cognitive responses, we do not currently know how
service employees cognitively respond to their working environment and how that
affects their ability to perform value-driven behaviour such as displaying a pleasant
attitude. This is a fruitful area for further research given that understanding
employees‘ cognitive responses and subsequent behaviour will deepen our
knowledge of the holistic effects of servicescape.
The second limitation relates to the use of a purposeful sample to identify salient
servicescape attributes and the symbolic meanings ascribed to them in Study One.
Accordingly, there is a possibility that this sample was not representative of the
wider population and thus the generalisability of the research results may be limited
(Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Although the subsequent studies addressed this
deficiency and drew statistical conclusions from an appropriate, large sample
(Zikmund, et al., 2007), further data collection and confirmatory studies will ensure
that these findings can be replicated on a broader scale.
The third limitation relates to the fact that consumers‘ real approach or avoidance
behaviours were not studied. While the research clearly demonstrates the influence
of values on preference, the thesis did not demonstrate that preference results in real
approach behaviour. Thus, future research may consider using a longitudinal design
to replicate the present study in the field (i.e., using real service environments as
stimuli). The causal relationships between consumers‘ servicescape preference and
their subsequent approach or avoidance behaviours may then be confirmed.
243
6.6 Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis was to investigate the effect of congruence between
consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to servicescapes on preference
for servicescapes. To address this purpose, this thesis draws on the Self Theory
(Epstein, 1973, 1985; Purkey, 1970; Rosenberg, 1979), Personal Construct Theory
(Kelly, 1955, 1991), Human Value Theory (Schwartz, 1992) from a Symbolic
Interactionist perspective to illuminate the role of servicescape symbolism. This
thesis then used the Self-Congruity Model (Sirgy, 1982) to investigate how the
congruence between consumer Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed
servicescapes influences consumer preference for servicescapes. The overall results
move beyond the dominant service quality and satisfaction literature by
demonstrating new insights into how consumer preference is formed.
As a whole, Chapter One introduced the research objectives. Chapter Two discussed
development of the field and proposed the role of servicescape symbolism. Chapter
Three reported the procedure for, and the findings of, a depth interview analysis of
the salient servicescape attributes and the symbolic meaning ascribed to these
attributes using the repertory tests (Bell, 2003; Fransella, et al., 2004) and laddering
techniques (Gutman, 1982, 1991, 1997; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). Chapter Four
reported the procedure for, and results of, the modification of an existing self-
concept scale to create a symbolic servicescape meaning scale using factor analysis.
Chapter Five reported the method for, and findings of, a study examining the joint
effects of consumer sense of Self and the symbolic meanings ascribed to
servicescapes on consumer preference for servicescapes using the polynomial
regression with response surface analysis (Edwards, 2007; Edwards & Cable, 2009;
Edwards & Parry, 1993). Finally, this chapter concluded the thesis by discussing the
overall research purpose, the findings of each study, contributions to theory,
contributions to practice, and the limitations and future research directions.
244
245
Appendix A: Study One Interview Information
246
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
Symbolic Servicescape
Research Team Contacts
Cindy Yun-Hsin Chou, PhD student Principle supervisor Ian Lings, Associate Professor
Phone: 07 3138 8309 Phone: 07 3138 4329
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Description
This study is being undertaken as part of PhD project for Cindy Yun-Hsin Chou. The purpose of this
study is to develop a framework to better understand consumers symbolic interpretation of the service
environment (including physical and social environments), and examine how the congruence between
the service environment and consumer self-image may affect consumers‘ evaluation of and behaviours
towards, service firms.
The research team requests your assistance because your participation will offer valuable information
for both academics and service firms. For academics, the information will be used to fill the theoretical
gaps. For service firms, the information will be used to design the service environment and to ensure
customers have better service experiences.
Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from
participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty. Your decision to participate will in
no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT (for example your grades).
Your participation will involve an interview with a set of service environment photos and will be asked
to evaluate these service environments. The interview will last 60 minutes approximately and will be
conducted on site at QUT, or in another convenient location.
Expected benefits
It is expected that this study will not benefit you directly. However, it may benefit you indirectly. The
information you offer the research team will be used to develop theoretical framework and the findings of
this study will be offered to service firms to help them to design better service environments. Consumers
like you may ultimately benefit from better service experiences.
Risks
There are no foreseen risks associated with your participation in this study.
Confidentiality
All responses will be treated confidentially and the results will only be published in aggregate and for
research purposes. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. All interview
materials will be stored at QUT, and will only be accessed by the research team.
Consent to Participate
Please sign at the end of the consent section to confirm your agreement to participate.
Questions / further information about the project
You may contact the researchers listed above to have any questions answered or if you require further
information about the study.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project
QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do
have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT
Research Ethics Officer on +61 7 3138 2091 or [email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is
not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial
manner.
247
CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
Symbolic Servicescape
Statement of consent
By signing below, you are indicating that you:
have read and understood the information document regarding this project
have had any questions answered to your satisfaction
understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team
understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty
understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on +61 7 3138 2091 or
[email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project
agree to participate in the project
Name
Signature
Date / /
Media Release Promotions
From time to time, we may like to promote our research to the general public through, for
example, newspaper articles. Would you be willing to be contacted by QUT Media and
Communications for possible inclusion in such stories? By ticking this box, it only means
you are choosing to be contacted – you can still decide at the time not to be involved in any
promotions.
Yes, you may contact me about inclusion in promotions
No, I do not wish to be contacted about inclusion in promotions
248
249
Appendix B: Study One Preliminary Analysis
250
In terms of service environmental characteristics, could you tell me in a short phrase or a sentence that describe something that two of them have in common but different from the third? Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/ Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new attributes elicited 12 10 3 3 4 2 4 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Cognitive attributes (Frequency)
Flowers and Trees (2) ○ ○
Colourful décor and furnishings (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
High Ceiling (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Interior design is general, less formal, plain colour & doesn’t looks expensive (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Smiling people (7) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Service staff have smiling faces (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Service staff is visible (3) ○ ○ ○
Soft arm sofa (6) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
People have different colour hair/ from different countries (3)
○ ○ ○
Dim/indirect lighting (9) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Outdoor environments (9) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The sign is written in foreign language (2)
○ ○
Lots of space (9) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
One to one/face to face interaction with eye contact (12)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Bright lighting (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
People are hanging around without particular aims (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Variety products/shops (8) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Variety products in one shop (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
251
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/ Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new attributes elicited 12 10 3 3 4 2 4 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Cognitive attributes (Frequency)
The quality/material of furnishing, fabric not plastic (3)
○
○ ○
Serves food and beverage (7) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Busy environment with many people & different activities, no one is alone (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The quality & colour of the tiles (2) ○ ○
Products on the shelves are organised & clear displayed & clear price tags (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The enclosed area/ private area With curtain, or door (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
There is no counter or no partition or no curtains (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Medical care or products & theme products or services (2)
○ ○
Tables and chairs (3) ○ ○ ○
People are healthy and active (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Cleanliness (2) ○ ○
Service staff is invisible (2) ○ ○
Service staff wear casual clothes (3)
○ ○ ○ ○
Certificate on the wall (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The layout is easy to access (2) ○ ○
Service staff wear uniforms (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
The rope (3) ○ ○ ○
There is a counter (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Atrium with natural light (3) ○ ○ ○
252
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/ Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F
M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new attributes elicited 12 10 3 3 4 2 4 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Cognitive attributes (Frequency)
Crowded (3) ○ ○ ○
No sign to ask people to register (1)
○
Modern facilities (3) ○ ○ ○
Historical architecture, including painting, fretwork, rail, old glasses, balcony, old style hanging light, mezzanine floor (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Colour red (2) ○ ○
People are dressed up (2) ○ ○
The smells from bakery (2) ○ ○
Wooden counter or furnishing (2) ○ ○
The store mainly offers service rather than products (1)
○
People go shopping alone (1) ○
253
In terms of service environmental characteristics, could you tell me in a short phrase or a sentence that describe something that two of them have in common but different from the third? Informant number
001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
It (The décor) is very attractive and stylish (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It’s full of enthusiasm and enjoyment (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It (Colourful décor) inspires my imagination (3)
○ ○ ○
I feel my imagination is unlimited (2)
○ ○
I feel relaxed, comfortable and not in a rush (14)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I feel content and satisfied (14) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The environment tells about stories, reminds me my childhood memories (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
I feel I am part of the nature (3) ○ ○ ○
People should not be bossy (1) ○
Everyone is equal and has their own rights sand values (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
254
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
It means that people have hopes and have many choices to do whatever they want to do (9)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It gives a feeling of less pressure (11)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It likes the store just around the corner that I are familiar with (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
I feel like that someone would look after me and/or support me when I need assistance (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
People understand what I am talking about (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
We share stories and experience (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I feel confident and free to communicate with others and present myself (3)
○ ○ ○
I can be optimistic towards everything and any challenges (1)
○
I feel healthier; it’s good to my health (10)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
255
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
I don’t feel alone (even I don’t know others) (10)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Feel warm and inviting in the environment (9)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Interested in different cultures and histories (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
The exploration of unfamiliar area/countries is exciting (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It (The sign) allows me to find the direction and I know where to ask for service or to buy products (3)
○ ○ ○
I can think properly and then make decisions (1)
○
I would have confidence to make decisions (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The environment helps me to meet my goals (life goals, career goals or the goal of attending toe the service) (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I can buy value products (6) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I use my money wisely (9) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It helps me to use my time efficiently, save my time (11)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I probably feel less obstacles (2) ○ ○
Others may see me beautiful (2) ○ ○
People have to consider how others see you (2)
○ ○
256
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
I would like to have a good public image (2)
○ ○
It (Food and beverage) gives you energy (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I feel that I am a special customer and would receive exclusive service (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I am happy, enjoying myself and having fun (12)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I can have better, detail, and less ambiguity information (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It (The dim light) has an intimate atmosphere, gives a feeling of warm and feel like home (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
I don’t fear to stay in the environment (2)
○ ○
I would receive staff’s full attention when I want (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I am important to the service provider (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The environment is friendly, and gives a feeling of no boundaries (8)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I cannot make my family to be suffered (2)
○ ○
I feel free to ask for service (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
257
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
It’s good to my mental health (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
People are engaged to each other (2)
○ ○
They commit to each together (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
It means triumphs and trust (3) ○ ○ ○
The commitment implies the success (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
I feel peaceful (2) ○ ○
People’s smiling face give a positive feeling (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
The environment is practical, real and honest (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I can be truthful of myself and I don’t need to pretend (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
I would receive the service as I expect, a satisfied return (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I don’t feel comprised (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
I might develop good relationship with the staff or customers here (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
Money and status cannot buy true friendship (1)
○
It allows me to avoid the risk comparing to staying in the outdoor environment (2)
○ ○
I feel safe (3) ○ ○ ○
