Article 35 How Disconfirmation, Perception and Actual Waiting Times Impact Customer Satisfaction Mark M. Davis & Janelle Heineke - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Article 35 How Disconfirmation, Perception and Actual Waiting Times Impact Customer Satisfaction Mark M. Davis & Janelle Heineke PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3aff73-MjNmO


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Article 35 How Disconfirmation, Perception and Actual Waiting Times Impact Customer Satisfaction Mark M. Davis & Janelle Heineke


Article 35 How Disconfirmation, Perception and Actual Waiting Times Impact Customer Satisfaction Mark M. Davis & Janelle Heineke Presented by: Darleen Olarig – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:107
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: businessF4


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Article 35 How Disconfirmation, Perception and Actual Waiting Times Impact Customer Satisfaction Mark M. Davis & Janelle Heineke

Article 35 How Disconfirmation, Perception and
Actual Waiting Times Impact Customer
Satisfaction Mark M. Davis Janelle Heineke
  • Presented by Darleen Olarig

  • To analyze and compare the results of both the
    disconfirmation approach and perception approach
    in measuring satisfaction with waiting for
  • If perception model more appropriate for relating
    to customer satisfaction, then to understand
    satisfaction only perception data is required.
  • If disconfirmation approach is superior, then
    both expectation and perception data are

  • In addition, this study investigates customer
    satisfaction with actual waiting time (or actual
    performance of the service delivery) and compares
    these results with those obtained with the
    disconfirmation and perception models.

Previous Work
  • Previous research on customer satisfaction with
    respect to waiting in service operations can be
    divided into three areas
  • Developing a method to define customer
  • Measuring customer satisfaction
  • Identifying factors that affect the level of
    customer satisfaction.

Previous Work
  • Chebat et al (1994)
  • Study of bank customers support the notion of
    halo effect meaning customers evaluation of
    service quality was affected not only by the end
    service received but also by service delivery
    process itself, including waiting time.
  • Beardon Teale (1983), Day Landon (1977)
  • Customer satisfaction can be conceived as one
    element of an overall model of customer behavior
    that evolves over time.
  • Reichheld Sasser (1990)
  • Customer loyalty, in the form of repeat business,
    is a key determinant of the success many service

Previous Work Defining Customer Satisfaction
  • Defining Customer Satisfaction has been
    approached in two ways
  • Satisfaction as a function of disconfirmation
  • Satisfaction as a function of perception

Previous Work
  • Anderson (1973), Parasuraman (1994), Swan (1981)
  • Attempted to define satisfaction in terms of
  • Satisfaction f (Perception-Expectation)
  • Customer expectations are set in two ways
  • Through advertising and word of mouth
  • After previous encounter with the firm, from
    personal experience.

Previous Work
  • Anderson (1973) Swan (1981)
  • Proposed two dimensions to the expectation
    construct the level of service desired by the
    customer and the level of service predicted by
    the customer.
  • High CS the service performance the
    customers desired service level.
  • CS desired level gt performance predicted
  • Dissatisfaction performance level is less than
    both the desired level and the predicted levels
    of service.

Previous Work
  • Zeithaml (1993) argued that desired service is
    the level of service a customer believes can and
    should be delivered. Adequate service is the
    level customer considers acceptable.
  • Spreng Olshavsky (1993) showed there was a
    significant relationship between the extent to
    which performance is congruent with desires, but
    did not find the disconfirmation of expectations
    to be significant.

Previous Work
  • Goode Moutino (1995) state the disconfirmation
    of expectations model has been increasingly
    criticized in recent years. As a result,
    standards other than expectations have been
  • Teas (1994) argues that multiple definitions of
    expectations and difficulties with measurement
    undermine the value of models incorporating

Previous Work
  • Cronin Taylor (1994), Teas (1993)
  • Satisfaction depends on customers perception of
    service performance, not disconfirmation between
    performance and expectations.
  • Satisfaction f (Perception)
  • Parasuraman (1994) argues while perception alone
    may be a better predictor of satisfaction, it
    offers less understanding of the underlying
    phenomena than the disconfirmation model.

Previous Work Measuring Customer Satisfaction
  • Hawes Arndt (1982) suggest the use of a single
    global indicator of a customers reaction to
    service experience to be the most common measure
    of CS.
  • However, the single indicator is suspect when the
    construct is complex in regards to validity and
  • A Customer Survey using multi-item/specific
    approach is more valid and reliable.

