The Service Industries Journal, 2014

Vol. 34, No. 3, 212 229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.778249

Measuring customer pre-purchase satisfaction in a retail setting

W.Y. Huanga,b and A.J. Dubinskyb,c,d
a

College of Management, Marketing, Yuan Ze University, Chung-Li, Taiwan; bLearning &

Innovation Research Center, Meta Business School, Newport Beach, CA, USA; cDillard College of
Business Administration, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX, USA; dPurdue University,
West Lafayette, IN, USA
(Received 8 March 2011; final version received 8 May 2012)
Previous studies have addressed customer satisfaction as a post-purchase phenomenon.
However, examining solely post-purchase satisfaction when investigating consumer
satisfaction is incomplete because multiple stages are involved in the purchase
decision making process. Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop an
instrument to assess customer satisfaction in the pre-purchase stage using procedures
for developing a reliable and valid scale, as proposed by Churchill [1979. A
paradigm of developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of
Marketing Research, 16(1), 64 73.] and DeVellis [2003. Scale development: Theory
and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]. Two sets of data were
collected to carry out two stages of scale purification 98 subjects participated in
the first stage and 443 subjects participated in the second stage. The factor
structures, reliability, and construct validity were tested to assess the properties of
the final scale. Findings revealed a 21-item, 6-dimension scale measuring customers
pre-purchase satisfaction. Discussion of the results, managerial implications, study
limitations, and suggestions for future research are presented.
Keywords: retailing; pre-purchase; customer satisfaction

Introduction
The majority of previous studies that have addressed customer satisfaction have considered it as a post-purchase phenomenon (e.g. Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Oliver,
1977, 1980; Oliver & Swan, 1989). However, Giese and Cote (2000) argued that customer
satisfaction occurs whenever an evaluative process takes place, irrespective of the time
frame. Consumers may evaluate their satisfaction vis-a-vis the service, product, store,
salespeople, information acquisition, or consumption during any stage of the decision
making process (Giese & Cote, 2000; Spreng & Olshavsky, 1992). Empirical studies
have discovered the impact of purchase-related factors, such as retail service employees
(Sureshchandar, Rajendran, & Anantharaman, 2002), retail environment (Babin, Lee,
Kim, & Griffin, 2005), and service quality in a retail setting (Dabholkar, Thorpe, &
Rentz, 1996), on consumer satisfaction. Therefore, investigating evaluations that influence
consumer pre-purchase satisfaction seems warranted, yet has been explored minimally.
Significance of the study
There are several reasons for investigating customers pre-purchase satisfaction being
important. First, companies need to rely on excellent supporting customer services to

Corresponding author. Email: rene.wenyeh@gmail.com

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

The Service Industries Journal

213

build sustainable differential advantages owing to diminished differentiation among products (Brynjolfsson & Michael, 2000; Fetherstonhaugh, 2009; Roberts, 1991). Second, the
long-term benefits from loyal customers have made enhancement of customer satisfaction
a critical task of marketers (Finkelman, 1993; Reichheld, 1996). Third, channels of distribution have become increasingly competitive (e.g. Black, Lockett, Ennew, Winklhofer, &
McKechnie, 2002; Rha & Widdows, 2002), especially for online retailers because the
online environment affords consumers opportunity to easily abandon their shopping
baskets before making an actual purchase. Factors such as an unpleasant online information search experience, uneasiness with completing online transactions (Shim, Eastlick,
Lotz, & Warrington, 2001), or low satisfaction toward pre- and post-purchase services and
shopping experiences online (Khalifa & Liu, 2007; Posselt & Gerstner, 2005; Zhou, Dai,
& Zhang, 2007) might quickly result in consumers abandonment of online shopping carts
before a purchase is made. Fourth, satisfaction with various pre-purchase activities can
have an impact on long-term customer relationships, because relationships with customers
may begin long before the purchase is made (Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2002). Finally, Westbrook (1980) averred that a more holistic understanding of what accounts for consumer
satisfaction will abet establishment of theory as well as assurance of consumer welfare.
After all, customer satisfaction is the net result of all the interactions customers have
with your product or service and your company. Its the total ownership experience
they have with you that drives customer behavior (Finkelman, 1993, p. 23). Thus, customer satisfaction does not arise only at the post-purchase stage, but is an ongoing evaluation
of activities occurring in the shopping process.
Despite the foregoing dialectic, only a small number of studies have explored customer
satisfaction or dissatisfaction occurring at points other than the post-purchase stage (e.g.
Simintiras, Diamantopoulos, & Ferriday, 1997; Westbrook, Newman, & Taylor, 1978).
Previous studies have reported that consumers employ different evaluative criteria in
pre- and post-purchase processes (Gardial, Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, & Burns,
1994; Taylor & Burns, 1999). Therefore, viewing consumers satisfaction with prepurchase activities using the same evaluative process and criteria proposed for the postpurchase satisfaction appraisal may be inappropriate and insufficient to capture customers
responses toward the overall shopping process. Moreover, virtually no prior relevant
studies have paid specific attention to measuring customer satisfaction before making purchases. Based on the preceding, then, the purpose of this investigation was to construct a
valid and reliable instrument that measures customer satisfaction in response to various
situations or interactions occurring prior to making a purchase. The measure may serve
as the first step to understand what consumers want and desire in the shopping process,
provide researchers with a holistic view of customer satisfaction, and potentially
develop enhanced conceptual models.
Literature review
Consumer satisfaction appraisal
Extensive review of literature suggests that consumer satisfaction appraisal is mainly conceptualized and empirically tested as a post-purchase phenomenon from both cognitive
and affective points of view (e.g. Bearden & Teel, 1983; Liao & Cheung, 2008; Oliver,
1980, 1981; Rust & Oliver, 1994; Tse & Wilton, 1988). Recent empirical work in the services industry has chiefly followed the above conceptualization of consumer satisfaction
(e.g. Caro & Carcia, 2007; Ekinci, Dawes, & Massey, 2008), despite the inseparability
among service production, purchase, and consumption inherent in this industry. Relatively

