TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 13, NO.

4, 2002, 547 - 569

The asymmetrical and non-linear e ects of store quality attributes on customer satisfaction
Shueh-Chin Ting1 & Cheng-Nan Chen2
1

Department of Business Administration, Far East Institute of Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China & 2Department of Business Administration, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, Republic of China

abstract In the past, very little research has been carried out into the di ering roles played by various quality attributes on customer satisfaction. In addition, the vast majority of scholars consider the relationship between quality attributes and customer satisfaction to be linear. However, from the point of view of prospect theory, this relationship may be non-linear. This study begins by reviewing past research into quality attributes and customer satisfaction. An investigative study was then carried out on hypermarket customers and it was found that the relationship between most quality attributes and customer satisfaction is asymmetrical and non-linear. It was also discovered that the value function curve of prospect theory can only be used on certain one-dimensional quality attributes. The attractive quality, must-be quality, indi erent quality, and reverse quality attributes as well as some of the one-dimensional quality attributes cannot be described by the value function curve. Based on the di erences in the way they a ect customer satisfaction, the 43 hypermarket quality attributes were categorized in accordance with the Kano model and are presented here as a guide to relevant persons in drawing up their marketing strategies. Some implications for management are discussed and some suggestions for further research are also given.

Background and motivation for this research Quality, costs and productivity are all good indicators of a company s management and are equally important. Quality, however, di ers from costs and productivity in that it has a longer history of development. At the same time, quality is a topic of concern to both manufacturers and consumers alike (Kondo, 2000) and therefore is a focus of public attention. The de nition of quality has changed from the producer-oriented `up to speci cation to the consumer-oriented ` t for use until the present day when the most popular expression is `satisfying the consumers needs . Consumer needs can be divided into three kinds: basic needs, expected needs and potential needs. The Japanese quality expert Kano has divided the development of quality into three periods: the rst was the period of quality control, which placed an emphasis on satisfying the consumers basic needs. Shewhart and
Correspondence: S.-C. Ting, Department of Business Administration, Far East Institute of Technology, Taiwan, Peoples Republic of China. E-mail: tingsc@ms49.hinet.net ISSN 0954-4127 print/ISSN 1360-0613 online/02/040547-23 DOI: 10.1080/09544120220149331 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

548

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

Deming are representative of this period. The second period was the period of quality improvement, which placed an emphasis on satisfying the consumer s expected needs. Juran and Ishikawa are representative of this period. The third period is the period of quality creation, which places an emphasis on satisfying the consumers potential needs (Tai, 1996). Quality can be divided into the two aspects of objective quality and subjective quality. Objective quality is unrelated to people, while subjective quality is the subjective awareness of the consumer to objective quality (Shewhart, 1931). Therefore, objects of identical objective quality may not be of equal subjective quality to di erent consumers. There is a close correlation between the consumers level of satisfaction and his or her individual subjective feelings about quality. The appearance of free market economies in the wake of the Second World War even further emphasized the importance of subjective quality (Kondo, 2000). Satisfying the needs of the consumer is already a de nite trend; however, many businesses are unable to hold onto their customers even after devoting themselves to satisfying the needs of these very customers. One of the reasons for this may be that every customer has a myriad of needs and so it is highly unlikely that a business can satisfy all of its customers needs. This is not only technically impossible, but also inappropriate from the point of view of costs. The key to success, therefore, is whether or not a company can understand its customers most important needs. How to e ectively satisfy the needs of the consumer is an important issue. The importance of quality is already understood, but what s still missing is an understanding of how to decide which quality attributes to o er and the relationship between certain quality attributes and customer satisfaction. This study hopes to probe the characteristics of quality attributes and to explore the way in which di erent quality attributes can a ect satisfaction. The principal aim of this study is to provide assistance to the industry in choosing the most suitable marketing strategy. Most of the literature regarding product (or service) quality in the past has been descriptions of the content of quality attributes; however, very little research has been carried out into the characteristic di erences between quality attributes. Even less research has been done into the e ect of quality attributes with di erent characteristics on customer satisfaction. Therefore, despite the abundance of research into product (or service) quality, certain problems related to customer satisfaction remain unexplained. For example, is the e ect of all quality attributes on customer satisfaction the same? Which one of the negative or positive performance of quality attributes on customer satisfaction is larger? Is the relationship between quality attributes and customer satisfaction linear? These questions are di cult to answer even today. The theory relating to the e ects of quality attributes on customer satisfaction remains incomplete and therefore it is essential that more in-depth investigation into quality attributes be performed. This study comprises several sections. The rst section reviews past research into quality attributes and customer satisfaction. This past research is used to describe issues relating to the multiple characteristics of quality, the concept of customer satisfaction, and the e ect of quality attributes on customer satisfaction. Next, an investigative study is performed on hypermarket customers to examine the relationship between the store quality attributes of the hypermarket and customer satisfaction (an asymmetrical and non-linear relationship). This asymmetrical and non-linear relationship is then used to divide the store quality characteristics of the hypermarket into the ve categories of Kanos two-dimensional quality model. It will also be explained that the value function curve of prospect theory may only be properly applied to a portion of the attributes. Finally, some implications for management are discussed and some suggestions for further research are also put forward.

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

549

Discussion of the literature Diversity of quality Consumers perception of a stores quality is based on attributes. A consumer may be satis ed with some attributes of the store, but not satis ed with others. This study takes hypermarkets as its subject. Part of the contents included in store quality is related to service quality. Focusing solely on service quality, the following study shows the diversity of characteristics in store quality. Many scholars have presented the facets and elements in the evaluation of service quality. PZB presented ten facets for evaluating service quality: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, competence, courtesy, credibility, security, access, communication and understanding/knowing the customer (Parasuraman, et al. 1985). These ten facets were later revised and simpli ed into ve facets: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy (Parasuraman, et al. 1988). This is currently the most complete and widely applied theory and framework (Weng, 1996). Gronroos (1984) views the composition of service quality in a di erent way. He nds that service quality can be divided into two completely di erent facets technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality answers the question of `what customers get (what), while functional quality answers the question of `how customers get it (how). Functional quality is perceived in a very subjective way, so it obviously cannot be evaluated objectively like technical quality. Technical quality is the actual result of rendering service, while functional quality is the process of service delivery (Gronroos, 1990). The composition of service quality includes not only the `result , but also the process and method of service delivery. This concept of composition is generally supported in many studies (e.g. Weng, 1996; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Collier, 1991). Humphreys & Williams (1996) believe that customer orientation is one of the meaningful matters in modern marketing. Two attributes are incorporated into the focus of marketing: the technical product attribute and the interpersonal process attribute. The purpose of the technical product attribute is to know what buyers get, while the purpose of the interpersonal process attribute is to know how buyers and sellers interact with each other. As for the composition of quality, this study not only emphasizes technical aspects, but also points out the importance of sellers. Based on the above discussion of literature, it is con rmed that quality cannot be evaluated using only a single facet; this recognition clearly shows the diversity of quality composition. The facets and factors in the evaluation of service quality mentioned above are very valuable references. Through these facets and factors, employees of the service industry can better understand the viewpoint customers use to evaluate quality of service and create a guideline for the examination and improvement of their service. However, the facets and factors for evaluating service quality currently presented by scholars are mostly described in a generalized and comprehensive manner (Yang, 1993a). In fact, di erent service industries have di erent characteristics and problems, and the theses developed under each facet are also di erent. Therefore, it is necessary to develop more in-depth research for individual service industries on the basis of their unique characteristics and their operational environment before theory can be turned into practice. Considering this fact, this study takes only a single industry, the hypermarket, as the subject of the research to nd the relationship between each store quality attribute and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction Are the relationships between all quality attributes and customer satisfaction the same? In other words, do all quality attributes produce the same e ect in increasing customer

