An Examination of Moderators of the Effects of Customers' Evaluation of Employee Courtesy on Attitude Toward the Service Firm1

An Examination of Moderators of the Effects of Customers' Evaluation of Employee Courtesy on

Attitude Toward the Service Firm'

JERRY GOTLIEB~ Department ofEconomics and Marketing

Western Kentucky Universiq

MICHAEL LEVY, DHRUV GREWAL, AND JOAN LINDSEY-MULLIKIN

Babson College

Employee courtesy is recognized as an important dimension of customer service. This paper presents and tests a model suggesting that employee courtesy affects attitudes toward a service firm. Employee courtesy, the physical environment, and locus of causality are three important elements of a service experience that might affect attitude toward a service firm. The paper reports results of two experiments that found there was an interaction effect between employee courtesy and the physical environment on attitude toward the service firm. That is, the effect of employee courtesy on attitudes is more positive when the environment is evaluated favorably than when it is evaluated unfavorably. How- ever, there were no interaction effects of locus of causality and courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. In the second study, there was a main effect from locus of causality on attitude toward the firm in that experiment. That is, participants with an internal locus of causality had a more favorable attitude toward the service firm than did participants with an external locus of causality.

Employee courtesy is defined as employee activities that are marked by respect for and consideration of the consumer. Not surprisingly, some researchers have expressed a strong belief that employee courtesy leads to positive results for an organization. For example, Peters and Waterman (1 982) suggested that courteous employees are a characteristic of excellent organizations. Similarly, other researchers (Creane & Clarke, 1988; Hensel, 1990; Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999) have found that that courtesy is one of the attributes that customers value

'The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions provided by the editor, the reviewers, Diana Grewal, and Howard Marmorstein on earlier versions of the paper. All authors contributed equally to this article and the order of authorship is listed alphabetically.

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jerry Gotlieb, Department of Economics and Marketing, Western Kentucky University, 1 Big Red Way, Bowling Green, KY 42 104. E-mail: [email protected]

825

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2004, 34, 4, pp. 825-847. Copyright 0 2004 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

826 GOTLIEB ET AL.

highly from a firm. An alternative view, however, is that employee courtesy may have little effect on consumers’ cognitive processes and behavior in situations where the outcome of the purchase is of paramount importance to consumers (Ostrom & Iacobucci, 1995).

Employee courtesy is not delivered in a vacuum. Employee courtesy is delivered within the framework of the physical environment. The physical environment, or servicescapes, has been shown to affect consumers’ attitudes (e.g., Bateson & Hoffman, 1999; Bitner, 1992). Researchers have shown that human interaction is influenced by the physical environment in which that interaction occurs (Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, & Voss, 2002). Therefore, we expect the impact of employee courtesy on consumer attitudes to be moderated by the service provider’s physical environment. Thus, one purpose of the present paper is to determine if consumers’ attitudes toward a service firm are affected by employee courtesy. If they are affected, we will examine the moderating effects of the physical environment on the relationship between employee courtesy and attitude toward the service firm.

The effect of employee courtesy on attitudes toward the service firm might be affected by variables internal to the consumer. One variable on which we focus is the consumer’s locus of causality (Weiner, 1972). We found no previous study that examined the effect of employee courtesy and locus of causality on attitude toward the service firm. We expect a main effect from locus of causality on attitude toward the service firm. Additionally, locus of causality may moderate the ef‘fects of employee courtesy.

In the Background section, the relationship between employee courtesy, the physical environment, locus of causality, and attitude toward the service firm are highlighted. The extant literature is reviewed. Two studies are then described and the results reported. Then, the limitations of these studies and avenues for further research are considered. Finally, the research implications of this research are examined.

Background

Employee Courtesy and Consumers ’ Attitudes

The influence of consumers’ evaluations of employee courtesy on their attitudes is controversial. For example, some researchers have argued that there are conditions under which employee courtesy might have little effect on attitudes. There is evidence suggesting that whenever a service is very important, certain cues (e.g., friendliness, courtesy) are not likely to afyect consumers’ evaluations (Ostrom & Iacobucci, 1995). Similarly, Mohr and Bitner (1995) argued that sometimes the outcome of a purchase can be so important that process variables (e.g., employee courtesy) might have little effect.

EMPLOYEE COURTESY 827

Conversely, other researchers have suggested that employee courtesy is likely to have an important impact on attitudes. For example, Creane and Clarke (1 988) asked consumers for the criteria that they used to evaluate services. More consumers in their sample listed courtesy than any of the other attributes. Similarly, Bitran and Hoch (1990) suggested that courtesy is likely to have an effect on perceived quality. Johnson and Fawcett (1 994) found that employee courtesy affected consumer satisfaction with a nonprofit organization, In a study of customer retention at a bank branch, Clark (1997) found that customers mentioned customer courtesy as an important reason for their remaining customers of the bank.

