歡迎來到文藻W-Portfolio

消費者的公眾自我意識對於排隊等候的反應所帶
來的影響－以愛買為例
THE INFLUENCE OF CONSUMERS’ PUBLIC
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS ON RESPONSES TO WAITING
IN LINE— WITH GÉANT AS AN EXAMPLE
指導教授：李賢哲 (Prof. Hsien-Che Lee)
研 究 生：陳永崚 (Yung-Leng Chen)
大同大學
事業經營研究所
碩士論文
Thesis for Master of Business Administration
Department of Business Management
Tatung University
中華民國九十三年六月
June 2004
消費者的公眾自我意識對於排隊等候的反應所帶
來的影響－以愛買為例
THE INFLUENCE OF CONSUMERS’ PUBLIC
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS ON RESPONSES TO WAITING
IN LINE— WITH GÉANT AS AN EXAMPLE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
MANAGEMENT OF THE TATUNG UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
BY
Yung-Leng Chen
陳永崚
JUNE 2004
TAIPEI, TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA

i
消費者的公眾自我意識對於排隊等候的反應所帶來的影響
－以愛買為例
指導教授：李賢哲
研 究 生：陳永崚
大同大學事業經營研究所
九十二學年度碩士論文摘要
近年來隨著台灣都市化程度越來越高，男女平權越受重視，人們的生活方式
有所轉變。大賣場成為普遍的購物場所，以「一次購足，兼具購物、娛樂之功能」
為號召，吸引了許多的消費者。排隊等候問題因而產生，等待時間被拉長，必有
不利廠商的結果出現，然而，每個消費者的反應有所不同，這就牽涉到等候者心
理層面的問題。Buss（1980）的研究中將公眾自我意識定義為一種人格特質，係
指在意在他人面前所呈現出來樣子與他人的看法。因此，具公眾自我意識傾向的
消費者，在他人面前會較敏感。而本研究想了解公眾自我意識傾向高低對消費者
注意力集中於時間問題上、消費者的等候原因歸屬、消費者的服務品質評價以及
消費者的抱怨行為等等候反應的影響。
本研究的研究對象為在「愛買」消費的消費群，本研究研究對象為在北市的
兩家分店：景美店與忠孝店。於此兩門市外實地進行問卷調查，共取得332 份的
ii
有效問卷樣本資料。
本研究採用統計軟體 SPSS10.0 進行分析。先以Pearson 相關分析檢定公眾
自我意識傾向與消費者注意力集中於時間問題上是否成正相關，以及在不同情境
下，公眾自我意識對消費者抱怨行為、等候原因歸屬與服務品質評價是否有正向
的關係，再以迴歸分析驗證自變數對應變數的影響，最後利用多變量分析方法檢
定高度公眾自我意識與低度公眾自我意識的消費者間的平均數差異。
本研究的研究結果發現：（1）消費者的公眾自我意識傾向與消費者注意力集
中於時間問題上並無顯著有關。（2）在衡量公眾自我意識傾向對於等候原因歸屬
的影響、對於服務品質評價的影響及對於消費者抱怨行為的影響在四個情境中皆
成立，且研究顯示高度公眾自我意識的消費者較低度公眾自我意識的消費者容易
將等候原因可控制因素歸於外在因素、容易有負面的服務品質評價及容易採用負
面口碑及不再使用服務來表現他們的不滿。
.
iii
THE INFLUENCE OF CONSUMERS’ PUBLIC
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS ON RESPONSES TO WAITING IN
LINE— WITH GÉANT AS AN EXAMPLE
Advisor: Prof. Hsien-Che Lee
Student: Yung-Leng Chen
TATUNG UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
MASTER’S THESIS
JUNE 2004
ABSTRACT
While the extent of urbanization in Taiwan is higher and higher, people's life
condition has been transformed: Consequently, on weekends, the phenomenon of huge
crowds of people in hypermarkets is usual. In other words, consumers have to wait in line
for settling accounts. However, we know that waiting in line is time-consuming, so when
the waiting time is prolonged, there must be negative effect on firms. But different
consumers have different responses. This may be related to consumers’ psychology. As
we know public self-consciousness refers to a characteristic concern with one's self as a
social object of others’ attention and is associated with greater attention and
iv
responsiveness to standards or expectations by which one's behavior and personal
attributes may be evaluated by others. Hence, the purpose of this research is to investigate
how consumers’ public self-consciousness disposition may explain the variability in their
responses to a waiting situation. In this research, these waiting responses include
consumers’ attentional focus on time, consumers’ causal attribution for waiting,
consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer complaining behavior.
The research subjects of this study were people who consume in Géant. This study
employed Pearson correlation coefficient to examine whether consumers’ public
self-consciousness disposition has significant relationship with the four waiting responses.
Secondly, by using the simple regression method, the effects of consumers’ public
self-consciousness disposition on the four waiting responses respectively were analyzed.
And then multivariate analysis method was used to test mean-difference between high
public self-conscious and low public self-conscious subjects.
The research findings are (1) consumers’ public self-consciousness disposition is
not related significantly to consumers’ attentional focus on time. (2) consumers’ public
self-consciousness disposition has positive significant relationship with consumers’ causal
attribution for waiting, consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer
complaining behavior in each scenario, and this study shows high public self-conscious
consumers have greater effects on these three waiting responses.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This student is indebted to all the people who have helped him directly and
indirectly in completing his thesis. First of all, this student would like to thank his advisor,
Professor Hsien-che Lee (李賢哲), for his splendid advice and careful guidance during
the entire period of this research.
Grateful acknowledgement is also extended to Dr. Ting-sheng Lin (林挺生),
President of Tatung University, for building up Tatung University. Besides, this student
wants to thank Professor Hsin-hsiung Lin (林信雄), true scholars and earnest teachers,
for teaching him how to write a paper with right direction, appropriate style, and correct
syntax.
Appreciative acknowledgement is given to his thesis committee’s members
Chia-chun Tung (童甲春) and Nan-hong Lin (林南宏), for giving him many valuable
suggestions about his thesis.
Moreover, this student desires to express his appreciation to his dear friends,
Shih-hong Lin(林室宏), Jia-hong Lin (林家弘), Hsien-te Huang (黃獻德), and
Ching-feng Huang (黃清峰). They are really good and reliable friends. What this student
wants to tell them is that he will not forget the life in graduate school, where
encouragement and help were offered to and taken from each other.
