The Zone of Tolerance

Extensive theoretical and empirical work has been conducted in the Marketing discipline to understand and explain the link between customer satisfaction and service quality. The greatest volume of research has focused upon the disconfirmation theory, which holds that satisfaction (dissatisfaction is dependent upon the si!e of the confirmation (disconfirmation of the service customers" initial expectations (#hurchill and $urprenant %&'( . ) similar theory, the *aps Model of service quality, holds that customer satisfaction is based upon perceptions of service quality relative to the customer"s initial expectations (+arasuraman, ,eithaml, and -erry %&'. . -oth perspectives place great emphasis upon the role that expectations serve in the satisfaction development process. ) refinement of the *aps Model of service quality is the norms/based !one of tolerance model, introduced by ,eithaml, -erry and +arasuraman (%&&0 and further refined by +arasuraman, ,eithaml, and -erry (%&&1 . The !one of tolerance (,2T is defined as 3the difference between desired service and the level of service considered adequate4 (,eithaml et al %&&0, pg. 5 . )s may be noted in this definition, the ,2T model recogni!es that customers enter service encounters with different expectation levels. 6esired service is 3the level of service the customer hopes to receive 7 a blend of what the customer believes can be and should be4 (,eithaml et al %&&0, pg. 5 . 2n the other hand, adequate service is the 3level of service the customer will accept4 (,eithaml et al %&&0, pg. 5 . The difference between these two expectation standards is the !one of tolerance. The ,2T model proposes that satisfaction will result as long as customer perceptions of service performance fall in the !one. ,eithaml and her

colleagues (%&&0 proposed that the ,2T varies across customers and can expand8contract with the same customer. They also proposed that adequate service expectations are sub9ect to change, while desired service expectations are relatively enduring. +arasuraman et al (%&&1 continued development of the ,2T model by testing three alternative questionnaire formats using an extensive mailing of %(,1:; questionnaires. ) total of 0;5& usable questionnaire were returned for a response rate of (.<. =ocusing on the five $E>?@A)B dimensions of reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles (+arasuraman, ,eithaml, and -erry %&'' , the three column format measured the respondents" adequate and desired expectations, as well as their perceptions of the service provider"s performance in identical, side/by/side scales. The two column format generated direct measures of the service/superiority gap (perceived performance on desired service levels and the service/ adequacy gap (perceived performance on adequate service levels with identical, side/by/side scales. The one column format generated direct measures of both the service/superiority and service/adequacy gaps, but the questionnaire was split into two parts, with one set of scales designed to measure each of the gaps separately. +arasuraman et al (%&&1 found that while each of the formats were both reliable and valid, only the three column format offered the ability to determine where perceptions fell relative to the ,2T, the ability to pinpoint ,2T positions, and reduce the chance for inflated ratings and erroneous inferences. )nother theoretical article regarding the ,2T was offered by Cohnston (%&&. . $pecifically, he theoretically examined the relationship between involvement and the ,2T, as well as the impact of various service performance outcomes upon the ,2T. Dn relation to the impact of involvement, he proposed that the width of the ,2T is 3inversely proportional to the degree of involvement4 (Cohnston %&&., pg. 1& . Dn other words, high involvement generates a

narrower ,2T, while low involvement generates a wider ,2T. $imilar to ,eithaml et al"s (%&&0 contention, he also proposed that (% performance within the ,2T may go unnoticed by the customer, (( performance below the customer"s adequate expectations level (below the ,2T will generate dissatisfaction, and (0 performance above the customer"s desired expectations level (above the ,2T will generate 3delight4, or what ,eithaml et al (%&&0 termed a 3customer franchise.4 Dt is appropriate to note that disagreement exists in the services marketing literature as to whether perceived service quality should be measured using a performance/based framework or with a standards (or norms /based framework. Teas and 6e#arlo ((;;1, pg. (:( noted that 3performance/based frameworks specify perceived performance, without any comparative referents, as the perceived quality concept,4 while 3standards/based frameworks specify a relative or comparative performance conceptuali!ation of perceived quality.4 Dn other words, does a direct measure of perceived service quality offer greater explanatory power than a norms/ based comparative measureE +arasuraman et al (%&&1 argued that norms/based models (such as the ,2T would be more useful because of the measurement of more precise information about customer perceptions across the multiple expectations levels. Dn their study of %;: undergraduate students" perceptions of a university"s $tudent $ervices #enter, Teas and 6e#arlo ((;;1 found that performance/based models offered more explanatory power than the ,2T regarding the relationship between perceived quality and purchase intentions. Fowever, they also found that the ,2T (as the representative norms/based model offered superior performance (relative to performance/based models when evaluating the linkage between perceived quality and satisfaction. Fence, they provided support for the ,2T as a useful managerial and research

tool for better understanding how customer perceptions of quality impact satisfaction with the service. )dditionally, ?oss, +arasuraman, and *rewal (%&&' argued that there are instances when a standards/based framework does not provide sufficient explanatory power. $pecifically, in their study of (;; faculty members of a large university, these authors found that the standards/based framework was only useful when price and performance were consistent. Dn other words, they examined how price perceptions impacted the expectations/perceived performance framework. They found that the more customers were price tolerant, the less satisfied they were with a high/price8low/quality offering. 2n the other hand, for those customers who were initially less price tolerant, satisfaction was greater for the low/price8high/ quality offering. Get, in those instances where levels of delivered performance matched the price level (low/price8low/qualityH high/price8high/quality , perceived performance was compared against prior expectations to determine satisfaction levels. )dditional support for the ,2T model has been provided by Ialker and -aker ((;;; . These authors proposed that the width of the ,2T varies for essential versus less/essential service quality components. They also proposed that the ,2T width would be influenced by the degree of customer experience with the service, as well as the number of competitive alternatives the customers perceived. They surveyed (;. college students regarding health club membership. Dt was found that the width of the ,2T does indeed varying dependent upon the service quality dimension in question. $pecifically, Ialker and -aker ((;;; found that the ,2T was narrower for the assurance and reliability dimensions than for the empathy, responsiveness, and tangible dimensions of service quality. Dn relation to customer experience levels, it was found that no significant differences exist between experienced and non/experienced customers on desired