Multi-attribute models (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) can be used to show that employee courtesy affects attitudes toward a service firm. When developing an attitude toward a service firm, consumers are likely to weigh attributes that they can evaluate (e.g., employee courtesy) more heavily than attributes that are difficult to evaluate (Shostack, 1977). Also, consumers may find that they are not qualified to evaluate the technical aspects of the service or the technical competency of employees (e.g., medical services), but they can easily evaluate employee courtesy. Therefore, employee courtesy is likely to be an attribute that is heavily weighted when consumers develop their attitude toward a service firm. Since we are also expecting an interaction effect between the physical environment and employee courtesy, no main effect hypotheses for these two variables are presented, but they are subsumed into subsequent discussion and analyses.

Does the Service Environment Moderate the Effect of Employee Courtesy?

Previous research has shown that the environment often helps consumers to interpret and evaluate their consumption or service experiences (Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994; Foxall, 1997; Grove, Fisk, & Dorsch, 1998; Niemann & Pollak, 1998). Ward, Bitner, and Barnes (1 992), for instance, found that consumers felt they could judge the type of food that would be found in a restaurant from the physical environment of that restaurant.

Also, a spacious store with expensive fixtures might provide nonverbal information to consumers that the store sells high-quality products and provides high- quality service (e.g., Neiman Marcus). The environment appears to provide consumers with a quick method for categorizing the firm.

Environmental psychologists have applied stimulus-organism-response theory to help explain the influence of the environment on customers’ attitudes (Baker, Grewal, & Levy, 1992; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, 1996). Baker and Cameron (1 996) suggested that the

828 GOTLIEB ET AL.

store environment provides an important part of the background for the evaluation of employees. Additionally, these researchers presented empirical evidence suggesting that the service environment affects the interaction between employees and consumers in a service experience (e.g., patients and employees of a hospital). Although employee courtesy is expected to impact attitude toward the firm regardless of the physical environment, the effect may be stronger in a better environment.

Research has suggested that the physical environment can influence the degree to which people want to engage in social interactions (e.g., show and respond to courtesy). That is, the physical environment can influence whether individuals adopt an approach or avoidance strategy when interacting with people in general, and customersiservice providers in particular (Bitner, 1992; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Spangenberg et al., 1996). A positive physical environment is likely to encourage consumers to adopt an approach strategy when interacting with service employees. For example, when a service employee cour- teously approaches a consumer during the initial stage of a service experience, the customer is likely to respond positively. Thus, the employee is encouraged to continue with a courteous demeanor throughout the service experience.

Alternatively, a negative physical environment might encourage consumers to avoid interactions with service employees. In this case, even if an employee is courteous during the initial stage of a service experience, the consumer may ignore the courteous behavior, thereby discouraging the employee from continu- ing to show courtesy throughout the service experience. Further, if a negative physical environment distracts the consumer, he or she may not even notice a courteous employee. For instance, if the music is blaring or the lighting is glar- ing, customers may become so distracted that even the most courteous service provider will be ignored. Consequently, within the framework of a negative physical environment, employee courtesy may have less of an effect on attitude toward the firm.

Category theory provides a framework that helps understand the effects of employee courtesy and the physical environment (Ozanne, Brucks, & Grewal, 1992; Rosch, 1975). Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) argued that the physical environment is an important element of a service experience that consumers use to categorize a service firm. For example, after a service firm has been categorized as a firm that provides a positive physical environment, employee courtesy might be used to help reinforce consumer’s prior categorization. Consequently, employee courtesy is likely to have a greater affect on attitudes when the environment is positive.

When a firm is categorized as a firm that provides a negative physical environment, consumers may be distracted by the unpleasant physical environment or concerned about whether corrective actions concerning the physical environment are necessary. Therefore, they pay less attention to employee courtesy. This


explanation is consistent with previous research suggesting that negative cues are likely to draw more attention (Luce, Bettman, & Payne, 2001), thereby drawing attention away from other cues. Consequently, high employee courtesy is likely to have less impact in an environment categorized as unpleasant.

There is at least one additional reason to expect an interaction effect of the physical environment and employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. That is, whenever the physical environment and employee courtesy are perceived as quite good, there would be a consistency of these two important cues. For example, when two cues (e.g., customer courtesy and the physical environment) are consistent, they are likely to have a joint effect on the development of the consumer’s attitude (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991; Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, 2002). Conversely, when these two cues are inconsistent, the overall diagnosticity of the two cues would decrease, and they would have a different effect on attitudes.