There is no status in the environment (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
258
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
It give a feeling of professional service (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Customers would receive high quality service (3)
○ ○ ○
I am confident with the service (6) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I won’t lose the contact with real world (3)
○ ○ ○
You know everything is organised, and well-planned (6)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The staff has to pay attention to me (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I feel this environment is full of life and full of energy (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I can react and not vulnerary (2) ○ ○
The whole context of the architecture is elegance, high quality (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
The environment helps me to clear my mind (3)
○ ○ ○
I will be able to get my job done without asking help (3)
○ ○ ○
I am independent and autonomy (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
It allows you to have certain privacy or keep your privacy (3)
○ ○ ○
I feel proud of myself when getting the tough job done (3)
○ ○ ○
259
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
It (The modern facility/furnishing) is up to date, gives a feeling of intelligent, and sophisticated (2)
○ ○ ○
It (Modern facilities, socialising with people) gives me opportunities to learn new technology, get my knowledge improved, open my mind (7)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
I will be able to share experience and learn new trend (3)
○ ○ ○
I feel that I am not behind (3) ○ ○ ○
It (the organised environment) maintains my serenity and patience to shop (3)
○ ○ ○
I have control of my own space (3)
○ ○ ○
Everyone knows the rules and follows the rules (3)
○ ○ ○
I trust those service staff because they have professional knowledge (2)
○ ○
Nothing bad can happen whiling staying with people (1)
○
I feel appreciated of the environment (3)
○ ○ ○
I am less guarded when staying in the spacious room (2)
○ ○
260
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
I would like to attend to the environment that people I am familiar with (3)
○ ○ ○
The service provider would treat me better with honour/respect (2)
○ ○
I feel like that I have higher social status (1)
○
I will be able to help others (2) ○ ○
People are similar to my age (1)
○
I will be able to observe others and make up their stories (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
Observing others’ activities stimulates my imagination and makes me more enlivened (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
I like to connect history & old fashion stuff (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
People should remember the history and respect different cultures (2)
○ ○
We need to protect heritage building and relevant things (2)
○ ○
It (The old style architecture/décor) gives the opportunities to experience lifestyle from our normal life, to detach from real life temporary (4)
○ ○ ○ ○
261
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
I feel like that I am back to my childhood (3)
○ ○ ○
I take my time and I am not in a rush to make an order (2)
○ ○
I feel I am more inclined to take others’ suggestion (2)
○ ○
I prefer to make my life simple and not too complicated, so that I don’t like too much choice (1)
○
I won’t get anxious whiling staying in the environment with bright lights (1)
○
Everything is visible and nothing is hidden (2)
○ ○
I have no limit at doing things (2) ○ ○
I know my money is really going to these working people but not those big corporation heads (1)
○
People should get equal opportunities to earn money (1)
○
The environment gives you the opportunities to indulge yourself (2)
○ ○
262
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new consequence elicited
23 15 7 16 8 11 6 5 7 3 2 6 4 1 3 1 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/ Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Consequences (Frequency)
I would be better if the store uses recycled wood for the counter or furnishing design (2)
○ ○
We should protect the environment (2)
○ ○
I am a task-oriented person (2) ○ ○
Those things induce my desire and make me want to get in and buy something (2)
○ ○
I am curious (2) ○ ○
It’s always good to pass time with families and friends (2)
○ ○
Sometimes I am easy to be affected by others’ mood (2)
○ ○
The situation is predicable so that I know how to response and behave (2)
○ ○
Customers should be more independent in this environment (1)
○
I don’t feel the obligation to ask something actively (1)
○
I am not intermingle with others; I have freedom of movement (2)
○ ○
263
In terms of service environmental characteristics, could you tell me in a short phrase or a sentence that describe something that two of them have in common but different from the third? Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/ Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new values elicited 8 5 2 4 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Values (Frequency)
Creation and imagination (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Pleasure and pleasant (15) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Equity and/or fairness (7) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Feeling in control (12) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Sense of belonging (16) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Capability (8) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Enjoying life (8) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Helpful (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
Intelligent and smart (7) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Success (9) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Self-discipline (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
To be recognised by others (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
Enhances/maintains public image (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Feeling of safety (3) ○ ○ ○
264
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/ Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new values elicited 8 5 2 4 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Values (Frequency)
Healthy (5) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Harmony with nature (2) ○ ○
True friendship (1) ○ ○
Uncertainty avoidance (2) ○ ○
Reciprocation (3) ○ ○ ○
Self-respect (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
True to be self (Accepting the portion in life) (5)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Organised and well-planned (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
Respect others (3) ○ ○ ○
An exciting life (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
Social power (3) ○ ○ ○
Reliable/Responsible (4) ○ ○ ○ ○
Independent (2) ○ ○
A varied life (3) ○ ○ ○
Honouring culture and history (2) ○ ○
265
Informant number 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019
Gender of informant Male (M)/ Female (F)
F F F M F F F F F M M M F F F F F M
M
Age of informant 42 36 32 32 34 34 38 29 61 62 27 27 27 28 26 53 66 63 39
Number of new values elicited 8 5 2 4 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Number of triads 12 12 11 7 10 12 11 14 11 9 11 10 13 13 11 12 7 13 12
Duration of the interview/Minutes 75:57 65:49 54:54 49:01 60:58 59:02 68:35 70:06 65:11 82:00 49:29 55:10 50:26 48:48 58:33 54:04 50:00 60:03 68:09
Values (Frequency)
Open-minded/broad-minded (3) ○ ○ ○
Self indulgence (3) ○ ○ ○
Curious (1) ○
Protect the environment (1) ○
266
267
Appendix C: Study Two Survey Information
268
Servicescape Symbolism
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1100000391 RESEARCH TEAM
Principal
Researcher:
Cindy Yun-Hsin Chou, PhD student, Phone: 07 3138 6637,
Email: [email protected]
Associate
Researcher(s):
Associate Professor Ian Lings, Principal supervisor, Phone: 07 3138 4329,
Email: [email protected]
Dr Ursula Bougoure, Associate supervisor, Phone: 07 3138 4158,
Email: [email protected] DESCRIPTION
This project is being undertaken as part of PhD project for Cindy Yun-Hsin Chou. The purpose of this study is to
better understand your interpretation of the service environment.
The research team requests your assistance. Your views will inform theory which will help firms to better design
service environments and provide better service experiences.
PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at
anytime without comment or penalty until you submit the survey, as the data are anonymous. Your decision to
participate will in no way impact on any current or future relationship with QUT.
Your participation will involve completing an online survey and will take approximate 5 minutes. The questionnaire
asks questions about how you view service environments, about yourself and your attitude towards service
environments. For example, please choose the following (e.g., friendly/unfriendly, calm/worried, and private/public)
that best represents your view of the characteristics of the service environment.
As the project involves the submission of an anonymous questionnaire, participants are advised that it will not be
possible to withdraw, once you have submitted.
EXPECTED BENEFITS
This study will not benefit you directly. However, it may benefit you indirectly. The information you provide will be
used to develop theoretical framework and the findings of this study will be offered to service firms to help them to
design better service environments. Consumers like you may ultimately benefit from better service experiences.
RISKS
There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. Your name is not required in any of
the responses.
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Submitting the completed online questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this
project. If you would like to have the results, please contact the principle researcher Cindy Chou via email:
QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT
If have any questions or require any further information about the project please contact one of the research team
members below.
Cindy Yun-Hsin Chou – PhD student Associate Professor Ian Lings – Principal
Supervisor
School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations
Phone: 07 3138 6637 Phone: 07 3138 4329
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT
QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns
or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project (approval number: 1100000391) you may contact the QUT Research
Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with
the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
269
SECTION ONE: The following questions relate to your perception of iPhone.
Please consider the above iPhone picture. People would describe iPhone with some characteristics. How would you describe the characteristics of iPhone? Please choose the following that best represents your view of the characteristics of iPhone. Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
1 Autonomous Dependent
2 Calm Excitable
3 Carefree Worried
4 Self-indulgent Thrifty
5 Controlling Unpredictable
6 Elegant Plain
270
SECTION TWO: The following questions relate to your perception of the service
environment.
Please consider the picture below. This is representing a customer and a service provider interaction at a service environment.
271
The above picture represents a customer and a service provider interaction at a service environment. People would describe this environment with some characteristics. How would you describe the characteristics of the service environment (as in the picture)? The service environment is referred to the whole environment including physical setting and people who interact in the environment. Please choose the following that best represents your view of the characteristics of the service environment. Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
1 Autonomous Dependent
2 Calm Excitable
3 Carefree Worried
4 Comfortable Uncomfortable
5 Controlling Unpredictable
6 Elegant Plain
7 Flexible Inflexible
8 Formal
Informal
9 Impressive Ordinary
10 Modern Classic
11 Organised Unorganised
12 Pleasant Unpleasant
13 Professional Nonprofessional
14 Private Public
15 Down-to-earth Idealistic
16 Uncomplicated Complex
17 Positive Negative
18 Relaxed Tense
19 Reliable Untrustworthy
20 Independent Restricted
21 Serious Frivolous
22 Self-indulgent Thrifty
23 Sociable Unsociable
24 Sophisticated Unsophisticated
25 Straightforward Mysterious
26 Friendly Unfriendly
27 Welcoming Inhospitable
272
Think about the same service environment picture that you just evaluated. Please put yourself in this service scenario; for example, if you were a customer in the scenario. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the following statement on a scale of 1 to 5 (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
The evaluation of self-congruity
Strongly Disagree Strongly agree
1 The characteristics of the service environment is consistent with how I see myself
1 2 3 4 5
2 The characteristics of the service environment reflects who I am
1 2 3 4 5
3 People who patronise at the service environment are similar
to me
1 2 3 4 5
4 The characteristics of the service environment is very much like me
1 2 3 4 5
273
SECTION THREE: In this section, we would like to know about you.
To what extent do the following personality traits apply to you? Please choose the following that best represents how you see yourself.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
1 Autonomous Dependent
2 Calm Excitable
3 Carefree Worried
4 Comfortable Uncomfortable
5 Controlling Unpredictable
6 Elegant Plain
7 Flexible Inflexible
8 Formal Informal
9 Impressive Ordinary
10 Modern Classic
11 Organised Unorganised
12 Pleasant Unpleasant
13 Professional Nonprofessional
14 Private Public
15 Down-to-earth Idealistic
16 Uncomplicated Complex
17 Positive Negative
18 Relaxed Tense
19 Reliable Untrustworthy
20 Independent Restricted
21 Serious Frivolous
22 Self-indulgent Thrifty
23 Sociable Unsociable
24 Sophisticated Unsophisticated
25 Straightforward Mysterious
26 Friendly Unfriendly
27 Welcoming Inhospitable
274
Imagine how you would aspire to be. To what extent do the following personality traits apply to how you would aspire to be? Please choose the following that best represents how you would aspire to be.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
1 Autonomous Dependent
2 Calm Excitable
3 Carefree Worried
4 Comfortable Uncomfortable
5 Controlling Unpredictable
6 Elegant Plain
7 Flexible Inflexible
8 Formal Informal
9 Impressive Ordinary
10 Modern Classic
11 Organised Unorganised
12 Pleasant Unpleasant
13 Professional Nonprofessional
14 Private Public
15 Down-to-earth Idealistic
16 Uncomplicated Complex
17 Positive Negative
18 Relaxed Tense
19 Reliable Untrustworthy
20 Independent Restricted
21 Serious Frivolous
22 Self-indulgent Thrifty
23 Sociable Unsociable
24 Sophisticated Unsophisticated
25 Straightforward Mysterious
26 Friendly Unfriendly
27 Welcoming Inhospitable
275
Think about how you believe others (e.g., the important person to you who can be your family or your friends) see you. To what extent do the following personality traits apply to how you believe others see you? Please choose the following that best represents how you believe others see you. Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
1 Autonomous Dependent
2 Calm Excitable
3 Carefree Worried
4 Comfortable Uncomfortable
5 Controlling Unpredictable
6 Elegant Plain
7 Flexible Inflexible
8 Formal Informal
9 Impressive Ordinary
10 Modern Classic
11 Organised Disorganised
12 Pleasant Unpleasant
13 Professional Nonprofessional
14 Private Public
15 Down-to-earth Idealistic
16 Uncomplicated Complex
17 Positive Negative
18 Relaxed Tense
19 Reliable Untrustworthy
20 Independent Restricted
21 Serious Frivolous
22 Self-indulgent Thrifty
23 Sociable Unsociable
24 Sophisticated Unsophisticated
25 Straightforward Mysterious
26 Friendly Unfriendly
27 Welcoming Inhospitable
276
Please circle a number on a scale of -1 to 7 (-1= contradict my values, 0= not important, 3=important, 6= very important to 7= supremely important) that best reflects how important these values are as guiding principle in your life. Some values may be followed in parentheses by a short explanatory phrase. Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Personal values Contradict my values Supremely important
1 Capable -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 Choose you own goal/ Being in control
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Honest -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Independent -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Enjoy life (enjoying leisure, food, etc.)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Pleasant and pleasure (gratification of desires)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Responsible (dependable and reliable)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Social power (control over others, dominance)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 Sense of belonging -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 To be recognised by others -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Think about the same service environment picture that you just evaluated. To what extend does the service environment similar to your personal values. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the following statement on a scale of 1 to 5 (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). Please take time to answer ALL the questions.