214

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

little attempt is made to examine the timing in which consumer satisfaction appraisal takes
place.
In addition to the post-purchase view of satisfaction appraisal, prior work has proposed
that consumers will also be affected by the conditions surrounding a purchase and their
satisfaction with the buying process (Katona & Mueller, 1954, p. 66). Consumers enter
a purchase process with pre-formed expectations toward various factors, such as the interaction with sales personnel, the checking-out process, or the crowd in the store, which ultimately lead to the formation of satisfaction appraisal (Giese & Cote, 2000). Thus, other
than the post-purchase stages, satisfied feelings can emerge during the purchase and the
consumption, and the level of satisfaction in the previous stage likely will have an
impact on the subsequent stage (Oliver, 1981). This is especially true in certain service
industries, such as tourism, because tourists tend to form satisfaction evaluations during
and after the consumption (Bowen & Ince, 2011).
Justice research lends theoretical support regarding the formation of pre-purchase satisfaction. Individuals sometimes care about the fairness in the decision process concerning
resource allocation procedural justice (Hendrix, Robbins, Miller, & Summer, 1998)
as well as the interpersonal treatment they receive during this process interactional
justice (Bies & Moag, 1986) more than the outcome. When the procedures for allocating resources are perceived as fair and implemented with sincerity, honesty, respect, consideration, and explanations and justification, people respond more positively to an unfair
outcome (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Thus, activities and interactions between consumers and the retail environment occurring during a purchase process may well play an important role in influencing their feelings toward a
particular shopping trip and subsequent evaluations. If consumers feel that they are
treated fairly during the purchase process, they could form a favorable satisfaction appraisal irrespective of the outcome of this shopping trip. And this appraisal will consequently
affect subsequent consumption evaluations, post-purchase intentions, word-of-mouth promotion, and post-purchase satisfaction (Dabholkar & Thorpe, 1994; Oliver, 1981).
Accordingly, based on ones appraisal, a consumer may feel satisfied or dissatisfied
long before the actual purchase decision is made; this evaluation is likely to influence
his or her upcoming purchase decision.
Thus, the present study considers the buying process to begin when the consumer
initially engages in cognitive and behavioral processes directed at satisfying the individuals
need for a product or service. Further, extended from Giese and Cotes (2000) definition of
satisfaction, this study defines consumer pre-purchase satisfaction as consumers summary
responses toward the evaluations of various activities and interactions occurring during the
buying process prior to making a purchase, emphasizing consumers evaluations of and
responses toward the buying process rather than focusing on the outcome of a purchase.
Differences between pre-purchase and post-purchase evaluative processes
Prior research has revealed that consumers evaluate pre- and post-purchase processes differently. It was found that standards of comparisons, evaluation strategies, consumers consideration of hierarchical levels in the means2end theory, and evaluative criteria and
their importance might change as the consumption process proceeds, as consumers may
have more knowledge regarding some products attributes that were not anticipated before
the buying process began (Gardial et al., 1994; Taylor & Burns, 1999). Therefore, the set
of evaluative criteria after making a purchase would not remain the same as those used
before the purchase. Indeed, empirical work has found that a satisfied pre-purchase state

The Service Industries Journal

215

will positively influence consumers subsequent intentions, evaluations, and behaviors

(Hoffman & Turley, 2002; Levitt, 1981; Oliver, 1997; Rigsbee, 1997; Westbrook, 1987).
Method
This studys procedures for developing an instrument measuring consumers satisfaction
with pre-purchase activities conform to the framework proposed in the scale development
literature, especially the work of Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (2003). Based on their
suggestions, the following procedures were employed to construct the scale to measure
pre-purchase satisfaction.
Domain specification and item generation
The domain of the pre-purchase satisfaction construct is conceptualized as all elements
involved in the pre-purchase stage of a shopping process that may influence consumer satisfaction. Based on literature, six potential components of pre-purchase satisfaction were
identified: (1) store environment (e.g. store layout, interior decoration, cleanliness), (2)
interaction with customer contact personnel (e.g. salespeople, store clerk, customer
service personnel), (3) information acquisition process, (4) store policies (including
payment methods, hours, and return policies), (5) delivery (e.g. timing of delivery, designated location of delivery, frequency of delivery), and (6) products (e.g. variety of products, assortment of brands, models, sizes, or colors) (Dabholkar et al., 1996;
McKinney, Yoon, & Zahedi, 2002; Simintiras et al., 1997; Terblanche & Boshoff,
2001; Westbrook et al., 1978; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003).
Items corresponding to the six potential components were first collected from existing
literature and focus groups interviews. Subjects were encouraged to express ideas freely
(without any mention of the study framework) regarding things that may influence their
satisfaction throughout the shopping process. As a result, 165 items were obtained and
subjected to an assessment of content validity. This step further reduced the item pool
to 104 items. These items were then subjected to initial scale purification.
First stage of scale purification
A physical product was selected as the target of responses in order to elicit respondents
opinions regarding activities associated with the purchase process. The selection of the
product under examination was partly predicated on familiarity that consumers have
toward the larger product class (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982). In addition, in order to
stimulate the degree of information processing to form satisfaction judgments, choosing
product categories that require a high level of deliberation toward the purchase was
regarded as important (Bone, 1995; Richins & Root-Shaffer, 1988). Therefore, consumer
electronics such as MP3 players, TV game devices, digital cameras, cell phones with
various functions, and CD players were employed as example products for subjects to consider when assessing their pre-purchase satisfaction.
A questionnaire containing all 104 items was created. Each item was evaluated using a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Subjects
were first instructed to indicate which consumer electronics product would make them
consider various factors prior to the purchase. They were then asked to consider
whether or not each item would affect their satisfaction with the shopping process. Subjects demographic information was collected at the end of the questionnaire.