Hypothesis 1. Consumers’ evaluation of the service environment will interact with employee courtesy to affect attitude toward the service firm. That is, the effect of employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm will be more pronounced in a positive environment.

Effect ofLocus of Causality on Consumer Attitudes

At the most global level, attribution theory posits that individuals typically attempt to understand the causes of outcomes that affect them (Heider, 1958; Vallerand & Richer, 1988). For example, the service/care received by a consumer from a firm could be considered an outcome. Moreover, individuals have been found to vary in terms of their beliefs about whether an outcome (e.g., the service experience) was caused by internal or external factors (Russell, 1982; Weiner, 1972). Weiner conceptualized this construct as locus ofcausality. Researchers have suggested that locus of causality might be related to a variety of variables, including evaluations of physical competency (Bibik, 1999), information seeking (Weiner, 1979), evaluations of success (DeMichele, Gansneder, & Solomon, 1998; Vallerand & Richer, 1988), and emotions (Yamauchi & Momoko, 1998).

Consumers’ attribution of an overall internal locus of causality is likely to have a more positive influence on attitude toward the service firm than an overall external locus of causality. For example, if a consumer attributes the outcome of a service encounter to an overall internal locus of causality, that consumer is more likely to believe that he or she was responsible for achieving the desired level of control over those outcomes during the service experience. Researchers have found that achieving a desired level of control over a service experience is an important goal for most consumers (Hui & Bateson, 1991). Consequently,

830 GOTLIEB ET AL.

when the consumer achieves that goal, the result is likely to be a more favorable attitude toward the service firm. Researchers also have found that when individuals believe that they have an adequate level of control, they will also experience an enhanced sense of well-being (Langer, 1983).

A feeling of loss of control will have an adverse effect on an individual (Skinner, 1995). Loss of control is more likely to be associated with an external locus of causality. Additionally, an external locus of causality is more likely to be associated with consumers believing that situational factors within the service firm, rather than the consumers’ needs, were the cause of the service experience. That is, they believe that the service firm did not make a special attempt to meet their specific needs during the service experience.

Hypothesis 2. There will be a main effect from locus of causality on attitude toward the service firm. That is, an internal locus of causality will have a more positive effect on attitude toward the service firm than will an external locus of causality.

Does Locus of Causality Moderate the Effects of Employee Courtesy?

Whether there is an interaction effect of employee courtesy and locus of causality on attitude toward the service is an empirical question that must be answered. For example, customers perceive services to be delivered along a service locus of causality continuum from customized (e.g., a personal financial planner) to factory-style delivery (e.g., a mutual fund; Fisk, Grove, & John, 2000). If consumers make attributions that service delivery is being customized (i.e., caused by the consumer), customers’ evaluations of employee courtesy may have less effect on attitude toward the service firm. This result may occur because consumers believe that they are receiving adequate respect and consideration because the firm is customizing the service to meet the consumer’s specific needs. Consequently, employee courtesy might be less important. Alternatively, when consumers make attributions that service delivery is noncustomized or fol- lows a standardized process being caused by the situation or externally caused (i.e., factory-style service delivery), employee courtesy might have a greater effect on attitude toward the service firm. This result might occur because a standardized service process can make a consumer believe that he or she is being treated more like a number than receiving proper respect and consideration. Con- sequently, customer courtesy would become more important because employee courtesy would be necessary to help meet customers’ desires to receive proper respect and consideration from the firm.

There might be additional reasons to expect an interaction effect of locus of causality and employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. That is, the


Attitude

causality

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

level of the service locus of causality might help to determine the strength of the effect of employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. For instance, suppose an employee is courteous to a customer following a service failure in which the customer aggressively attempts to solve the problem. The customer may attribute the courteous behavior to internal factors; that is, the employee was courteous because the customer had some causality over solving the problem. In this case, we expect employee courtesy to have a minor role in attitude and purchase intention toward the firm. Alternatively, suppose the customer observes the employee being courteous to everyone. In this case, the customer may attribute the courteous behavior to external factors; that is, the firm cares about its customers and is therefore proactively providing them courteous service. In this case, we expect employee courtesy to have a more important role in attitude toward the firm.

Hypothesis 3. Consumers’ locus of causality will interact with their evaluation of employee courtesy to affect attitude toward the service firm. That is, the effect of employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm will be more pronounced when there is an external locus of causality.