Finally, this student would like to appreciate his parents, Shun-kai Chen(陳順開)
and Ti-ying Hsu(許地英), for their continuous encouragement and emotional support.
Thanks again for everybody’s help in his graduate school life.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT IN CHINESE……………………..….………………………………….i
ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH…………………………..…..………….…………….…iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………….………..v
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………..…vi
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………viii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………….………...ix
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………...…1
1.1 Research Background and Motives ………………………………………….1
1.2 Research Objectives………………………………………………………….3
1.3 Research Procedure……………………………………………………….….4
II LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………...5
2.1 Public Self-Consciousness…………………………………………………...5
2.2 Consumers’ Attentional Focus on Time……………………………………...7
2.3 Consumers’ Causal Attribution for Waiting………..…………….…………11
2.3.1 The Factors of Causal Attribution….………………………………...12
2.3.2 The Mood-Attribution Relationship………………………………….14
2.4 Consumers’ Evaluation of Service Quality………………………………….16
2.4.1 The Concept and Definition of Service Quality………………...……16
2.4.2 The Measurement of Service Quality………………………………...17
2.4.3 Waiting and Service Quality………………………………………….19
2.4.4 The Concept and Measurement of Service Quality Model……...…...20
2.5 Consumers’ Complaining Behavior…………………………………………23
III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………………….29
vii
3.1 Research Framework…….……………………………………...………….29
3.2 Research Hypotheses………………………………………………………..30
3.3 Operational Definitions of Variables………………………………………..35
3.3.1 Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness……………………………...35
3.3.2 Consumers’ Attentional Focus on Time……………………………..35
3.3.3 Consumers’ Causal Attribution for Waiting…………………………36
3.3.4 Consumers’ Evaluation of Service Quality………………………….36
3.3.5 Consumers’ Complaining Behavior………………………………….36
3.4 Measurement of Variables………………….………………………………..37
3.5 Sampling Design and Data Collection………………………………………39
3.6 Questionnaire Design………………………………………………………..39
3.7 Analysis Method…………………………………………………………….40
IV DATA ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION……………………………………42
4.1 Description of Data………………………………………………………….42
4.2 The Reliability of the Survey Instrument……………………………………43
4.3 Correlation Analysis of Independent and Dependent Variables.…………….45
4.4 Testing the Hypotheses………………..……………………………………..47
V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS…………..…………………………56
5.1 Research Findings…………………………………………………………...56
5.2 Implications and Suggestions for Management……………………………..59
5.3 Limitations and Future Research……………………………………………60
5.3.1 Limitations…………………………………………………………...60
5.3.2 Directions for Future Research……………………………………….61
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………62
APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………..68
VITA………………………………………………………………………………….72
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Research Procedure…………..……………………………………………………...4
2.1 Service Quality Model………..………………………..….……………………….22
3.1 Research Framework………….……………...……………………………………30
ix
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 The Dimensions Comparison of SERVQUAL Scale……………..………………..21
2.2 A Taxonomy of Responses to Dissatisfaction……………………..….……………28
3.1 Measurement Items of Variables…………………………………..……………….38
4.1 Details of Sample Data…………….…………...………………….……………….43
4.2 Reliability Coefficient of Survey Instrument….………………….…..……………45
4.3 Correlations Matrix………………….……….………………….…………………46
4.4 The Influence of Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness Disposition on Consumers’
Attentional Focus on Time…………………………………..……………..….48
4.5 Comparing Means between High Public Self-Conscious and Low Public
Self-Conscious Subjects ..……………………………………………….….…48
4.6 The Influence of Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness Disposition on Consumers’
Causal Attribution for Waiting………………………………..……………….50
4.7 Comparing Means between High Public Self-Conscious and Low Public
Self-Conscious Subjects—2…………………………………..……………….50
4.8 The Influence of Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness Disposition on Consumers’
Evaluation of Service Quality……………………..…………………………..52
4.9 Comparing Means between High Public Self-Conscious and Low Public
Self-Conscious Subjects—3………………………………………..………….52
4.10 The Influence of Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness Disposition on
Consumers’ Complaining Behavior…………..…...…………………………..54
4.11 Comparing Means between High Public Self-Conscious and Low Public
Self-Conscious Subjects—4………………………………………………..….55
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of three sections: The first section in this chapter shows the
motives on why this study covered the theme. The second section presents the objectives
of this research. The third section shows the flow of this research to facilitate the process
of this thesis.
1.1 Research Background and Motives
While the extent of urbanization in Taiwan is higher and higher, and the issue of
equality of gender is more and more emphasized, people's life condition has been
transformed: Traditionally, the men are the sources of family income, but now the double
pay family pattern becomes popular. Therefore, hostesses do not have much time to go
shopping, and they must take care of their own work. As a result, weekends are the idlest
time, on which they can go to buy daily necessities. Because of these reasons,
hypermarkets become popular shopping places. At hypermarkets, consumers can
purchase what they want to buy at a time. Furthermore, hypermarkets not only are places
2
to buy things but also are sites to take excursions. Consequently, on weekends, the
phenomenon of huge crowds of people in hypermarkets is usual. In other words,
consumers have to wait in line for settling accounts.
However, we know that waiting in line is time-consuming, so when the waiting
time is prolonged, there must be negative effect on firms such as low-level service
evaluation, complaints and so on. But different consumers have different responses.
This may be related to consumers’ psychology. As people know public self-consciousness
refers to a characteristic concern with one's self as a social object of others’ attention and
is associated with greater attention and responsiveness to standards or expectations by
which one's behavior and personal attributes may be evaluated by others. 1 Public
self-conscious consumers may feel more sensitive to the presence of others and display
specific reactions while waiting in line with strangers to obtain a service. Hence, the
purpose of this research is to investigate how consumers’ public self-consciousness
disposition may explain the variability in their responses to a waiting situation. In this
research, these waiting responses include consumers’ attentional focus on time,
consumers’ causal attribution for waiting, consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and
consumer complaining behavior.
1A. H. Buss, Self-Consciousness and Social Anxiety, (San Francisco: Freeman, 1980), 28.
3
1.2 Research Objectives
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of public self-consciousness
disposition on consumers’ attentional focus on time, consumers’ causal attribution for
waiting, consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer complaining behavior.
The research objectives of this thesis are as follows:
1. To understand whether consumers’ public self-consciousness disposition have
connections with consumers’ responses to waiting in line.
2. To understand how consumers’ public self-consciousness disposition affects
consumers’ responses.
3. According to the empirical results, try to provide some suggestions for enterprises
conducting the issue of waiting in line.