service level expectations. Fowever, the ,2T is narrower for experienced customers 3because they have increasingly demanding adequate expectations4 (Ialker and -aker (;;;, pg. 1(1 . )dditionally, these authors found no support for the ,eithaml et al (%&&0 proposition that the presence of readily available provider alternatives would narrow the ,2T. Ialker and -aker ((;;; attributed this finding to the stability of the desired expectations standard. )nother recent study offered similar findings to those reported by Ialker and -aker ((;;; . *wynne, 6evlin, and Ennew ((;;; also investigated the width of the ,2T relative to the different service quality dimensions and found in their study of (%' students that service quality dimensions that are perceived as more important en9oy a wider !one of tolerance. Their results attribute this to higher levels of desired expectations for the most important service quality dimensions. Dt was also found that these desired expectations tend to be relatively stable. )dditionally, customers who were more favorably disposed to the provider (generally more experienced customers tended to have higher levels of adequate expectations than their less favorably disposed counterparts, and thus tended to have narrower ,2T"s. Dn summary, the ,one of Tolerance (,2T model is a standards/based framework for understanding customer perceptions of service quality and satisfaction with the service. Ihile the ,2T is inappropriate in some instances, such as when the primary purpose is 3to explain the variance in some dependent construct,4 it is considered appropriate when 3the primary purpose is to diagnose accurately service shortfalls4 (,eithaml et al %&&5, pg. 1; . The model holds that service customers has two basic types of prepurchase expectationsH desired and adequate. These expectations define the boundary of the !one of tolerance. )s long as perceived performance falls within the !one, the result is customer satisfaction. +erformance below the !one generates

dissatisfaction, while high performance that exceeds the customers" desired expectations generates delight, or a customer franchise. Ihat does the ,one of Tolerance model offer business managersE Dt explains that the firm"s customers enter discrete transactions with the organi!ation with different expectations. They have a level of service they will accept, and they have a level of service they want. )s long as the firm"s offerings fall within the !one, the customers will be satisfied. Fowever, falling within the !one is only enough to maintain competitive parity. 2bviously, falling below the !one puts the firm at a competitive disadvantage. 2n the other hand, performing above the !one offers the firm the possibility of developing a long/term competitive advantage. Dt is important that the firm gain an understanding of the service quality dimensions that are most important to its target customers, for it is within these dimensions that the !one is narrowest. Dt is likely that competitive advantage may not be derived from performance on these dimensions, but the firm must perform within the customers" !ones of tolerance on these dimensions to be competitive. Get, the less important dimensions offer an opportunity for the development of sustainable competitive advantage as the !ones of tolerance associated with these dimensions tend to be wider.

References #hurchill, *ilbert )., Cr. and #arol $urprenant (%&'( , 3)n Dnvestigation Dnto the 6eterminants of #ustomer $atisfaction,4 Journal of Marketing Research, JDJ (Kovember , 1&%/.;1. *wynne, )nne B., Cames =. 6evlin, and #hristine T. Ennew ((;;; , 3The ,one of ToleranceL Dnsights and Dnfluences,4 Journal of Marketing Management, %5, .1./.51. Cohnston, >obert (%&&. , 3The ,one of ToleranceL Exploring the >elationship -etween $ervice Transactions and $atisfaction with the 2verall $ervice,4 International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (( , 15/5%.

+arasuraman, )., ?alarie ). ,eithaml, and Beonard B. -erry (%&'. , 3) #onceptual Model of $ervice @uality and Dmplications for =uture >esearch,4 Journal of Marketing, 1& (=all , 1%/.;. +arasuraman, )., ?alarie ). ,eithaml, and Beonard B. -erry (%&'' , 3$E>@A)BL ) Multiple/ Dtem $cale for Measuring #onsumer +erceptions of $ervice @uality,4 Journal of Retailing, 51 ($pring , %(/1;. +arasuraman, )., ?alarie ). ,eithaml, and Beonard B. -erry (%&&1 , 3)lternative $cales for Measuring $ervice @ualityL ) #omparative )ssessment -ased on +sychometric and 6iagnostic #riteria,4 Journal of Retailing, :; (0 , (;%/(0;. Teas, >. Menneth and Thomas E. 6e#arlo ((;;1 , 3)n Examination and Extension of the ,one/of/Tolerance Model,4 Journal of Service Research, 5 (=ebruary , (:(/('5. ?oss, *lenn -., ). +arasuraman, and 6hruv *rewal (%&&' , 3The >oles of +rice, +erformance, and Expectations in 6etermining $atisfaction in $ervice Exchanges,4 Journal of Marketing, 5( (2ctober , 15/5%. Ialker, Cim and Culie -aker ((;;; , 3)n Exploratory $tudy of a Multi/Expectation =ramework =or $ervices,4 Journal of Services Marketing, %1(. , 1%%/10%. ,eithaml, ?alarie )., Beonard B. -erry, and ). +arasuraman (%&&0 , 3The Kature and 6eterminants of #ustomer Expectations of $ervice,4 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (% (Iinter , %/%(.