Transport Reviews, 2014

Vol. 34, No. 6, 710 –729, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.975169

Train delay and perceived-wait time: passengers’

perspective

YUNG-HSIANG CHENG§ AND YU-CHUN TSAI

Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung
University, No.1, University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan, R.O.C.
(Received 1 February 2014; revised 12 August 2014; accepted 5 October 2014)

ABSTRACT Waiting time influences the overall perception of service quality. The passenger-
perceived waiting time can determine their waiting experience. The concept of waiting time refers
to the comparison between the passengers’ inherent tolerance of waiting and the possible improve-
ment scenarios. This study investigates the passengers’ tolerance of waiting under various scenarios
of train delays in order to improve their perceived waiting time. We propose the adoption of a modern
psychometric method utilizing the Rasch model to measure a subjective latent construct known as
‘wait tolerance’. The Rasch measurement provides mathematical procedures for transforming
scores from an ordinal to an interval scale to observe which scenarios can reduce certain passengers’
perceived waiting time in the case of a delay. Empirical results show that ‘uncontrollable circum-
stances’, ‘friendly staff attitudes’, and ‘providing appropriate messages of apology’ can improve
the passenger-perceived waiting time during train delays. Likewise, distinct differences are found
in the passengers’ tolerance of waiting in terms of various personal characteristics, such as
gender, age, and train riding frequency. The findings propose the implementation of strategies for
improvement by rail system operators, as well as for regulators to define a reasonable service level
in the case of train delays. The reviews show possible future innovative research orientations as well.

1. Introduction
Waiting for a particular service is a common experience. Over 70% of all service
industry customers are concerned with waiting time (Jones & Dent, 1994); that
is, their tolerance of waiting tends to decrease (Hui & Tse, 1996; Katz, Larson, &
Larson, 1991; Taylor & Claxton, 1994). In the transportation industry, the time
spent for waiting is related to service assessment (Mishalani & McCord, 2010; Van-
steenwegen & Oudheusden, 2006). Train delays are often considered by passen-
gers as an indication of poor service (Berger, Hoffmann, Lorenz, & Stiller, 2011).
A long delay can negatively affect overall service evaluation and increase the
severity of negative affective responses such as anger because of the uncertainty
created by such delays (Taylor, 1994). Therefore, delays are a major reason for
public transportation complaints. As such, many railway companies have
§
Corresponding author. Email: yhcheng@mail.ncku.edu.tw

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 711

increased their efforts to eliminate delays (Barron, Melo, Cohen, & Anderson,
2013; Ginkel & Schöbel, 2007).
Reducing perceived and actual waiting time can reduce passenger waiting time
(Thompson & Yarnold, 1995; Waseem, Ravi, Radeos, & Ganti, 2003). Perceived
waiting time refers to individuals’ perception of the time they have spent
waiting for a particular service (Baker & Cameron, 1996). Based on cognitive psy-
chology and marketing theories, perception management focuses on reducing the
customers’ perceived waiting time (Lee & Lambert, 2006). Conversely, operations
management focuses on delay management and is based on management science
and operations research theories (Tom & Lucey, 1995). Dollevoet, Huisman,
Kroon, Schmidt, and Schöbel (2014) developed a model of the delay management
problem that includes the capacities of the stations. Liebchen, Schachtebeck,
Schöbel, Stiller, and Prigge (2010) used a mathematical approach to construct an
optimal timetable to eliminate delays. Likewise, Wendler (2007) used a mathemat-
ical approach to determine the buffer time needed to eliminate train delays and
determine the amount a customer is willing to pay to avoid delays. However, cus-
tomer reactions to waiting are more strongly affected by perceived waiting time
than by actual waiting time (Barron et al., 2013; Hornik, 1993; Maister, 1985;
Pruyn & Smidts, 1993). The application of mathematical models in real oper-
ational service settings is limited because human factors are neglected (Nie, 2000).
The effects of passenger-perceived waiting time and the waiting environment of
passengers are not easily modeled. However, these factors are extremely impor-
tant when identifying customer satisfaction in a waiting scenario (Nie, 2000).
Dube, Schmitt, and Leclerc (1991) argued that reducing the adverse effect of
waiting on perceptions of service quality while waiting for the service requires
a good understanding of the waiting experience. Exploring waiting experiences
can help scholars and professionals understand how a service provider can
improve or worsen the waiting experience without changing the actual duration
of the waiting time (McDonnell, 2007). An effective management strategy that
improves uncomfortable waiting experiences for customers can minimize the
negative effect of waiting on customer satisfaction (Dellaert & Kahn, 1999).
Previous studies on passengers waiting for delayed trains focus only on
operational improvements and rarely discuss this issue from a psychological
perspective.
Our study contributes to the field by proposing perceptual processes to derive
the possible improvement scenarios in the case of train delays. Our proposed per-
ceptual processes are based on the passengers’ decision-making processes so that
the possible scenarios for improving their waiting experience in the case of train
delays can be integrated. Most of the previous studies pertaining to such improve-
ment scenarios mainly focus on a specific strategy or two improvement measures
(Baker & Cameron, 1996; Butcher & Kayani, 2008; Grewal, Baker, Levy, & Voss,
2003; Machleit, Kellaris, & Eroglu, 1994; McDonnell, 2007).
Passengers’ tolerance for waiting may differ depending on certain personal
characteristics, such as age, gender, and the purpose of their trip. Such customer
heterogeneity has also been neglected in previous studies (Butcher & Kayani,
2008; McDonell, 2007; Munichor & Rafaeli, 2007; Van Hagen, van Pruyn, Galetzka,
& Kramer, 2009). Therefore, passenger tolerance for waiting warrants further
examination. Various improvement scenarios can have varying influences on pas-
sengers. As such, using a modern psychometric model — the Rasch model — this
study examines whether passengers’ tolerance for waiting varies and identifies
712 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

the effects of various improvement scenarios on the negative emotions of certain

passengers.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the lit-
erature on the waiting experience and describes the scenarios for improving pas-
senger-perceived waiting time. Section 3 presents how the passenger’s tolerance
for waiting is measured by the Rasch model. Section 4 describes the factors that
alleviate the passengers’ waiting tolerance. Section 5 discusses and provides con-
clusions.