The evaluation of self value congruence
Strongly Disagree Strongly agree
1 The service environment is consistent with my own values
1 2 3 4 5
2 The service environment reflects the values as who I am 1 2 3 4 5
3 People patronise at the service environment have values
which are similar to mine
1 2 3 4 5
4 Purchasing at the service environment shows my own values
1 2 3 4 5
277
SECTION FOUR: In this section, we would like to know about your attitude.
How would you rate this service environment image?
1 Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good
2 Dislikeable 1 2 3 4 5 Likeable
3 Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 Pleasant
4 Poor quality 1 2 3 4 5 High quality
5 Unattractive 1 2 3 4 5 Attractive
6 Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 Superior
7 Unfavourable 1 2 3 4 5 Favourable
8 Boring 1 2 3 4 5 Interesting
9 Negative 1 2 3 4 5 Positive
278
Thank
you for participating!
Section Five The information about you
1.
What is your gender?
□ Female □ Male
2.
Where were you born? □ Australia □ Overseas (Please specify____________________)
3.
What is your age? □ 18-25 yrs
□ 66+
□ 26-35yrs □ 36-45yrs □ 46-55 yrs □ 56-65
4.
What is your marital status?
□ Single □ Married/de facto □ Separated/divorced
5.
What is your highest qualification? (please tick one)
□ Post graduate degree or equivalent □ Certificate IV
□ Undergraduate degree or equivalent □ Year 12 Higher School Certificate
□ Diploma □ Year 10 School Certificate
□ Other (please specify)___________________________
6.
How would you best describe your current work situation?
□ Home duties □ Part time employment
□ Unemployed □ Casual employment
□ Self employed □ Fulltime Student
□ Full time employment
279
Appendix D: Study Three Survey Information
280
SECTION ONE:
In this section, we would like to know about (1) how you would like to be
(2) how you see yourself
(3) how you think others see you
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Please choose the best description of
how you would like to be.
Please choose the best description of
how you really are.
Please choose the best description of
how you think others (i.e., your family or
important friends) see you.
Very Neither Very Very Neither Very Very Neither Very
Elegant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Plain Elegant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Plain Elegant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Plain
Friendly 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfriendly Friendly 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfriendly Friendly 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unfriendly
Impressiv
e
3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Ordinary Impressive
3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Ordinary Impressiv
e
3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Ordinary
Modern 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Classic Modern 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Classic Modern 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Classic
Positive 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Negative Positive 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Negative Positive 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Negative
Private 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Public Private 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Public Private 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Public Professional 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Nonprofessional Professional 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Nonprofessional Professional 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Nonprofessional
Serious 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Frivolous Serious 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Frivolous Serious 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Frivolous
Welcoming 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Inhospitable Welcoming 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Inhospitable Welcoming 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Inhospitable
281
Listed below are some characteristics that might describe a person: sociability, professionalism and style. The person with each of these characteristics
could be you or it could be someone else.
For a moment, visualise in your mind the kind of person who has each of these characteristics, respectively. Imagine how that person would think, feel
and act. When you have a clear image of what this person would be like answer the following questions.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Self-importance pertaining to characteristics Strongly disagree Strongly agree
Being ‘sociability’ is an important part of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Having a ‘professionalism’ is an important part of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Having ‘style’ is an important part of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
282
The picture below represents a customer and a service provider interaction at a service environment.
The picture represents a customer and a service provider interacting in a service
environment.
People would describe this environment with some characteristics. How would you
describe the characteristics of the service environment (as in the picture)? The
service environment refers to the whole environment including physical setting and
people who interact in the environment.
Please choose the best description of how you see the service environment.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Very Neither Very
Elegant Plain
Friendly Unfriendly
Impressive Ordinary
Modern Classic
Positive Negative
Private Public
Professional Nonprofessional
Serious Frivolous
Welcoming Inhospitable
283
SECTION TWO: In this section, we would like to know about your personal values and your perception of the values of the
service environment.
Listed below are values that might describe a person: enjoys life, pleasant and pleasure, responsibility, sense of belonging and recognised by others.
The person with each of these values could be you or it could be someone else.
For a moment, visualise in your mind the kind of person who has these values, respectively. Imagine how that person would think, feel and act. When
you have a clear image of what this person would be like answer the following questions.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Values of individuals Strongly disagree Strongly agree
I am a person who enjoys life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am a person who seeks pleasure. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am a responsible person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I have a sense of belonging. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am recognised by others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
284
Please circle a number on a scale of -1 to 7 (-1= contradict my values, 0= not important, 3=important, 6= very important to 7= supremely
important) that best reflects how important these values are as guiding principle in your life. Some values may be followed in parentheses
by a short explanatory phrase.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
How important these values are as
guiding principle in your life
Contradict
my values Unimportant Supremely
important
Life enjoyment (enjoying leisure, food, etc.) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pleasant and Pleasure (gratification of
desires) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Responsible (dependable and reliable) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Need to belong -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Need to be recognised by others -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
285
Please consider the same picture below. This is representing a customer and a service provider interaction at a service environment.
The left picture represents a customer and a service provider interaction at a service
environment.
People would describe this environment with some values. How would you describe the
values of the service environment (as in the picture)? The service environment refers to the
whole environment including physical setting and people who interact in the environment.
Please circle a number on a scale of 1 to 7 (1= Strongly disagree to 7= Strongly agree)
that best represents your view of the values of the service environment.
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Values of the environment Strongly disagree Strongly
agree
This place would be enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This place would be
pleasurable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This place would be
responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This place would give me a
sense of belonging 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This place would give me a
sense of recognition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
286
SECTION THREE: In this section, we would like to know about your attitude.
How would you rate this service environment?
Please take the time to answer ALL the questions.
Very Neither Very
Bad Good
Unpleasant Pleasant
Unattractive Attractiv
e
Disagreeable Agreeabl
e
Negative Positive
287
SECTION FOUR: Some more information about you
1. What is your gender? □ Female □ Male 2. Where were you born? □ Australia □ Overseas (Please specify_____________________________)
3. What is your age? □ 18-25 yrs □ 26-35yrs □ 36-45yrs □ 46-55 yrs □ 56-65 yrs □ 66+
4. What is your marital status? □ Single □ Married/de facto □ Separated/divorced
5. Which of the following best represent your level of education? (please tick one)
□ Post graduate degree or equivalent □ Certificate IV
□ Undergraduate degree or equivalent □ Year 12 Higher School Certificate
□ Diploma □ Year 10 School Certificate
□ Other (please specify___________________________)
6. How would you best describe your current work situation? (please tick one)
□ Home duties □ Part time employed
□ Unemployed □ Casual employed
□ Self employed □ Fulltime Student
□ Full time employed
Thank you for participating!