4
1.3 Research Procedure
This study follows the procedure as shown in figure 1.1
Figure 1.1 Research procedure
Source: This study.
Collecting and Exploring Relevant Literature
Establishing Research Framework
Data Analysis and Explanation
Conclusions and Suggestions
Identifying Research Objectives
Data Collection
Designing Questionnaire
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to the research motives and objectives, this study will review consumers’
public self-consciousness, consumers’ attentional focus on time, consumers’ causal
attribution for waiting, consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer
complaining behavior based on theories related to the subjects.
2.1 Public Self-Consciousness
The public self-consciousness state is concerned with a disposition toward the self as
perceived by others, and it refers to a subject's tendency to attend to or think about the
publicly displayed aspects of the self that can easily be examined by others.1 It is linked
with overt displays and impression management.2 In others words, it is a tendency to
think about one's visible characteristics such as physical appearance, social behavior, or
the impression one makes on others.
1A. H. Buss, Self-Consciousness and Social Anxiety, (San Francisco: Freeman, 1980), 28.
2 J. M. Cheek and S. R. Briggs, “Self-consciousness and Aspects of Identity,” Journal of Research in
Personality 16 (1982): 403.
6
Turner, Gilliland, & Klein noted that publicly self-conscious people were actually
evaluated as being more physically attractive than those less publicly self-conscious.3
This may reflect the fact that people high in this trait are more attentive to their physical
image and more likely to engage in behaviors (e.g., makeup use) to enhance their physical
appearance.4 They operationalized it through daytime use of makeup, length of time spent
applying makeup, and amount of makeup typically worn. Indeed, public
self-consciousness is particularly characteristic of appearance-schematic women who
maintain strong beliefs regarding the importance of physical appearance in one's life.5
From a cognitive perspective, the public aspects involve and control overt information.
The self functionally controls the processing of self-referent information.6 Nasby found
that public self-consciousness predicts the extent to which individuals have articulated the
public component of the self-schema.7 The findings of Hass further reinforce that public
self-focus involves considering the perspective of other people on oneself.8 People high in
3 R. G. Turner, L. Gilliland, and, H. M. Klein,. “Self-Consciousness, Evaluation of Physical
Characteristics, and Physical Attractiveness,” Journal of Research in Personality 15 (1981): 184.
4L. C. Miller and C. L. Cox, “For Appearances' Sake: Public Self-Consciousness and Makeup Use,”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 8 (1982): 749.
5 T. F. Cash and A. S. Labarge, “Development of the Appearance Schemas Inventory: A New Cognitive
Body-Image Assessment,” Cognitive Therapy and Research 20 (1996): 41.
6 W. Nasby, “Private and Public Self-Consciousness and Articulation of the Self-Schema,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1989): 119.
7 Ibid. , 120.
8 R. G. Hass, “Perspective Taking and Self-Awareness: Drawing an Eon you forehand,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 46, (1984): 792.
7
public self-consciousness are concerned about making a good impression in the way they
present themselves. They are more concerned about their personal appearance. For
example, public self-consciousness has been shown to correlate with concern with
appearance.9 Ryan and Kuczkowsk also found that the imaginary audience inhibits public
individuation and represents a critical form of public self-consciousness.10
A state of public self-awareness can be created when subjects feel they are being
observed, when they expect social feedback or when they feel they are being ignored in a
group.11 With certain exceptions, public self-consciousness does not occur unless it is
turned on by some stimulus, such as being observed or being ignored.12
2.2 Consumers’ Attentional Focus on Time
Queues imply a high value placed on time.13 Mann also notes a basic economic
principle at work in the queue: that preferential treatment corresponds directly with the
9 M. R. Solomon and J. Schopler, “Self-Consciousness and Clothing,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 8 (1982): 510.
10 R. M. Ryan and R. Kuczkowsk, “The imaginary audience, self-consciousness, and public
individuation in adolescence,” Journal of Personality 62 (1994): 225.
11S. H. Flipp, P. Aymanns, and W. Braukmann “Coping With Life-Events: When the Self Comes Into
Play”, in Self-Related Cognitions in Anxiety and Motivation, ed. F. Schwarzer ( NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
1986), 100.
12 Buss, 28.
13 L. Mann, “Queue Culture: The Waiting Line as a Social System,” in Sociology Full Circle 4th, ed.
Feigelman W. (New York: Winston, 1985), 418.
8
amount of time invested in waiting.14 When time is important, as it is in most Western
societies, social means are invented to distribute time fairly. Time must be important for
queues to exist in a culture, but if time is extremely important the queue becomes less
effective, as found in emergency situations.15 Time of arrival is almost always the key
factor in queue position, as the position in one queue has no bearing upon position in
another.16 However, complicating the time of arrival factor is the situation where multiple
queues are present [e.g. grocery store lines] and the individual must choose between
queues.17
The waiting that takes place in queues is a cost in time, a cost that must be added to
any other expenditures involved. [Other costs include the boring or annoying nature of the
time spent in lines.] 18 The costs involved are weighed according to potential rewards to
determine profit, in accordance with exchange theory.19 Stores may attempt to cut time
costs to the customer by adding servers or increasing service time, 20 the former
exemplified by increasing the number of lines in a grocery store and the latter seen in
14 Ibid.
15 B. Schaffer, Easiness of Access: A Concept o f Queues (England: University of Sussex Press, 1972),
15.
16 Ibid. , 10.
17 Ibid. , 14.
18 B. Schwartz, Queuing and Waiting.( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 16.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid. , 92.
9
increased activity during the noon hour in fast food restaurants.
Time required for waiting relates to power, both the power exercised by the server
and the deference to that power by the individuals in the queue.21 This implies that delay
is interpreted in terms of both the differential power and status of those involved, the
value of the desired service or objects sought, and the value of time.22 Schwartz also
examines the degradation involved in being required to wait in line, the implication that
the server's time is more valuable than the queuer’s time.23 Ritual insult is further
suggested by the position of those in a queue— facing the back and buttocks of the person
in front [turning the back is characteristic of insult, as is the front to back arrangement of
cattle lines].24
Excessive waiting in line may result in some form of extra compensation by servers
or their representatives, such as an apology or even refreshments.25 This is thought to
increase the profit, consistent with exchange theory, and thus decrease the likelihood of
leaving the line. Also consistent with exchange theory, some relationship is expected
between the amount of time spent waiting and the costs [including time, monetary, and
21 Ibid. , 5.
22 Ibid. , 7.
23 Ibid. , 171.
24 Ibid. , 177.
25 Ibid. , 18.
10
effort] to the server.26 As the length of the waiting increases, the clarity of the apology
increases, and apology tends to be more effective between equals than when those
involved are unequal in status.27
Customers for services often overestimate the time that they spend waiting, and as
the perception of waiting time increases, customer satisfaction tends to decrease.28
Traditionally firms have attempted to minimize dissatisfaction with waiting by managing
the actual waiting time through operations management. However many services are
inherently prone to peak demand fluctuations, such as theme parks, restaurants and
airports.