2. Evaluating Waiting Experience and Scenarios for Improving Passenger-

Perceived Waiting Time
Waiting for service is often unavoidable and appears to be a strong determinant of
a customer’s overall satisfaction with a particular service (Taylor, 1994; Tom &
Lucey, 1995) and customer loyalty (Pruyn & Smidts, 1998). As such, examining
consumer’s waiting experiences is extremely important for marketing managers
(Zhou & Soman, 2008). Numerous studies have examined the relationship
between perceived waiting duration and satisfaction (McGuire, Kimes, Lynn,
Pullman, & Lloyd, 2010). Previous studies have demonstrated that waiting can
lead to anger and uncertainty (Davis & Heineke, 1998; Tom & Lucey, 1995).
However, Friman (2010) demonstrated that waiting experience may be positive
or negative depending on the scenario. Similarly, Taylor (1994) found that when
the waiting time is spent well, it is perceived as more satisfying than waiting
without any intervention.
An individual’s experience of time is processed based on the information he/
she receives (Thomas & Weaver, 1975). This information is related to duration
and can be either temporal or non-temporal information. These two types of infor-
mation dominate an individual’s attention. Perceived duration depends on an
output from a timer. A timer accumulates pulses as a function of time, and subjec-
tive time estimation is positively correlated with the number of pulses stored
within an estimated period of time (Bailey & Areni, 2006; Macar, Grondin, &
Casini, 1994; Zakay, 1989).
Previous studies on client waiting have adopted the attribution theory to
examine consumer reactions to product failure. People tend to make causal
links between events and causes, particularly when something undesirable
occurs (Richins, 1983). Folkes, Koletsky, and Graham (1987) applied attribution
theory to explore the relationship between the responses of air passengers and
the causes to which they attributed flight delays. According to attribution
theory, the stability and controllability of a delay can affect a consumer’s response
to waiting (Weiner, 1985). Uncontrollable reasons refer to delay causes that cannot
be controlled by a service provider (e.g. natural disasters). Temporary and erratic
reasons pertain to the stability that causes the delay. Folkes et al. (1987) deter-
mined that the stability of a delay cause is strongly correlated with consumers’
negative emotions. The difference between temporary and erratic reasons for
delay is related to the degree of stability of delay causes. The term ‘temporary’
refers to a case in which the reason for the delay is related to stability, such as
mechanical failure. ‘Erratic’ refers to the degree of the stability of delay causes,
indicating that people are more likely to accept waiting when caused by erratic
reasons, thus implying that unpredictable reasons are more acceptable than
constant service failures (Folkes et al., 1987).
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 713

Any evaluation of the waiting experience depends on the individuals’ tolerance

for waiting. Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1993) suggested that tolerance
may be important when evaluating service quality. The psychological processes
of consumers during a waiting experience should be considered, as these pro-
cesses are affected by external environmental factors and the individual’s toler-
ance for waiting (Pruyn & Smidts, 1998). For example, customers’ satisfaction
and perception of waiting time are improved when electronic news panels are
installed in the waiting place (Katz et al., 1991). The following subsection dis-
cusses several studies on such external environmental factors.

2.1. Scenarios for Improving Passenger-Perceived Waiting Time

A pleasant waiting space can increase customer tolerance for waiting (Pruyn &
Smidts, 1998). For transit services, waiting time is very important to passengers,
and passenger-perceived waiting time is affected by environmental factors, such
as safety, security, comfort, and information on the arrival of the next vehicle
(Taylor, Iseki, Miller, & Smart, 2009).
High temperatures result in the perception that time is passing slowly (Hoag-
land, 1966). Consumers experiencing high customer density may respond nega-
tively (Machleit et al., 1994). Moreover, keeping customers occupied improves
their perception of waiting time (Maister, 1985). Interventions, such as time
fillers, may distract customers from the passage of time (Zakay & Hornik, 1991).
Filling time increases a customer’s mental or physical activity, thereby drawing
his/her attention away from waiting (Gilliland, Hofeld, & Eckstrand, 1946).
Such interventions that take a customer’s attention away from time have also
been discussed in previous studies. McDonnell (2007) demonstrated that music,
as an intervention, can increase customer satisfaction when customers wait in
line. At Disney World, giving customers a map of Treasure Land and asking
them to figure out the map reduce perceived waiting time (Nie, 2000). Whiting
and Donthu (2009) reported that the estimation error of the waiting time for
people who like music is markedly less than that of people who do not like
music, indicating that environmental improvements can be affected individual
preferences.
The studies on waiting time mainly examine the effect of specific improvement
scenarios on customer satisfaction (Katz et al., 1991; McDonnell, 2007). Improve-
ment scenarios can produce different effects on passengers depending on their
socio-economic and trip characteristics because passengers are typically intolerant
of waiting. Examining the perceptual responses of passengers in various improve-
ment scenarios is important, as is evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies in
alleviating negative emotions when waiting for delayed trains.

3. Passenger Tolerance for Waiting Using the Rasch Model

The perceived waiting experience cannot be easily observed and is thereby
regarded as a latent trait. Data from respondents are usually assessed using a
five-point Likert scale. However, the numbers in each category indicate only an
ordering relationship and cannot be regarded as measures (Merbitz, Morris, &
Grip, 1989; Wright & Linacre, 1989). By contrast, the Rasch approach uses
mathematical procedures to transform scores from an ordinal scale to a measure
at an interval scale, and a raw score can be transformed into odds in logit. The
714 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

probability of a specified response (e.g. right/wrong answer) is modeled as a

function of the person and item parameters. Specifically, the probability of a
correct response in the simple Rasch model is modeled as a logistics function of
the difference between person and item parameters (Bezruczko & Linacre, 2005;
Rasch, 1960). The Rasch model has been extensively used to estimate values on
an interval scale from ordinal responses in psychometric studies (Massof &
Fletcher, 2001). Moreover, this model has recently been applied in management
and transportation studies (Chang & Wu, 2008; Chang, 2010; Cheng, 2011;
Cheng & Liu, 2012; Oreja-Rodriguez & Yanes-Estévez, 2007; Yang, 2009).
However, the literature leaves various research questions unanswered.
In the present study, the perception of waiting time is considered as an appraisal
of passenger tolerance level and an external objective stimulus. The different reac-
tions that delays elicit from customers depend on the individual’s perception of
the extent to which such delays represent a threat to successful service delivery
(Hui, Thakor, & Gill, 1998). Zeithaml et al. (1993) demonstrated that a level of tol-
erance takes the form of subjective assessment. Personal differences can result in
the different psychological abilities of passengers to overcome the negative effects
of waiting caused by train delays; that is, waiting time may differ from one con-
sumer to another for various reasons (Preston, Wall, Batley, Ibáñez, & Shires,
2009; Zhou & Soman, 2008). Rammsayer and Lustnauer (1989) demonstrated
that males can estimate a short time interval more precisely than females. More-
over, women underestimate time intervals more than men (Krishnan & Sexena,
1984). Two travel components — the type of the trip and travel distance—are
regarded as the key factors in the literature (Chang, 2010; Kim, Lee, & Oh,
2009). In addition, positive and negative moods are related to duration estimations
(Chebat, Filiatrault, & Gélinas-Chebat, 1995; Hornik, 1992).
People perceive time differently, possibly based on the external circumstances
(Taylor et al., 2009). A waiting environment can alter a customer’s perceived
attractiveness (Pruyn & Smidts, 1998). Pruyn and Smidts (1993) used a time-
perception management approach to determine how an objective waiting environ-
ment affects service satisfaction through objective mediators. Passenger-perceived
waiting time can increase depending on the waiting conditions, such as the uncer-
tainty of the vehicle’s arrival time, comfort, security, and safety (Taylor et al., 2009).
Environmental variables, such as providing classical music, adequate shopping
space, and reading materials, can influence passenger-perceived waiting time
(Baker & Cameron, 1996; McDonnell, 2007; Van Hagen et al., 2009). Thus, a
relationship exists between customers’ subjective tolerance and objective environ-
mental improvements.
In the banking and retail industries, the improvement strategies of playing clas-
sical music and providing reading materials are particularly effective (Baker &
Cameron, 1996; Butcher & Kayani, 2008; Grewal et al., 2003; Katz et al., 1991;
Machleit et al., 1994; McDonnell, 2007). However, waiting for public transport
differs from waiting for other services because the waiting situation in public
transport differs from those in other industries in several ways. In railway trans-
portation, waiting situations often lack a queue or formal service rules. Waiting
frequently occurs outdoors and is randomly distributed. One often receives
little feedback while waiting (Durrande-Moreau, 1999).
After transforming ordinal raw data into an interval scale through the Rasch
model, scenario improvement difficulty and passenger tolerance are calibrated
on the same scale. Thus, the Rasch model can compare person and item
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 715