288
289
Appendix E: Study Three Results of the Predictive Strength
Comparison Models
Version 1: Servicescape A
Table 1: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .653 .427 .412 .66896 .427 29.168 5 196 .000
2 .740 .547 .523 .60225 .121 10.165 5 191 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .662 .438 .424 .66213 .438 30.584 5 196 .000
2 .740 .547 .523 .60225 .109 9.183 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 2: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .652 .425 .410 .67005 .425 28.946 5 196 .000
2 .738 .544 .520 .60426 .119 10.001 5 191 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .662 .438 .424 .66213 .438 30.584 5 196 .000
2 .738 .544 .520 .60426 .106 8.869 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
290
Table 3: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .648 .420 .405 .67278 .420 28.393 5 196 .000
2 .736 .542 .518 .60554 .122 10.190 5 191 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .662 .438 .424 .66213 .438 30.584 5 196 .000
2 .736 .542 .518 .60554 .104 8.670 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociableSQUA,
SSsociableSQUA, cntrSoSsociable, cntrSSsociable)
Table 4: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on
Pleasant and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .652 .425 .411 .66886 .425 29.019 5 196 .000
2 .716 .513 .487 .62387 .087 6.858 5 191 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV2,
SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .599 .359 .343 .70624 .359 21.991 5 196 .000
2 .716 .513 .487 .62387 .153 12.034 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
291
Table 5: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on
Pleasant and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .651 .423 .409 .67000 .423 28.788 5 196 .000
2 .716 .513 .487 .62404 .089 6.988 5 191 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociable, cntrSSsociable)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociableSQUA, SSsociableSQUA, cntrASsociable, cntrSSsociable), (cntrV2,
SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .599 .359 .343 .70624 .359 21.991 5 196 .000
2 .716 .513 .487 .62404 .153 12.007 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 6: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on
Pleasant and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .647 .419 .404 .67278 .419 28.227 5 196 .000
2 .713 .508 .483 .62670 .090 6.977 5 191 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasure seeking x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .599 .359 .343 .70624 .359 21.991 5 196 .000
2 .713 .508 .483 .62670 .149 11.581 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
292
Table 7: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Sense
of Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .653 .427 .412 .66729 .427 29.311 5 197 .000
2 .726 .527 .502 .61413 .100 8.116 5 192 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .594 .353 .337 .70865 .353 21.523 5 197 .000
2 .726 .527 .502 .61413 .173 14.063 5 192 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociableSQUA, SSsociableSQUA,
cntrISsociable, cntrSSsociable)
Table 8: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Sense
of Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .652 .425 .410 .66837 .425 29.089 5 197 .000
2 .723 .523 .499 .61622 .099 7.951 5 192 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .594 .353 .337 .70865 .353 21.523 5 197 .000
2 .723 .523 .499 .61622 .170 13.707 5 192 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
293
Table 9: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Sense
of Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .648 .420 .405 .67109 .420 28.535 5 197 .000
2 .728 .530 .505 .61218 .110 8.948 5 192 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociable, cntrSSsociable)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociableSQUA, SSsociableSQUA, cntrSoSsociable, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .594 .353 .337 .70865 .353 21.523 5 197 .000
2 .728 .530 .505 .61218 .176 14.397 5 192 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 10: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self professionalism x value self responsibility)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .340 .116 .093 .82874 .116 5.147 5 197 .000
2 .386 .149 .105 .82343 .033 1.509 5 192 .189
Step 1: (SSpromannerSQUA, cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner)
Step 2: (SSpromannerSQUA, cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x ideal self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .265 .070 .047 .84962 .070 2.984 5 197 .013
2 .386 .149 .105 .82343 .079 3.546 5 192 .004
Step 1: (SV3SQUA, cntrV3, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (SV3SQUA, cntrV3, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA,
SSpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner)
294
Table 11: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self professionalism x value self responsibility)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .317 .100 .078 .83582 .100 4.395 5 197 .001
2 .368 .136 .091 .82989 .035 1.565 5 192 .172
Step 1: (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA, ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner)
Step 2: (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA, ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x ideal self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .265 .070 .047 .84962 .070 2.984 5 197 .013
2 .368 .136 .091 .82989 .065 2.895 5 192 .015
Step 1: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA,
ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner, cntrSSpromanner)
Table 12: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self professionalism x value self responsibility)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .343 .118 .095 .82771 .118 5.257 5 197 .000
2 .392 .153 .109 .82129 .036 1.619 5 192 .157
Step 1: (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner, SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA,
SoSpromannerSSpromanner)
Step 2: (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner, SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA,
SoSpromannerSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x social self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .265 .070 .047 .84962 .070 2.984 5 197 .013
2 .392 .153 .109 .82129 .083 3.765 5 192 .003
Step 1: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner,
SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA, SoSpromannerSSpromanner)
295
Table 13: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .488 .238 .218 .76976 .238 12.224 5 196 .000
2 .633 .400 .369 .69158 .163 10.364 5 191 .000
Step 1: (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle)
Step 2: (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5,
V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x ideal self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .548 .300 .282 .73755 .300 16.812 5 196 .000
2 .633 .400 .369 .69158 .100 6.385 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA,
cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle)
Table 14: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .483 .233 .213 .77214 .233 11.907 5 196 .000
2 .628 .394 .362 .69522 .161 10.154 5 191 .000
Step 1: (ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA, ASstyleSSstyle)
Step 2: (ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA, ASstyleSSstyle), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA,
V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x ideal self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .548 .300 .282 .73755 .300 16.812 5 196 .000
2 .628 .394 .362 .69522 .094 5.919 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (ASstyleSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA,
ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle)
296
Table 15: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape A on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape A on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .487 .237 .217 .77026 .237 12.157 5 196 .000
2 .623 .388 .356 .69877 .151 9.431 5 191 .000
Step 1: (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA)
Step 2: (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA,
V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x social self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .548 .300 .282 .73755 .300 16.812 5 196 .000
2 .623 .388 .356 .69877 .088 5.472 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA,
cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA)
297
Version 2: Servicescape B
Table 16: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .665 .443 .429 .6694264 .443 33.049 5 208 .000
2 .749 .561 .540 .6012133 .119 10.975 5 203 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .679 .460 .448 .6586719 .460 35.506 5 208 .000
2 .749 .561 .540 .6012133 .101 9.331 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 17: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .656 .430 .416 .6771099 .430 31.364 5 208 .000
2 .753 .566 .545 .5978105 .136 12.768 5 203 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .679 .460 .448 .6586719 .460 35.506 5 208 .000
2 .753 .566 .545 .5978105 .106 9.902 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
298
Table 18: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .654 .428 .414 .6782263 .428 31.124 5 208 .000
2 .746 .557 .535 .6044197 .129 11.780 5 203 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .679 .460 .448 .6586719 .460 35.506 5 208 .000
2 .746 .557 .535 .6044197 .096 8.803 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 19: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Pleasant
and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .661 .437 .423 .6724678 .437 31.999 5 206 .000
2 .759 .576 .554 .5911957 .138 13.106 5 201 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV2,
SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .673 .452 .439 .6632736 .452 34.042 5 206 .000
2 .759 .576 .554 .5911957 .123 11.659 5 201 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
299
Table 20: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Pleasant
and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .651 .424 .410 .6802011 .424 30.344 5 206 .000
2 .759 .576 .555 .5906799 .152 14.435 5 201 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV2,
SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .673 .452 .439 .6632736 .452 34.042 5 206 .000
2 .759 .576 .555 .5906799 .124 11.749 5 201 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 21: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Pleasant
and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .650 .422 .408 .6813802 .422 30.096 5 206 .000
2 .758 .575 .553 .5918889 .152 14.400 5 201 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .673 .452 .439 .6632736 .452 34.042 5 206 .000
2 .758 .575 .553 .5918889 .122 11.537 5 201 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
300
Table 22: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Sense of
Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .665 .443 .429 .6694264 .443 33.049 5 208 .000
2 .721 .519 .496 .6292892 .077 6.476 5 203 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .587 .345 .329 .7258504 .345 21.894 5 208 .000
2 .721 .519 .496 .6292892 .175 14.746 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 23: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Sense of
Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .656 .430 .416 .6771099 .430 31.364 5 208 .000
2 .718 .516 .492 .6315241 .086 7.222 5 203 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .587 .345 .329 .7258504 .345 21.894 5 208 .000
2 .718 .516 .492 .6315241 .171 14.355 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
301
Table 24: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Sense of
Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .654 .428 .414 .6782263 .428 31.124 5 208 .000
2 .717 .514 .490 .6327847 .086 7.189 5 203 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .587 .345 .329 .7258504 .345 21.894 5 208 .000
2 .717 .514 .490 .6327847 .169 14.136 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 25: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self professionalism x value self responsible)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .367 .134 .113 .8357471 .134 6.426 5 207 .000
2 .531 .282 .246 .7705996 .147 8.296 5 202 .000
Step 1: (SSpromannerSQUA, cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner)
Step 2: (SSpromannerSQUA, cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x ideal self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .447 .199 .180 .8037037 .199 10.316 5 207 .000
2 .531 .277 .246 .7705996 .082 4.633 5 202 .001
Step 1: (SV3SQUA, cntrV3, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (SV3SQUA, cntrV3, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA,
SSpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner)
302
Table 26: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self professionalism x value self responsible)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .365 .133 .112 .8363267 .133 6.360 5 207 .000
2 .531 .282 .247 .7703636 .149 8.393 5 202 .000
Step 1: (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA, ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner)
Step 2: (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA, ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x ideal self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .447 .199 .180 .8037037 .199 10.316 5 207 .000
2 .531 .282 .247 .7703636 .083 4.661 5 202 .000
Step 1: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA,
ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner, cntrSSpromanner)
Table 27: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self professionalism x value self responsible)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .367 .134 .114 .8357097 .134 6.430 5 207 .000
2 .528 .279 .244 .7720180 .145 8.113 5 202 .000
Step 1: (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner, SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA,
SoSpromannerSSpromanner)
Step 2: (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner, SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA,
SoSpromannerSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x social self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .447 .199 .180 .8037037 .199 10.316 5 207 .000
2 .528 .279 .244 .7720180 .080 4.468 5 202 .001
Step 1: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner,
SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA, SoSpromannerSSpromanner)
303
Table 28: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .608 .370 .355 .7116164 .370 24.460 5 208 .000
2 .699 .489 .464 .6487313 .119 9.456 5 203 .000
Step 1: (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle)
Step 2: (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5,
V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x ideal self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .579 .335 .319 .7311889 .335 20.970 5 208 .000
2 .699 .489 .464 .6487313 .154 12.247 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA,
cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle)
Table 29: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .582 .338 .322 .7294025 .338 21.277 5 208 .000
2 .690 .476 .450 .6573254 .137 10.623 5 203 .000
Step 1: (ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA, ASstyleSSstyle)
Step 2: (ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA, ASstyleSSstyle), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA,
V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x ideal self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .579 .335 .319 .7311889 .335 20.970 5 208 .000
2 .690 .476 .450 .6573254 .140 10.874 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (ASstyleSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA,
ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle)
304
Table 30: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape B on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape B on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .582 .339 .323 .7291429 .339 21.322 5 208 .000
2 .692 .478 .453 .6556904 .139 10.842 5 203 .000
Step 1: (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA)
Step 2: (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA,
V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x social self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .579 .335 .319 .7311889 .335 20.970 5 208 .000
2 .692 .478 .453 .6556904 .143 11.131 5 203 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA,
cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA)
305
Version 3: Servicescape C
Table 31: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .599a .359 .343 .62863 .359 22.063 5 197 .000
2 .682b .465 .437 .58159 .106 7.631 5 192 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .527a .277 .259 .66751 .277 15.112 5 197 .000
2 .682b .465 .437 .58159 .188 13.501 5 192 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 32: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .603a .364 .348 .62617 .364 22.547 5 197 .000
2 .682b .465 .437 .58163 .101 7.266 5 192 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .527a .277 .259 .66751 .277 15.112 5 197 .000
2 .682b .465 .437 .58163 .188 13.494 5 192 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
306
Table 33: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Life
Enjoyment for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self life enjoyment)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .603a .363 .347 .62641 .363 22.499 5 197 .000
2 .685b .470 .442 .57917 .106 7.689 5 192 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociable)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociableSQUA, SSsociableSQUA, cntrSoSsociable, cntrSSsociable), (cntrV1,
SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self life enjoyment x social self sociable)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .527 .277 .259 .66751 .277 15.112 5 197 .000
2 .685 .470 .442 .57917 .192 13.935 5 192 .000
Step 1: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1)
Step 2: (cntrV1, SV1SQUA, V1SV1, V1SQUA, cntrSV1), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 34: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Pleasant