216

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

Sampling and data collection

A convenience sample consisting of college students was employed for this initial scale
purification. Undergraduate students enrolled at a major university in the Midwest were
recruited by intercepting them on campus. The researcher approached and invited subjects
to participate in the study by filling out a questionnaire. A total of 98 usable questionnaires
were collected through this method.
Arguably, student samples pose concerns owing to generalizability and applicability to
the general public as consumers (Burnett & Dunne, 1986). Nevertheless, this kind of
sample is germane because student consumers represent an important target segment for
consumer electronics such as MP3 players, CD players, play stations, cell phones,
and digital cameras (Pickoff-White, 2005). The representativeness of a student sample
when consumer electronic products are under examination thus seemed justifiable. Only
subjects who had engaged in the purchase process of consumer electronic products
were recruited as participants in the study.
Item elimination with factor analysis and test of reliability
All 104 items were first subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal
components analysis with varimax rotation to extract factors (McDonald, 1985). Items
with relatively low item-to-total correlations with the designated component were eliminated to improve the internal consistency of that component. As a result, 27 items with
6 factors were revealed (see Table 1).
The eigenvalues for the six factors were 8.64, 2.89, 2.18, 1.76, 1.58, and 1.43, explaining 68.53% of the variance. Coefficient alpha of this purified scale was .906, indicating
satisfactory reliability of the overall scale. The coefficient alpha for each factor is presented at the bottom of Table 1.
Theory is the ultimate arbiter when deciding the content and dimensionality of a scale
(Kim & Mueller, 1978). Results revealed that items extracted solely based on the EFA did
not adequately reflect all the elements within the presupposed components. Therefore, in
addition to the 27 items, 12 items selected from the original 104-item pool were added in
order to more adequately represent the proposed six potential components of a shopping
experience. These additional items were selected based on what had been revealed by
the EFA prior to obtaining the 27 items as well as the researchers judgment regarding
germane items. Thirty-nine items were then subjected to factor analysis; results revealed
that 35 items could be retained for the second data collection and analysis to further purify
the scale.
Second stage of scale purification: test of the purified scale with a new data set
In order to test the purified instrument, questionnaires were administered to a new sample
of subjects (its descriptive characteristics follow). Potential consumers who had experienced various situations of purchasing a product were selected for recruitment. Five
hundred and forty-seven questionnaires were distributed to subjects, and 443 completed
questionnaires were obtained (an 81% response rate).
A questionnaire containing the 35 items was created to collect data at this stage. To
enhance the generalizability of this research, respondents completed the questionnaire
without their being constrained to a specific product category or product type. Therefore,
respondents were provided with the following instructions for completing the
questionnaire:

The Service Industries Journal

Table 1.

217

Factor loadings and reliability of the first stage of scale purification: 27 items.
Factors

Items

Promises regarding when something would

be done
Adequacy of customer service provided
before purchase was made
Extent to which customer contact personnel
were willing to help
Extent of effort customer contact personnel
made to get what you requested
Availability of customer information center
Degree to which customer contact
personnels recommendations were useful
Amount of information regarding the
purchase
Accessibility of information in various
channels
Ease of finding information
Availability of payment options (e.g. accept
credit card, cash, check, debit card; accept
only cash; no credit card accepted; etc.)
Extent to which you can control delivery
date and time
Availability of product returns and
exchanges
Clarity of return policy
Amount of refund if you return the product
Speed of receiving refund after you return
the product
Speed of customer services
Access to hard-to-find/limited products
Access to unique products/brands
Cleanliness of in-store public areas
(restrooms, fitting rooms)
Attractiveness of in-store public areas
(restrooms, fitting rooms)
Convenience of in-store public areas
(restrooms, fitting rooms)
Availability of printed receipt
Ability to deliver out-of-stock items in your
preferred manner
Accessibility of store locations
Appearance of in-store equipment and
fixtures
Variety of brands
Product designs
Construct reliability

.800

.011

.068

.063

2.011

.116

.722

2.037

.183

2.086

.028

.372

.721

.098

.017

.099

.203

2.339

.646

.258

.354

.122

.042

.053

.712
.726

.202
.308

.062
.204

.074
.099

.346
.066

.179
.091

.797

.264

.230

.148

.055

.112

.816

.194

.193

.173

.101

2.045

.783
.097

.191
.751

.169
2.032

2.005
2.161

2.029
2.016

.065
.035

.122

.770

.138

.015

.109

2.007

.082

.779

.063

.061

.191

.205

.291
.221
.174

.722
.776
.699

.046
.097
.176

.020
.044
.175

.210
2.025
.158

.126
.129
.084

.309
.249
.292
.176

.049
.095
.221
.077

.670
.856
.822
.069

.140
2.009
.019
.817

.088
.053
.027
2.010

.090
.115
.018
.158

.039

.049

2.020

.856

2.003

2.015

.110

2.063

.088

.847

.045

2.001

.148
.028

.351
.269

2.118
.129

.109
.103

.710
.687

2.115
.045

.175
.157

.128
.123

2.189
.093

.246
2.092

.692
.115

.195
.608

2.017
.121
.927

.197
2.033
.874

.254
.133
.826

2.063
2.028
.825

2.047
.077
.632

.853
.771
.653

Note: Values in bold-italic represent the items loaded on the same factors. Values in bold face represent those that
do not belong to the factor analysis; however, each number represents the reliability of each factor.

When you go shopping to purchase a particular product, there are certain elements that
may influence your satisfaction with the shopping experience. Please recall the most
recent shopping experience you have conducted on a product about which you had
very little prior knowledge and that required you to consider various features prior to

218

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

buying. Please indicate the product that you are considering in relation to this shopping
experience: ___________.