550

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

satisfaction after they are improved? Will individual insu cient quality attributes cause similar levels of dissatisfaction among customers? These questions are worth studying further. In the following text, the concept of customer satisfaction will be studied rst, followed by the study of the relationship between quality attributes and customer satisfaction. The de nition of `customer satisfaction has been a controversial issue among scholars (Kuo et al., 1998) since its concept was introduced into the eld of marketing by Cardozo (1965). Hempel (1977) believes that `customer satisfaction depends on the extent to which customers expectations of product interests are realized. It re ects the consistency between the expectation and the actual results. Churchill & Surprenant (1982) believe that `customer satisfaction is a result of buying and using products; it is a feeling sensed by buyers in the comparison of the expected results as a return and the costs as an investment. Kotler (1996) nds that `satisfaction re ects di erent levels of a persons feeling originating from the perception of the functions and characteristics (or results) of products and the expectation the person had of the products. `Satisfaction is solely a result of the comparison between the two. Solomon (1991) nds that `customer satisfaction re ects the overall attitude of a person to the products he (she) buys. According to the sequence of evolution, the evaluation models of `customer satisfaction can be divided into the expectation- discon rmation model, direct performance evaluation model, complete evaluation model and expanded customer satisfaction evaluation model. Basically, the theory of `customer satisfaction is developed on the basis of the `expectationdiscon rmation model and expands gradually into a whole concept (Kuo et al., 1998). Bitner (1990) used the expectation- discon rmation model and attribution theory to explain customer satisfaction with service encounters. If the actual perception is lower than the expectation, customers will show dissatisfaction. If the actual perception is higher than the expectation, they will show satisfaction. In other words, positive discon rmation leads to satisfaction of customers, while negative discon rmation leads to dissatisfaction of customers. Furthermore, `attribution response means the inferring process used by customers to discover the reason for making the service good or bad. This inferring process usually occurs during unexpected or negative events and in uences the feeling and behaviour response of customers. `Customer satisfaction , therefore, means the extent to which customers are satis ed with the products or services they buy. This satisfaction is produced when actual performance of products or services is higher than expected. This means that customers are satis ed when the actual performance of products or services is higher than the speci ed quality or expected quality, or even has surprising quality (Ho, 1998). What e ect does `customer satisfaction produce? Cina pointed out that: customer satisfaction is a relation between the expectation of customers and their actual experience of being served. If the service experience does not match with the expectation, they will feel cognitive dissonance. If the service experience exceeds the expectation, they will have good impressions and may purchase the products or services of that company again. (Cina, 1989) Bolton (1991) believes that `customer satisfaction is a characteristic given by customers after purchase and may a ect customers evaluation of service quality, willingness to buy products or services and behavior . However, due to space constraints, this study does not include the e ect produced by customer satisfaction and the purpose of the description in this paragraph is simply to emphasize the importance of customer satisfaction and introduce a complete concept of customer satisfaction.

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

551

E ect of quality attributes on customer satisfaction Some scholars have studied the e ect of quality attributes on customer satisfaction from di erent viewpoints. For example, some scholars divided quality attributes into positive performance and negative performance and studied their e ects on customer satisfaction (Mittal et al., 1998). Some scholars studied the elements producing satisfaction and dissatisfaction ( Johnston, 1995). Some scholars used overall satisfaction with quality of services as the dependent variable and used discriminant analysis to nd the quality attributes discriminating between the truly delighted customers and those who were merely satis ed, as well as the quality attributes discriminating between `satisfactory and `unsatisfactory customers (Dansky & Brannon, 1996). Some scholars discussed the cause and e ect of delights (Oliver et al., 1997), while some divided quality attributes into technical product attributes and interpersonal process attributes in order to study the relative e ects on customer satisfaction (Humphreys & Williams, 1996). Still others divided quality attributes into musts, satis ers and delights to describe these e ects (Clemmer, 1990; Levitt, 1983; Rust & Oliver, 2000). Moreover, some scholars divided quality attributes into attractive quality, one-dimensional quality and must-be quality to describe the e ect on customer satisfaction with or without quality attributes (Kano et al., 1984). Some scholars divided quality attributes into basics or taken for granted, performance improvements, and wows and delights to describe the di erence of these quality attributes in their peculiarities (Burton & Patterson, 1999), while others divided quality attributes into forward-looking quality and backward-looking quality to describe the e ect on customer satisfaction (Ishikawa, 1990). These studies will be described in detail as follows. Johnston (1995) attempted to classify the determinants of service quality and found obviously satisfying and dissatisfying elements. Because every organization has its own satisfying and dissatisfying elements, this study takes only the customers from a single banking organization as samples and nds that: (1) Some quality-decisive elements have overwhelming advantages; (2) Satisfaction mainly comes from attention, responsiveness, care and friendship; (3) Dissatisfaction mainly comes from integrity, credibility, responsiveness, access and functionality; (4) The source of dissatisfaction is not necessarily opposite to the source of satisfaction; (5) The intangibility of the contact between the clerks and customers produces evident e ects on service quality (including both negative and positive aspects); (6) Responsiveness is the decisive element of quality and provides important components of satisfaction. Lacking responsiveness is the main source of dissatisfaction; (7) Reliability is the major source of dissatisfaction, rather than satisfaction. Johnston (1995) recognizes that it is relatively easier to increase the number of satisfactory experiences. It is necessary to enhance the attention, care, friendship, and commitment of the clerks. These attributes delight customers, but the lack of these attributes will not dissatisfy them. Rendering service more quickly than customers expectations may also increase the customer satisfaction. The existence of these satisfying elements may also enhance the relationship between the clerks and customers. Reducing the number of dissatisfactory experiences is relatively harder. Dissatisfaction is usually caused by problems of tangibility or integrity. Bank customers expect and request service with both credibility and functionality (i.e. service is not rendered too slowly, clerks are competent and honest, and so on). Only attempting to increase satisfaction and not remove dissatisfaction is a common pitfall in quality improvement planning. For example, if the quality improvement

552

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

plan focuses only on the smile of the clerks and does not improve the dissatisfaction, it might fail. Since customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction may be caused by di erent attributes, there is implicitly an asymmetrical relationship between the performance of quality attributes and customer satisfaction. Mittal et al. (1998) made a comprehensive study on customers in the automobile industry. When certifying if negative performance produced greater e ects on customer satisfaction than positive performance, they found that ve out of six attributes in the study supported this theory. The negative performance of brakes, transmission, power and pickup, vehicle quality, and quietness produced greater e ects on overall satisfaction than their positive performance. However, the sixth quality attribute, interior roominess, showed a totally di erent result; the positive performance of `interior roominess produced a greater e ect on customer satisfaction than its negative performance. The above ndings show that the negative performance of some attributes has more e ect on overall satisfaction, while for other attributes, the positive performance has more e ect. All of these ndings support the idea that satisfaction is asymmetrical. Thus, H1: The negative and positive performances a ect the overall satisfaction asymmetrically. Kahneman & Tversky (1979) presented the prospect theory and gained an S-shape value function (Fig. 1) after adding the concept of risk. This value function has several characteristics: (1) The shape changes from the reference point. (2) The gains side has a concave shape, while the losses side has a convex shape. (3) The losses curve is steeper than the gains curve. Mittal et al. (1998) found that di erent attributes produce di erent e ects on customer satisfaction. They presented the following viewpoints to explain the reason for this phenomenon. In studies on customer satisfaction in the past, most attribute classi cation approaches regarded attributes as unidimensional, and classi ed attributes on the basis of their weight or importance in determining overall satisfaction (cf. Bolton & Drew, 1991; LaTour & Peat, 1979). However, this kind of thinking may not be able to explain the results of more recent research. The rst reason for this is that Mittal et al. regarded attributes as having di erent natures and divided them into utility-preserving and utility-enhancing attributes. Utility-preserving attributes may have the tendency to produce negative discon rmation (such as the accurate

Figure 1. Value function.