parameters that are logarithmically transformed along a logit scale to identify

which scenarios cannot overcome the negative effects of train delays for certain
passengers. Given that this study compares the tolerance levels of different pas-
senger groups, the interval scale can be used to obtain an accurate frame for com-
parison. Vittersø, Biswas-Diener, and Diener (2005) confirmed that survey-based
comparisons with ordinal raw score data would be misleading. The present
study uses a t-test to investigate group differences. Townsend and Ashby (1984)
demonstrated that parametric statistics, such as the t-test or one-way analysis of
variance F statistics, are inappropriate for ordinal data. Thus, the present study
adopts the Rasch approach to avoid possible bias.
In this study, a score of 1 is assigned to an item when passengers indicate that
that scenario item alleviates negative emotions while waiting; otherwise, a score of
0 is assigned. A person’s ability to tolerate waiting, un, and item difficulty (i.e. dif-
ficulty in improving negative emotions of passengers), bi, are calibrated on the
same scale. The Rasch model is modified based on dichotomous responses,
such that it can be applied to polytomous instruments, such as a five-point
Likert scale. Figure 1 explains how the Rasch model can be used to measure
passenger-perceived waiting time experiences. Each passenger n has a unique
un value, which represents his/her tolerance for waiting for a delayed train.
This tolerance can be identified by responses to certain items. Passengers with a
high tolerance for waiting most likely endorse the situation of each question,
which can improve his/her negative emotions while waiting. Each question
i has a difficulty parameter bi, representing the ineffectiveness of an item in
improving negative emotions while a passenger waits for a delayed train. The

Figure 1. Conceptual schema of passengers’ tolerance for waiting and the item’s difficulty to improve
passengers’ negative emotions during waiting.
716 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

more difficult the question is, the less likely that the item will improve a passen-
ger’s negative emotions while waiting for delayed trains.
The right side in Figure 1 ranks items from high to low level of difficulty, and
the left side ranks passengers by their tolerance for waiting from high to low.
‘Providing waiting-related information’ is less effective than ‘providing appro-
priate messages of apology’ in improving the negative emotions of passengers
waiting for a delayed train. A comparison of the items and passengers
(Figure 1) reveals that for passenger A ‘providing waiting-related information’
does not improve his/her perception of waiting time as the difficulty of ‘pro-
viding wait-related information’ exceeds his/her waiting tolerance. However,
‘providing appropriate messages of apology’ can shorten the perceived
waiting time of passenger A while waiting, given that his/her tolerance for
waiting exceeds the difficulty of ‘providing appropriate messages of apology’.
Conversely, passenger B, who has the highest tolerance for waiting, indicates
that both items improve his/her negative emotional response, even for the
most difficult item, ‘providing waiting-related information’. Therefore, as pas-
senger tolerance for waiting increases, the likelihood that he/she agrees that
items can improve his/her negative emotional response during waiting
increases as well.
The development of the measures used in our study’s questionnaire is intro-
duced in this subsection. Previous studies on waiting time mainly examined the
effects of specific improvements on customer satisfaction (Katz et al., 1991;
McDonnell, 2007). However, most of these studies lack an integrated perspective
that considers all-inclusive items that can improve perceived waiting time (Baker
& Cameron, 1996; Hui & Tse, 1996; Nie, 2000). Hence, the present study uses three
dimensions, namely, service environment, intervention, and socio-economic and
trip characteristics, based on the time perception process to identify comprehen-
sive scenarios that can improve passenger-perceived waiting time during train
delays (Goldstein, 2002). This study also examined the effect of trip characteristics
on passenger wait-time evaluation.
‘Service environment’ refers to the different environmental stimuli that affect
passenger tolerance for waiting (Hoagland, 1966; McGuire et al., 2010). ‘Interven-
tion’ is mainly related with an operator’s strategy that affects the focus and per-
ception of the time of passengers (Butcher & Kayani, 2008; Papa et al., 2008;
Roper & Manela, 2000; Scolnik, Matthews, Caulfeild, & Feldman, 2003; Waseem
et al., 2003). ‘Socio-economic and trip characteristics’ are related to varying
perceptions of time depending on the personal characteristics of passengers
(Oakes, 2000). Table 1 lists the measurement items for each dimension.

4. Effective Factors that Alleviate the Passengers’ Waiting Tolerance

4.1. Case Study of the Conventional Railway of Taiwan
The Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) is an operational agency of the Min-
istry of Transportation and Communications of Taiwan that is responsible for
managing, maintaining, and running passenger and freight services on the
1097-kilometer conventional railway line in Taiwan (gauge: 1067 mm). In 2011,
the system handled 0.5 million passengers per day. The TRA regulations define
a delayed train as any train that arrives at a station more than 10 minutes after
its scheduled arrival time.
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 717

Table 1. Scenario measurement items for improving passenger-perceived wait

time
Question:

Do you agree that the following scenarios can alleviate your negative emotions while waiting for a
delayed train?
Categories: 1, ‘strongly disagree’; 2, ‘disagree’; 3, ‘neutral’; 4, ‘agree’; 5, ‘strongly agree’