and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .588 .346 .329 .62904 .346 20.602 5 195 .000
2 .657 .431 .401 .59418 .085 5.710 5 190 .000
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV2,
SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .493 .243 .224 .67658 .243 12.520 5 195 .000
2 .657 .431 .401 .59418 .188 12.568 5 190 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
307
Table 35: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Pleasant
and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .592 .351 .334 .62659 .351 21.070 5 195 .000
2 .656 .430 .400 .59490 .079 5.265 5 190 .000
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV2,
SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .493 .243 .224 .67658 .243 12.520 5 195 .000
2 .656 .430 .400 .59490 .187 12.445 5 190 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 36: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Pleasant
and Pleasure for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self pleasant and pleasure)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .592 .350 .334 .62687 .350 21.015 5 195 .000
2 .658 .433 .403 .59308 .083 5.570 5 190 .000
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self pleasant and pleasure x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .493 .243 .224 .67658 .243 12.520 5 195 .000
2 .658 .433 .403 .59308 .190 12.755 5 190 .000
Step 1: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2)
Step 2: (cntrV2, SV2SQUA, V2SV2, V2SQUA, cntrSV2), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
308
Table 37: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Sense of
Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .605 .366 .350 .62175 .366 22.63
2
5 196 .000
2 .637 .406 .375 .60955 .040 2.584 5 191 .027
Step 1: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x ideal self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .425 .181 .160 .70672 .181 8.658 5 196 .000
2 .637 .406 .375 .60955 .225 14.493 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (ISsocSSsoc, ISsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrISsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 38: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Sense of
Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .609 .371 .355 .61941 .371 23.099 5 196 .000
2 .641 .411 .380 .60700 .040 2.619 5 191 .026
Step 1: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability), (cntrV4,
SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x actual self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .425 .181 .160 .70672 .181 8.658 5 196 .000
2 .641 .411 .380 .60700 .230 14.937 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (ASsocSSsoc, ASsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrASsociability, cntrSSsociability)
309
Table 39: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Sociability and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Sense of
Belonging for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self sociability x value self sense of belonging)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .610 .372 .356 .61877 .372 23.227 5 196 .000
2 .643 .413 .382 .60611 .041 2.656 5 191 .024
Step 1: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Step 2: (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA, SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability),
(cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self sense of belonging x social self sociability)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .425 .181 .160 .70672 .181 8.658 5 196 .000
2 .643 .413 .382 .60611 .232 15.094 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4)
Step 2: (cntrV4, SV4SQUA, V4SV4, V4SQUA, cntrSV4), (SoSsocSSsoc, SoSsociabilitySQUA,
SSsociabilitySQUA, cntrSoSsociability, cntrSSsociability)
Table 40: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self professionalism x value self responsibility)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .348 .121 .098 .73834 .121 5.365 5 195 .000
2 .495 .245 .205 .69324 .124 6.240 5 190 .000
Step 1: (SSpromannerSQUA, cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner)
Step 2: (SSpromannerSQUA, cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x ideal self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .428 .183 .162 .71177 .183 8.740 5 195 .000
2 .495 .245 .205 .69324 .062 3.113 5 190 .010
Step 1: (SV3SQUA, cntrV3, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (SV3SQUA, cntrV3, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (cntrISpromanner, ISpromannerSQUA,
SSpromannerSQUA, ISpromannerSSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner)
310
Table 41: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self professionalism x value self responsibility)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .313 .098 .075 .74784 .098 4.246 5 195 .001
2 .476 .227 .186 .70163 .128 6.307 5 190 .000
Step 1: (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA, ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner)
Step 2: (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA, ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner,
cntrSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x ideal self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .428 .183 .162 .71177 .183 8.740 5 195 .000
2 .476 .227 .186 .70163 .043 2.136 5 190 .063
Step 1: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (ASpromannerSSpromanner, SSpromannerSQUA,
ASpromannerSQUA, cntrASpromanner, cntrSSpromanner)
Table 41: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Professionalism and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on
Responsibility for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self professionalism x value self responsibility)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .343 .117 .095 .73981 .117 5.189 5 195 .000
2 .486 .236 .196 .69730 .119 5.901 5 190 .000
Step 1: (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner, SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA,
SoSpromannerSSpromanner)
Step 2: (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner, SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA,
SoSpromannerSSpromanner), (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self responsibility x social self professionalism)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .428 .183 .162 .71177 .183 8.740 5 195 .000
2 .486 .236 .196 .69730 .053 2.636 5 190 .025
Step 1: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3)
Step 2: (cntrV3, SV3SQUA, cntrSV3, V3SQUA, V3SV3), (cntrSoSpromanner, cntrSSpromanner,
SoSpromannerSQUA, SSpromannerSQUA, SoSpromannerSSpromanner)
311
Table 43: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Ideal Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (ideal self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .449 .201 .181 .70200 .201 9.880 5 196 .000
2 .511 .261 .223 .68382 .060 3.112 5 191 .010
Step 1: (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle)
Step 2: (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5,
V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x ideal self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .396 .157 .135 .72126 .157 7.294 5 196 .000
2 .511 .261 .223 .68382 .105 5.410 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (ISstyleSSstyle, ISstyleSQUA, SSstyleSQUA,
cntrSSstyle, cntrISstyle)
Table 44: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Actual Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (actual self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .390 .152 .130 .72330 .152 7.032 5 196 .000
2 .474 .224 .184 .70081 .072 3.556 5 191 .004
Step 1: (ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA, ASstyleSSstyle)
Step 2: (ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA, ASstyleSSstyle), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA,
V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x ideal self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .396 .157 .135 .72126 .157 7.294 5 196 .000
2 .474 .224 .184 .70081 .067 3.321 5 191 .007
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (ASstyleSSstyle, cntrASstyle, SSstyleSQUA,
ASstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle)
312
Table 45: The Predictive Strength Comparison between Social Self-Congruity with
Servicescape C on Style and Value Self-Congruity with the Servicescape C on Recognition
for the Servicescape Preference Model Summary 1-1 (social self style x value self recognition)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .427 .182 .162 .71027 .182 8.744 5 196 .000
2 .500 .250 .211 .68909 .068 3.447 5 191 .005
Step 1: (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA)
Step 2: (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA, cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA), (cntrV5, SV5SQUA,
V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Model Summary 1-2 (value self recognition x social self style)
Overall model fit R2 Change Statistics
Step R R2 Adjusted R2
Std Error
of the
Estimate
R2
Change
F value
of R2
Change
df1 df 2 Significance
of R2 change
1 .396 .157 .135 .72126 .157 7.294 5 196 .000
2 .500 .250 .211 .68909 .093 4.745 5 191 .000
Step 1: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5)
Step 2: (cntrV5, SV5SQUA, V5SV5, V5SQUA, cntrSV5), (SoSstyleSSstyle, cntrSoSstyle, SSstyleSQUA,
cntrSSstyle, SoSstyleSQUA)
313
7 REFERENCE
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in
persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45-57.
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols
as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand
personality constucts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81(3), 492-508.
Adams-Webber, J. R. (1996). Cognitive complexity. In R. Corsini & A. J.
Auerbach (Eds.), Encylopedia of Psychology. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Adams-Webber, J. R. (2003). Prototypicality of self and differentiating among
others in terms of personal constructs. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 16(4), 341-347.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value-
conscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions.
Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 71-89.
Akhter, S. H., Andrews, J. C., & Durvasula, S. (1994). The influence of retail
store environment on brand related judgements. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 1(2), 67-76.
Allen, M. W. (2002). Human values and product symbolism: Do consumers
form product preference by comparing the human values symbolized
by a product to the human values that they endorse? Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32(12), 2475-2501.
Allen, M. W., & Ng, S. H. (1999). The direct and indirect influences of human
values on product ownership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(1),
5-39.
Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit
chain. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 107-120.
Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
314
Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT):
Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868-
882.
Aron, A., Steele, J. L., Kashdan, T. B., & Perez, M. (2006). When similars do
not attract: Tests of a prediction frm the self-expansion model.
Personal Relationships, 13(4), 387-396.
Arrindell, W. A., & van der Ende, J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of
the observations-oo-variables ratio in factor and components analysis.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 165-178.
Arthur, W., Jr., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of
person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment
of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4),
786-801.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-
other agreement: does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51(3),
577-598.
Avila, D., & Purkey, W. (1972). Self-theory and behaviorism: A
rapprochement. Psychology in the Schools, 9(2), 124-126.
Bäckström, K., & Johansson, U. (2006). Creating and consuming experiences
in retail store environments: Comparing retailer and consumer
perspectives. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(6), 417-
430.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4),
32-32.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services: The
consumer perspective. In J. A. Czepiel, C. A. Congram & J. Shanahan
(Eds.), The Service Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage
(pp. 79-84). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to
making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing,
68(4), 445-446.
Bannister, D. (2003). Personal construct theory and politics and the politics of
personal construct theory. In F. Fransella (Ed.), International
Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. Chichester, England ;
Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.
315
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: strength and
structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29(10), 1207-1220.
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1991). Personal values and gift-
giving behaviors: A study across cultures. Journal of Business
Research, 22(2), 149-157.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(2), 139-168.
Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition
of consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 4-17.
Belk, R. W., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2003). The fire of desire: A multisited
inquiry into consumer passion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3),
326-351.
Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental
Psychology (5th ed.). Sydney: Harcourt College Publishers.
Bell, R. C. (2003). The Repertory Grid Technique In F. Fransella (Ed.),
International handbook of personal construct psychology. England:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bellizzi, J. A., Crowley, A. E., & Hasty, R. W. (1983). The effects of color in
store design. Journal of Retailing, 59, 21-45.
Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings,
and purchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9(5), 347-364.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression Diagnostics:
Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York:
Wiley.
Berman, B., & Evans, J. R. (1995). Retail Management: A Strategic Approach
(6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Berry, L. L., & Clark, T. (1986). Four ways to make services more tangible.
Business, 36(4), 53-54.
Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision
making Handbook of consumer behavior (Vol. 35(2), pp. 50-84):
Prentice Hall.
Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of
brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing 15(1), 32-43.
316
Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality. European
Journal of Personality, 8(3), 163-181.
Birdwell, A. E. (1964). A Study of the Influence of Image Congruence on
Consumer Choice. Ph. D., University of Texas.
Bitner, M. J. (1986). Consumer responses to the physical environment in
service settings. In M. Venkatesan, D. M. Schmalensee & C. Marshall
(Eds.), Creativity in Services Marketing (pp. 89-93). Chicage American
Marketing Association.
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical
surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69-
82.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on
customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter:
Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents. Journal of
Marketing, 54(1), 71-84.
Blair, J., & Presser, S. (1992). An experimental comparison of alternative
pretest techniques: a note on preliminary findings. Journal of
Advertising Research, 32(2), 2-5.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Boddy, C. (2005). Projective techniques in market research: valueless
subjectivity or insightful reality. International journal of market
research, 47(3), 239-254.
Bollen, K. A., & Jackman, R. W. (1990). Regression diagnostics: An
expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. In J. Fox & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Modern Methods of Data Analysis. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer's
relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction.
Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65.
Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multi-source
feedback: The role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology,
58(1), 171-203.
317
Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1982). Marketing services by managing the
environment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
23(1), 35-39.
Borin, N., Farris, P. W., & Freeland, J. R. (1994). A model for determining
retail product category assortment and shelf space allocation. Decision
Sciences, 25(3), 359-359.
Bove, L. L., & Smith, D. A. (2006). Relationship strength between a customer
and service worker. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 17-34.
Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical Model-Building and
Response Surfaces. Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Customer orientation: Effects on
customer service perceptions and outcome behaviors. Journal of
Service Research, 3(3), 241-251.
Brangule-Vlagsma, K., Pieters, R. G. M., & Wedel, M. (2002). The dynamics
of value segments: modeling framework and empirical illustration.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(3), 267-285.
Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., & Jencks, C. (1980). Signs, Symbols and
Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brown, S. (1995). Sources and status of marketing theory. In M. J. Baker & O.
Badot (Eds.), Marketing : Theory and Practice (pp. 23-39).
Basingstoke: Macmillan Business.
Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Closing the gap between
values and behavior--a means-end theory of lifestyle. Journal of
Business Research, 57(6), 665-670.
Burr, V., & Butt, T. (1992). An Invitation to Personal Construct Psychology.
London: Whurr.
Burton, M. L., & Nerlove, S. B. (1976). Balanced designs for triads tests: Two
examples from English. Social Science Research, 5(3), 247-267.
Butt, T. (2008). George Kelly: the Psychology of Personal Constructs. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within
the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
14(3), 417-431.