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

553

diagnosis of doctors and the safety of travel by aeroplane), while utility-enhancing attributes may have the tendency to produce positive discon rmation (such as the humour of doctors and the onboard entertainment on aeroplanes). Therefore, `interior roominess is a utilityenhancing attribute, while brakes, transmission, power and pickup, vehicle quality, and quietness are the utility-preserving attributes. So, the value function S curve of the prospect theory may not be applied to all attributes, such as, for example, utility-enhancing attributes. Another reason is that the level of performance and discon rmation previously observed by customers will also a ect their current satisfaction. For example, customers might have observed a high positive performance/positive discon rmation in the safety of aviation in previous years, but their satisfaction will be a ected seriously if such a high level cannot currently be reached. Another example is that customers may observe poor service rendered by a restaurant and their satisfaction will be a ected to a small extent if they observe this poor service once again. However, if they are suddenly rendered with high quality service, their satisfaction will be greatly a ected. Therefore, the customers who expected low performance in `interior space may perceive higher positive discon rmation when they are provided with an `interior space with high performance. This study supposes that the relationship between the performance of attributes and customer satisfaction may vary depending on the kind of attributes, and this is one of the focuses of this study. On the basis of the previous discussion, we hypothesize that H2: The value function S curve of the prospect theory is only applicable to a portion of quality attributes. Organizations that are committed to customer-oriented policies often design products or render services on the basis of a set of quality attributes that can create the highest customer satisfaction. This goal is usually reached by using a multiple-regression model to nd important attributes so that the organizations may invest appropriate resources to increase customer satisfaction (Bolton & Drew, 1991; Hanson, 1992; Wittink & Bayer, 1994). However, this model for the `important attributes must assume that a linear relationship exists between the performances of quality attributes and customer satisfaction. Although some scholars (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Oliva, et al., 1995) and practitioners (e.g. Coyne, 1989) believe that, on the basis of quality attributes, the function of overall customer satisfaction may not be linear, the nal conclusion is still undecided. On the basis of the prospect theory, overall satisfaction should display diminishing sensitivity toward attribute performance. That is, at high (low) levels of performance, positive (negative) performance on an attribute should not a ect satisfaction as dramatically as it does at lower levels of performance. This hypothesis is similar to the diminishing returns hypothesis in classical economics (Mittal et al., 1998) and is also depicted in Fig. 1. Therefore, H3: The relationship between the attribute performance and overall satisfaction is nonlinear. Dansky & Brannon (1996) conducted an investigation, via mailings, on the level of satisfaction of 2055 patients discharged from home health agencies. A discriminant analysis was undertaken based on the overall satisfaction with service quality as the dependent variable and the 46 service attributes as the independent variables. They found in the research 11 discriminant variables di erentiating two groups of subjects who perceived overall satisfaction as between `perfect quality and `good quality, and also found seven discriminant variables di erentiating two groups of subjects who perceived overall satisfaction as between `satis ed and `dissatis ed . Humphreys & Williams (1996) conducted research on the mature and stable necessities

554

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

market to verify the relative e ect of technical product attribute and interpersonal process attribute on overall customer satisfaction. Their research proved that both attributes had signi cant e ects on overall customer satisfaction, but the interpersonal process attribute has more e ect than the technical product attribute. The satisfaction theory based on expectation (Oliver & Desarbo, 1988) provides a theoretical support that can explain why the interpersonal process attribute is the major source of customer satisfaction when there are only a few (or no) di erences in technical product attributes. According to the expectation theory, satisfaction is increased when performance is higher than expectations and decreased when performance is lower than expectations. In the mature and stable necessities market, the technical product attributes are improved clearly because of competition and the enforcement of TQM; the customers may gradually perceive that the technical product attributes have become their minimum demands. The expectation theory states that after customers expectations increase, it is more and more di cult to exceed them and harder to create customer satisfaction. Under the circumstances, the interpersonal process attributes play a decisive role in the creation of overall customer satisfaction. Some scholars (Clemmer, 1990; Levitt, 1983; Rust & Oliver, 2000) describe the three types of product and service attributes with concentric rings. The attribute layer closest to the centre of the circle consists of the basic functions of a product and must be provided (known as musts). Because customers take the existence of musts for granted, they can only produce dissatisfaction. If musts do not exist, the product cannot perform its basic function. The attribute layer relatively far away from the centre of the circle has the e ect of embellishment on a product (known as satis ers). Satis ers may produce higher satisfaction levels than basic functions. The attribute layer outside of satis ers is unexpected and surprisingly enjoyable characteristics (known as delights). Delights are the product attributes customers usually do not expect, and customers will therefore be delighted if manufactures can provide products with these attributes. Regarding delights, Oliver et al. (1997) stated in their thesis that many practitioners in the industry have described the importance of delighting customers and regarded delight as the expansion of basic satisfaction. However, the idea of delight was as yet not clear. Their study was the rst empirical research about the cause and e ects of delight, conducting two studies on subjects at theme parks and concerts. They regard delight as the function of surprising satisfaction/surprising performance, arousal and positive a ect, and presented the delight and customer satisfaction model. The study examines the discriminant validity with the con rmatory nested model approach and estimates the coe cients by the model maximum likelihood approach. The nal model is obtained after making modi cations, with results obtained showing that surprising satisfaction, together with arousal and positive a ect, produces direct e ects on delight in the research on the theme park. However, in the research on the concert, the following sequence of cause and e ects was established: Surprising performance arousal pleasure (positive a ect) delight

The scholars used the one-dimensional concept in the recognition of quality attributes and supposed that customers would be satis ed if a certain quality attribute of a product or service is provided; otherwise, they would be dissatis ed. Moreover, the scholars also supposed that if a certain quality attribute is provided to a greater extent, customers are more satis ed. However, this viewpoint is not always true. Kano was the rst scholar to present the two-dimensional model to improve the shortcomings of the one-dimensional concept (Kano et al., 1984). As Fig. 2 shows, the extent to which a quality element is provided is indicated on the x-axis. The more the arrow moves towards the right, the greater

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

555

Figure 2. Kanos two-dimensional quality model and ve types of quality element.