Item Description Literature

Service environment
A comfortable
temperature
Low passenger density
Friendly staff
Providing appropriate
messages of apology
Waiting information
Delay reason attribution
Intervention
Shopping options
Classic music playing
Reading material
Demographic characteristics
Trip type
Travel distance
Mood
Temperature levels in the train and on the Baker and Cameron (1996)
platform are comfortable
Crowding improvement in the train station Grewal et al. (2003),
and on the platform Machleit et al. (1994)
The staff interacts with the passengers in a Baker and Cameron (1996)
friendly manner
The railway company apologizes Munichor and Rafaeli
(2007)
The railway company provides information Munichor and Rafaeli
about wait duration (2007)
The railway company provides information Butcher and Kayani(2008)
about the train delay
The train delay is caused by uncontrollable Folkes et al. (1987)
reasons
The train delay is caused by temporary Folkes et al. (1987)
problems
The train delay is caused by erratic reasons Folkes et al. (1987)
There are shops in the train station that you Van Hagen et al. (2009)
can visit
The railway company broadcasts music in Baker and Cameron (1996),
the train station or on the platform McDonnell (2007)
The railway company provides reading Van Hagen et al. (2009)
materials for passengers to pass the time
The trip is for leisure Kim et al. (2009), Chang
(2010)
The travel distance is short Kim et al. (2009), Chang
(2010)
The passenger is in a positive mood for Hornik (1992), Chebat et al.
traveling (1995)

In the case of the conventional railway system of Taiwan, the average arrival
delay is 21 minutes, and the standard deviation of train delay is 11.5 minutes.
The mean punctuality rate is 95%. The express train of Tze-Chiang has an 85%
punctuality rate. According to the TRA customer satisfaction report (2013),
78.6% of the passengers are satisfied with the overall quality of service, but only
63.9% are satisfied with the schedule adherence of the trains. Moreover, 76.1%
of the passengers indicated that train delay should be the priority to be improved.
A total of 24.5% of the passengers opined that service recovery should likewise be
further improved in cases of train delays. In terms of timetable and service fre-
quency, 70.1% of the passengers pointed out a serious problem in seat availability,
and 26.7% of the passengers revealed that service frequency is not enough in terms
718 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

of quantity, and thus, some trains should simplify their stopping patterns to fulfill
passenger demands appropriately. Moreover, 37.5% of the passengers stated that
the passenger information guiding system should be enhanced further.
Respondents of this study were randomly selected passengers of the TRA who
have experienced train delays. The investigators conducted the survey at the
Tainan station, which is a railway station situated in the southern Taiwanese
city of Tainan. The city has a humid subtropical climate, characterized by a
year-round high relative humidity, a rainy season (from April to September), a
dry season (from October to March), and temperatures ranging from 178C to
298C. The average number of rainy days (≥ 0.1 mm rainfall) every year is 94,
and the average monthly rainfall is 130 mm. In terms of temperature or humidity,
the climatic conditions pose a difficulty for the railway passengers in waiting for a
delayed train. Most of the conventional railway system stations in Taiwan are
open-roofed and without air conditioning; as such, the waiting environment is
not comfortable for passengers, especially in summer.
The Tainan station provides both regional and intercity railway transportation
services; the ratio between these two trains for both types of transportation ser-
vices is 2:1. The TRA has updated its role as the regional transportation service
provider after the start of a revenue service that uses a high-speed rail system.
All passengers in this station need to follow a particular timetable to board the
train. Therefore, the station is not the same as a high-density metro system
where passengers may arrive independently from the timetable, which can be
attributed to the high service frequencies of metro systems. Almost 20 000 passen-
gers arrive and depart from the Tainan station daily. During peak hours, six to
eight trains pass in both directions every hour, whereas three to four trains pass
in both directions every hour during off-peak hours.
When all types of trains are considered, the mean and standard deviation (SD)
of the headway are 10 and 4.32 minutes, respectively. For the intercity railway
train service, the mean and SD of the headway is 27 and 15.16 minutes, respect-
ively. Meanwhile, for the regional transportation train service has a mean and
of 15 minutes, and the SD of its headway is 6.3 minutes. Most of the passengers
will arrive at the station within 5 – 10 minutes before the train departs. In this
case, the service frequency of the regional transportation train can fulfill passenger
demand. The crowding effect in the regional railway system is not significant.
Hence, passengers do not often have to face the situation of being unable to
board. The percentage of train – kilometer that has not operated is relatively low
in the case of TRA. Most of the trains operate by following the timetabled
service, and the train service is only canceled during typhoons and earthquakes.
Of the 6000 questionnaires used in our survey, 1094 were returned. In total, 102
questionnaires were invalid, mainly because of missing items and response errors.
Thus, the effective number of respondents was reduced to 992. Of this number, 425
(42.8%) were male and 567 (57.2%) were female. The average age of the respon-
dents is 28.65 years. These respondents take an average of 3.42 train trips
weekly. The majority of our sample is composed of students and commuters,
which is consistent with the current TRA user demographic.

4.2. Implication Analysis of Item and Person Measures

The analytical results meet the assumptions of the Rasch model, including
unidimensionality assumptions and local independence (Hambleton,
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 719

Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991; Reeve et al., 2007; Rubio, Aguado, Hontangas, &
Hernandez, 2007; Scherbaum, Finlinson, Barden, & Tamanini, 2006). Both
person and item reliability indices can be interpreted as Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient (Wright, 1996). In this study, a person reliability of 0.88
and an item reliability of 0.99 suggest a reliable measure (Streiner &
Norman, 2004). Raw score refers to the linear combination of item/passenger
scores. The Rasch model sets the mean measure for items (i.e. item difficulty
in logit) at zero (Chang & Wu, 2008). The average value of the measure of
all passengers (i.e. passenger tolerance by logit) was 0.62 logits. The average
passenger tolerance was higher than the average item difficulty, which
indicates that most passengers believed that their negative emotions could be
alleviated by most scenario items (Table 1).
After examining the applied requirements, the Rasch person-item map facili-
tated the comparisons of items — difficulties in improving negative emotions
and passenger tolerance in waiting — on the same logit scale (Cheng, 2010).
Items are ranked from most difficult to least by the difficulty measures. The
measure in logit suggests the effectiveness of different items in improving the
negative emotions of passengers while waiting for a delayed train. Items with a
high difficulty measure (bi) indicate that passengers have difficulty endorsing
the item, which means that the scenario has difficulty improving the negative
emotions of passengers as they wait. In contrast, an item with a low difficulty
measure (bi) means that the scenario is likely to alleviate the negative emotions
of passengers as they wait for a delayed train (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Person-item map of Rasch analysis.