Then subjects were instructed to respond to statements regarding their shopping

experiences by rating each statement from 1 to 7, representing extremely dissatisfied
to extremely satisfied, as in the initial data collection effort.
In addition to the 35 items measuring customers pre-purchase satisfaction, existing
measures of purchase intention (measured by four items adapted from Oliver &
Bearden, 1985), perceived service quality (assessed by two global measures from Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003), and loyalty intention (measured by four items adapted from
Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996) were included for the purpose of testing nomological validity. In addition, a measure of pre-purchase satisfaction assessed by four items
adopted from Simintiras et al. (1997) was also included to establish a higher-order factor
model to examine whether the pre-purchase satisfaction was indeed measured on the proposed six components, and the extent to which these components capture the pre-purchase
satisfaction construct. Questions regarding respondents demographic background and
shopping propensity were included as well.
Descriptive statistics of second-stage sample
Approximately 60% of the sample were female and 70% of the sample were between 18
and 22 years old. The majority of the sample had at least some college education and
68.8% of the respondents had at least a part-time job. Only 110 subjects who had not purchased the product responded to the questions regarding their purchase intention. Therefore, those 110 subjects were utilized as the data set for the subsequent analyses that
involved the measure of purchase intention. Otherwise, the entire sample (n 443)
was employed. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that their product of interest
was in consumer electronics; 24%, clothes and accessories; 11%, home appliances; 6%,
automobiles; 5%, automobile-related products; 3%, gifts for others; 2%, service; 2%,
beauty products; 1%, sports-related products; and 4%, other kinds of products.
Factor structure and reliability of the scale
EFA using principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to eliminate items with poor loadings (Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996). As a result, 25 items constituting 6 factors were obtained. The split-half method was then employed to test the reliability
of the refined scale. An alpha value exceeding .8 is considered reliable for establishing
construct reliability (Nunnally, 1967). Cronbachs alpha for the 13-item scale was .851;
for the 12-item scale, .822 thus indicating satisfactory construct reliability.
Using Amos 5, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Four items were further
eliminated from the 25-item scale, which resulted in 21 items and 6 factors. The factors
are customer service, return, product availability, store environment, information
accessibility, and delivery (Table 2). This 21-item, 6-factor model was compared
with a one-factor model, as well as several two-factor, three-factor, four-factor, and
five-factor models to compare the performance of various alternative models. The goodness-of-fit indices (GFIs) of various models suggested that the empirical data fit the proposed 21-item, 6-factor model the best. The GFI of this model is .928, the comparative-fit
index (CFI) is .946, and the adjusted GFI is .903, which are the highest among all the
models. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is .051 and is the
lowest compared with the other models. Furthermore, the standardized regression estimates of items on the corresponding factors all exceeded .5. This six-factor model explains

Table 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis of 21 items.

Construct/item

tValues

Standard
errors

Component
reliability

Item
reliability

.838
.684

.649
.652

.743
.699

15.789
12.254

.073
.083

.710
.640

.656
.616

11.633
11.021

.086
.085

.566
.551

.649

11.534

.086

.563
.854

.652
.791
.809
.710
.686

13.065
13.540
11.709
11.824

.761
.595
.670
.725
.672
.673

.092
.093
.095
.083
.707

.689
.792
.555

11.546
9.518

.689
.568
.571
.446

.090
.090
.821

.727
.917
.720

15.484
14.179

.080
.071

9.580

.096

.670
.628
.779
.626

.682
.703
.736

.851
.518
.518

.772
9.652

.112

.642
.629
.629

219

.752
.836

Variance
extracted

The Service Industries Journal

Customer service
1. Adequacy of customer service provided before purchase was
made
2. Extent to which customer contact personnel were willing to help
3. Extent of effort customer contact personnel made to get what you
requested
4. Availability of customer information center
5. Degree to which customer contact personnels recommendations
were useful
6. Speed of customer service
Return
7. Availability of product return and exchange
8. Clarity of return policy
9. Ease of return process
10. Amount of refund if you return the product
11. Speed of receiving refund after you return the product
Product availability
12. Variety of brands
13. Product designs
14. Availability of merchandise when you want it
Store environment
15. Cleanliness of in-store public areas (restrooms, fitting rooms)
16. Attractiveness of in-store public areas (restrooms, fitting rooms)
17. Convenience of in-store public areas (restrooms, fitting rooms)
Information accessibility
18. Accessibility of information in various channels
19. Ease of finding information
Delivery
20. Cost of shipping and handling
21. Ease of tracking shipping and delivery status