26 Ibid. , 98.
27 Ibid. , 172.
28 Karen L. Katz, Blaire M. Larson, and Richard C. Larson “Prescription for the Waiting in Line Blues:
Entertain, Enlighten, and Engage,” Sloan Management Review 32, no. 2 (1991): 50.
11
2.3 Consumers’ Causal Attribution for Waiting
One of the most amazing features of human beings is that: They can explain
anything. Maybe it comes from the fact that people are parents and their children keep
asking them, “Why?” And as older, superior beings, people just naturally have the proper
explanation to their kid’s request.
No matter the cause, people have a strong need to understand and explain what is
going on in our world. Because people must explain, it opens up some interesting
influence possibilities. Think about it for a minute. If you can affect how people
understand and explain what is going on, you might be able to influence them, too.
People all have a need to explain the world, both to themselves and to other people,
attributing cause to the events around them. This gives them a greater sense of control.
When explaining behavior, it can affect the standing of people within a group (especially
themselves).
When another person has erred, people will often use internal attribution, saying it is
due to internal personality factors. When people have erred, people will more likely use
external attribution, attributing causes to situational factors rather than blaming
themselves. And vice versa. People will attribute our successes internally and the
successes of our rivals to external luck.
12
When a football team wins, supporters say they won. But when the team loses, the
supporters say others lost.
People’s attributions are also significantly driven by our emotional and motivational
drives. Blaming other people and avoiding personal recrimination are very real
self-serving attributions. People will also make attributions to defend what people
perceive as attacks. People will point to injustice in an unfair world.
People will even tend to blame victims (of them and of others) for others’ fate as
people seek to distance themselves from thoughts of suffering the same plight.
People will also tend to ascribe less variability to other people than themselves,
seeing themselves as more multifaceted and less predictable than others. This may well
because people can see more of what is inside themselves (and spend more time doing
this).
2.3.1 The Factors of Causal Attribution
The model of service encounter evaluation incorporates consumer attributions within
the satisfaction paradigm. Attributions are what people perceive to be the causes behind
their own behavior, the behaviors of others, or the events they observe.
13
Whether attributions occur spontaneously for all behaviors and events is a subject of
debate.29 However, Weiner concluded that people do engage in “spontaneous causal
thinking” particularly in cases of unexpected and negative events. 30 Weiner’s long
stream of research on attributions has led to the conclusion that most causes can be
classified on three dimensions: locus, control, and stability.31 Thus, where the customer
places blame for the delay can be expected to influence the affective consequences of
uncertainty and anger. Specifically, who or what is blamed and how stable and
controllable the wait occurrence is perceived to be will influence reactions to the wait.
Locus involves who or what is blamed. Typically a distinction is made between
internal (attributed to the individual) and external (attributed to anything in the
environment) loci. In consumer research, buyer-and seller-related causes have been
distinguished 32; however, more than two categories have been used in the literature. For
example, when Folkes, Koletsky, and Graham asked airline passengers for their beliefs
about why their airplane flight was late, typical responses included mechanical problems,
airline personnel problems, previous flight departure delayed, because of other passengers,
29 M. J. Bitner, “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee
Responses,” Journal of Marketing 54, no.2 (1990): 73.
30 B. Weiner, “Spontaneous Causal Thinking,” Psychological Bulletin 97 (1985): 75.
31 B. Weiner,“An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion,” Psychological
Review 92 (1985): 560.
32 V. S. Folkes, “Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach,” Journal of
Consumer Research 10 (1984): 402.
14
and weather.33
Two other causal dimensions have been used in attributional research: stability and
controllability. Stability refers to the degree to which a cause is seen as being relatively
permanent and stable, or alternatively, temporary and fluctuating.34 For example, an
airline flight might be delayed by a freak snow storm, which would be perceived as being
relatively temporary or uncommon, or heavy fog, which seems to occur frequently and
thus would be stable. Controllability refers to the degree to which the cause was under
volitional control or choice. An airline has no control over a delay in flight departure if it
is caused by a storm, but it has control if the delay occurs because the airline holds a
flight to sell more tickets.35
2.3.2 The Mood-Attribution Relationship
Studies (e.g., Kassner, 1990; Sullivan and Conway, 1991) showing that mood
influences cognitive processes related to social judgments, focus on the attribution to
33 V. S. Folkes, S. Koletsky, and J. Graham, “A Field Study of Causal Inference and Consumer
Reaction: The View from the Airport,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (1987): 535.
34 V. S. Folkes, “Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions,”
Journal of Consumer Research 14 (1988): 552.
35 Ibid. , 555.
36 M. Sullivan and M. Conway, “Dysphoria and Valence of Attributions for Others' Behavior,”
Cognitive Therapy and Research 15 (1991): 276.
15
others vs. attribution to self. 36 However, marketing researchers are more interested in the
attribution to others vs. environment. In other words, a consumer in a waiting line may
attribute the waiting either to the employee (and the organization behind the employee) or
to the process through which the employee and the organization have to go normally
themselves. No single study reported results on this specific relation, except the study by
Forgas, Bower, and Moylan who tested the two main competing theories: the
motivational theory (or self-enhancement theory) reflects common sense (people attribute
success internally and failure externally).37 And the competing cognitive theory predicts
that affection may influence social judgments by influencing the availability of cognitive
constructs.38 The second experiment by Forgas, Bower, and Moylan clearly supports the
cognitive theory: In a negative mood, attributions are more critical of the self than of
others.39 As Forgas, Bower, and Moylan clearly summarized: Negative moods were often
found to have greater impact on judgments about self than others.40
As for the present study, the two theories contradict each other on the effects of
negative mood. According to the motivational (self-enhancement) theory, consumers are
highly critical of others, whereas according to the cognitive theory, consumers are more
37J. P. Forgas, G. H. Bower, and S.J. Moylan, “Praise or Blame? Affective Influences on Attribution for
Achievement,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (1990): 809.