720 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

Compared with item difficulty, the tolerance of most passengers in waiting was
greater than 0, which indicates that passengers believed that these items can
reduce the passenger-perceived waiting time for a delayed train. ‘Uncontrollable
circumstances’, ‘friendly staff’, and ‘providing appropriate messages of apology’
can improve the passenger-perceived waiting time during train delays (Table 2).
‘Uncontrollable circumstances’ has the lowest difficulty measure (– 1.24), which
indicates that knowing the cause of a delayed train to be uncontrollable can
most likely alleviate the negative emotions of passengers. Measures of ‘leisure
trip’, ‘in a good mood’, and ‘playing classical music’ were all positive, which indi-
cates that these scenarios can also improve the negative emotions of passengers
while waiting for a delayed train.
The following findings can be derived based on the Rasch analytical results.
First, waiting for a train takes place outdoors and is randomly distributed, and
one often receives little feedback while waiting (Durrande-Moreau, 1999). When
a train is delayed, passengers eagerly seek the assistance of railway staff.
However, compared with client-wait studies for services in supermarkets,
grocery stores, and banks, railway staff are relatively difficult to find on site.
This reason may explain the passengers who answered ‘friendly staff’ in beliefs
that this factor can reduce passenger-perceived waiting time. This finding
agrees with the results obtained by Butcher and Heffernan (2006), which indicate
that friendly employees can make a long wait easily endurable for customers. In
addition, an appropriate message of apology can reduce passenger-perceived
waiting time, which is a finding that is consistent with those in previous studies
(Houston, Bettencourt, & Wenger, 1998; Taylor, 1994).
Second, in contrast to waiting in a queue in restaurants, banks, and supermar-
kets, passengers waiting for a delayed train experience uncertain waiting dur-
ations. Thus, providing waiting information can improve negative emotions of

Table 2. Statistics of passengers and item parameters in Rasch analysis

MNSQ
Measure
No Item (bi) Infit Outfit

14 The travel distance is short 0.99 1.10 1.11

8 The train delay is caused by temporary problems 0.64 1.02 1.06
9 The train delay is caused by erratic reasons (unpredictable reason) 0.64 0.91 0.90
13 The trip is for leisure 0.47 1.10 1.12
15 You are in a good mood on traveling day 0.21 0.94 0.93
11 The railway company broadcasts classic music in the train station or 0.02 0.93 0.94
on the platform
5 The railway company provides information about wait duration 20.02 0.87 0.86
2 You do not feel crowded in the train station and on the platform 20.11 1.07 1.07
6 The railway company provides explanations about the train delay 20.14 1.07 1.08
1 The temperature in the train and that on the platform are 20.16 1.04 1.04
comfortable
12 The railway company provides reading materials for passengers to 20.17 0.97 0.96
read
10 There are shops in the train station that you can visit 20.20 1.00 1.04
4 The railway company apologizes appropriately 20.32 0.95 0.91
3 The staff interacts with passengers in a friendly manner 20.62 1.01 1.00
7 The train delay is caused by uncontrollable reasons 21.24 0.96 1.00
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 721

passengers because waiting information reduces uncertainty (Baker & Meyer,

2014). Moreover, train delays are often unpredictable. Analytical results indicate
that passengers are more likely to accept waiting when the cause of delay is
uncontrollable, as reported in previous studies. The attribution of the delay to
uncontrollable circumstances (e.g. weather-related delays where the operational
agency is not responsible for the failure) is an essential factor that can augment
the tolerance of most waiting passengers. Magnini, Ford, Markowski, and Honey-
cutt (2007) demonstrated that people are more forgiving when they feel that a
failure was unforeseeable by a service provider. Hess, Ganesan, and Klein
(2003) also demonstrated that the attribution to uncontrollable reasons mitigates
the passengers’ negative emotional responses. The reason for the waiting toler-
ance of TRA passengers is that delays are not associated with TRA efforts. This
rail system services provider, however, must inform the passengers about the
status of the delays, forecast waiting duration, and provide effective measures
to minimize passenger-perceived waiting time.
Third, passengers wait for a delayed train in open spaces, and not in an enclosed
environment. Such an environment may be the reason why the strategies of pro-
viding classical music and reading materials are deemed to be ineffective in redu-
cing passenger-perceived waiting time. In previous studies, playing classical
music (Cameron, Bake, Peterson, & Braunsberger, 2003; McDonnell, 2007) and
providing reading materials (Van Hagen et al., 2009) were considered to be effec-
tive in alleviating the negative emotions of waiting clients.
Finally, waiting for a delayed train can be considered as a high-cost wait because
it may adversely affect all the train connections in a journey. The waiting duration
for a delayed train cannot be estimated in the same way as waiting in a queue. The
time value of waiting for a delayed train is considered to be higher than the time
value of waiting in a supermarket, restaurant, or bank. Therefore, improvement
scenarios for clients who are waiting in a supermarket, restaurant, or bank are fun-
damentally different from those scenarios for passengers who are waiting for a
delayed train. These differences can explain why ‘uncontrollable circumstances,’,
‘friendly staff’, and ‘providing appropriate messages of apology’ were perceived
by passengers as the most effective measures in reducing their negative emotions.
Conversely, playing classical music and providing reading materials, although
useful for low-cost waiting, are improvements that were relatively ineffective
for passengers waiting for a delayed train.
Figure 3 shows the number of passengers who recognize the effectiveness of a
specific scenario. The right axis represents the accumulated percentage of passen-
gers, and the left axis is the actual number of passengers. Items on the horizontal
axis are ranked by the level of difficulty. Item 7, ‘uncontrollable circumstances’,
was the least difficult item, which suggests that 945 passengers believed that
Item 7 can alleviate their negative emotions. A total of 742 passengers believed
that Item 5, ‘providing waiting information’, can improve their negative emotions.
This figure shows the number of passengers who recognized that their negative
emotional responses can be improved by a specific scenario. The number of
passengers who felt better after an improvement was determined. The negative
emotions of over 80% of the passengers were improved by Item 3, ‘friendly
staff’ (Figure 3). The railway operational agency can use this information to
recommend effective strategies.
The findings show distinct differences between the tolerance of waiting and
various personal characteristics in terms of gender, age, and train-riding fre-
722 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

Figure 3. Number of passengers recognizing the specific scenario’s strategy effectiveness.

quency. Hence, we used the analytical results to identify the strategies that can
reduce passenger-perceived waiting
p time for different groups. Males believed
that items marked with a ‘ ’ can improve their perceived pwaiting time
(Table 3). Similarly, females believed that items marked with a ‘ ’ (except for
‘short distances’) can reduce their perceived waiting time. The items in gray
areas can reduce passenger-perceived wait time regardless of the passenger’s
gender. Therefore, for all passengers (with different characteristics), 10 scenarios
are in the blue rectangles that can reduce passenger-perceived waiting time
while waiting for a delayed train. The scenarios include ‘providing information
about waiting duration’, ‘lowering passenger density at the station’, ‘providing
delay explanations’, ‘ensuring the comfortable temperature of the environment’,
‘providing reading materials’, ‘offering shopping options’, ‘friendly staff’, ‘pro-
viding appropriate messages of apology’, ‘playing classical music’, and
‘uncontrollable circumstances’. The Rasch analytical results show that male pas-
sengers who have a high income, attained a high educational level, and ride
trains for commuting have the lowest tolerance for waiting during train delays.
Therefore, the Rasch analytical results can assist managers in choosing effective
improvement strategies (blue boxes) according to various passenger character-
istics while considering the internal resource constraints of the rail operator.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