There exists no apparent theoretical rationale for predicting a two-way interaction of locus of causality and the physical environment on attitude toward the service firm. Neither is there a theoretical rationale for predicting a three-way interaction effect of locus of causality, employee courtesy, and physical contex- tual cues on attitude toward the service firm. The analysis, however, examines whether these interactions are statistically significant. Figure 1 depicts the vari- ous relationships.

832 GOTLIEB ET AL.

Study 1

Method

Role-playing experiments have been used in a variety of service studies (e.g., Bitner, 1992, Gotlieb, Schlacter, & St. Louis, 1992; Smith et al., 1999). The role- playing methodology was chosen for this study to enhance internal validity. Manipulations that might be difficult to operationalize in a field study can be operationalized easily in a role-playing experiment. For example, although employees might be rude to some consumers, it would be nearly impossible to get a firm’s management to agree that their employees will purposely be very rude to some specific customers while being very courteous to other specific customers. A hotel was the service used in these two experiments because it had been used in previous role-playing experiments (e.g., Smith et al., 1999), and the participants in this study could be expected to be familiar with this service.

Design

The hypotheses were tested using a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design (Employee Courtesy: High vs. Low x Service Provider (Hotel) Environ- ment: High vs. Low x Locus of Causality: Internal, Customer Causality Led to the Availability or Absence of a Number of Features vs. External, Characteristics of the Hotel or Its Management Caused a Majority of Decisions). A total of 137 respondents (72 males, 64 females, 1 missing) participated in the experiment.

Procedure

The experimental procedure involved instructing participants to assume that they were having the experience described in a scenario (Appendix B). After participants were presented with one of these scenarios (one of the eight combi- nations), they were subsequently asked to respond to a questionnaire containing a dependent variable attitudinal scale, manipulation check scales, and demographic questions (e.g., age, gender).

Measurement

Multi-item 7-point scales were used. Attitude toward the service firm (or provider) was measured using an existing three-item scale (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Participants were asked to rate their experience at this hotel using three semantic differential scales (good-bad, satisfactory-unsatisfactory, andfavorable-unfavorbze). The manipulation check pertaining to evaluations of employee courtesy was measured using a three-item scale. Evaluation of the

EM PLOY E E COURTESY 833

service environment was measured using a three-item scale taken from the work of Bitner ( 1 992), and service locus of causality was measured using a four-item scale based on the work of Russell (1982). The scales used to measure the constructs are provided in Appendix A.

Results

Manipulation Checks

At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to respond to three sets of scales that served as manipulation checks for service-provider environment (high vs. low), courtesy (high vs. low) and locus of causality (internal vs. external). An analysis of the manipulation checks indicates that the environment and courtesy manipulations were perceived as planned.

More specifically, t tests were used to determine the effects of the manipulations. The manipulation check indicates that the environment manipulation was successful (Menvirodlow = 1.62 vs. Menvirodhigh = 6.07), t(135) = 3 1 . 5 3 , ~ < .001. The employee courtesy manipulation check indicates that this manipulation was successful ( M courtesy/low = 1.67 vs. M courtesyhigh = 6.1 l), t( 135) =

30.07, p < .001. The locus of causality manipulation check indicates that this manipulation was not successful ( M locuslinternal = 4.93 vs. M locusiexternal =

4.65), t(135) = 1 . 0 4 , ~ > .05.

Hypothesized Effects

Hypothesis 1. ANOVA results (Table 1) indicate a significant interaction of environment by employee courtesy 0, < .Ol ) . The results are depicted graphically in Figure 2 and suggest that participants had a more favorable attitude when dealing with courteous employees than with less courteous employees when the environment had a positive ambience. Employee courtesy had a much smaller effect when the environment was poor. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Hypothesis 2. ANOVA results (Table 1 , Study 1 ) did not find a significant main effect of locus of causality on attitude toward the firm. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. However, this may have been a result of the failure to manipulate locus of causality, an issue that is addressed later.

Hypothesis 3. ANOVA results did not find an interaction effect of Courtesy x

Locus of Causality 0, < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. However, this may also have been the result of the failure to manipulate locus of causality.