38 Ibid. , 812.
39 Ibid. , 816.
40 Ibid. , 813.
16
tolerant toward others' behavior.
However, the nature of the attributions made has been shown to influence both
affective and behavioral responses.41
2.4 Consumers’ Evaluation of Service Quality
2.4.1 The Concept and Definition of Service Quality
Over the past several years, there have been a variety of studies on different issues
pertaining to service quality. Traditionally, service quality has been defined as the
difference between customer expectations of service to be received and perceptions of the
service actually received.42 Service quality is an overall judgment similar to ‘attitude
towards the service’ and is related in a more general way to consumer satisfaction, but is
not equivalent to it.43
41 Folkes, Recent Attribution Research, 560.
42 A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “Servqual: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing 64, no.1 (1988): 25.
43 Ibid. , 28.
17
Today, service quality has become a principal competitive weapon in the banking
war as products can be very easily duplicated, whereas service levels cannot.44 The
question raised is therefore; “What is included in the mind of customers when they
compare what should be offered and provided and what is actually offered and provided?”
Do they only consider the core products and the delivery of these products or is service
quality more comprehensive in the mind of the customer? Since then the components of
service quality have been explored further by researchers. It has been suggested, for
example, that any measure of customer service quality must measure the entire service
encounter.45 Therefore, an instrument for measuring service quality should incorporate
elements that address each important dimension of the service encounter.
2.4.2 The Measurement of Service Quality
The study of Parasuraman et al. developed Servqual, a multiple-item scale to
measure service quality in five service quality dimensions that are sufficiently generic to
cover a variety of services in different sectors.46 Initially, Parasuraman et al. defined 10
44 M. Stafford , “How Customers Perceive Service Quality,” Journal of Retail Banking 17 no. 2
(1994): 32.
45 J. Cumby and J. Barnes, “How We Make Them Feel: A Discussion of the Reactions of Customers to
Affective Dimensions of the Service Encounter,” American Marketing Association (June 1997): 145.
46 Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and. Berry, 36
18
service quality dimensions, which they reduced in subsequent studies to five: reliability
(the ability to perform the promised service reliably and accurately), assurance (the
knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence in
consumers), tangibles (the physical facilities, the equipment and the appearance of
personnel), empathy (the extent to which caring, individualized attention was provided to
consumers) and responsiveness (willingness to help consumers and provide prompt
service)47.This study list the dimensions comparison in table 2.1. At first, service quality
was measured as the difference between the consumers’ perceptions and expectations of
the service. However, Patterson and Johnson state that service quality is neither directly
nor indirectly influenced by expectations.48 Perception alone appears to be a strong
predictor of service quality.49 Parasuraman argues that the perception-only approach to
measuring quality is even more acceptable from a predictive validity point of view; as it
explains considerable variance in overall service quality ratings.50 Moreover, it is
regarded as impractical to ask participants to complete two surveys. Since its
development, Servqual has been used in several health care settings.
47 Ibid. , 37
48 P.G. Patterson and L.W. Johnson,“Disconfirmation of Expectations and the Gap Model of Service
Quality: an Integrated Paradigm,” Journal of Retailing 64 , no. 3 (1993):28.
49 A. Parasuraman, “Measuring and monitoring service quality,” in Understanding Services
Management: integrating Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource management, ed. W.J.
Glynn and J.G. Barnes (New York: Wiley,1995), 146.
50 Ibid. , 147.
19
2.4.3 Waiting and Service Quality
The study of consumers’ reactions while waiting for service has now become a major
field of research. It is necessary to understand the variables that influence the perception
of waiting time and the potential impact on service evaluations Previous research defined
service evaluations as consumer satisfaction51, service quality52 and five service quality
dimensions.53 Taylor found that objective waiting time, involving either a delay of 10
minutes or no delay at all, did not significantly influence consumers’ responses to the
Servqual dimensions of empathy and assurance, but did influence the tangibles and
reliability dimensions. 54 The more control the service provider was perceived to have
over the cause of waiting, the lower the overall and specific evaluation of service
dimensions (reliability, responsiveness and assurance).55 Tangibles, reliability and
responsiveness were rated more highly by consumers whose waiting time was filled with
activity than by consumers whose waiting time was not filled with activity.56 How the
51 Katz, Larson, and Larson, 47.
52 M.B. Houston, L.A. Bettencourt, and Wenger S.,“The Relationship Between Waiting in a Service
Queue and Evaluations of Service Quality: A Field Theory Perspective,” Psychology and Marketing 15, no.
8 (1998): 740.
53 J.C. Chebat and others, “Impact of Waiting Attribution and Consumer's Mood on Perceived Quality.”
Journal of Business Research 34, no. 3 (1995): 193. .
54 S.A. Taylor, “The Effects of Filled Waiting Time and Service Provider Control Over the Delay on
Evaluations of Service,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, no.1 (1995): 42.
55 Ibid.
20
waiting time was filled—that is, whether the activity related to the service or not—had no
impact on the tangibles, reliability and responsiveness dimensions.57 The highest
evaluations were found for tangibles, reliability and responsiveness for waiting
consumers who perceived that the service provider had low control over the delay, and
whose time was filled with an activity.58
2.4.4 The Concept and Measurement of Service Quality Model
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry cited that the service quality is a comparison
between expectations and actual performance to form a structure, and added up the
attention that the evaluation of service quality should include the outcome and the process
of service quality. Therefore, they developed a conceptual model of service quality in
order to show the requirements for delivering high quality service. As shown in figure 2.1,
there are five gaps that might result in poor quality.59
Gap 1: Difference between consumer expectations and management perceptions of
consumer expectations.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid. , 43.
58 Ibid. , 44.
59 A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its
Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Marketing 49, no.4 (1985): 44.
21
Gap 2: Difference between management perceptions of customer expectations and service
quality specifications.
Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and the service actually
delivered.
Gap 4: Difference between service delivery and what is communicated about the service
to consumers.
Gap 5: Difference between consumer expectations and perceptions.
Table 2.1 The dimensions comparison of SERVQUAL Scale
Source: A. Parasuraman,Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale
for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality', Journal of Retailing 64 , no.1(1988): 38.
Original Model of Service Quality Extended Model of Service Quality
Tangibles Tangibles
Reliability Reliability
Responsiveness
Communication
Responsiveness
Credibility
Security
Competence
Courtesy
Assurance
Understanding/Knowing the consumer
Accessibility
Empathy
22
CONSUMER
MARKETER
Figure 2.1 Service quality model.