The current study has conceptual, measurement, and managerial contributions to
the literature that are pertinent to the evaluation of the waiting experience of pas-
sengers in the case of a train delay. The study conceptualizes a modern psycho-
metric method, the Rasch model, to evaluate a passenger’s perceived wait
experience in the case of a train delay. This model compares the tolerance of the
passenger and the improvement difficulties of the stimuli of various scenarios
along the same interval scale. By doing so, the model can identify certain negative
 Table 3. Effective improvement scenario strategies for various passengers’ characteristic sub-groups
Passengers’ characteristics Monthly
Average monthly Education income
Gender riding frequency Age level (NTD)

Scenario items M F ≤16 .16 ≤30 .30 E1 E2 I1 I2

Short travel distance

p p p p
Temporary delay reason
p p p p
Erratic delay reason
p p p p p p p
Leisure trip
p p p p p p p p p
In a good mood
p p p p p p p p p p

Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time

Broadcasting classic music
p p p p p p p p p p
Wait duration information
p p p p p p p p p p
Feeling of low passenger density
p p p p p p p p p p
Delay explanation
p p p p p p p p p p
A comfortable temperature
p p p p p p p p p p
Reading materials provided
p p p p p p p p p p
Shopping options
p p p p p p p p p p
Providing appropriate messages of apology
p p p p p p p p p p
Friendly staff
p p p p p p p p p p
Uncontrollable reason for delay

Note: E1: .high school; E2: ≤high school; I1: ≥20 000 NTD, I2: ,20 000 NTD; (1 USD¼30 NTD)

723
724 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

emotions of passengers that can be alleviated by certain scenarios. The interval

scale that is transformed from the ordinal data by the Rasch model is likewise
more appropriate for further analysis (Brentari & Golia, 2008; De Battisti, Nicolini,
& Salini, 2010). The Rasch analytical results in this study demonstrates that
‘uncontrollable circumstances’, ‘friendly staff’, and ‘providing appropriate mess-
ages of apology’ can improve passenger-perceived wait time during train delays,
and the effectiveness of various improvement scenarios can also be evaluated.
Studies on train delays and waiting are mainly focused on operational improve-
ments (Liebchen et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2014; Wendler, 2007). The contribution of
this paper is in its attempt to improve the waiting process of passengers during
train delays from a psychological perspective. Analytical results indicate that
the average tolerance of passengers for waiting was higher than the item difficulty
for improving the negative emotional responses of passengers. That is, the passen-
gers agreed that their perceived waiting time for a delayed train can be improved
by certain measures, and that reducing delays from an operational perspective is
not the only method available to service providers. Psychological approaches are
also demonstrated to be useful in alleviating the effects of an inevitable time delay,
as demonstrated in our study.
Moreover, the Rasch analytical results provide empirical evidence for the differ-
ences of the waiting tolerance of passengers in terms of age, gender, educational
level, monthly income, and train-riding frequency. Marketers’ previous approaches
to address the problem of waiting assume that the negative effects of waiting are the
same for all customers, and thus, all customers are treated alike. One of the stron-
gest changes in marketing, however, has been the recognition that all customers are
not alike (McDonnell, 2007). Based on this useful decision information, the railway
system operation agency can identify the passengers on board with specific charac-
teristics. In the same manner, the agency can take appropriate mitigation measures
to alleviate negative perceptions of passengers.

5.1. Limitations and Future Research Orientations

This study measured passenger tolerance for waiting in various scenarios. Cul-
tural differences, however, may influence passenger attitude (Grewal et al.,
2003). To compare cultural differences, future studies can expand the investigation
to include the tolerance of rail passengers in different countries. Second, the
current study investigates the tolerance of train passengers for waiting without
considering the cost of intervention. Future studies can combine bilateral perspec-
tives of passengers and transportation service providers to identify appropriate
strategies that reduce passenger-perceived waiting time while considering
system resource constraints. Third, the results reveal that uncontrollable circum-
stances are most likely accepted by passengers and most likely to alleviate nega-
tive emotions. However, the situations regarded as uncontrollable by passengers
warrant further investigation. The current study did not compare the difference in
the passengers’ perceptions while waiting onboard or on the platform. Future
studies can expand the focus areas to investigate these two types of wait percep-
tion and compare their differences.
This study only considers gender, income level, educational level, train-riding
frequency, and trip purpose to understand this subgroup’s differences in passen-
ger perception. However, a passenger’s attitude toward delays has a strong corre-
lation to the arrival urgency. Therefore, future studies can incorporate the scenario
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 725

of a passenger’s arrival urgency in the measurement items, which may include

being late for work, being late for a business meeting, tight transfer slots for a con-
necting train, or being late for a medical appointment, to determine the relation-
ship between the passenger’s attitudes on passenger-perceived waiting time in
cases of train delays.
While passengers wait for a delayed train, and while they are being influenced
by the consequences of a delayed train, the passenger’s possible alternative modes
can affect their perceived wait time. The scenario ‘availability of alternate trans-
port modes’ should be added. Moreover, the railway operational agency needs
to prepare a passenger contingency plan using various alternative modes (e.g.
bus and taxis) to assist the passengers to reach their final destinations in cases
of longer delays.
Previous studies indicate that compensation is considered as an effective service
recovery strategy (Hoffman, Kelley, & Chung, 2003). However, compensation does
not always lead to improved evaluations (Roggeveen, Tsiros, & Grewal, 2012). The
effect of compensation as a service recovery strategy is moderated by the severity of
the failure (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999). This effect in the case of a train delay can
be examined to address the appropriate compensation for the delayed train’s pas-
sengers. Monetary compensation can be in the form of a full or a partial refund
(Berman & Mathur, 2014). In Taiwan, compensation for delays only applies for
trains that arrive 45 minutes overdue or later. The length of the delay determines
the amount of compensation for the passenger (monetary or nonmonetary and
the extent of compensation), and the relationship between the length of delay and
compensation can be further examined to determine the appropriate compensation
policies for the different railway operational agencies of different countries. Future
studies can formulate various passenger service recovery plans under different
delay-duration scenarios (e.g. 15, 30, 45 minutes, or one hour and longer).
In the case of train delays, the response of passengers to possibly crowded con-
ditions should be further considered (Pel, Bel, & Pieters, 2014). In future studies,
the extent by which crowding due to different train delay scenarios can influence
the behavior of passengers to take appropriate action plans should be examined.
Compensation, service recovery speed, and apology can be appropriately and
simultaneously used to alleviate the negative emotions of passengers.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the valuable suggestions of the editor, Professor Moshe
Givoni, as well as the four anonymous reviewers who have immensely helped
improve the quality of the paper from its earlier version.

Funding
The authors thank the National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan, R.O.C. for sup-
porting this research financially.