318
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary
fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(5), 822-834.
Caldwell, N., & Coshall, J. (2002). Measuring brand associations for museums
and galleries using repertory grid analysis. Management Decision,
40(4), 383-392.
Cardador, M. T., & Pratt, M. G. (2006). Identification Management and Its
Bases: Bridging Management and Marketing Perspectives Through a
Focus on Affiliation Dimensions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 174-184.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied Business
Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Milton, Australia:
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and Research (11th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cestre, G., & Darmon, R. Y. (1998). Assessing consumer preferences in the
context of new product diffusion. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 15(2), 123-135.
Chartrand, Tanya L., Huber, J., Shiv, B., & Tanner, Robin J. (2008).
Nonconscious Goals and Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(2), 189-201.
Chon, K. S. (1992). The role of destination image in tourism: an extension.
The Tourist Review, 2, 2-7.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
Churchill, G. A. (1996). Basic Marketing Research (3rd ed.). Sydney: The
Dryden Press.
Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing Research :
Methodological Foundations. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western.
Cieurzo, C., & Keitel, M. A. (1999). Ethics in qualitative research. In M.
Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using Qualitative Methods in
Psychology (pp. 63-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
319
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee., H. B. (1992). A First Course In Factor Analysis.
Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Review (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory
and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
Coshall, J. T. (2000). Measurement of tourists' images: The repertory grid
approach. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 85-89.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor
analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most form your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: The next step in marketing
theory? Marketing Theory, 9(3), 315-339.
Creighton, M. (1998). The Seed of creative lifestyle shopping: Wrapping
consumerism in Japanese store layouts. In J. F. J. Sherry (Ed.),
Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets.
Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed
Method Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
d'Astous, A., & Lévesque, M. (2003). A scale for measuring store personality.
Psychology & Marketing, 20(5), 455-469.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of
fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67-88.
Deshpande, R. (1983). ''Paradigms lost'': On theory and method in research in
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 101-101.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
320
Dibley, A., & Baker, S. (2001). Uncovering the links between brand choice
and personal values among young British and Spanish girls. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 1(1), 77-93.
Dijkstra, K., Pieterse, M. E., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2008). Individual differences
in reactions towards color in simulated healthcare environments: The
role of stimulus screening ability. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 28(3), 268-277.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: to have is
to be. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and
product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80-80.
Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of
Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 47-53.
Donovan, R. J., Rossiter, J. R., Marcoolyn, G., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store
atmosphere and purchasing behavior. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 283-
294.
Donthu, N., & Yoo, B. (1998). Cultural influences on service quality
expectations. Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 178-186.
Doyle, P. B., & Gidengil, B. Z. (1977). A review of in-store experiments.
Journal of Retailing, 53(2), 47-62.
Dudey, M. (1990). Competition by choice: The effect of consumer search on
firm location decisions. The American Economic Review, 80(5), 1092-
1104.
Edvardsson, B., & Enquist, B. (2011). The service excellence and innovation
model: lessons from IKEA and other service frontiers. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 22(5), 535-551.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior
research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51-100.
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial
regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow
& N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in
Organizations : Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis (Vol.
xxvi, pp. 350-400). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, J. R. (2007). Polynomial regression and response surface
methodology. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on
321
Organizational Fit (pp. 361-372). New York ; London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654-677.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression
equations as an alternative to difference scores in organisational
research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577-1613.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-
being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and
family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 77(2), 85-129.
Edwards, S., & Shackley, M. (1992). Measuring the effectiveness of retail
window display as an element of the marketing mix. International
Journal of Advertising, 11, 193-202.
Ekinci, Y., & Riley, M. (2003). An investigation of self-concept: actual and
ideal self-congruence compared in the context of service evaluation.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(4), 201-214.
Elliott, R. (1997). Existential consumption and irrational desire. European
Journal of Marketing, 31(3/4), 285-296.
Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Consumption and the symbolic
project of the self. In B. G. Englis & A. Olofsson (Eds.), European
Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 3, pp. 17-20). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations:
Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 622-654.
Ennis, R., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes, advertising, and automobiles: A
functional approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 662-666.
Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory.
American Psychologist, 28(5), 404-416.
Epstein, S. (1985). The implications of cognitive-experiential self-theory for
research in social psychology and personality. Journal for the theory of
social behaviour, 15(3), 283-310.
Epstein, S. (1989). Values from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-
theory. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and
322
Moral Values: Individual and Societal Perspectives (pp. 3-22).
Hillsdale, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericksen, M. K., & Sirgy, M. J. (1992). Employed females' clothing
preference, self-Image congruence, and career anchorage. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 408-422.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K., & Barr, T. F. (2005). Perceived retail crowding
and shopping satisfaction: the role of shopping values. Journal of
Business Research, 58(8), 1146-1153.
Eroglu, S. A., & Machleit, K. A. (1990). An empricial examination of retail
crowding: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 66(2),
201-221.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Chebat, J.-C. (2005). The interaction of
retail density and music tempo: Effects on shopper responses.
Psychology and Marketing, 22(7), 577-589.
Escalas, Jennifer E., & Bettman, James R. (2005). Self-construal, reference
groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3),
378-389.
Everett, P. B., Pieters, R. G. M., & Titus, P. A. (1994). The consumer-
environment interaction: An introduction to the special issue.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11(2), 97-105.
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values
on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151.
Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2002). Kelly: Psychology of Personal Constructs. In J.
Feist & G. J. Feist (Eds.), Theories of Personality (5th ed., pp. 551).
Sydney: The Mc-Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Finegan, J. E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on
organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 73(2), 149-169.
Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs
about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations,
16(3), 233-239.
Fishbein, M. (1967). A behavior theory approach to the relations between
beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In M.
Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (pp. 389-
400). New York: John Wiley.
323
Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making. VA: Research
Analysis Corp Mclean.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and
refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 7(3),
286-299.
Fox, J. (1991). Regression Diagnostics. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Fransella, F. (Ed.). (2003). International Handbook of Personal Construct
Psychology. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A Manual for Repertory Grid
Technique (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Friedmann, R. (1986). Psychological meaning of products: Identification and
marketing applications. Psychology & Marketing, 3(1), 1-15.
Gagnon, J. P., & Osterhaus, J. T. (1985). Resarch note: effectiveness of floor
displays on the sales of retail products. Journal of Retailing, 61(1), 104-
116.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(August),
1-33.
Gecas, V. (2000). Value identities, self-motives, and social movements. In S.
Stryker, T. J. Owens & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, Identity, and Social
Movements (Vol. 13, pp. 370). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Gengler, C. E., Klenosky, D. B., & Mulvey, M. S. (1995). Improving the
graphic representation of means-end results. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 12(3), 245-256.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach
behaviour: Applying environmental aesthetics to retailing. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
13(2), 195-211.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour.
Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
Goizueta, R. S. (2004). The symbolic realism of U.S. latino/a popular
catholicism. Theological Studies, 65, 255-274.
324
Goldsmith, R. E. (2002). Explaining and predicting consumer intention to
purchase over the Internet: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 10(2), 22-28.
Graeff, T. R. (1996a). Image congruence effects on product evaluations: The
role of self-monitoring and public/private consumption. Psychology &
Marketing, 13(5), 481-500.
Graeff, T. R. (1996b). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of
brand and self-image on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 13(3), 4-18.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and
indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market
offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296-312.
Grewal, D., Gopalkrisnan, R. I., Gotlieb, J., & Levy, M. (2007). Developing a
deeper understanding of post-purchase perceived risk and behavioural
intentions in a servicesetting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 35(2), 250-258.
Griffith, D. A., & Myers, M. B. (2005). The performance implications of
strategic fit of relational norm governance strategies in global supply
chain relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3),
254-254-269.
Grönroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal
of Marketing, 16(7), 30-41.
Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., & Lapidus, R. S. (1990).
Environmental dispositions and customer response to store
atmospherics. Journal of Business Research, 21(3), 225-241.
Grossbart, S., Mittelstaedt, R. A., Curtis, W. W., & Rogers, R. D. (1975).
Environmental sensitivity and shopping behavior. Journal of Business
Research, 3(4), 281-294.
Grubb, E. L. (1965). Consumer perception of 'self-concept' and its relation to
brand choice of selected product types. In S. D. Bennett (Ed.),
Marketing and Economic Development (pp. 419-424). Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and
market behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4),
22-27.
Grubb, E. L., & Stern, B. L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others.
Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 382-385.
325
Grunert, K. G., & Grunert, S. C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning
structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and
methodological problems. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 12(3), 209-225.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Paradigmatic controversies,
contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp.
255-286). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.
Guthrie, E. R. (1952). The Psychology of Learning. Oxford, England: Harper.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer
categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72.
Gutman, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of linkages between consequences
and values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 143-148.
Gutman, J. (1997). Means-end chains as goal hierarchies. Psychology &
Marketing, 14(6), 545-516.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Australia Pearson
Education Australia PTY, Limited.
Halstead, D. (1999). The use of comparison standards in customer satisfaction
research and management: A review and proposed typology. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 13-26.
Halton, E., & Rumbo, J. D. (2007). Membrane of the self: Marketing,
boundaries, and the consumer-incorporated self. Research in Consumer
Behavior, 11, 297-318.
Harrell, G. D., Hutt, M. D., & Anderson, J. C. (1980). Path analysis of buyer
behavior under conditions of crowding. Journal of Marketing Research
17(1), 45-51.
Harris, E. G., & Fleming, D. E. (2005). Assessing the human element in
service personality formation: Personality congruency and the Five
Factor Model. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(4), 187-198.
Harris, L. C., & Ezeh, C. (2008). Servicescape and loyalty intentions: an
empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), 390-
422.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-Concept. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
326
Heckman, M. A., Sherry, K., & De Mejia, E. G. (2010). Energy Drinks: An
Assessment of Their Market Size, Consumer Demographics, Ingredient
Profile, Functionality, and Regulations in the United States.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9(3), 303-
317.
Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement
comparison of self-congruity and brand personality. International
Journal of Market Research, 46(2), 205-233.
Henry, P. (2002). Systematic variation in purchase orientations across social
class. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19(5), 424-438.
Herek, G. M. (1986). The instrumentality of attitudes: toward a neofunctional
theory. Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 99-114.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser Jr, W. E., & Schlesinger,
L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard
Business Review, 72(2), 164-170.
Hewitt, J. P. (2007). Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social
Psychology (10th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hightower, R., Brady, M. K., & Baker, T. L. (2002). Investigating the role of
the physical environment in hedonic service consumption: An
exploratory study of sporting events. Journal of Business Research,
55(9), 697-707.
Hirsch, A. R. (1995). Effects of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las
Vegas casino. Psychology and Marketing, 12(7), 585-594.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Attributes of attributes and layers of meaning.
Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 7-12.
Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links
between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66 (2), 118-
137.
Holahan, C. J. (1986). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 37, 381-407.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of
consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9(1), 132-140.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The Self We Live By: Narrative
Identity in a Postmodern World. New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
327
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addision-Wesley.
Holt, D. B. (1997). Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the
social patterning of consumption in postmodernity. Journal of
Consumer Research, 23(4), 326-350.