Source: A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, “A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and its Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Marketing 49, no. 4 (1985): 44.
Word of mouth
Communications
Personal Needs
Service Delivery
(including pre- and
post-contacts)
Past Experience
Management
Perceptions of
Consumer
Expectations
External
Communications
to Consumers
Translation of
Perceptions into
Service Quality
Specification.
Perceived Service
Expected Service
Gap 4
Gap 5
Gap 1
Gap 2
Gap 3
23
2.5 Consumer Complaining Behavior
Consumer complaining behavior has been generally defined as an expression of
dissatisfaction on a consumer's behalf to a responsible party .60 Resnik and Harmon state
that a complaint is an overt manifestation of dissatisfaction.61Singh and Howell define
consumer complaining behavior (more formally) to include all non-behavioral and
behavioral responses which involve communicating something negative regarding a
purchase episode and is triggered by perceived dissatisfaction(s) with that episode.62 This
suggests that there is yet to be complete agreement about the conceptual domain of
consumer complaining behavior.
Landon has proposed a phenomenological model of consumer complaint behavior.
According to this model, complaint behavior is a function of consumer dissatisfaction, the
importance associated with that level of dissatisfaction, the expected benefit from
complaining and the personality of the individual.63 Richins has presented a process
60 E. Laird Jr. Landon, “The Direction of Consumer Complaint Research,” Advances in Consumer
Research 7 (1980): 337.
61 Alan J. Resnik and Robert R. Harmon, “Consumer Complaints and Managerial Response: A Holistic
Approach,” Journal of Marketing 47, no.1 (1983): 86.
62 Jagdip Singh and Roy D. Howell. “Consumer Complaining Behavior: A Review and Prospectus,” in
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, ed. H. Keith Hunt and Ralph L. Day
( Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 42.
63 E. Laird Jr. Landon “A Model of Consumer Complaint Behavior,” in Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, ed. R. L. Day ( Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 1977)
31.
24
model of consumer complaining behavior which includes "three major cognitive
processes: the evaluation of the satisfaction/dissatisfaction, the attributional evaluation,
and an evaluation of recourse alternatives.64 These three processes are influenced by the
consumer’s pre-existing attitudes and beliefs and by exogenous variables. There are two
competing conceptualizations as to how dissatisfaction is translated into consumer
complaining behavior. One approach posits a directly proportional relationship between
feelings of dissatisfaction and consumer complaining behavior.65 That is, consumers who
are dissatisfied are more likely to complain than those who are not dissatisfied. However,
dissatisfaction is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for complaining behavior
to occur. In Landon's model, importance of the discrepancy between expectation and
performance, and therefore, dissatisfaction will vary with the cost of the product, search
time, physical harm and ego involvement.66 The perceived benefit of the complaining is a
function of the expected payoff from complaining, the cost of complaining; the decision
to complain is mediated by the consumer's personality.67
Though several definitions of complaining behavior have been proposed, there is a
64 Marsha L. Richins, “Consumer Complaining Process: A Comprehensive Model,” in New Dimensions
of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior , ed. R. L. Day and H. Keith Hunt, (Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1979), 31.
65William Bearden. and Jesse E. Teel, “Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint
Reports,” Journal of Marketing Research 20, no.1 (1983): 24..
66 Landon, A Model of Consumer Complaint Behavior, 33.
67 Ibid. , 34.
25
large agreement about the conceptual meaning of consumer complaining behavior.
Consumer complaining behavior is believed to be triggered by feelings or emotions of
perceived dissatisfaction.68 Without this feeling of dissatisfaction the complaint cannot be
considered as a real complaining behavior, but as a「game theory」 behavior and a
「negotiation」tool.
Complaining behaviors triggered by a perceived dissatisfaction can result into some
action or into no-action. In the first case, complaining behavior is named behavioral
complaining behavior (exit, voice, and third party, e.g. any consumer actions that convey
an expression of dissatisfaction). In the second case, it is named non-behavioral
complaining behavior (no-action and the consumer tries to forget the dissatisfaction
-loyalty-). This distinction behavioral/action - non-behavioral/no action was made for the
first time by Hirschman .69
A dissatisfied consumer may adopt several types of response, classification of which
may be delicate. The taxonomy of responses first requires a distinction between the
notions of response and of action to be established. Indeed, the term “action” implies a
very specific behavior, while the term “response” contains several modalities which are
not exclusively behavioral, notably change of attitude or inactivity. Another taxonomy of
68 R. L. Day “Modeling Choices among Alternative Responses to Dissatisfaction,” Advances in
Consumer Research 11 (1984): 497.
69 A. O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 30.
26
complaining behavior lists in table2.2.
Among the various types of response to dissatisfaction, some of them more directly
concern consumer complaining behavior. The first conceptual base of this phenomenon
concerning post-purchase was stated at the end of the 1970s.70 Jacoby and Jaccard define
it as an action begun by the individual who entails a communication of something
negative to a product (service), either towards the company or towards a third entity.71 For
Day et al., it is the consequence of a given act of consumption, following which the
consumer is confronted with an experience generating a high dissatisfaction, of sufficient
impact so that it is, neither likened psychologically, nor quickly forgotten.72 Fornell and
Wernerfelt consider that the complaint is an attempt of the customer to change an
unsatisfactory situation.73 Finally, Singh suggests that this behavior, activated at an
emotional or sentimental level by a perceived dissatisfaction, is part of the more general
framework of responses to dissatisfaction which consists of two dimensions.74 The first
dimension, grounded completely or in part in actions initiated by the consumer
70 R. Day and E. Jr. Landon, “Toward a Theory of Consumer Complaining Behavior” in Consumer and
Industrial Buying Behavior, ed. Sheth Woodside and Bennett(Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.,
1997),430.
71 J. Jacoby and J. J. Jaccard ,“The Sources, Meaning and Validity of Consumer Complaining Behavior;
A Psychological Review,” Journal of Retailing 57, no. 3 (1981): 16.
72 R. L. Day and others, “The Hidden Agenda of Consumer Complaining,” Journal of Retailing 57, no.
3 (1981): 91.
73 C. Fornell and B. Wernerfelt “Defensive Marketing Strategy by Customer Complaint Management:
A Theoretical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research 24, no. 4 (1987): 340.
74 J. Singh, “Consumer Complaint Intentions and Behavior: Definitional and Taxonomical Issues,”
Journal of Marketing 52, no.1 (1988): 96.