References
Bailey, N., & Areni, C. S. (2006). When a few minutes sound like a lifetime: Does atmospheric music
expand or contract perceived time? Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 189–202.
726 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

Baker, J., & Cameron, M. (1996). The effects of the service environment on affect and consumer percep-
tion of waiting time: An integrative review and research propositions. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 24(4), 338–349.
Baker, T., & Meyer, T. (2014). Explanation information and source in service recovery initiatives. Journal
of Services Marketing, 28(4), 311 –318.
Barron, A., Melo, P. C., Cohen, J. M., & Anderson, R. J. (2013). Passenger-focused management
approach to measurement of train delay impacts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, 2351(1), 46– 53.
Berger, A., Hoffmann, R., Lorenz, U., & Stiller, S. (2011). Online railway delay management: Hardness,
simulation and computation. Simulation, 87(7), 616– 629.
Berman, B., & Mathur, A. (2014). Planning and implementing effective service guarantee programs.
Business Horizons, 57(1), 107– 116.
Bezruczko, N., & Linacre, M. J. (2005). Measurement theory foundations. Rasch measurement in health
sciences. USA: JAM Press.
Brentari, E., & Golia, S. (2008). Measuring job satisfaction in the social service sector with the Rasch
model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(1), 45–56.
Butcher, K., & Heffernan, T. (2006). Social regard: A link between waiting for service and service out-
comes. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1), 34–53.
Butcher, K., & Kayani, A. (2008). Waiting for service: Modelling the effectiveness of service interven-
tions. Service Business, 2(2), 153–165.
Cameron, M. A., Bake, J., Peterson, M., & Braunsberger, K. (2003). The effects of music, wait-length
evaluation, and mood on a low-cost wait experience. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 421–430.
Chang, H. L., & Wu, S. C. (2008). Exploring the vehicle dependence behind mode choice: Evidence of
motorcycle dependence in Taipei. Transportation Research Part A, 42(2), 307– 320.
Chang, J. S. (2010). Estimation of option and non-use values for intercity passenger rail services. Journal
of Transport Geography, 18(2), 259–265.
Chebat, J. C., Filiatrault, P., & Gélinas-Chebat, C. (1995). Impact of waiting attribution and consumer’s
mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34(3), 191 –196.
Cheng, Y. H. (2010). Exploring passenger anxiety associated with train travel. Transportation, 37(6),
875– 896.
Cheng, Y. H. (2011). Evaluating web site service quality in public transport: Evidence from Taiwan High
Speed Rail. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(6), 957–974.
Cheng, Y. H., & Liu, K. C. (2012). Evaluating bicycle-transit users’ perceptions of intermodal inconve-
nience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(10), 1690–1706.
Davis, M. M., & Heineke, J. (1998). How disconfirmation, perception and actual waiting times impact
customer satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(1), 64–73.
De Battisti, F., Nicolini, G., & Salini, S. (2010). The Rasch model in customer satisfaction survey data.
Quality Technology & Quantitative Management, 7(1), 15–34.
Dellaert, B. G. C., & Kahn, B. E. (1999). How tolerable is delay? Consumers’ evaluations of internet web
sites after waiting. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 41– 54.
Dollevoet, T., Huisman, D., Kroon, L., Schmidt, M., & Schöbel, A. (2014). Delay management including
capacities of stations. Transportation Science. Advances online publication. doi:10.1287/trsc.2013.0506
Dube, L., Schmitt, B. H., & Leclerc, F. (1991). Consumers’ affective response to delays at different phases
of a service delivery. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(10), 810– 820.
Durrande-Moreau, A. (1999). Waiting for service: Ten years of empirical research. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 10(2), 171– 194.
Folkes, V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. L. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and consumer reac-
tion: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 534–539.
Friman, M. (2010). Affective dimensions of the waiting experience. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 13(3), 197–205.
Gilliland, A. R., Hofeld, J. & Eckstrand, G. (1946). Studies in Time Perception. Psychological Bulletin, 43,
162– 176.
Ginkel, A., & Schöbel, A. (2007). To wait or not to wait?. The Bicriteria delay management problem in
public transportation. Transportation Science, 41(4), 527–538.
Goldstein, E. B. (2002). Sensation and perception. Australia: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.
Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., & Voss, G. B. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store atmos-
phere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores. Journal of Retailing,
79(4), 259 –268.
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 727

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage,
CA: Newbury Park.
Hess, R. L.Jr., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2003). Service failure and recovery: The impact of
relationship factors on customer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2),
127– 145.
Hoagland, H. (1966). Some biochemical consideration of time. In J. T. Fraser (Ed.), The voices of time (pp.
312– 330). New York: George Braziller.
Hoffman, K. D., Kelley, S. W., & Chung, B. C. (2003). A CIT investigation of servicescape failures and
associated recovery strategies. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), 322–40.
Hornik, J. (1992). Time estimation and orientation mediated by transient mood. The Journal of Socio-
Economics, 21(3), 209–227.
Hornik, J. (1993). The role of affect in consumers’ temporal judgments. Psychology and Marketing, 10(3),
239– 255.
Houston, M. B., Bettencourt, L. A., & Wenger, S. (1998). The relationship between waiting in a service
queue and evaluations of service quality: A field theory perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 15(8),
735– 753.
Hui, M. K., Thakor, M. V., & Gill, R. (1998). The effect of delay type and service stage on consumer’s
reactions to waiting. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 469–480.
Hui, M. K., & Tse, D. K. (1996). What to tell consumers in waits of different lengths: An integrative
model of service evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 81–90.
Jones, P., & Dent, M. (1994). Improving service: Managing response time in hospitality operations. Inter-
national Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(5), 52–58.
Katz, K. L., Larson, B. M., & Larson, R. C. (1991). Prescription for the waiting-in-line blues: Entertain,
enlighten, and engage. Sloan Management review, 32(5), 44–53.
Kim, J. K., Lee, B., & Oh, S. (2009). Passenger choice models for analysis of impacts of real-time bus
information on crowdedness. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2112, 119–126.
Krishnan, L., & Sexena, N. K. (1984). Perceived time: Its relationship with locus of control, filled versus
unfilled time intervals, and perceivers sex. The Journal of General Psychology, 110(2), 275 –281.
Lee, W., & Lambert, C. U. (2006). The effect of waiting time and affective reactions on customers’ evalu-
ation of service quality in a cafeteria. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 8(2), 19–37.
Liebchen, C., Schachtebeck, M., Schöbel, A., Stiller, S., & Prigge, A. (2010). Computing delay resistant
railway timetables. Computers & Operations Research, 37(5), 857– 868.
Macar, F., Grondin, S., & Casini, L. (1994). Controlled attention sharing influences time estimation.
Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 673–686.
Machleit, K. A., Kellaris, J. J., & Eroglu, S. A. (1994). Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding per-
ceptions in retail environments: A note on their measurement and effect on shopper satisfaction.
Marketing Letters, 5(2), 183– 194.
Magnini, V. P., Ford, J. B., Markowski, E. P., & Honeycutt, E. D.Jr. (2007). The service recovery paradox:
Justifiable theory or smoldering myth? Journal of Services Marketing, 21(3), 213–225.
Maister, D. H. (1985). The psychology of waiting lines. In J. Czepiel (Ed.), The service encounter (pp. 113–
123). Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Massof, R. W., & Fletcher, D. C. (2001). Evaluation of the NEI visual functioning questionnaire as an
interval measure of visual ability in low vision. Vision Research, 41(3), 397– 413.
McDonnell, J. (2007). Music, scent and time preferences for waiting lines. International Journal of Bank,
25(4), 223– 237.
McGuire, K. A., Kimes, S. E., Lynn, M., Pullman, M. E., & Lloyd, R. C. (2010). A framework for evalu-
ating the customer wait experience. Journal of Service Management, 21(3), 269– 290.
Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of
Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 70(4), 308–312.
Mishalani, R., & McCord, M. (2010). Passenger wait time perceptions at bus stops: Empirical results and
impact on evaluating real-time bus arrival information. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(2), 89–106.
Munichor, N., & Rafaeli, A. (2007). Numbers or apologies?. Customer reactions to telephone waiting
time fillers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 511– 518.
Nie, W. (2000). Waiting: Integrating social and psychological perspectives in operation management.
Omega, 28(6), 611 –629.
Oakes, S. (2000). The influence of the musicscape within service environments. Journal of Services Mar-
keting, 14(7), 539 –556.
728 Y.-H. Cheng and Y.-C. Tsai