Discussion

The effects of employee courtesy have been controversial. Additionally, there has been virtually no reported empirical evidence concerning whether the

834 GOTLIEB ET AL.

5 v) 0) V 3 c .- 2

3

1 -

Table 1

-r

/ 1

ANOVA Results for Attitudes

Study 1 Study 2

Effects 4f F 4- F

Causality (C) Courtesy (COU) Environment (E) c x cou C x E COU x E C x C O U x E Residual

1 0.33 1 78.85* 1 289.35* 1 0.19 1 0.07 I 8.35* 1 0.28

129

1 17.91* 1 120.39* 1 486.25* 1 1.58 1 0.19 1 8.38* 1 0.53

187

+ Environment-low + Environment-high

Courtesy-low Courtesy-high Service firm

Figure 2. Courtesy by environment interaction on attitudes: Study 1.

physical environment moderates the effect of employee courtesy on attitude toward a service firm. This research helps to fill that gap in the services literature. That is, this study suggests that the effect of employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm does, indeed, depend on the physical environment. Previ- ous research has focused on the separate effects of the physical environment on employee courtesy. However, this study suggests that researchers need to


consider the joint effects of the physical environment and employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. That is, researchers and service providers should understand that employee courtesy is likely to have a greater effect on attitude toward the service firm when the physical environment is positive.

The manipulation of locus of causality was not successful. However, the inability to manipulate locus of causality within this study might have provided important information as well. One explanation for the failure of the locus of causality manipulation was that there was no difference in the scenarios concerning the process of selecting the hotel. That is, in all of the scenarios in Study 1, the participant (rather than some other individual) selected the hotel. However, consumers can choose whether the consumer selects the service firm or whether the consumer allows someone else (e.g., family member or a professional) to select the service firm. Attributions concerning locus of causality might be influenced strongly by whether the service firm was selected by the consumer or by someone else.

Study 2

Method

The physical environment and employee courtesy were manipulated in the same manner in Study 2 . The primary difference between Studies 1 and 2 is the locus of causality manipulation. Within Study 2, the process through which the service provider was selected was modified. That is, the hotel was selected by either the participant (internal locus of causality manipulation) or by a travel agent (external locus of causality manipulation).

Motivation for Study 2

Study 1 results supported Hypothesis 1, but did not support Hypothesis 2 or Hypothesis 3. Thus, we decided to change the customer locus of causality manipulation in order to assess whether the lack of support for Hypotheses 2 and 3 was primarily a result of the fact that the manipulation of locus of causality was not successful. An alternative explanation is that locus of causality does not affect attitude toward the service firm, nor does it moderate the effect of employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. Changing the scenarios so that the service firm was selected by either the consumer or by a travel agent for the consumer appears to have strengthened the manipulation of locus of causality.

Design

The hypotheses were tested using a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design (Employee Courtesy: High vs. Low x Service Provider Environments:

836 GOTLIEB ET AL.

High vs. Low x Customer Causality: Internal, Customer Causality Led to Avail- ability or Absence of a Number of Features vs. External, Travel Agent or an External Factor Caused Majority of Decisions). A total of 195 subjects (109 males, 83 females, 3 missing) participated in the study.

Procedure

In a similar fashion to Study 1, the experimental procedure involved instructing participants to assume that they had the following experience. The manipulations for courtesy and environment are identical to those in Study 1. The manipulations for locus of causality were modified as can be seen in Appendix C .

After participants were presented with the scenario (one of the eight combina- tions), they subsequently were asked to respond to the same questionnaire used in Study 1 that contained an attitudinal scale and the manipulation checks and demographic questions (measures and reliability are also provided in Appendix A).

Results

Manipulation Checks

At the end of the study, participants were asked to respond to three sets of scales that served as manipulation checks for service-provider environment (high vs. low), courtesy (high vs. low), and locus of causality (internal vs. external). An analysis of the manipulation checks indicates that the environment and courtesy manipulations were perceived as planned. More specifically, t tests were used to assess the effects of the manipulations.

All of the manipulations were successful in Study 2. The manipulation check indicates that the environment manipulation was successful (A4 environilow =

1.54 vs. Menvironlhigh = 6.00), t( 193) = 46.51 , p < .001. The employee courtesy manipulation check indicates that this manipulation was successful ( M courtesy/ low = 1.70 vs. A4 courtesy/high = 5.98), t( 193) = 36.37, p < .001. The locus of causality manipulation check indicates that this manipulation was successful (A4 locushternal = 5.32 vs. M Iocuslexternal = 4.22), t( 193) = 5.45, p < .01.

Hypothesized Effects

Hypothesis 1. ANOVA results (Table 1) indicate a significant interaction of Environment x Employee Courtesy (p < .01). The results are depicted graphically in Figure 3 and suggest that participants had a more favorable attitude when dealing with courteous employees than with less courteous employees when the environment had a positive ambience. Employee courtesy had a much smaller effect when the environment was poor. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.


+ Environment-high

. I

Courtesy-low Courtesy-high Service firm

Figure 3. Courtesy by environment interaction on attitudes: Study 2.