the extent to which the quality element is provided, while the more the arrow moves towards the left, the less the extent to which the quality element is provided. The customer satisfaction is indicated on the y-axis. The higher the arrow, the higher the customer satisfaction, while the lower the arrow, the higher the customer dissatisfaction. These two coordinates indicate the following ve types of quality elements (Yang, 1993b): (1) Attractive quality element: Customers will be satis ed if this quality element is provided; otherwise, they will accept the product or service and will not show dissatisfaction. (2) One-dimensional quality element: Customers will be satis ed if this quality element is provided; otherwise, they will be dissatis ed. (3) Must-be quality element: Customers will accept the product or service if this quality element is provided, but their satisfaction will not increase. However, customers will feel dissatis ed if this quality element is not provided. (4) Indi erent quality element: Customer satisfaction will not be a ected no matter whether this quality element is provided or not. (5) Reverse quality element: Customers will be dissatis ed if this quality element is provided; otherwise, they will be satis ed. The rst three quality elements comprise the Kano Model. Although each element has di erent e ects on customer satisfaction, rms should provide them all. The classi cation of quality elements becomes more complete after adding the last two types of quality elements, but they are redundant and even harmful to rms. Some scholars refer to the must-be quality element, one-dimensional quality element and attractive quality element as basics (or taken-for-granted elements), performance improvements, and wows and delights, respectively. The basics, or taken-for-granted elements, are the basic, must-have, and taken-for-granted features of a product. Customers believe it is at least an integral part of the product and will be generally adopted by competitors in the market (such as turn indicators for automobiles). Performance improvements belong to the category of functional performance attributes and focus on the satisfaction of customers through continuous optimization and improvement (such as the cleaning ability of laundry detergent). The wows and delights are new and unique features of a product that customers did not expect and will make them delighted (Burton & Patterson, 1999). The must-be quality and the attractive quality are the same as the backward-looking quality and the forward-looking quality presented by Ishikawa (1990). The backward-looking

556

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

quality is related to the shortcomings and aws of products. It is absolutely necessary to produce products without any shortcomings or aws, as any of them will make customers feel dissatis ed. The forward-looking quality is related to the positive characteristics, selling points and peculiarities (for example, a product being `easy to use makes it better than other products). A product having forward-looking qualities may produce positive customer satisfaction, although its quality is also acceptable without these qualities. The relationship between the backward-looking and forward-looking qualities is similar to the relationship between dissatisfaction and satisfaction elements (Kondo, 2000). From the above literatures, we learn that the classi cation approaches of quality attributes or the naming approaches of the classi ed attributes vary in di erent studies. However, it is basically recognized that di erent types of quality attributes have di erent e ects on customer satisfaction. The following hypothesis is presented based on the above discussion: H4: Di erent types of quality attributes have di erent e ects on customer satisfaction. The rst purpose of the following empirical research, put forward on the basis of Kanos two-dimensional quality model, is to classify the quality attributes provided by hypermarkets and discover their attractive quality, one-dimensional quality, must-be quality, indi erent quality and reverse quality. The second purpose is to verify the asymmetrical and non-linear relationship between the performances of quality attributes and customer satisfaction. The results of the veri cation will be reviewed later and suggestions will be made for hypermarkets and subsequent researchers.

Design of the study Collection of data The data for this study were collected mainly through the following approaches. (1) Collection and study of secondary data The purpose of this was to understand the previous research about quality attributes and customer satisfaction; domestic and foreign literature was referenced to form the concept for this study. (2) Interview with experts and consumers The measurement variables of hypermarkets quality performance are found by interviewing experts and consumers. 1500 subjects were sampled randomly and interviewed by telephone. By asking them open questions (What factors do you consider when choosing a hypermarket?), we obtained 108 themes after analysis of the data. We then chose the most important 43 themes (i.e. those themes appearing more times) as the quality attributes of hypermarkets. Six marketing experts classi ed these 43 major themes into ten categories with high consistency (inter-judge reliability is 0.96). These themes are distributed into the following ten categories: 1. Goods assortment; 2. Goods quality; 3. Arrayal and exhibition; 4. Must-have service; 5. Supplementary service; 6. Store location; 7. Environment and atmosphere of selling site; 8. Price and promotion; 9. Convenience of business; and 10. Physical facilities. After examining all 43 themes, the experts agreed unanimously that these 43 themes are not only important to consumers, but also the goal of many hypermarkets. They also agree that the coverage of these 43 themes is very complete. Therefore, this study examined the major quality attributes of hypermarkets based on these 43 themes, and developed the following research.

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

557

(3) Questionnaire survey The data about the extent to which these 43 quality attributes were provided by the hypermarkets, along with customer satisfaction and basic personal data, were collected with questionnaires. The contents of the questionnaires and the samples will be described later. Design of questionnaires and measurement of variables To develop the e ectiveness and reliability of the questionnaire, we referred to the related literature and the 43 quality attributes from our pilot study through interviews with experts and consumers before deciding on the questions. After the questionnaire was prepared, we selected 30 samples by a convenient sampling approach and asked them to make an initial pre-test with the questionnaire, so that we could develop a complete compilation. Because consumers might have di erent perceptions of each hypermarket, consumers failed to give clear answers if we asked consumers to evaluate all hypermarkets. Therefore, we reminded the consumers participating in this survey to `select a hypermarket which you have been to recently, without the limitation of location or satisfaction, and answer the following questions based on the selected hypermarket . The questionnaire is divided into three parts. The rst part asks consumers what they think about the extent to which the hypermarkets provide the 43 quality attributes. The answers were evaluated with the Likert eight-point scale (from extremely disagree to extremely agree). We use 2 4, 2 3, 2 2 and 2 1 to indicate that the attributes are prepared (provided) to a lesser extent, with 2 4 being the least prepared (provided). Inversely, we use + 1, + 2, + 3 and + 4 to indicate that the attributes are prepared (provided) to a greater extent, with + 4 being the greatest extent. The second part of the questionnaire has only one question: `What score would you give to the hypermarket which you have been to recently to represent your overall satisfaction? The overall satisfaction of consumers was surveyed with this question, with 10 points standing for the highest level of satisfaction and 1 point standing for the lowest. The third part of the questionnaire includes the questions regarding personal data of the interviewees, including sex, age, educational background and total family monthly income. The reliability of the scales is then checked. Both the quality performance scale and overall satisfaction scale are checked by test- retest reliability and subject split-half reliability. For test- retest reliability, we chose 50 subjects to be surveyed twice within two weeks. Using the Pearson product moment correlation method to calculate the correlation coe cient of scores from the two surveys, i.e. test- retest reliability, we found a high test- retest reliability for the two scales (quality performance scale 5 0.91, overall satisfaction scale 5 0.86). Therefore, these two scales have a high stability. Next, for sample split-half reliability, we randomly divided 435 subjects from our main study into two groups and then calculated the correlation coe cient of the scores from the two groups. We also found a high subject split-half reliability (quality performance scale 5 0.88, overall satisfaction scale 5 0.82). As can be seen, the samples are reliable. Sampling Because there are many questions in the questionnaire, we were concerned about the return rate and whether the interviewees would be patient enough to answer the questions. Considering the characteristics of this study, we decided not to collect the data by mail or telephone, but by personal interview.