Holt, D. B., & Thompson, C. J. (2004). Man-of-action heroes: The pursuit of
heroic masculinity in everyday consumption. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(2), 425-440.
Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. W. (1995). Self-concept and advertising
effectiveness: the influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and
response mode. Psychology and Marketing, 12 (1), 53-77.
Hopkinson, G. C., & Pujari, D. (1999). A factor analytic study of the sources
of meaning in hedonic consumption. European Journal of Marketing,
33(3/4), 273 - 294.
Horton, F. E. (1968). Location factors as determinants of consumer attraction
to retail firms. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
58(4), 787-801.
Howard, J. A. (1995). Social cognition. In K. Cook, G. A. Fine & J. S. House
(Eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology (pp. 90-117).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Huang, W.-H. (2008). The impact of other-customer failure on service
satisfaction. Journal of Service Management, 19(4 ), 521-536.
Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct:
Consequences on consumer–brand relationships. Journal of Business
Research, 63(11), 1113-1120.
Hudson, R. (1974). Images of the retailing environment: An example of the
use of the repertory grid methodology. Environment and Behavior,
6(4), 470-494.
Hui, M. K., & Bateson, J. E. G. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of
crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 18(2), 174-184.
Hunt, S. D. (1992). For reason and realism in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 56(2), 89-102.
Ibrahim, H., & Najjar, F. (2008). Assessing the effects of self-congruity,
attitudes and customer satisfaction on customer behavioural intentions
328
in retail environment. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(2), 207-
227.
Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leading
indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer
satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(Suppl.), 1-35.
Jamal, A. (2004). Retail banking and customer behaviour: A study of self-
concept, satisfaction and technology usage. the International Review of
Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14(3), 357-379.
Jamal, A., & Al-Marri, M. (2007). Exploring the effect of self-image
congruence and brand preference on satisfaction: the role of expertise.
Journal of Marketing Management, 23(7/8), 613-629.
Jamal, A., & Goode, M. (2001). Consumers and brands: A study of the impact
of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 19(7), 482-492.
Jang, S., & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral
intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to
restaurants. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 451-460.
Jankowicz, D. (2004). The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids. West Sussex,
England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Kahle, L. R. (Ed.). (1983). Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to
Life in America. N.Y.: Pracger.
Kahle, L. R. (Ed.). (1996). Social Values and Consumer Behavior: Research
from the List of Values, Vol. 8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,.
Kahle, L. R., Beatty, S. E., & Homer, P. (1986). Alternative measurement
approaches to consumer values: The list of values (LOV) and values
and life style (VALS). Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 405-409.
Kahle, L. R., Rose, G., & Shoham, A. (2000). Findings of LOV throughout the
world, and other evidence of cross-national consumer psychographics:
Introduction. Journal of Euromarketing, 8(1-2), 1-13.
Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Strube, M. J. (1999). A test of value
congruence effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1175-
1198.
Kamakura, W. A., Mittal, V., De Rosa, F., & Mazzon, J. A. (2002). Assessing
the service-profit chain. Marketing Science, 21(3), 294-317.
329
Kamakura, W. A., & Novak, T. P. (1992). Value-system segmentation:
Exploring the meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1),
119-132
Kasper, H., Helsdingen, P. V., & Gabbott, M. (2006). Services Marketing
Management - A Strategic Perspective (2nd ed.). England: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 4(1), 8-18.
Kassarjian, H. H., & Sheffet, M. J. (1991). Personality and consumer
behavior: An update. In H. H. Kassarjian & Robertson (Eds.),
Perspective in Consumer Behavior (pp. 281-303). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kaya, N., & Epps, H. H. (2004). Relationship between color and emotion:A
study of college students. College Student Journal, 38(3), 396-405.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York:
Routledge.
Kelly, G. A. (1969). The language of hypothesis: man's psychological
instrument. In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical Psychology and Personality:
The Selected Papers of George Kelly. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kelly, G. A. (1991). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York:
Routledge.
Kelly, G. A. (2003). A brief introduction to Personal Construct Theory. In F.
Fransella (Ed.), International Handbook of Personal Construct
Psychology. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.
Kerlinger, F. H. (1964 ). Foundations of Behavioral Research: Educational
and Psychological Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kleine III, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption
and the self: A social-identiity perspective. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 2(3), 209-235.
Knez, I. (2001). Effects of colour of light on nonvisual psychological
processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(2), 201-208.
Knippenberg, D. v., Knippenberg, B. v., Cremer, D. D., & Hogg, M. A.
(2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda.
The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.
330
Kotler, P. (1973). Atomospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing,
49(4), 48-64.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of
star trek‘s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 67-88.
Kozinets, Robert V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of
consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal
of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691-704.
Kozinets, Robert V., Sherry, J. F. J., Storm, D., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit,
K., Deberry-Spence, B., & eaucte. (2004). Ludic agency and retail
spectacle. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 658-672.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J.
(2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand
loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 955-964.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its
Methodology (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).
Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-
job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit.
Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.
Kucukemiroglu, O. (1999). Market segmentation by using consumer lifestyle
dimensions and ethnocentrism: An empirical study. European Journal
of Marketing, 33(5/6), 470-487.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten
thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100.
Leather, P., Beale, D., Santos, A., Watts, J., & Lee, L. (2003). Outcomes of
environmental appraisal of different hospital waiting areas.
Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 842-869.
Lee, N., & Lings, I. (2008). Doing Business Research: A Guide to Theory and
Practice London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lehrner, J., Eckersberger, C., Walla, P., Pötsch, G., & Deecke, L. (2000).
Ambient odor of orange in a dental office reduces anxiety and improves
mood in female patients. Physiology and Behavior, 71(1-2), 83-86.
Leigh, J. H., & Gabel, T. G. (1992). Symbolic Interactionism: Its effects on
consumer behavior and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of
Services Marketing, 6(3), 5-16.
331
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for
authenticity: The multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of
consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4),
481-493.
Levy, S. J. (1999). Symbols for sale (1959). In D. W. Rook (Ed.), Brands,
Consumers, Symbols, and Research (pp. 203-212). Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications.
Lewis, B. R. (1991). Service quality: An international comparison of bank
customers' expectations and perceptions. Journal of Marketing
Management, 7(1), 47-62.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data.
Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Livingston, S. (2003). Projective techniques uncover real consumer attitudes.
Retrieved February 13, 2012 http://tlgonline.com/sharon/articles/1.asp
Loveman, G. W. (1998). Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
financial performance. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 18-31.
Maio, G. R. (2010). Mental representations of social values. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 1-43).
Burlington: Academic Press.
Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts,
and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 456-464.
Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Self concept and product choice: an integrated
perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(1), 1-28.
Malhotra, N. K., Hall, Shaw, & Oppenheim. (2006). Marketing Research: An
Applied Orientation. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Marsden, D., & Littler, D. (2000a). Exploring consumer product construct
systems with the repertory grid technique. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 127-144
Marsden, D., & Littler, D. (2000b). Repertory grid technique – An interpretive
research framework. European Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 816-834.
332
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper &
Row.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publiscations Ltd.
Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver
of in-store evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-
289.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand
community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.
McCarthy, J. D., & Hoge, D. R. (1984). The dynamics of self-esteem and
delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 90(2), 396-410.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90.
McGrath, M. A. (1998). Dream on: projections of an ideal servicescape. In J.
F. J. Sherry (Ed.), Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in
Contemporary Markets. Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Mehrabian, A. (1977). Individual differences in stimulus screening and
arousability. Journal of Personality, 45(2), 237-250.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental
Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F. (2004). Depth interviewing. In S. N. Hesse-
Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A
Reader on Theory and Practice New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc
Milliman, R. E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of
supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 86-91.
Mindak, W. A. (1961). Fitting the semantic differential to the marketing
problem. Journal of Marketing, 25(4), 28-33.
Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlational research
conducted in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 10(2),
192-205.
333
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and
repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer
characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-142.
Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2005). Religiosity in the abandoned apple
newton brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 737-
747.
Naoi, T., Airey, D., Iijima, S., & Niininen, O. (2006). Visitors‘ evaluation of
an historical district: Repertory Grid Analysis and Laddering Analysis
with photographs. Tourism Management, 27(3), 420-436.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling
Procedures:Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newman, A. J. (2007). Uncovering dimensionality in the servicescape:
Towards legibility. The Service Industries Journal, 27(1), 15-28.
Nguyen, N. (2006). The collective impact of service workers and servicescape
on the corporate image formation. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 25(2), 227-244.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
O'Cass, A., & Grace, D. (2008). Understanding the role of retail store service
in light of self-image–store image congruence. Psychology and
Marketing, 25(6), 521-537.
O'Cass, A., & McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and
conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 25-
39.
O‘Shaughnessy, J., & O‘Shaughnessy, N. J. (2002). Marketing, the consumer
society and hedonism. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 524 -
547.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops,
Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a
Community. New York: Marlowe & Company.
Olson, J. C., & Reynolds, T. J. (1983). Understanding consumers' cognitive
structures: Implications for advertising strategy. In L. Percy & A.
Woodside (Eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology (Vol. I).
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
334
Oppewal, H., & Timmermans, H. (1999). Modeling consumer perception of
public space in shopping centers. Environment and Behavior, 31(1), 45-
65.
Orth, U. R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T., & Lopetcharat, K. (2004).
Promoting brand benefits: The role of consumer psychographics and
lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(2), 97-108.
Ownbey, K. L., Davis, K., & Sundel, H. H. (1994). The effect of location
variables on the gross rents of neighborhood shopping centers. Journal
of Real Estate Research, 9(1), 111-123.
Pan, Y., & Siemens, J. C. (2011). The differential effects of retail density: An
investigation of goods versus service settings. Journal of Business
Research, 64(2), 105-112.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model
of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of
Marketing, 49(4), 41-51.
Parish, J. T., Berry, L. L., & Lam, S. Y. (2008). The effect of the servicescape
on service workers. Journal of Service Research, 10(3), 220-238.
Patterson, P. G., & Smith, T. (2003). A cross-cultural study of switching
barriers and propensity to stay with service providers. Journal of
Retailing, 79(2), 107-120.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing
practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 133-145.
Piacentini, M., & Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic consumption in teenagers'
clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 251-262.
Pinto, M. B., & Leonidas, L. (1994). The impact of office characteristics on
satisfaction with medical care: a "before and after" analysis. Health
Marketing Quarterly, 12 (2), 43-54.
Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1991). Special issue: Examining the structure
of personal values and consumer decision making. Journal of Business
Research, 22(2), 91-93.
Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self Concept and School Achievement. Englewood-
Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc.
335
Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Emotion as a connection of physical
artifacts and organizations. Organization Science, 15(6), 671-686.
Rao, S., & Perry, C. (2003). Convergent interviewing to build a theory in
under-researched areas: principles and an example investigation of
Internet usage in inter-firm relationships. Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, 6(4), 236 -247.
Rapoport, A. (1990). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal
Communication Approach (2nd ed.). Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press.
Reed II, A. (2002). Social identity as a useful perspective for self-concept-
based consumer research. Psychology & Marketing, 19(3), 235-266.
Reed II, A. (2004). Activating the self-importance of consumer selves:
Exploring identity salience effects on judgments. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(2), 286-295.