27
(conveying expression of his/her dissatisfaction not only to the seller, but also to third
parties, friends or relations), is behavioral but does not necessarily entail action towards
the company; it is essentially within this dimension that consumer complaining behavior
should be considered.75 The second dimension refers to absence of action by the
consumer, for example when he/she forgets a generative episode of dissatisfaction.76 In
this way, consumer complaining behavior must, rather, be conceived as a process, i.e. its
final manifestation does not directly depend on its initiating factors but on evaluation of
the situation by the consumer and of its evolution over time.
So, consumer complaining behavior really constitutes a subset of all possible
responses to perceived dissatisfaction around a purchase episode, during consumption or
during possession of the good (or service). In fact, the notion of “complaining behavior”
includes a more general terminology which also involves the notions of protest,
communication (word of mouth) or recommendation to third parties and even the notion
of boycott.77 This notion is conceptually inserted in a set of explicit demonstrations,
generally towards the seller, of a consumer's dissatisfaction.
75 Day, 498.
76 Hirschman, 50.
77 T. A. Mooradian and J. M. Olver, “I Can't Get No Satisfaction: The Impact of Personality and
Emotion on Postpurchase Processes,” Psychology and Marketing 14, no.4 (1997): 381.
28
Table 2.2 A taxonomy of responses to dissatisfaction
Towards entity
Response type
Public
(Sellers, manufacturers,
official organizations, associations)
Private
(Family, friends,
relations)
Behavioral
Complaint, legal action, return of item,
request for repair
Word of mouth,
boycott/leaving
Non-behavioral No action, with or without modification
of the attitude, forget, forgive
Source: Dominique Crie, “Consumers' Complaint Behavior. Taxonomy, Typology and Determinants:
Towards a Unified Ontology,” Journal of Database Marketing& Customer Strategy Management
11,no. 1(2003); 61.
29
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of consumers’ public
self-consciousness disposition on consumers’ attentional focus on time, consumers’
causal attribution for waiting, consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer
complaining behavior at Géant This chapter provides a discussion of the methods used to
conduct this study, conceptual framework, research hypotheses, operational definitions
and measurement of variables, questionnaire design, sampling design data collection, and
analysis method.
3.1 Research Framework
The research framework of this study is shown in figure3.1:
30
H1
H2
H3
H4
Figure 3.1 Research framework
Source: This study.
3.2 Research Hypotheses
Franzoi and Brewer demonstrated that the presence of other people serves to focus
attention selectively on public aspects of the self, rather than on private aspects of the
Consumes’ Public
Self-Consciousness
Disposition
Consumer
Complaining
Behavior
Consumers’
Evaluation of
Service Quality
Consumers’ Causal
Attribution for
Waiting,
Consumers’
Attentional Focus
on Time
31
self.1 They found that individuals who are dispositionally attentive to and concerned
about their public self-presentations seem to be less comfortable in the public self-aware
state than their low self-conscious counterparts.2 In the same conditions, low public
self-conscious individuals are less uncomfortable because they are less concerned about
others' evaluations of them.
According to Duval and Wicklund, this discomfort is likely to generate a negative
effect for which two outcomes are expected.3 Individuals may try to avoid the state of
self-focus, divert attention from the self by focusing outward. In the context of waiting,
time is important. Thus, if differences were to be observed between highs and lows, high
public subjects first should tend to direct their attentional focus toward self-related
negative thoughts and progressively this attentional focus may shift to an outward focus
on time. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that:
H1: While waiting in line with strangers and having to face an delay, high
public self-conscious subjects are expected to present higher attentional focus
directed toward time than low public self-conscious subjects.
1 S. L. Franzoi and L. C. Brewer, “The Experience of Self-Awareness and Its Relations to Level of
Self-Consciousness: An Experimental Sampling Study,” Journal of Research in Personality18, (1984): 533.
2 Ibid. , 536.
3 S. Duval and R. A. Wicklund, A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness (New York: Academic Press,
1972), 30
32
With regard to causal attribution for waiting, this study is concerned with the
controllability dimension, the degree to which causes are under volitional control or
subject to uncontrollable situational constraints in a given service. This dimension will
influence the willingness of consumers to communicate with others about the success or
failure of the service, and may also influence the emotional reactions of consumers. Such
emotional reactions may also influence behaviors such as complaining and the
willingness to use the service again.4
The self-serving attributional bias approaches can lead to the formulation of specific
attributional hypotheses. This bias, also known as the ego enhancement, ego
defensiveness or hedonist bias approach, refers to the tendency to attribute success to the
self and attribute failure to factors external to the self, such as attributing control for the
cause of the wait to others.5 Current knowledge about high public self-conscious subjects
suggests that they are more sensitive to protecting and enhancing their feelings of
personal worth and competence and hence to maintaining or restoring a positive
self-image. Moreover, Cheek and Briggs have shown that public self-consciousness is
linked to impression management or overt displays.6
4 V. S. Folkes, “The Availability Heuristic and Perceived Risk,” Journal of Consumer Research 15,
(1988): 16.
5 B. Weiner, “Searching for the Roots of Applied Attribution Theory,” in Attribution Theory:
Applications to Achievement, Mental Health, and Interpersonal Conflict, ed. S. Graham and V. Folkes (NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990), 7.
6 J. M. Cheek and S. R. Briggs, “Self-consciousness and Aspects of Identity,” Journal of Rresearch in
Personality 16 (1982): 403.
33
Empirical evidence has indicated that public self-consciousness and impression
management are two overlapping constructs involving a desire to protect one's public
image.7 Therefore, it can be hypothesized that:
H2: While waiting in line with strangers and having to face an additional delay,
high public self-conscious subjects will attribute controllability for the cause of the
wait to external factors more than low public self-conscious subjects.
Past research in services marketing has demonstrated that consumers' service
evaluations are related to their attribution process. Taylor’s results confirmed that the
more the cause of the delay is perceived to be under the control of the service provider,
the more anger the consumer feels.8 Therefore, since it was hypothesized that high public
subjects would attribute more control to the service manager/ enterprise for the cause of
the wait, it is reasonable to hypothesize that:
H3: While waiting in line with strangers and having to face an additional delay,
high public self-conscious subjects will have a more negative evaluation of service
quality than low public self-conscious subjects.
7 B. R. Schlenker and M. F. Weigold, “Self-Consciousness and Self-Presentation: Being Autonomous
Versus Appearing Autonomous,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59 (1990): 823.