Hypothesis 2. ANOVA results (Table 2) indicate a significant main effect of locus of causality on attitude toward the service firm (p < .Ol). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3. ANOVA results (Table 2) do not indicate a significant interaction effect of locus of causality and customer courtesy on attitude toward the service firm (p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. There was no interaction effect of locus of causality and the physical environment on attitude toward the service firm (p > .05).

General Discussion

One of the goals of the present research was to identify a parsimonious set of theory-based variables explaining attitude toward service firms. Investigations into the effects of employee courtesy have been controversial. The debate about whether employee courtesy has strong or weak effects on attitude toward a service firm needed to be resolved through research. Consequently, it is important to identify the conditions within which employee courtesy has strong effects on attitude toward the service firm and other conditions within which employee courtesy has weaker effects on attitude toward the service firm. The results of these two studies help to identify when employee courtesy is likely to have a more important effect on attitude toward the service firm.

Although service researchers have recognized that consumers use the physical environment to categorize service firms (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000), they have not applied stimulus-organism-response theory and category theory to

838 GOTLIEB ET AL.

understand fully the impact of the service environment and employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. However, this research suggests that one effect of a positive physical environment is that employee courtesy becomes more important. Indeed, for those services that are difficult to evaluate (e.g., credence services), employee courtesy might be one of most important characteristics affecting consumer attitude toward the service firm when the firm provides a positive physical environment.

This study used a single service and student subjects. Future research should use a variety of services and subjects. This study used a role-playing methodology. Future studies should use other methodologies (e.g., field studies and sur- veys) to examine the relationships among the physical environment, employee courtesy, and locus of causality.

This study examined the interaction effect of the physical environment and courtesy on attitudes toward the service firm. Future research should examine whether there is an interaction effect of courtesy and other variables on attitude toward the service firm. Previous research has examined the separate effects of employee courtesy or the physical environment on dependent variables. Future research should examine the joint effects of employee courtesy and the physical environment on other dependent variables, such as perceived risk and customer satisfaction.

Some participants were exposed to negative variables (e.g., poor environment, service failure), but the scenarios did not discuss actions that consumers might have taken to improve those negative variables. Future research should examine the effects of these three variables (i.e., the physical environment, employee courtesy, locus of causality) on attitude toward the service firm in studies in which the consumer takes action to correct a poor physical environment (e.g., change rooms) or a lack of employee courtesy (complain to the manager).

We also examined the possible interaction effect of locus of causality and employee courtesy on attitude toward the service firm. No interaction effect of locus of causality and employee courtesy was found in either study. In Study 1, the participant selected the hotel in all conditions. Then we attempted to manipulate locus of causality by having either the participant or the hotel control the stay at the hotel. However, that manipulation was not successful. One explanation for the failure of that manipulation was that attributions of locus of causality that occur in the process of selecting the service firm might be some of the most influential attributions affecting locus of causality.

In Study 2, we manipulated locus of causality successfully by having either the participant select the hotel (internal locus of causality) or having a travel agent (external locus of causality) select the hotel for the participant. Services might be different from previous psychological research because some of the most influential attributions affecting locus of causality might occur during the process through which the consumer selects the service firm.


The finding that an internal locus of causality had a more positive effect attitude toward the service firm than did an external locus of causality could have important implications for marketing services. That is, the results of this research suggest that service firms should want consumers to believe that there was an internal locus of causality for the service experience. For example, many services are primarily standardized. Service firms need to provide information about any options so that the consumer believes that he or she was able to select the particular form of the service. Additionally, service firms might not only provide information about their firm, but they could also provide information to the consumer about competitors. Then the consumer is more likely to believe that he or she had a choice of service firms and that he or she made an informed choice when selecting this particular service firm. These activities are more likely to result in the consumer attributing an internal locus of causality for the service experience and developing a more positive attitude toward the service firm.

Researchers have rarely extended the concept of locus of causality to help understand consumers’ responses to a service experience. However, the findings of this study suggest that locus of causality might be an important construct that affects consumers’ evaluations of service firms. Consequently, service and psychological researchers should conduct additional research to help identify the effects of locus of causality. For example, understanding consumers’ responses to service failures has been of considerable interest among researchers (e.g., Smith et al., 1999).

Locus of causality might help to explain consumers’ responses to a service failure. For example, when consumers attribute an internal locus of causality for the service experience, they may take at least partial responsibility for a service failure. Therefore, a service failure might have less effect on their attitude toward the firm. Conversely, when consumers attribute an external locus of causality for the service experience in which a service failure occurs, this result could have a very negative effect on consumers’ attitude toward the service firm. Locus of causality might be an important variable affecting consumers’ evaluations of other constructs, too. Therefore, we suggest that future research should examine whether there is an interaction effect of locus of causality and employee courtesy on other constructs, such as perceived quality or customer satisfaction.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baker, J., & Cameron, M. (1996). The effects of the service environment on affect and consumer perceptions of waiting time: An integrative review and research propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 338-349.