Oreja-Rodriguez, J. R., & Yanes-Estévez, V. (2007). Perceived environmental uncertainty in tourism: A

new approach using the Rasch model. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1450–1463.
Papa, L., Seaberg, D. C., Rees, E., Ferguson, K., Stair, R., Goldfeder, B., & Meurer, D. (2008). Does a
waiting room video about what to expect during an emergency department visit improve patient sat-
isfaction. Journal of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, 10(4), 347– 354.
Pel, A. J., Bel, N. H., & Pieters, M. (2014). Including passengers’ response to crowding in the Dutch
national train passenger assignment model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 66,
111 –126.
Preston, J., Wall, G., Batley, R., Ibáñez, J. N., & Shires, J. (2009). Impact of delays on passenger train ser-
vices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2117(1), 14–23.
Pruyn, A., & Smidts, A. (1998). Effects of waiting on the satisfaction with the service: Beyond objective
time measures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(4), 321–334.
Pruyn, A. T. H., & Smidts, A. (1993). Customers’ evaluations of queues: Three exploratory studies. Euro-
pean Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 371–382.
Rammsayer, T., & Lustnauer, S. (1989). Sex differences in time perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
68(1), 195 –198.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Copenhagen. Copenhagen:
Danish Institute for Educational Research.
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., . . . Cella, D. (2007).
Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5),
S22– S31.
Richins, M. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Market-
ing, 47(1), 68– 78.
Roggeveen, A. L., Tsiros, M., & Grewal, D. (2012). Understanding the co-creation effect: When does col-
laborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40(6), 771–790.
Roper, J. M., & Manela, J. (2000). Psychiatric patients’ perceptions of waiting time in the psychiatric
emergency service. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 38(5), 18– 27.
Rubio, V. J., Aguado, D., Hontangas, P. M., & Hernandez, J. M. (2007). Psychometric properties of an
emotional adjustment measure: An application of the Graded Response Model. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 39–46.
Scherbaum, C. A., Finlinson, S., Barden, K., & Tamanini, K. (2006). Applications of item response theory
to measurement issues in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 366– 386.
Scolnik, D., Matthews, P., Caulfeild, J., & Feldman, B. M. (2003). Pagers in a busy paediatric emergency
waiting room: A randomized controlled trial. Paediatrics & Child Health, 8(7), 422–426.
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encoun-
ters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2004). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and
use. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, S. (1994). Waiting for service: The relationship between delays and evaluations of service. Journal
of Marketing, 58(2), 56–69.
Taylor, B. D., Iseki, H., Miller, M. A., & Smart, M. (2009). Thinking outside the bus: Understanding user per-
ceptions of waiting and transferring in order to increase transit use. California PATH Research Report
UCB-ITS-PRR-2009-8.
Taylor, S., & Claxton, J. D. (1994). Delays and the dynamics of service evaluations. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 22(3), 254– 264.
Thomas, E. A., & Weaver, W. B. (1975). Cognitive processing and time perception. Perception and Psy-
chophysics, 17(4), 363–367.
Thompson, D. A., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Relating patient satisfaction to waiting time perceptions and
expectations: The disconfirmation paradigm. Academic Emergency Medicine, 2(12), 1057–1062.
Tom, G., & Lucey, S. (1995). Waiting time delays and customer satisfaction in supermarkets. Journal of
Services Marketing, 9(5), 20–29.
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1984). Measurement scale and statistics: The misconception miscon-
ceived. Psychological Bulletin, 96(2), 394 –401.
Van Hagen, M., van Pruyn, A., Galetzka, M., & Kramer, J. (2009). Waiting is becoming fun! The influence of
advertising and infotainment on the waiting experience. Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands: European Trans-
port Congress.
 Train Delay and Perceived-Wait Time 729

Vansteenwegen, P., & Oudheusden, D. V. (2006). Developing railway timetables which guarantee a
better service. European Journal of Operational Research, 173(1), 337–350.
Vittersø, J., Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2005). The divergent meanings of life satisfaction: Item
response modeling of the satisfaction with life scale in Greenland and Norway. Social Indicators
Research, 74(2), 327 –348.
Wang, Y., Guo, J., Ceder, A. A., Currie, G., Dong, W., & Yuan, H. (2014). Waiting for public transport
services: Queueing analysis with balking and reneging behaviors of impatient passengers. Transpor-
tation Research Part B: Methodological, 63(May), 53–76.
Waseem, M., Ravi, L., Radeos, M., & Ganti, S. (2003). Parental perception of waiting time and its influ-
ence on parental satisfaction in an urban pediatric emergency department: Are parents accurate in
determining waiting time? Southern Medical Journal, 96(9), 880– 883.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review,
92(4), 548– 573.
Wendler, E. (2007). The scheduled waiting time on railway lines. Transportation Research Part B: Meth-
odological, 41(2), 148– 158.
Whiting, A., & Donthu, N. (2009). Closing the gap between perceived and actual waiting times in a call
center: Results from a field study. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(5), 279– 288.
Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions.
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, M. (1989). Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be
interval. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 70(12), 857– 860.
Yang, A. S. (2009). Exploring adoption difficulties in mobile banking services. Canadian Journal of
Administration Sciences, 26(2), 136–149.
Zakay, D. (1989). An integrated model of time estimation in time and human cognition: A life span perspective.
Amsterdam: North Holland.
Zakay, D., & Hornik, J. (1991). How much time did you wait in line?. A time perception perspective, time and
consumer behavior. Montreal: Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expec-
tations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1– 12.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–46.
Zhou, R., & Soman, D. (2008). Consumers’ waiting in queues: The role of first-order and second-order
justice. Psychology & Marketing, 25(3), 262– 279.
Copyright of Transport Reviews 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.