Factor
loadings

220

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

66.8% of total variance. These results suggest that the proposed model represents the
empirical data best.
The Cronbachs alpha for the overall scale was .880. The alpha for customer service
was .838; for return, .854; for product availability, .707; for store environment, .821;
for information accessibility, .682; and for delivery, .772. Fornell and Larcker (1981)
have suggested that the variance extracted from each construct can serve as an indicator
of reliability, and it represents the percentage of total variance explained by each construct
within the scale. As presented in Table 2, all of the extracted variances exceed the .5 criterion recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). These indicators collectively suggest
an adequate level of reliability for the 21-item scale. Accordingly, the scale was subjected
to tests of construct validity.
Assessment of construct validity using the second-stage sample
Convergent validity: The factor loadings, t-values, component reliability, item-to-total
reliability, and model-fit statistics were employed as indicators for establishing convergent
validity. If the t-values of all items loaded on the corresponding construct are significant,
adequate convergent validity can be established (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Results
revealed significant t-values on all items, high factor loading of each item on the
corresponding factor, sufficient reliability of each component as well as item-to-total correlation within each component, and adequate fit indices from the confirmatory factor
analysis. Thus, adequate convergent validity was established.
Discriminant validity: Discriminant validity was examined with three tests. The first
test suggested that if the extracted variance for each factor is higher than all the squared
pairwise correlations in relation to that factor, discriminant validity can be established
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Findings reported that the extracted variance for each factor
is higher than the associated squared pairwise correlations with other factors. The
second test assessed requires that if the two factors are different, the confidence interval
for each pairwise correlation should not include the number one (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). This test was applied to all possible pairs of the six factors; the resulting
values of all confidence intervals ranged from .166 to .752. The third test examined
whether the addition between the covariance and two standard errors for each pair of
factors is less than one (Dabholkar et al., 1996). The values on all the possible pairs of
the six factors ranged from .290 to .635. Based on these findings, the discriminant validity
of the scale was established.
Nomological validity: In order to test the nomological validity, relationships between
pre-purchase satisfaction and theoretically related antecedents and consequences, including perceived service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty, were examined. Nomological validity would be reported if positive; significant correlations were revealed between
each related measure and each dimension of pre-purchase satisfaction.
Service quality versus pre-purchase satisfaction
Previous studies have found that customer satisfaction and service quality are two distinct,
but closely related, constructs (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Taylor & Baker,
1994). Predictive expectations (what consumers believe will happen) are used as the standard of comparison for satisfaction, but consumers employ what they feel a firm should
provide as a standard of comparison for perceived service quality. Service quality, as an
antecedent of consumer satisfaction, develops by comparing the ideals to the perceived

The Service Industries Journal

221

performance of quality (Oliver, 1993). Service quality is a long-term attitude toward a

specific service encounter that is formed at a specific point in time (Bitner, 1990;
Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Oliver, 1993) and is a global judgment, or attitude, relating to
the superiority of the service (Parasuraman et al., 1988, p. 16). On the other hand, consumer satisfaction, involving both the outcome and the process, is essentially experiential
and is determined by the disconfirmation of predictive expectations about both quality and
non-quality dimensions (Oliver, 1993). It is a temporary evaluation made based on a
specific service encounter (Bitner, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
Perceived service quality is even more closely related to pre-purchase satisfaction than
to post-purchase satisfaction because many pre-purchase activities are essentially services.
However, consumers perceptions of the service quality in the pre-purchase stage will
likely have an impact on their judgment of satisfaction with this process. Satisfaction
appraisal in the pre-purchase stage might be formed not only toward service qualityrelated elements, but also features not concerning service quality (such as in-store
product display, variety of options, or cost of shipping). Hence, the formation of pre-purchase satisfaction evaluation may encompass the evaluation of service quality issues as
well as other aspects of a purchase decision making process. Thus, it is expected that
these two concepts are positively related to each other.
H1: Perceived service quality will have a positive impact on pre-purchase satisfaction.

Pre-purchase satisfaction versus purchase intention and loyalty

When consumers sense that problems might occur during or after product acquisition, they
may form a negative impression about the upcoming purchase (Levitt, 1981), which
further leads to no purchase. Thus, an important outcome of the pre-purchase process is
consumers decision to buy the product or service (Hoffman & Turley, 2002). Furthermore, the level of satisfaction in the pre-purchase stage will have an impact on consumers
subsequent buying behaviors (Hoffman & Turley, 2002; Oliver, 1981). Customer satisfaction has been regarded as a predictor of purchase intention as well as loyalty (e.g. Dabholkar & Thorpe, 1994; Oliver, 1980; Oliver & Swan, 1989). Further, repeated
purchase intention is believed to be a function of customer satisfaction (e.g. LaBarbera
& Mazursky, 1983; Patterson, 1997). The positive impact that pre-purchase customer satisfaction has on purchase intention and loyalty can be inferred accordingly. Thus, pre-purchase satisfaction is expected to be positively related to both purchase intention and
loyalty intention.
H2: Pre-purchase satisfaction will positively influence purchase intention.
H3: Pre-purchase satisfaction will positively influence loyalty intention.

In order to test whether the six underlying components predict consumer pre-purchase
satisfaction (as they are designed to measure), a measure of pre-purchase satisfaction
(Simintiras et al., 1997) was included as well. Therefore, relationships with these
related constructs were expected to establish the validity of the measurement of pre-purchase satisfaction.
H4: The overall measure of pre-purchase satisfaction will be positively related to all six
dimensions of the proposed pre-purchase satisfaction measure.

Some guidelines posit that samples containing fewer than 100 subjects may lead to
untenable structural equation modeling; samples in excess of 200 can be considered sufficient (Kline, 1998). When testing the above hypotheses, only 110 subjects who had not
purchased the product responded to the purchase intention measure were employed as

222
Table 3.

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

Correlations between pre-purchase satisfaction measure and other constructs.

Customer service
Return
Product availability
Store environment
Information
accessibility
Delivery

Service
quality

Loyalty
intention

Pre-purchase
satisfaction

Purchase intention
(N 110)

.647
.317
.603
.435
.441

.569
.326
.565
.417
.521

.593
.303
.684
.379
.501

.398
.285
.587
.307
.396

.392

.346

.468

.282

Correlation alpha is not significant at the a .05 level.