558

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

Table 1. Statistics of valid samples in this study (N 5 435) Demographic variables Sex Age Male Female 15 and less 16- 25 26- 35 36- 45 46- 55 56 and over Junior high school and below Senior high school/vocational school College University Master and above Less than 20 000 NT dollars 20 000- 40 000 NT dollars 40 000- 60 000 NT dollars 60 000- 80 000 NT dollars 80 000- 100 000 NT dollars More than 100 000 NT dollars Number of samples 168 267 10 280 77 50 15 3 29 101 240 62 3 80 130 116 52 32 25 Percentage (%) 38.6 61.4 2.3 64.4 17.7 11.5 3.4 0.7 6.7 23.2 55.2 14.3 0.7 18.4 29.9 26.7 12.0 7.4 5.7

Education background

Monthly family income

The samples of this study were taken from southern Taiwan and were conducted in two stages. Interviewers were selected by cluster sampling in the rst stage, while samples were selected by quota sampling in the second stage. We selected a class randomly from classes that we were teaching. Students in the class all became our interviewers, i.e. the interviewers were selected by one-stage cluster sampling. It took two hours to train the interviewers, including the interviewing skills, explanation of interview contents, selecting samples, and so on. The samples were determined by quota sampling. Every interviewer was assigned ten questionnaires, and interviewers were required to select their ten samples by themselves. The distribution of samples on demographic variables must match the distribution of the population as accurately as possible. There were no constraints on the location of the interview, as long as the distribution of samples met the requirements of appropriate distribution in terms of demographic variables. Description of sample It took about two weeks to conduct the interviews. After stringent ltering of the returned questionnaires and the elimination of invalid questionnaires (including questionnaires that were not answered completely, answered negligently, and so on), a total of 435 valid questionnaires were obtained. Table 1 shows the details of the sample distribution of this study. Data analysis The method of data analysis was used with reference to the approaches of Anderson & Sullivan (1993) and Mittal et al. (1998), after making some modi cations. The asymmetric and non-linear e ect of each quality attribute on overall customer satisfaction was evaluated with the following regression model. The details are described as follows. Overall satisfaction 5 Intercept + b
1

LN_PER + b

LP_PER

(1)

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

559

The extent to which hypermarkets provide quality attributes or quality attribute performance is represented as PER, divided into N_PER and P_PER to indicate negative and positive performances respectively. The letter L of LN_PER and LP_PER indicates natural logarithm. Because natural logarithms cannot operate negative numbers, the measurement variable of the negative performance (i.e. LN_PER) is equal to ln( 2 PER) and LP_PER is equal to 0 if the performance of an attribute is negative. On the other hand, if the performance of an attribute is positive, the measurement variable of the positive performance (i.e. LP_PER) is equal to ln(PER) and LN_PER is equal to 0. For example, if an attribute performance is ` 2 4 , then LN_PER 5 ln( 2 ( 2 4)) and LP_PER 5 0. If an attribute performance is `3 , then LP_PER 5 ln(3) and LN_PER 5 0. By taking overall customer satisfaction as the dependent variable and LN_PER and LP_PER as the independent variable, a regression analysis is performed for each one of the 43 quality attributes. Each quality attribute obtains two regression coe cients (b 1 and b 2). Some facts can be judged on the basis of these regression coe cients: First, the greater the absolute value of the coe cient, the greater the e ect of the quality attribute on overall customer satisfaction. Second, the positive or negative relationship between the quality attribute and overall customer satisfaction can be determined according to the positive or negative value of the coe cients. Normally, the coe cient of LN_PER should be negative, while the coe cient of LP_PER should be positive. Third, asymmetry is supported when the coe cients of positive and negative performances are not equal. Fourth, because quality attribute performance has undergone a natural logarithmic transformation, when the regression coe cient is signi cantly not equal to zero, the diminishing sensitivity of overall customer satisfaction to quality attribute performance is supported. In other words, a non-linear relationship is also supported (cf. Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Mittal et al., 1998). Next, the quality attributes were classi ed after evaluating the e ect of the negative and positive performance of each quality attribute according to the results of the regression analysis and the coe cients of LN_PER and LP_PER. The standard of the classi cation is described in the following section. Results of research The purpose of applying natural logarithms to quality attributes is to determine if the relationship between the overall satisfaction and the performance of quality attributes is nonlinear or not, and to clarify whether the sensitivity of overall satisfaction to the performance of quality attributes is diminishing. If quality attribute performance is transformed through natural logarithms and the coe cient of the regression model (1) is signi cant, then the relationship between quality attribute performance and overall satisfaction is a diminishing sensitivity curve (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Mittal et al., 1998). The quality attributes marked with `* in Table 2 indicate they reached a signi cant level and support diminishing sensitivity and non-linear characteristics. The coe cients of all but three of the 43 quality attributes, reached the signi cant level of positive or negative performance, meaning that the hypothesis H3, `the relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction is non-linear , is supported. The three attributes that have no curve relationships at all are `sta being assigned to direct tra c at parking area , `close to company (or plant) and `passing store on the way to or from work . These three attributes belong to the category of indi erent quality. In Table 2, the di erences between the regression coe cients of the positive and negative performances of most quality attributes are evident. This means that the e ects of the positive and negative performances of quality attributes on overall satisfaction are di erent and,

560

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

Table 2. The results of logarithm regression analysis on the e ect of quality attribute performances on customer satisfaction LN_PER Regression coe cient Signi (b 1) cance
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

LP_PER Regression coe cient Signi (b 2) cance 0.117 0.266 0.284 0.304 0.201 0.443 0.662 0.664 0.508 0.341 0.392 0.439 0.570 0.492 0.349 0.537 0.492 0.434 0.451 0.408 0.539 0.500 0.511 0.571 0.342 0.348 0.608 0.609 0.689 0.468 0.542 0.440 0.393 0.458 n.s. n.s. * n.s. n.s. *** *** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** Logarithm Linear model R2 model R2 0.033 0.021 0.019 0.019 0.014 0.036 0.081 0.100 0.066 0.028 0.043 0.080 0.088 0.057 0.053 0.074 0.085 0.102 0.086 0.029 0.085 0.062 0.090 0.098 0.056 0.049 0.076 0.103 0.082 0.099 0.060 0.029 0.020 0.044 0.032 0.021 0.021 0.023 0.014 0.029 0.075 0.068 0.063 0.035 0.034 0.088 0.077 0.067 0.059 0.073 0.102 0.107 0.069 0.030 0.074 0.081 0.094 0.093 0.073 0.035 0.071 0.036 0.070 0.111 0.063 0.027 0.017 0.047

Attribute 1. Su cient parking area (incl. car and motorcycle) 2. Sta being assigned to direct tra c at parking area 3. Close to home (or residence) 4. Close to company (or plant) 5. Passing store on the way to or from work 6. Close to downtown 7. Bright, comfortable and spacious store 8. Neat and tidy store 9. Store has fresh air and a good atmosphere 10. Clean restrooms 11. Retail purchases (rather than large volume) permitted 12. Diverse and complete assortment of goods 13. Low price 14. No shortage of goods 15. Multiple brands of the same type of goods available 16. Friendly service 17. Good service after purchasing 18. Attendants have adequate expertise 19. Various promotional activities (e.g. discounts, special o ers, drawings) 20. Entrance pass not required 21. High quality of goods (e.g. fresh, durable) 22. Convenient return system 23. Clear guidance of goods classi cation and exhibition 24. Goods easily found 25. Quick check-outs 26. Correct settlement 27. Unobstructed entrance 28. Good store image 29. Well designed layout 30. Specs and price of goods are clearly marked on shelves 31. Spacious passageways 32. Attached restaurants 33. Attached car service or wheel exchange service 34. Free service (e.g. changing the length of trousers, service desk)

0.647 0.208 0.137 0.178 0.167 0.148 0.440 0.707 0.420 0.210 0.247 1.016 0.541 0.433 0.829 0.367 0.532 0.731

* n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. * n.s. n.s. n.s. *** * n.s. ** * *** *** *** n.s. ** * *** *** ** ** n.s. ** n.s. *** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