840 GOTLIEB ET AL.

Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Levy, M. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68,445-460.

Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 328-339.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. (2002, April). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66, 120-141.

Bateson, J., & Hoffman, K. (1999). Managing services marketing. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

Bibik, J. M. (1 999). Factors influencing college students’ self-perception of competence in beginning physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education Classes, 18,479-49 1.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.

Bitran, G. J., & Hoch, J. (1990). The humanization of service: Respect at the moment of truth. Sloan Management Review, 31, 89-96.

Clark, M. (1997). Modeling the impact of customer-employee relationships on customer retention rates in a major UK retail bank. Management Decision,

Creane, F. G., & Clarke, T. K. (1988). The identification of evaluative criteria and cues used in selecting services. Journal of Services Marketing, 2, 53-59.

DeMichele, P. E., Gansneder, B., & Solomon, G. B. (1998). Success and failure attributions of wrestlers: Further evidence of the self-serving bias: Correc- tion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21,473-482.

Fisk, R., Grove, S., & John, J. (2000). Interactive services marketing. New York, NY Houghton-Mifflin.

Foxall, G. R. (1997). The emotional texture of consumer environments: A systematic approach to atmospherics. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 505-523.

Gotlieb, J. B., Schlacter, J. L., & St. Louis, R. D. (1992). A model of the effects of involvement, source credibility, and location on the decision to change service providers. Psychology and Marketing, 9, 191 -198.

Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., & Dorsch, M. J. (1 998). Assessing the theatrical compo- nents of the service encounter: A cluster analysis examination. Services Industries Journal, 18, 1 16- 134.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Hensel, J. S. (1990). Service quality improvement and control: A customer-based approach. Journal of Business Research, 20,43-54.

Hui, M. K., & Bateson, J. E. G. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Con- sumer Research, 18, 174- 184.

35,293-301.


Johnson, M. D., & Fawcett, S. B. (1994). Courteous service: Its assessment and modification in a human service organization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 145-152.

Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (2001). Emotional decisions:

Tradeofldiffulty and coping in consumer choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Maheswaran, M., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1 974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Miyazaki, A., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. (2002). Role of alternative heuristic cues. Unpublished working paper, University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Mohr, L. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1995). The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service transactions. Journal of Business Research, 32,239-252.

Niemann, Y. F., & Pollak, K. 1. (1 998). The effects of physical context on stereo- typing of Mexican Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20,

Ostrom, A., & Iacobucci, D. (1995). Consumer trade-offs and the evaluation of services. Journal of Marketing, 59, 17-29.

Ozanne, J. L., Brucks, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). A study of information search behavior during the categorization of new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,452-463.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America b best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann, D. (1 983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-145.

Rosch, E. (1 975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.

Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individual perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1 145.

Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Mar- keting, 41, 73-80.

Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, A. K., Bolton, R., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 356-372.

Spangenberg, E., Crowley, A., & Henderson, P. (1996). Improving the store environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 67-80.

349-363.

842 GOTLIEB ET AL.

Vallerand, R. J., & Richer, F. (1988). On the use of the Causal Dimension Scale in a field setting: A test of confirmatory factor analysis in success and failure situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,704-7 12.

Ward, J. C., Bitner, M. J., & Barnes, J. (1992). Measuring the prototypicality and meaning of retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68, 193- 194.

Weiner, B. (1 972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago, IL: Markham.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Jour- nal ofEducationa1 Psychology, 71,3-25.

Yamauchi, H., & Momoko, J. (1998). Associations of attributional dimensions with emotions in academic achievement. Psychological Reports, 82,688-690.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Services marketing. Boston, MA: Irwin- McGraw Hill.


Appendix A

Items and Measurement Properties

a

Study 1 Study 2

Attitude toward service firm (3 items) .97 .97 On an overall basis, rate the hotel experience:

good-bad satisfactory-unsatisfactory favorable-unfavorable

Evaluations of service environment (3 items) .98 .99 The physical environment of my room at this hotel was:

unpleasant-pleasant ugly-beautijid low quality-high quality

Service locus of causality (4 items) .88 .91 Think about the reasons why your stay at the hotel turned out as it did. The items below reflect feelings you might have about your experiences. They were:

controllable by me-uncontrollable by me something I did-something others did reflects me-reflects the situation was caused by me-was caused by the situation

Evaluations of employee courtesy (3 items) The employees at this hotel were:

very discourteous-very courteous very impolite-very polite

.99 .99

very unfriendly-veryfi.iendly Note. All items were measured on 7-point scales.