the data set, thus constituting a small sample. In order to address this concern, two structural models were established. One model included the purchase intention construct and
solely the 110 subjects who responded to this measure; the other model did not include
the purchase intention construct (n 443). The fit indices of the model with purchase
intention (n 110) were x2 188.747, df 100, CFI .916, RMSEA .090;
without purchase intention (n 432), x2 128.269, df 46, CFI .971, RMSEA
.064. These results revealed that the empirical data fit both models adequately.
Shown in Table 3 are correlations between each dimension of pre-purchase satisfaction
and service quality, purchase intention (N 110), loyalty intention, and the global
measure of pre-purchase satisfaction. All dimensions are significantly positively correlated with these related constructs, except for the correlations between purchase intention
and store environment, and purchase intention and delivery. Thus, H1, H3, and H4
received full support, and H2 received partial support. These findings provide evidence
that pre-purchase satisfaction is positively related to perceived service quality, loyalty
intention, and the overall measure of pre-purchase satisfaction, as expected. In addition,
customer service, return, product availability, and information accessibility of the pre-purchase satisfaction construct are positively related to purchase intention. Accordingly, the
results of convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity suggest that the measure of
pre-purchase satisfaction possesses adequate construct validity.
Test of the relationships among the pre-purchase satisfaction and related constructs
Whether the pre-purchase satisfaction construct contributes to the traditional theoretical
relationships among perceived service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty intention
(e.g. Taylor & Baker, 1994; Zeithaml et al., 1996) was further investigated. However,
the results revealed two insignificant paths between (a) perceived service quality and purchase intention and between (b) loyalty intention and purchase intention. An alternative
model, with the elimination of these two insignificant paths, was constructed, revealing
that both perceived service quality and loyalty intention had a positive impact on purchase
intention (x2 177.719, df 33, CFI .832, RMSEA .201).
The structural models with the pre-purchase satisfaction as an added construct were
assessed in the next step. Relationships between pre-purchase satisfaction and perceived
service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty intention were added to the model presented in the previous step. As a result, the regression weights between purchase intention,
service quality, and loyalty intention were statistically insignificant. These two insignificant paths were then deleted, and the model possessed adequate fit (x2 188.747, df

The Service Industries Journal

223

Figure 1. Structural equation model of the relationships among pre-purchase satisfaction, perceived
service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty intention.

100, CFI .916, RMSEA .090; see Figure 1). Comparing the model-fit indices
between the model without the pre-purchase satisfaction construct and the one with it,
the addition of the pre-purchase satisfaction construct contributes to an improved model
fit. In addition, the variance explained by this model is higher than the one without the
addition of the pre-purchase satisfaction construct. Based on these findings, the addition
of the pre-purchase satisfaction construct provides meaningful contribution to the traditional relationships among perceived service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty
intention.

Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to construct a scale measuring customers satisfaction prior to making a purchase. Essentially, it investigated how various elements accompanying a purchase process affect customers satisfaction toward the shopping experience
before they make a purchase. By understanding these elements, marketers might be able to
foster a satisfying shopping experience that may eventually affect consumers purchase
behavior and future buying intention. Findings revealed a 21-item, 6-dimension scale
that possessed adequate levels of construct reliability and validity. These six dimensions
included issues pertaining to customer service, store environment, return, product availability, information accessibility, and delivery.

Relationships between the pre-purchase satisfaction and related constructs

Findings of this current work revealed that consumers do pay attention to elements existing in the pre-purchase process and evaluate these elements prior to making a purchase.
Support for hypothesized relationships among pre-purchase satisfaction, perceived
service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty intention also suggested that pre-purchase
satisfaction cannot be overlooked in explaining associations and interactions among perceived service quality, loyalty intention, and purchase intention. Consumers seemingly
demonstrate concern about issues regarding whether or not customer service was performed adequately prior to the purchase, and pay attention to the accessibility and
speed and whether or not the customer contact personnel show genuine responses to customers needs when evaluating customer service. They want to be able to choose among

224

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

various brands, to have access to their preferred product design, and to obtain the product
when they are ready to purchase it. They also expect the ease of finding information and
the accessibility of information in various channels prior to making a purchase.
Furthermore, findings indicate that customers need to acquire information regarding
what will occur during delivery as well as return process. This information may allow
them to form predictions of likely scenarios, to calculate the total expense financially
and mentally, to know whether or not the product can be returned once it is purchased,
and to estimate the time of performance. Interestingly, consumers seem to care about
the public areas inside the store than to such elements as the lighting, layout, or facilities
as well.
An underlying theme can be identified across all of the foregoing dimensions: customers desire for smoothness or effortlessness when engaged in the shopping process.
Directly or indirectly, all items more or less seem to share this characteristic and elicit
the motivations of fulfilling the goal of making the shopping experience trouble-free. If
retailers do not perform well on these dimensions in the pre-purchase stage, customers
might feel discontent since their expectations are not met before making the purchase.
Thus, retailers selling physical products also need to pay close attention to many
service components to elicit customer satisfaction so that they will carry on with the purchase process.
One may argue that some of above dimensions are not unique to the pre-purchase
stage. However, the current study does not attempt to argue that satisfaction occurring
at the pre-purchase stage differs from the one at the post-purchase stage. Instead, this
study maintains that consumers do form satisfaction appraisal before making a purchase,
using evaluative criteria possibly different from the post-purchase stage (Gardial et al.,
1994). Findings provide empirical support and further confirm that satisfaction may be
formed during the purchase, the consumption, and the post-purchase stages (Oliver,
1981). However, it does not omit the possibility that some factors considered when evaluating the pre-purchase stage might also be considered during post-purchase evaluations.
Thus, some overlap of dimensions between pre- and post-purchase satisfaction appraisal
can be expected. In addition, findings also suggested that pre-purchase satisfaction is
likely to affect post-purchase evaluations such as purchase intention and loyalty, which
again empirically support Olivers (1981) notion that the level of satisfaction in the previous stage likely will have an impact on the subsequent stage of a purchase. A test of
the nomological network indicated that the addition of pre-purchase satisfaction contributes to the linkage among perceived service quality, purchase intention, and loyalty intention. Together with the dimensions and items composing the pre-purchase satisfaction
scale, satisfaction appraisal appears to take place prior to the purchase as it further influences consumers intention to purchase. Therefore, pre-purchase satisfaction is a distinct
construct from post-purchase satisfaction, given that consumers evaluate activities and
form satisfaction judgment prior to making a purchase.
Managerial implications
The 21-item, 6-dimension model can serve as a guide to specific aspects in the pre-purchase process that marketers should allocate resources to satisfy customers and entice
them to make purchases. After all, post-purchase satisfaction appraisal will not be
formed if there is no purchase. For instance, brand assortment and product design were
found as important elements that customers care about while going through the shopping
process. Instead of extending product lines, retailers can focus on the variety of brand