+ 0.034
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0.770

0.653 0.422 0.940 0.671 0.495 0.670 0.323 0.882 0.281 0.989 0.243 + 0.198
2 2

0.015 0.156

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

561

Table 2. Continued LN_PER Regression coe cient Signi (b 1) cance

2 2 2 2

LP_PER Regression coe cient Signi (b 2) cance 0.627 0.219 0.424 0.415 0.412 0.537 0.533 0.448 0.648 *** * *** *** ** *** *** *** *** Logarithm Linear model R2 model R2 0.125 0.021 0.100 0.053 0.021 0.066 0.078 0.058 0.099 0.121 0.028 0.074 0.051 0.023 0.066 0.091 0.067 0.128

Attribute 35. Many consumers, hot selling, quick circulation of goods 36. Credit card & IC card permitted 37. Reliable sources of goods (e.g. manufacturer) 38. Safety facilities (e.g. escapes, re ghting equipment) 39. Childrens playroom 40. Long business hours and convenient for shopping 41. Beautiful and attractive appearance 42. Advertisements (e.g. lea ets of special o ers) 43. Goods clearly marked (e.g. manufacturing date)

0.822 0.574 1.182

*** n.s. *** * n.s. n.s. ** * *

+ 0.010
2 2 2 2

0.501

0.352 0.671 0.707 0.574

Note: LN_PER is the natural logarithm obtained by taking the absolute value of the negative performances of quality attributes. LP_PER is the natural logarithm of the positive performances of quality attributes. *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001.

therefore, an asymmetry exists and the hypothesis H1, `the negative and positive performances a ect overall satisfaction asymmetrically , is supported. Referencing the Kano model, we try to describe the relationship of quality attribute performance and overall satisfaction via gures. Figure 3 may make it easier to understand this relationship. Figure 3 shows the logarithm model (left) and linear model (right) of quality attribute performance (x-coordinate) and overall satisfaction ( y-coordinate). Horizon stands for the non-signi cant e ect of quality attribute performance on overall satisfaction; others signify signi cant e ects. The main di erence between the logarithm and linear models lies in the fact that overall satisfaction shows a diminishing sensitivity to the performance of quality attributes in the logarithm model when the regression coe cients reach the signi cant level, while the linear model presents a linear relationship under the same circumstance. Both the negative and positive performances of one-dimensional quality elements have signi cant e ects on satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and two types of attributes can be separated on the basis of which one produces a greater e ect. From the viewpoint of regression coe cients, the negative performance has more e ect if the absolute value of the signi cant b 1 is higher than the signi cant b 2; otherwise, the negative performance has less e ect. In Fig. 3(B) (one-dimensional quality element), the bold curve indicates that the negative performance has more e ect, while the thin curve indicates that the negative performance has less e ect, but both the negative and positive performances have evident e ects on satisfaction/dissatisfaction. In fact, there are many relationships between the performances of quality attributes and customer satisfaction, but the value function S curve of the prospect theory can only represent one of them ((i.e. the relationship represented by the bold curve shown in Fig. 3(B)). The quality attributes belonging to this category, for example, include the 25th quality attribute `quick check-outs , the 26th quality attribute `correct settlement ,

562

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

Figure 3. Logarithm model (left) and linear model (right) of the quality attributes performance (x-coordinate) and overall satisfaction ( y-coordinate).

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

563

the 30th quality attribute `specs and price of goods are clearly marked on shelves and the 37th quality attribute `reliable sources of goods (e.g. manufacturer) (see Table 2). It is learned from the value function S curve of the prospect theory that the negative performance of quality attributes has more e ect on satisfaction than positive performance. It means that the curve on the negative performance side is steeper than that on the positive performance side. Therefore, it can be inferred from the above discussion that the absolute value of the regression coe cient b 1 for LN_PER should be greater than the regression coe cient b 2 for LP_PER and both the regression coe cients reach the signi cant level. However, the results of the research show that only some regression coe cients of the quality attributes meet the requirements of the value function S curve. For example, b 1 of the 15th quality attribute `multiple brands of the same type of goods available is 2 0.829, while b 2 is 0.349. However, many quality attributes do not meet the requirements of the value function S curve. For example, b 1 of the 1st quality attribute `su cient parking area (incl. car and motorcycle) is 2 0.647, while b 2 is not signi cant; both b 1 and b 2 of the 2nd quality attribute `sta being assigned to direct tra c at parking area are not signi cant; b 1 of the 3rd quality attribute `close to home (or residence) is not signi cant, while b 2 is 0.284; b 1 of the 16th quality attribute `friendly service is 2 0.367, while b 2 is 0.537. Therefore, it is con rmed that the value function S curve of the prospect theory can only explain part of the relationships between the performances of quality attributes and overall satisfaction. The hypothesis H2, `the value function S curve of the prospect theory is only applicable to a portion of quality attributes , is supported. Does the logarithm model provide a stronger explanation than the linear model? A regression determination coe cient (R2) is used in this study for answering this question. Both logarithm regression and linear regression analyses are undertaken for the relationship between each quality attribute and satisfaction. In total, 43 3 2 regression results were obtained. It is learned from the analysis of the determination coe cient (R2) for the logarithm and linear models (the last two columns of Table 2) that there is no evident di erence between the determination coe cient (R2) of the logarithm and linear models. Then, after an overall regression analysis of the satisfaction was undertaken with all 43 quality attributes (forced entries), the result showed: Logarithm model: R2 5 0.363, F86,347
5 5

2.302, P

0.000

Linear model: R2 5 0.357, F86,347

2.236, P 5 0.000

This means that both the logarithm and linear models are proved signi cant and have the same strength of explanation. However, it must be further discussed whether the fact that the logarithm model cannot bring its strength into full play is caused by using too small a scale (only four scales each on the positive and negative side) of quality attributes. As mentioned in the above discussion, only part of the relationships between the performances of quality attributes and satisfaction can be explained by the value function S curve of the prospect theory. We want to classify further the quality attributes and explain the relationships between the performances of quality attributes and overall satisfaction in a systematic and complete manner. According to the coe cients of the logarithm model shown in Table 2 and the following guidelines, we classi ed the 43 quality attributes into ve quality elements using the Kano model as a basis. The guidelines of the classi cation are stated as follows. (1) The peculiarity of the attractive quality element is that customers will be satis ed if this quality element is provided; if it is not, they will accept the product or service

564

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

and will not show dissatisfaction. So, b 1 in the regression formula (1) is not signi cant, while b 2 is positive and signi cant. The peculiarity of the one-dimensional quality element is that customers will be satis ed if this quality element is provided; if it is not, they will be dissatis ed. So b 1 in the regression formula (1) is negative and signi cant, while b 2 is positive and signi cant. The peculiarity of the must-be quality element is that customers will accept the product or service if this quality element is provided, but their satisfaction will not increase. However, customers will feel dissatis ed if this quality element is not provided. So, b 1 in the regression formula (1) is negative and signi cant, while b 2 is not signi cant. The peculiarity of the indi erent quality element is that customer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction will not be a ected by the provision or lack of this quality element. So, both b 1 and b 2 in the regression formula (1) are not signi cant. The peculiarity of the reverse quality element is that customers will be dissatis ed if this quality element is provided; if it is not, they will be satis ed. So, b 1 in the regression formula (1) is positive and signi cant, while b 2 is negative and signi cant.