Previous Work Factors Affecting Customer
  • Maister (1985) developed a conceptual framework
    that identified the factors affecting CS with
    waiting widely accepted.
  • The framework identified situations in which
    waits were perceived positively or negatively as
    a result of the circumstance of the wait.
  • Maister Model the perception of the wait
    determines satisfaction rather than actual

Previous Work
  • Davis Vollmann (1990) supported Maisters
  • Conducted study of customer waiting times and
    level of satisfaction in a fast food restaurant.
  • There were significant differences in levels of
    satisfaction depending on time of day and how
    busy the stores were when customer visited.
  • Tolerant of waiting in line if store because
    there was a identifiable reason for the wait.
  • Impatient if on a lunch break and had limited

Previous Work
  • Davis Maggard (1990) also supported Maisters
    notion that customers tend to be more
    dissatisfied with a given wait before making
    their first contact with a service provider than
    they are with subsequent waits within a single
    service encounter.
  • Katz (1991) examined how a bank might improve
    customer satisfaction with waiting time by
    installing a clock and an electronic news board,
    but failed to distract customers.
  • Smidts Pruyn (1994) study of health care
    customers in outpatient clinics had similar

Previous Work
  • Distractions Fail because
  • It does not actually affect perception of waiting
    time and satisfaction with waiting.
  • It was not the appropriate distraction given the
    context of wait. For example, TV would be
    irritating to a sick patient who is sick.

Previous Work
  • Davis Heineke (1994) categorized factors that
    can affect a customers satisfaction with waiting
    in line based on the degree to which service
    managers could control the factors.
  • Factors that can be controlled by the firm
    would be fairness in serving customers on first
    come, first serve basis.
  • Factors that can be partially controlled such
    as customer expectations
  • Factors that are outside of the firms control
    whether customer arrives alone or in a group.

  • Used the same database in studies conducted by
    Davis Vollmann (1990) and Davis Maggard
  • Selected a fast food chain for administering the
  • Waiting time for customers were recorded with a
    stop watch without their knowledge.
  • After being served, customers were asked to
    complete a survey. Satisfaction was measured on
    a 1-5 Likert Scale.
  • Customers were asked how long they expected to
    wait prior to entering the store and how long
    they perceived they had waited.

  • 90 of customers agreed to participate. Total of
    723 waiting times and corresponding surveys
  • Responses to two questions relating to customers
    satisfaction with the waiting time before service
    were averaged to develop a measure for
    satisfaction with initial wait. (WaitSat)
  • How satisfied are you with how long you had to
    wait in line from the time you walked in to when
    you placed your order?
  • What is your opinion of the overall speed of
    service you received from when you first entered
    to when you began placing your order?

  • The WaitSat values were then related to three
    different independent variables using simple
    linear regression.
  • Actual customer waiting times
  • Perceived waiting times
  • Expected waiting times

Analysis and Results
  • There is a correlation between actual wait time
    and perceived wait time, although it is not as
    high, r 0.596 59.6
  • Correlation between perceived wait and expected
    wait is very small, r 0.280 28

Table I. Independent variable correlation
Analysis and Result
  • Confirms that customer satisfaction with waiting
    time is inversely related to perceived waiting
    time and actual waiting time.
  • Findings indicate the effect of actual wait on
    satisfaction is greater than the effect of either
    perceived wait or disconfirmation.

Table II. The relationship between CS and
disconfirmation, perception, expected wait, and
actual wait.
Analysis and Result
  • When time is important, the perception of waiting
    time is a much better predictor of satisfaction
    than the actual wait time.
  • When time is not critical, the differences
    between the predictive value of actual wait,
    perceived wait, and disconfirmation are small.
  • Actual waiting time exerts a stronger influence
    over satisfaction.

Table III. The relationship between CS and
disconfirmation, perception, expected wait, and
actual wait with time constraint.
  • These findings support the argument that
    perception of waiting time is a better predictor
    of customer satisfaction than either actual
    waiting or disconfirmation.
  • In the analysis of customers for whom time was an
    important variable, perception appeared to be a
    much better predictor of customer satisfaction.
  • In all analyses, the coefficient for actual wait
    was larger than for either perceived wait or for
    disconfirmation. This indicates that actual
    waiting time exerts a stronger influence over
    customer satisfaction with waiting.

Conclusion Implications
  • What customers expect their waits to be is a poor
    predictor of satisfaction and the expectation
    regarding waiting is not highly correlated with
    the perception of wait.
  • The difference between perceived wait and
    expected wait, Disconfirmation, does not predict
    satisfaction any better than the perception of
    the wait alone.

  • It is always critical to improve actual process
    performance to reduce waiting time.
  • Service managers must continue to look for new
    approaches not only to reduce waiting times, but
    also to explore new ways of improving customer
    satisfaction with a given waiting time.
  • Managers must also continue to develop new
    measures for relating customer satisfaction to
    waiting time.

  • The real goal is to determine how waiting times
    affect customer loyalty as measured by their
    repeat business in the future.