The Service Industries Journal

225

product designs they offer. The same ideas apply to the distributors when selecting which
products to carry on their shelves. If a product is not available at the time of purchase, marketers should offer delivery service that entails low or no extra cost to the customer and
ease of tracking the items shipping status.
Although both delivery and return belong to the post-purchase process, this study
suggests that marketers need to carefully communicate to consumers about these two processes prior to the purchase. In addition, low cost, hassle-free delivery, and return policies
should be employed to reduce time and effort that customers need to spend on obtaining
the product or a refund. It is also revealed that customers especially care about the speed
and accessibility of customer service and service personnels efforts to solve problems.
These ideas can be applied to the development of training programs and the recruitment
of customer service personnel. For instance, adequately empowering customer contact
personnel or exercising uncomplicated procedures for them to communicate with customers immediately can help achieve the goal of expeditious service. Marketers should
also impart to customer service personnel the importance of responding quickly to customer concerns and problems.
Customers often utilize in-store public areas, such as fitting rooms or display areas, to
experience product features prior to the purchase. Findings from this study show that it is
important to keep these public areas easy to locate, approach, use, and clean. For instance,
customer inferences may be made based on whether or not the restrooms match the image
of the store and whether they are clean, convenient, and user-friendly.
Additionally, feelings of satisfaction could be extended from pre- to post-purchase
(Dabholkar & Thorpe, 1994; Oliver, 1981); thus, satisfied pre-purchase process may
lead to enhanced post-purchase evaluation such as more positive post-purchase satisfaction and loyalty. Traditional views of product quality and performance being the center
of satisfaction evaluation might not be able to keep up with the high expectations
toward the overall shopping process from contemporary consumers. By exercising ideas
that improve the performance of the foregoing dimensions, more satisfied pre-purchase
shopping experiences, higher purchase intention, and higher loyalty intention may well
be fostered.
Limitations and future research
This study represents an initial attempt to construct an instrument to measure customer satisfaction prior to making a purchase. Findings provide preliminary information regarding
the construct of pre-purchase satisfaction that can be further applied and investigated
within various contexts. Several limitations are found in the present study. First, owing
to limited resources for recruiting subjects, a student sample solely from a university
and exclusively from classes in one discipline was employed in the scale development
process. Consequently, research findings may not generalize beyond this sample. Future
research should utilize subjects with various demographic backgrounds to examine the
differences and similarities in perceiving the pre-purchase satisfaction construct across
consumer groups.
A second limitation pertains to the product setting in which the present study was conducted. A tangible product was the target employed in this study owing to the complexity
of identifying core services and different purchase stages of service in consumers eyes.
Future research could investigate how customers perceive the pre-purchase stage in
certain pure service environments and further develop the definition of pre-purchase satisfaction specifically tailored to pure service settings. Product type, regardless of its

226

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

tangible or intangible aspects, should be the target of future investigations, as the perception as well as measurement of pre-purchase satisfaction may vary. Additionally, examining similarities and differences across various kinds of products and services would
facilitate determining the generalizability of the pre-purchase satisfaction measure.
One final limitation pertains to the nature of the shopping channels. No information
was collected about what kind of store respondents had their shopping experience in. Conceivably, the valence of a shopping experience may vary across store type. Therefore,
future research should examine the differential impact various kinds of stores have on consumer shopping experiences.
As mentioned earlier, this study serves as the first attempt to explore the existence of
the pre-purchase satisfaction as well as to measure it. Once this scale is further validated,
the next step should involve placing this construct into theoretical models to test its significance in theory building and its relationship with other constructs. Whether or not
pre-purchase satisfaction has an impact on post-purchase satisfaction, and from which perspective (cognitive, affective, or behavioral) this impact is formed, could be one direction
for future research in this model-testing stream. Accordingly, researchers should further
investigate the theoretical relationships between the pre- and post-purchase stage in
terms of the role that each construct plays in overall customer satisfaction.

References
Anderson, E.W., & Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125 143.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Babin, B.J., Lee, Y.K., Kim, E.J., & Griffin, M. (2005). Modeling consumer satisfaction and wordof-mouth: Restaurant patronage in Korea. The Journal of Services Marketing, 19(3),
133 140.
Bearden, W.O., & Teel, J.E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint
reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21 28.
Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research
on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 4355.
Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69 82.
Black, N.J., Lockett, A., Ennew, C., Winklhofer, H., & McKechnie, S. (2002). Modeling consumer
choice of distribution channels: An illustration from financial services. International Journal
of Bank Marketing, 20(4), 161 173.
Bone, P.F. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgment. Journal of
Business Research, 32(3), 213 223.
Bowen, D., & Ince, T. (2011). Consumer satisfaction and services: Insights from dive tourism. The
Service Industries Journal, 31(11), 17691792.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Michael, D. (2000). Frictionless commerce? A comparison of internet and conventional retailers. MIT Sloan School of Management, 46(4), 563 585.
Burnett, J.J., & Dunne, P.M. (1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing
research. Journal of Business Research, 14, 329 343.
Caro, L.M., & Carcia, J.A.M. (2007). Cognitive-affective model of consumer satisfaction: An
exploratory study within the framework of a sporting event. Journal of Business Research,
60, 108 114.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm of developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64 73.
Churchill, G.A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491 504.
Cronin, J.J., & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55 68.