Reimer, A., & Kuehn, R. (2005). The impact of servicescape on quality
perception. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 785-808.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale
revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287-297.
Reynolds, N., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1998). The effect of pretest method on
error detection rates. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 480-498.
Reynolds, T. J., Gengler, C. E., & Howard, D. J. (1995). A means-end analysis
of brand persuasion through advertising. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 12(3), 257-266.
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis and
interpprtation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11-31.
Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of
possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504-521.
Rochberg-Halton, E. (1984). Object relations, role models, and cultivation of
the self. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 335-368.
Rokeach, M. (1968). The role of values in public opinion research. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 32(4), 547-559.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding Human Values. New York: The Free
Press.
336
Roos, A., & Hugosson, M. (2008). Consumer preferences for wooden and
laminate flooring. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 3(1-2), 29-
37.
Rose, G. M., & Orr, L. M. (2007). Measuring and exploring symbolic money
meanings. Psychology & Marketing, 24(9), 743-761.
Rosenbaum, M. S. (2005). The symbolic servicescape: Your kind is welcomed
here. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(4), 257-267.
Rosenbaum, M. S. (2009). Restorative servicescapes: restoring directed
attention in thrid places. Journal of Service Management, 20(2), 173-
191.
Rosenbaum, M. S., & Massiah, C. (2011). An expanded servicescape
perspective. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 471-490.
Rosenbaum, M. S., & Montoya, D. Y. (2007). Am I welcome here? Exploring
how ethnic consumers assess their place identity. Journal of Business
Research, 60(3), 206-214.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Ward, J., Walker, B. A., & Ostrom, A. L. (2007). A cup of
coffee with a dash of love: An investigation of commercial social
support and third-place attachment. Journal of Service Research, 10(1),
43-59.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. Malabar, Fla.: R.E. Krieger.
Rowe, D. (1996). The importance of Personal Construct Theory. In B. M.
Walker, J. Costigan, L. L. Viney & B. Warren (Eds.), Personal
Construct Theory: A Psycholog for the Future (pp. 9-23). Townsville,
QLD.: The Australian Psychological Society Ltd.
Rucci, A. J., Kirn, S. P., & Quinn, R. T. (1998). The employee-customer-profit
chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 82-97.
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach-avoidance and affiliation as
functions of the emotion-eliciting quality of an environment.
Environment and Behavior, 10(3), 355-387.
Sampson, P. (1972). Using the repertory grid test. Journal of Marketing
Research, 9(1), 78-81.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for
Business Students (4th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education Limited.
Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Translating actions into attitudes: An identityanalytic
approach to the explanation of social conduct. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
337
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 193-247).
New York: Academic Press.
Schlesinger, L. A., & Heskett, J. L. (1991). The service-driven service
company. Harvard Business Review, 69(5), 71-81.
Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in transition: symbolic consumption in
personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(4), 412-425.
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption:
An ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research,
22(1), 43-61.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 Countries. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of
integrated value systems. The Psychology of Values, 8, 119-144.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268-290.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.
Shanock, L., Baran, B., Gentry, W., Pattison, S., & Heggestad, E. (2010).
Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful
approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of
difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554.
Sherry, J. F. J. (1998a). The soul of the company store: nike town chicago and
the emplaced brandscape. In J. F. J. Sherry (Ed.), Servicescapes: The
Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets (pp. 109-146). Chicago,
Illinois: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company.
Sherry, J. F. J. (2000). Place, technology, and representation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(2), 273-278.
Sherry, J. F. J. (Ed.). (1998b). Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in
Contemporary Markets. Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 41(000002), 73-80.
338
Sigurdsson, V., Saevarsson, H., & Foxall, G. (2009). Brand placement and
consumer choice: an in-store experiment. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42(3), 741-745.
Singleton, R. A., Jr., , & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to Social Research
(5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sirgy, M. J. (1979). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior. Docotor of
Philosophy Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.
Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict
purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195-206.
Sirgy, M. J., & Danes, J. E. (1982). Self-image/product-image congruence
models: Testing selected models. Advances in Consumer Research, 9,
556-561.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. (2000). Retail environment, self-
congruity, and retail patronage: An integrative model and a research
agenda. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 127-138.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J.-o., & et al. (1997).
Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-
image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. ,
25(3), 229-241.
Sirgy, M. J., Johar, J. S., Samli, A. C., & Claiborne, C. B. (1991). Self-
congruity versus functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behavior.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 363-375.
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel
behavior: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research,
38(4), 340-352.
Smith, P., & Burns, D. J. (1996). Atmospherics and retail environments: the
case of the "power aisle". International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 24, 7-14.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic
interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319-
329.
Solomon, M. R. (1985). Packaging the service provider. Service Industries
Journal, 5(1), 64-71.
339
Solomon, M. R. (1998). Dressing for the part: The role of costume in the
staging of the servicescape. In J. F. J. Sherry (Ed.), Servicescapes: The
Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets. Chicago: NTC Business
Books.
Solomon, M. R., & Assael, H. (1987). The forest or the trees?: A gestalt
approach to symbolic consumption. In J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.),
Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for sale
(pp. 189-218). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Solomon, M. R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic approach to product
symbolism: Mapping a consumption constellation. Journal of Business
Research, 22(2), 95-109.
Spencer, C. (1981). The new social psychology and its relation to
environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1(4),
329-336.
Stafford, J. E., & Enis, B. M. (1969). The price-quality relationship: An
extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(4), 456-458.
Stanton, J. L., & Lowenhar, J. A. (1974). A congruence model of brand
preference: A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Marketing
Research, 11(000004), 427-433.
Steinman, R., & Karpinski, A. (2009). The breadth-based adjective rating task
(BART) in consumer behavior. Marketing Letters, 20(4), 327-335.
Stern, B. L., Bush, R. F., & Hair, J. F., Jr. (1977). The self-image/store image
matching process: An empirical test. The Journal of Business, 50(1),
63-69.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Strong, C. (1999). The self. In M. Solomon, G. Bamossy & S. Askegaard
(Eds.), Consumer behaviour: A European perspective. Essex, England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Stryker, S. (2000). Identity competition: Key to differential social movement
participation? . In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens & R. W. White (Eds.), Self,
Identity, and Social Movements (Vol. 13, pp. 370). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York:
Norton.
340
Summers, T. A., Belleau, B. D., & Xu, Y. (2006). Predicting purchase
intention of a controversial luxury apparel product. Journal of Fashion
Marketing & Management, 10(4), 405-419.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical
Environment in Offices and Factories. New York Cambridge
University Press.
Sundstrom, E. (1991). Work environments: Offices and factories In D. Stokols
& I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1).
Malabar, Flordia: Keieger Publishing Company.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics.
Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1986). Private and public experiences of the self. In R.
Baumeister (Ed.), Public Self and Private Self (pp. 1-20). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Thang, D. C. L., & Tan, B. L. B. (2003). Linking consumer perception to
preference of retail stores: an empirical assessment of the multi-
attributes of store image. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
10(4), 193-200.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management Research
Methods. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, C. J., & Hirschman, E. C. (1995). Understanding the socialized
body: A poststructuralist analysis of consumers' self-conceptions, body
images, and self-care practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2),
139-153.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer
to a simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 89-101.
Titus, P. A., & Everett, P. B. (1995). The consumer retail search process: A
conceptual model and research agenda. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 23(2), 106-119.
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual
model. Marketing Theory, 3(4), 447-475.
Turley, L. W., & Chebat, J.-C. (2002). Linking retail strategy, atmospheric
design and shopping behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management,
18(1-2), 125-144.
341
Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping
behavior: A review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business
Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Turner, R. H. (Ed.). (1968). The self-conception in social interaction. NY:
Wiley.
Upah, G. D., & Fulton, J. N. (1985). Situation creation in services marketing.
In J. Czepiel, M. Solomon & C. Surprenant (Eds.), The Service
Encounter (pp. 255-264). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Usunier, J.-C., & Lee, J. A. (2005). Marketing Across Cultures (4th ed.).
Sydney: Pearson Eduation Limited.
van Rompay, T. J. L., Galetzka, M., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Garcia, J. M. (2008).
Human and spatial dimensions of retail density: Revisiting the role of
perceived control. Psychology & Marketing, 25(4), 319-335.
Vandell, K. D., & Carter, C. C. (1993). Retail store location and market
analysis:a review of the research. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 1,
13-45.
Verhoeven, J. W. M., van Rompay, T. J. L., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2009). The
price facade: Symbolic and behavioral price cues in service
environments. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4),
604-611.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework
of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 1999(1), 1-15.
Vinagre, M. H., & Neves, J. (2008). The influence of service quality and
patients' emotions on satisfaction. International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance, 21(1), 87-103.
Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. R. (1977). The role of personal
values in marketing and consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing,
41(000002), 44-50.
Vogt, W. P. (2011). Sage Quantitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications,
Inc. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hoffman, A. J., Thompson, L. L., Moore, D. A.,
Gillespie, l. I., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Barriers to resolution in
ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions.
Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 41-57.
342
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on
customers‘ behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of
Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-61.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer response to intangible
and tangible service factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51 - 68.
Walch, J. M., Rabin, B. S., Day, R., Williams, J. N., Choi, K., & Kang, J. D.
(2005). The effects of sunlight on postoperative analgesic medication
use: A prospective study of patients undergoing spinal surgery.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 156-163.
Wall, E. A., & Berry, L. L. (2007). The combined effects of the physical
environment and employee behavior on customer perception of
restaurant service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 48(1), 59-69.
Ward, J. C., & Barnes, J. W. (2001). Control and affect: the influence of
feeling in control of the retail environment on affect, involvement,
attitude, and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 139-144.
Ward, J. C., Bitner, M. J., & Barnes, J. (1992). Measuring the prototypicality
and meaning of retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68(2), 194-
221.
Weishut, D. J. N. (1989). The Meaningfulness of the Distinction between
Instrument and Terminal Values. Master‘s thesis, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel.
Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E., & Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and
attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message
elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 787-797.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Academy
of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Wilska, T.-A. (2002). Me- A consumer? consumption, identities and lifestyles
in today's Finland. Acta Sociologica, 45(3), 195-210.
Winsted, K. F. (1997). The service experience in two cultures: a behavioral
perspective. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 337-360.
Wojciszke, B. (1989). The system of personal values and behavior. In N.
Eisenberg, J. Reykowski & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and Moral Values:
Individual and Societal Perspectives (pp. 229-251). Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
343
Yammarino, F., & Atwater, L. (1997). Do managers see themselves as others
see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human
resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4), 35-44.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of
organic food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104 (8),
643-653.
Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth
of customers: What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 67-85.
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services marketing: Integrating
Cusotmer Focus Across the Firm (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and
strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33-46.
Zhang, J., & Bloemer, J. M. M. (2008). The impact of value congruence on
consumer-service brand relationships. Journal of Service Research,
11(2), 161-178.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business Research Methods. Cincinnati, OH:
Thomson/South-Western.
Zikmund, W. G., Ward, S., Lowe, B., & Winzar, H. (2007). Marketing
Research. South Melbourne, Vic: Thomson Learning.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Biswas, A. (1988). Using the repertory grid to assess the
complexity of consumers' cognitive structures. Advances in Consumer
Research, 15(1), 493-497.