8 S. A. Taylor “Waiting for Service: The Relationship Between Delays and Evaluations of Service,”
Journal of Marketing 58(1994): 60.
34
Applied to consumer behavior, the theory of psychological reactance suggests that,
when consumers' behavioral freedom is reduced or threatened, they will become
motivationally aroused.9 Their arousal will be directed against any further attempts to
curtail their freedom and toward the reestablishment of the lost or threatened freedom.
Since high public subjects usually feel pressure to behave in socially desirable ways,
it can be reasonably expected that, to reassert their freedom, they will prefer behaviors
perceived as discreet such as word-of-mouth or not reusing the service. Therefore, it can
be reasonably hypothesized that:
H4: While waiting in line with strangers and having to face an additional delay,
high public self-conscious subjects will favor word-of-mouth, not reusing the service
as a way of expressing their dissatisfaction when compared with low public
self-conscious subjects.
9 J. W. Brehm, A Theory of Psychological Reactance (NY: Academic Press, 1966), 37.
35
3.3 Operational Definitions of Variables
3.3.1 Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness
The public self-consciousness state is concerned with a disposition toward the self as
perceived by others, and it refers to a subject's tendency to attend to or think about the
publicly displayed aspects of the self that can easily be examined by others.10 There are
four items used to evaluate consumers’ public self-consciousness. A five-point Likert-type
scale was used ranging from 1 indicates “strongly disagree” to 5 indicates “strongly
agree.”
3.3.2 Consumers’ Attentional Focus on Time
Queues imply a high value placed on time.11 When time is important, as it is in most
Western societies, social means are invented to distribute time fairly. There are two items
used to evaluate consumers’ attentional focus on time. A five-point Likert-type scale was
used ranging from 1 indicates “strongly disagree” to 5 indicates “strongly agree.”
10 A. H. Buss, Self-Consciousness and Social Anxiety, (San Francisco: Freeman, 1980), 28.
11 L. Mann, “Queue Culture: The Waiting Line as a Social System,” in Sociology Full Circle, 4th ed.
Feigelman W. (New York: Winston, 1985), 418.
36
3.3.3 Consumers’ Causal Attribution for Waiting
Attributions are what people perceive to be the causes behind their own behavior, the
behaviors of others, or the events they observe. There are two items used to evaluate
consumers’ causal attribution for waiting. A five-point Likert-type scale was used ranging
from 1 indicates “strongly disagree” to 5 indicates “strongly agree.”
3.3.4 Consumers’ Evaluation of Service Quality
Traditionally, service quality has been defined as the difference between customer
expectations of service to be received and perceptions of the service actually received.12
There are two items used to evaluate consumers’ evaluation of service quality. A
five-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 indicates “strongly disagree” to 5
indicates “strongly agree.”
3.3.5 Consumer Complaining Behavior
Consumer complaining behavior has been generally defined as an expression of
12 A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and, L. L. Berry, “Servqual: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing 64, no.1 (1988): 25.
37
dissatisfaction on a consumer's behalf to a responsible party .13 There are two items used
to evaluate consumer complaining behavior. A five-point Likert-type scale was used
ranging from 1 indicates “strongly disagree” to 5 indicates “strongly agree.”
3.4 Measurement of Variables
The variables included in the research framework are developed from literature
reviews and the purpose of this study. The measurement items of these variables are
described in detail in table3.1.
13 E. Laird Jr. Landon, “The Direction of Consumer Complaint Research,” Advances in Consumer
Research 7 (1980): 337.
38
Table 3.1 Measurement items of variables
Variables Measurement items
Consumers’ Public Self-Consciousness.
(1) Cares about presenting yourself to others
(2) Concerns about what others think of you
(3) Cares about your appearance
(4) Cares about making a good impression on
others
Consumers’ Attentional Focus on Time
(1) Think about the length of waiting time
(2) Think about ways to reduce waiting time
Consumers’ Causal Attribution for
Waiting
(1) Think the manager should avoid this event
happen
(2) Think the hypermarket should avoid this
event happen
Consumers’ Evaluation of Service
Quality
(1) Think the hypermarket does not offer good
service
(2) Think severs of the hypermarket do not
show sympathy for consumers
Consumer Complaining Behavior.
(1) Tell your relatives and friends this event
(2) Never consume in the hypermarket again
Source: This study.
39
3.5 Sampling Design and Data Collection
The research subjects of this study were people who consume in Géant; therefore
research population of this study was the customers of Géant. However, it has 13
branches in Taiwan. This study aimed at the two branches in Taipei city—Jing Me
brench(景美店), Zhong Xiao brench(忠孝店).Random sampling method used in this
study was to investigate consumers at Géant’s front door after they finished consuming in
Géant. This investigation was conducted from the middle of March through the middle of
April in every morning. Totally this student obtained 232 usable questionnaires.
3.6 Questionnaire Design
This study examined H1 through scenario A and through scenario B, C, D, and E
examining the other three hypotheses.
Scenario:
A: Imagine that you go shopping in a hypermarket. When you have chosen merchandise,
and are ready for settling account, you find many people wait for paying. Therefore, you
must wait in line, and other clients continue to arrive and they join the line behind you.
You do not know anyone around you.
40
B: You have been waiting for 10 minutes when suddenly someone moves into the queue
just in front of you in the space between you and the cashier. Hence, you must wait for
another two minutes.
C: You have been waiting for 10 minutes when suddenly someone moves into the queue,
about 5 clients ahead of you, close to the cashier. Hence, you must wait for another two
minutes.
D: You have been waiting for 10 minutes and you are at the wicket but you see that the
cashier is about to be replaced by another one. Hence, you must wait for another two
minutes.
E: You have been waiting for 10 minutes when you see the cashier stand up to be replaced
by another one. This does not happen immediately in front of you, but about five clients
ahead of you. Hence, you must wait for another two minutes.
3.7 Analysis Method
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 10.0) was utilized to analyze the
data. First, the Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to examine whether
consumers’ public self-consciousness disposition has significant relationship with
consumers’ attentional focus on time, consumers’ causal attribution for waiting,
consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer complaining behavior. Secondly,
by using the simple regression method, the effects of consumers’ public
41
self-consciousness disposition on consumers’ attentional focus on time, consumers’ causal
attribution for waiting, consumers’ evaluation of service quality, and consumer
complaining behavior respectively were analyzed. And then multivariate analysis method
was used to test mean-difference between high public self-conscious and low public
self-conscious subjects.
42
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION
The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis of the study da