The Service Industries Journal

227

Dabholkar, P.A., & Thorpe, D.I. (1994). Does customer satisfaction predict shopper intentions?
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 7, 161171.
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I., & Rentz, J.O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores:
Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1),
3 16.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P.L., & Massey, G.R. (2008). An extended model of the antecedents and consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services. European Journal of Marketing,
42(1/2), 35 68.
Fetherstonhaugh, B. (2009, April 19). The 4Ps are out, the 4Es are in. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from
http://www.ogilvy.com/On-Our-Minds/Articles/the_4E_-are_in.aspx
Finkelman, D.P. (1993). Crossing the zone of indifference. Marketing Management, 2(3), 22 31.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Gardial, S.F., Clemons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., Schumann, D.W., & Burns, M.J. (1994). Comparing
consumers recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation experiences. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(4), 548 560.
Gerbing, D.W., & Hamilton, G.J. (1996). Validity of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor of
confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62 72.
Giese, J.L., & Cote, J.A. (2000). Defining customer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 4(2), 1 24.
Hendrix, W.H., Robbins, T., Miller, J., & Summer, T.P. (1998). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on factors predictive of turnover. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,
13(December), 611 633.
Hoffman, K.D., & Turley, L.W. (2002). Atmospherics, service encounters and consumer decision
making: An integrative perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 33 47.
Katona, G., & Mueller, E. (1954). A study of purchase decisions. In L.H. Clark (Ed.), Consumer behavior: The dynamics of consumer reaction (pp. 30 87). New York, NY: New York
University Press.
Khalifa, M., & Liu, V. (2007). Online consumer retention: Contingent effects of online shopping
habit and online shopping experience. European Journal of Information Systems, 16,
780 792.
Kim, J.O., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it?
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
LaBarbera, P., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of Business Marketing
Research, 29(11), 393 404.
Levitt, T. (1981). Marketing intangible products and product intangibles. Harvard Business Review,
5(3), 94 102.
Liao, Z., & Cheung, M.T. (2008). Measuring consumer satisfaction in Internet banking: A core framework. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 47 51.
Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, S.M. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738748.
McDonald, R.P. (1985). Factor analysis & related methods. Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An
expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296315.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L. (1977). Effects of expectations and disconfirmation on post-exposure product evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 246250.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460469.

228

W.Y. Huang and A.J. Dubinsky

Oliver, R.L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal
of Retailing, 57(3), 25 48.
Oliver, R.L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction: Compatible
goals, different concepts. Advances in Services Marketing & Management, 2, 65 85.
Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: The
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L., & Bearden, W.O. (1985). Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 324 340.
Oliver, R.L., & Swan, J.E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchant
and product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372383.
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(1), 12 40.
Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J.N. (2002). Customer relationship management: Emerging practice,
process, and discipline. Journal of Economic & Social Research, 3(2), 1 34.
Patterson, P.G. (1997). Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business
professional services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 25(1), 417.
Pickoff-White, L. (2005, March 28). Consumer electronic companies target teens. Washington, DC:
UPI Business.
Posselt, T., & Gerstner, E. (2005). Pre-sale vs. post-sale e-satisfaction: Impact on repurchase intention and overall satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 35 47.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Rha, J.Y., & Widdows, R. (2002). The internet and the consumer: Countervailing power revisited.
Prometheus, 20(2), 107 118.
Richins, M.L., & Root-Shaffer, T. (1988). The role of involvement and opinion leadership in consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit. Advances in Consumer Research,
15, 32 36.
Rigsbee, E.R. (1997). Build your retail success triad and eliminate your customers emotional
obstacles to buying. The American Salesman, 42(3), 38.
Roberts, E.B. (1991). Strategic transformation and the success of high technology companies.
International Journal of Technology Management, 59 80. [Special publication on the role
of technology in corporate policy].
Rust, R.T., & Oliver, R.L. (1994). Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. London:
Sage.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L., & Warrington, P. (2001). An online prepurchase intentions
model: The role of intention to search. Journal of Retailing, 77, 397416.
Simintiras, A., Diamantopoulos, A., & Ferriday, J. (1997). Pre-purchase satisfaction and first-time
buyer behavior: Some preliminary evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 31(11/12),
857 872.
Spreng, R.A., & Olshavsky, R.W. (1992). A desires-as-standard model of consumer satisfaction:
Implications for measuring satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
& Complaining Behavior, 5, 45 54.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R.N. (2002). The relationship between
service quality and customer satisfaction: A factor specific approach. Journal of Services
Marketing, 16(4), 363 379.
Taylor, K.A., & Burns, M.J. (1999). Changes in pre- and post-purchase evaluative criteria: Exploring
the impact on consumer (dis)satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction &
Complaining Behavior, 12, 90 99.
Taylor, S.A., & Baker, T.L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase intentions. Journal of
Retailing, 70(2), 163 178.
Terblanche, N.S., & Boshoff, C. (2001). Measuring customer satisfaction with some of the controllable elements of the total retail experience: An exploratory study. South Africa Journal of
Business Management, 32(2), 3541.
Tse, D.K., & Wilton, P.C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal
of Marketing Research, 25(May), 204 212.
Westbrook, R.A. (1980). Interpersonal affective influences on consumer satisfaction with products.
Journal of Consumer Research, 7(1), 4954.

The Service Industries Journal

229

Westbrook, R.A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase

processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258270.
Westbrook, R.A., Newman, J.W., & Taylor, J.R. (1978). Satisfaction/dissatisfaction in the purchase
decision process. Journal of Marketing, 42(4), 54 60.
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M.C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting retail
quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183 198.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31 46.
Zhou, L., Dai, L., & Zhang, D. (2007). Online shopping acceptance model: A critical survey of consumer factors in online shopping. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(1), 41 62.

Copyright of Service Industries Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.