After the regression coe cients of the performances of the quality attributes and customer satisfaction are obtained, the 43 quality attributes researched in this study were classi ed according to the above classi cation guidelines. The result of the classi cation (Table 3) shows that there are no reverse quality elements, signifying that the strategies of these hypermarkets are not bad. The e ects on customer satisfaction with and without quality attributes are di erent in `attractive quality , `one-dimensional quality , `must-be quality and `indi erent quality, and each quality attribute was successfully distributed to an appropriate class. The hypothesis H4, `di erent types of quality attributes have di erent e ects on customer satisfaction , is, therefore, supported. Conclusion and suggestions Improving the quality of stores is a key concept recognized by both the academic community and industry. However, considering the various attributes related to the quality of stores, how to make use of the stores quality attributes is a key factor in increasing customer satisfaction. We took the customers of hypermarkets as the subjects of this study and collect data from 435 consumers of hypermarket services regarding their perception of 43 quality attribute performances and overall satisfaction. The relationships between the performances of the quality attributes presented by the hypermarkets and overall satisfaction are veri ed under the logarithm model. The idea of the two-dimensional model presented by Kano is used as the basis for the classi cation of the quality attributes. The 43 quality attributes of hypermarkets were then classi ed into four types of qualities (attractive quality, onedimensional quality, must-be quality and indi erent quality; reverse quality was not found in this study). The empirical results support the four hypotheses of this study, namely, `negative and positive performances a ect the overall satisfaction asymmetrically , `the value function S curve of the prospect theory is only applicable to a portion of quality attributes , `the relationship between the attribute performance and overall satisfaction is non-linear and `di erent types of quality attributes have di erent e ects on customer satisfaction . This study successfully classi es the 43 quality attributes of hypermarkets and proves that the attractive quality, one-dimensional quality, must-be quality and indi erent quality in the idea of Kano s two-dimensional quality do indeed exist. Based on these ndings, this study makes some suggestions for management practices and subsequent research.

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

565

Table 3. Classi cation of relationships between quality attribute performances and customer satisfaction
Classi cation of quality elements Attractive quality 3. Close to home (or residence) 6. Close to downtown 7. Bright, comfortable and spacious store 9. Store has fresh air and a good atmosphere 10. Clean restrooms 11. Retail purchases (rather than large volume) permitted 14. No shortage of goods 20. Entrance pass not required One-dimensional quality 8. Neat and tidy store Must-be quality Indi erent quality

12. Diverse and complete assortment of goods 13. Low price 15. Multiple brands of the same type of goods available 16. Friendly service 17. Good service after purchasing

1. Su cient parking area 2. Sta being assigned to (incl. car and motorcycle) direct tra c at parking area 4. Close to company (or plant) 5. Passing store on the way to or from work

18. Attendants have adequate expertise 19. Various promotional activities (e.g. discounts, special o ers, drawings) 27. Unobstructed 21. High quality of goods entrance (e.g. fresh, durable) 29. Well designed 22. Convenient return layout system 31. Spacious 23. Clear guidance of passageways goods classi cation and exhibition 32. Attached restaurants 24. Goods easily found 33. Attached car service 25. Quick check-outs or wheel exchange service 34. Free service (e.g. 26. Correct settlement changing the length of trousers, service desk) 36. Credit card & IC 28. Good store image card permitted 39. Childrens playroom 30. Specs and price of goods are clearly marked on shelves 40. Long business hours 35. Many consumers, hot and convenient for selling, quick circulation of shopping goods 37. Reliable sources of goods (e.g. manufacturer) 38. Safety facilities (e.g. escapes, re- ghting equipment) 41. Beautiful and attractive appearance 42. Advertisements (e.g. lea ets of special o ers) 43. Goods clearly marked (e.g. manufacturing date) Note: No reverse quality element.

566

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

Suggestions for management practices By understanding the di erence in the e ects on customer satisfaction of di erent types of quality attributes, companies can develop more appropriate marketing strategies to increase customer satisfaction and decrease customer dissatisfaction. The attributes in uencing satisfaction and dissatisfaction are di erent. Some attributes have a greater e ect on overall satisfaction, while some have a greater e ect on overall dissatisfaction. Elimination of dissatisfaction and an increase of satisfaction must be undertaken simultaneously. If managers desire to improve dissatisfaction or satisfaction, the corresponding attributes must also be found and improved in a correct manner. Utilizing the results of this study will be helpful for increasing overall customer satisfaction. Because not every quality attribute can increase overall customer satisfaction, such as must-be quality attributes and indi erent quality attributes, managers must be aware of the actual e ects when providing quality attributes and recognize that blind investment of resources may result in futile e orts. In addition, because overall satisfaction displays diminishing sensitivity to attribute-level performance, managers should invest their limited resources in the development of optimal bundles of quality attributes to increase customer satisfaction to the greatest extent. We are now in an era of creating quality. Meeting the potential needs of customers is very important and this recognition has lead to the emphasis of attractive (delight) quality attributes in recent years. Clearly knowing the e ect of di erent types of quality attributes on customer satisfaction is very helpful in developing successful marketing strategies. Some products sell well even though they are the subject of many complaints because they are highly attractive to customers, while other products that receive few complaints do not sell at all because they lack appeal (Kondo, 2000). It is important to incorporate attractive qualities into products and services by nding out what they are and proving their e ectiveness. In doing so, from the viewpoint of Kondo (2000), companies can develop new markets, expand current market share and improve the pro tability of the company. Kondo (2000) recognizes that it is necessary not only to eliminate defects and improve processes to realize must-be quality, but also to provide products with attractive quality to achieve true customer satisfaction. Must-be quality often presents its characteristics of universality and similarity in di erent types of industries and products, and is usually indicated with defect rates, re-work rates and the number of customer complaints. On the other hand, attractive quality has a highly individualized characteristic and varies according to the types of products. Another di erence between the two types of qualities is that, while must-be quality is often obvious, attractive quality is usually hidden. Customers may often express their complaints about products or services, but they rarely say what they really want. Therefore, Kondo (2000) suggests we control must-be quality with statistical methods, such as control charts, and learn as much as possible from individual examples of failures and successes to create attractive quality. Delighting customers will increase their expectations, causing it to be more di cult to delight or satisfy them in the future. However, when a company provides delights in the market, it will also increase the expectation of competitors customers and, consequently, customers may nd that the products without delights are insu cient. The company providing delights may have more chances to attract customers away from their competitors. In this situation, if the competitors are not in a position to duplicate delights, they will be a ected much more than the company providing delights. Of course, if delights are easily duplicated by competitors, the companys pro tability will decrease (Rust & Oliver, 2000). Therefore, the companies that want to provide delights must select those that are not easily imitated by competitors. At the same time, they must choose the right time to put its products