844 GOTLIEB ET AL.

Appendix B

Scenario: Study I

The scenario in its entirety is presented here. The opposing conditions are also presented here.

You have decided to go on a vacation. While driving on the freeway close to your destination, you see a sign for a hotel. You decide to stop and see if the hotel has a room. You talk to the desk clerk at the front desk and ask him about a room.

He has very good manners and he is very considerate of your needs. (High courtesy manipulation)

Versus

He has very poor manners and is very inconsiderate of your needs. (Low courtesy manipulation)

The desk clerk tells you that you control the type of room and the level of service that you receive from this hotel. For example, you decide whether you want a refrigerator in your room, and how often you want your room cleaned. You decide to stay at the hotel. Then you make your selections from among the options offered at this hotel. You believe that by choosing exactly what you want will influence how much you will enjoy your hotel stay. (Internal locus of causality manipulation)

versus

When inquiring about options available at the hotel, the desk clerk tells you that every room is exactly the same, and all of the hotel’s services are available to everyone. For instance, all rooms have refrigerators and are cleaned every day. You decide to stay at the hotel. Then the desk clerk selects your room from among the standardized rooms that are available. Since the hotel’s rooms and services are all the same, you believe that the hotel itself and its management will influence how much you will enjoy your hotel stay. (External locus of causality manipulation)

When you enter your room, you find it to be beautiful. The walls are nicely decorated. The furnishings appear to be new. It has an overall clean, bright, and cheery atmosphere. You really like the physical appearance of the room. (High environnent manipulation)


Versus

When you enter your room, it appears to be run-down. The walls are poorly decorated. The furnishings are scratched and old-fashioned. It has an overall dirty, dingy, and depressing atmosphere. You really do not like the physical appearance of the room. (Low environment manipulation)

You found that the other employees of the hotel to be very considerate and polite. (High courtesy manipulation)

Versus

You found that the other employees of the hotel to be inconsiderate and rude. (Low courtesy manipulation)

846 GOTLIEB ET AL.

Appendix C

Scenario: Study 2-Locus of Causality Manipulation

You decide to go on a vacation. While driving on the freeway close to your destination, you see a sign for your hotel. You had decided to stay at that hotel because you believed that the hotel would be a good place to stay during your vacation. Then you had phoned the hotel and made your reservation. You go to the hotel. (Internal locus of causality manipulation)

Versus

You had decided to stay at that hotel because a travel agent believed that the hotel would be good place for you to stay during your vacation. Then the travel agent had phoned the hotel and made your reservation. You go to the hotel. (External locus of causality manipulation)

You talk to the desk clerk at the front desk and ask about your reservation.

He tells you that you had made a reservation for one of the hotel’s rooms that has many options. For example, the desk clerk tells you that you have the option of selecting a room in which you can exactly control the temperature. The hotel’s guest determines how often the guest’s room is cleaned and whether the room has a refrigerator. The hotel’s guest controls nearly every element of a guest’s experience at this hotel. The hotel clerk tells you that the hotel is sold out except for five rooms that are all different. You get information about each of the rooms and then you select one of the rooms. You believe that you will have great control over your experience at this hotel. (Internal locus of causality manipulation)

Versus

You talk to the desk clerk at the front desk and ask about your reservation.

He tells you that your travel agent has made a reservation for you in one of the hotel’s standard rooms. For example, the desk clerk tells you that the temperature in all of the standard rooms is controlled centrally. The hotel’s management system determines how often the standard rooms are cleaned and whether the room has a refrigerator. The hotel’s management system controls nearly every element of a guest’s experience at this hotel. The hotel clerk tells you that the hotel is sold out except for five standard


rooms that are all alike. You get information about each of the rooms and then the desk clerk selects one of the rooms for you. You believe that you will have little control over your experience at this hotel. (External locus of causality manipulation)

You decided to stay at the hotel because you had made a reservation that hotel. You believe that you were the cause of your outcomes at this hotel. (Internal locus of causality manipulation)

Versus

You decided to stay at the hotel because your travel agent had made a reservation for you at that hotel. You believe that other people were the cause of your outcomes at this hotel. (External locus ofcausality manipulation)

An Examination of Moderators of the Effects of Customers' Evaluation of Employee Courtesy on Attitude Toward the Service Firm1

Documents