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

567

on the market (for example, times in which their competitors are not able to imitate the delights due to nancial or organizational problems). Providing delights for only short periods of time may damage the company, because customers may have more expectations towards that attribute, and the sale of products will be in uenced negatively if it is no longer provided. Companies had best not start introducing a delight if they do not want to provide it in the future (Rust & Oliver, 2000). It is, therefore, suggested that companies conduct careful examinations before providing delights and then keep this attribute consistent in the market for a long time after it is provided. Suggestions for subsequent research Extensive research on the e ect of di erent types of quality attributes on customer satisfaction is still lacking. Breakthroughs may be expected if the viewpoint regarding quality attributes as a single type can be expanded into becoming multi-type quality attributes, with subsequent research undertaken using this basis. This study focuses on the e ects of both negative and positive performances of quality attributes on customer satisfaction and combines the results with the attractive quality, one-dimensional quality, must-be quality, indi erent quality and reverse quality presented by Kano. Those scholars undertaking subsequent research may further study the e ects of di erent types of quality attributes on customer satisfaction based on the classi cation of quality attributes presented by other scholars. For example, some scholars classify quality attributes as technical product attributes and interpersonal process attribute (Humphreys & Williams, 1996), and some scholars classify quality attributes into musts, satis ers and delights (Clemmer, 1990; Levitt, 1983; Rust & Oliver, 2000). The samples of this study are taken from southern Taiwan and the applicability of the results is limited. Subsequent replication research is, therefore, needed to enhance the robustness of the asymmetric and non-linear relationships between the performances of quality attributes and customer satisfaction. That is, the further modi cation or veri cation acts as a puri cation process to enhance the generalization and external validity of the study. On the other hand, the classi cation of quality attributes presented in this study may change with di erent situations, such as the experience of consumers, development of national economy and so on. For example, for di erent consumers, the attribute `friendly service may meet di erent needs (basic needs, expected needs or potential needs). Consumers who feel satis ed with their basic needs may regard the attribute `friendly service as a must-be attribute. Those consumers who feel satis ed with their expected needs may regard the attribute `friendly service as a one-dimensional attribute, while to consumers who feel satis ed with their potential needs, it may be regarded as an attractive attribute. However, this still needs to be proved by further research. The overall logarithm model of this study is signi cant and we nd that this model is robust enough to explain the relationship between the performances of quality attributes and customer satisfaction in a non-linear way. However, we need to think further about the question: Why does the logarithm model not have a stronger explanation than the linear model? The reasons for this may be as follows: rst, the performances of quality attributes in this study were divided into positive and negative performances, and the attribute performances were evaluated with two variables. Although all the attribute performances were evaluated with an eight-point scale, the positive (or negative) performance of quality attributes was evaluated with only half of all points, namely a four-point scale. Because the scale was too narrow, it might be di cult to show the curved or linear relationship. Second, when answering the 43 questions about the performances of quality attributes, consumers get one point when responding with `slightly agree and 2 1 point when responding with

568

S.-C. TING & C.-N. CHEN

`slightly disagree . Therefore, both of the answers are regarded identically as LN_PER 5 0 and LP_PER 5 0 when evaluating the performances of quality attributes in the logarithm model, meaning `slightly agree and `slightly disagree cannot be distinguished. We therefore lose part of the information in our original data. It is suggested that subsequent scholars increase the scale points of the measurement and avoid the assignment of `1 and 2 1 in the logarithm model.

References
Anderson, E.W. & Sullivan, M.W. (1993) The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for rms, Marketing Science, 12 (Spring), pp. 125- 143. Bitner, M.J. (1990) Evaluating service encounters: the e ects of physical surroundings and employee responses, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), pp. 69- 82. Bolton, R.N. & Drew, J.H. (1991) A multistage model of customers assessments of service quality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), pp. 375- 384. Burton, A. & Patterson, S. (1999) Integration of consumer and management in NPD, Journal of the Market Research Society, 41(1), pp. 61- 74. Cardozo, R.N. (1965) An experimental study of customer e ort, expectation, and satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), pp. 244- 249. Churchill, G.A., jr & Surprenant, C. (1982) An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), pp. 491- 504. Cina, C. (1989) Creating an e ective customer satisfaction program, The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 4, pp. 33- 42. Clemmer, J. (1990) The three rings of perceived value, Canadian Manager, 15 (Summer), pp. 12- 15. Collier, D.A. (1991) A service quality process map for credit card processing, Decision Sciences, 22, pp. 406- 420. Coyne, K. (1989) Beyond service fads meaningful strategies for the real world, Sloan Management Review, 39 (Summer), pp. 69- 76. Dansky, K.H. & Brannon, D. (1996) Discriminant analysis: a technique for adding value to patient satisfaction surveys, Hospital and Health Services Administration, 41(4), pp. 503- 513. Gronroos, C. (1984) A service quality model and its marketing implications, European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), pp. 36- 44. Gronroos, C. (1990) Service Management and Marketing (Lexington, MA, Lexington Books). Hanson, R. (1992) Determining attribute importance, Quirks Marketing Research Review, 6 (October), pp. 16- 18. Hempel, D.J. (1977) Consumer satisfaction with the home buying process: conceptualization and measurement. In: H.K. Hunt (Ed.) The Conceptualization of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction (Cambridge, Mass, Marketing Science Institute). Ho, C.C. (1998) Using customer satisfaction to plan work, Proceedings of Taiwans Quality Society s 34th Annual Meeting and 4th National Quality Management Conference, Taiwan, pp. 495- 503. Humphreys, M.A. & Williams, M.R. (1996) Exploring the relative e ects of salesperson interpersonal process attributes and technical product attributes on customer satisfaction, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16(3), pp. 47- 57. Ishikawa, K. (1990) Introduction to Quality Control (Tokyo, 3A Corporation). Johnston, R. (1995) The determinants of service quality: satis ers and dissatis ers, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), pp. 53- 71. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263- 291. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. & Tsuji, S. (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality, Quality: The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14 (April), pp. 39- 48. Kondo, Y. (2000) Attractive quality: its importance and the points of remark, Total Quality Management, 11 (4/5- 6), pp. 647- 651. Kotler, P. (1996) Marketing Management, 9th edn (Englewood Cli s, NJ, Prentice-Hall). Kuo, T.P., Chou, T.H. & Huang, C.Y. (1998) A study on the comparison of theory of service quality and customer satisfaction, Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Technology and Occupation Education, Taiwan, pp. 209- 218.

STORE QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

569

Latour, S.A. & Peat, N.C. (1979) Conceptual and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction research. In: W.D. Perrault jr. (Ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, 6, (Ann Arbor, MI, Association for Consumer Research), pp. 431- 437. Levitt, T. (1983) The Marketing Imagination (New York, Free Press). Mittal, V., Ross, W.T., jr. & Baldasare, P.M. (1998) The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions, Journal of Marketing, 62 ( January), pp. 33- 47. Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L. & Bearden, W.O. (1995) The relationship among consumer satisfaction, involvement, and product performance, Behavioral Science, 40 (April), pp. 104- 132. Oliver, R.L. & Desarbo, W.S. (1988) Response determinants in satisfaction judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), pp. 495- 507. Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T. & Varki, S. (1997) Customer delight: foundations, ndings, and managerial insight, Journal of Retailing, 73(3), pp. 311- 336. 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 (Fall), pp. 41- 50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), pp. 12- 40. Rust, R.T. & Oliver, R.L. (2000) Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), pp. 86- 94. Shewhart, W.A. (1931) Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product (Princeton, NJ, Van Nostrand). Solomon, M.R. (1991) Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being (Boston, Allyn and Bacon). Tai, C.Y. (1996) Creating glamorous quality, Management Magazine, (260), pp. 92- 93. Weng, C.H. (1996) Evaluating the constructs of the overall idea of service quality, Journal of Quality, 3(1), pp. 19- 43. Wittink, D.R. & Bayer, L.R. (1994) The measurement imperative, Marketing Research, 6(Winter), pp. 14- 23. Yang, C.C. (1993a) In uencing characteristics of service quality, Quality Control Monthly, 29(2), pp. 25- 29. Yang, C.C. (1993b) The application of two-dimensional quality model on service quality, Quality Control Monthly, 29(5), pp. 27- 33.