Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 Ž1998.

321–334

Effects of waiting on the satisfaction with the service:

Beyond objective time measures 1
Ad Pruyn ) , Ale Smidts
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus UniÕersity, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
Received 7 November 1996; accepted 24 March 1998

Abstract

A major concern for service managers is to counteract negative effects of waiting. In this study, the effects of objective
waiting time and waiting environment on satisfaction with the service were investigated. Two elements of the waiting
environment were distinguished: the attractiveness of the waiting room and the presence of television ŽTV. as an explicit
distracter. The mediating role of three subjective variables Žperceived waiting time, acceptable waiting time and the
Žcognitive and affective. appraisal of the wait. was explored. Waiting appears to influence satisfaction quite strongly. The
adverse effects of waiting can be soothed more effectively by improving the attractiveness of the waiting environment than
by shortening the objective waiting time. Objective waiting time influences satisfaction mainly via a cognitiÕe route:
through perceived waiting time Žin minutes. and the longrshort judgment of the wait. Perceived attractiveness of the waiting
environment operates mainly through affect, and thus serves as a mood inducer. The acceptable waiting time appears to be a
critical point of reference, since surpassing it provokes strong affective responses. Although the presence of TV did not
result in the expected effect of distraction, the tendency to watch it was found to be dependent on the length of the wait Žand
thus, boredom.. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Time perception; Waiting environment; Waiting tolerance; Cognition; Affect; Distraction

1. Introduction management techniques Žsee, e.g., Buffa and Sarin,

Waiting for service is a pervasive and often un-
avoidable experience for customers and appears to
be a strong determinant of overall satisfaction with
the service and customer loyalty ŽPruyn and Smidts,
1993; Taylor, 1994, 1995; Hui and Tse, 1996.. Ser-
vice marketers often attempt to counteract negative
effects of waiting by shortening queues. Operations
)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q31-10-4081960; fax: q31-10-
2120544; e-mail: a.pruyn@fac.fbk.eur.nl.
1
Both authors contributed equally to this article.
1987. are helpful in this respect. Mere reduction of
objective waiting times, however, is not always fea-
sible, because of the lack of control over the queuing
situation ŽTaylor, 1994. or due to cost considera-
tions.
As customers’ satisfaction with the service will be
affected by the perception of waiting Žtime., an
alternative approach to queuing is to find ways to
make time pass as quickly and pleasantly as possible.
One may thus reduce the negative effects of waiting
even when objective waiting times cannot be short-
ened. Maister Ž1985. suggested a number of condi-

0167-8116r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 8 1 1 6 Ž 9 8 . 0 0 0 0 8 - 1
322 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
tions, such as information about the reasons for
andror length of the delay, the degree to which the
waiting time is filled and the perceived fairness of
the queue setup, that influence time perception dur-
ing waiting. Since then, there has been an increase in
research on how customers react to such waiting
conditions ŽLarson, 1987; Clemmer and Schneider,
1989; Dube´ et al., 1989, 1991; Hui and Tse, 1996..
Probably one of the easiest conditions for man-
agement to manipulate is one that has received sur-
prisingly little attention, namely the waiting environ-
ment. Recently, Baker and Cameron Ž1996. have
proposed how specific elements in the environment,
such as lighting, color and spatial layout, may influ-
ence time perception during waiting. To date, how-
ever, empirical research on this topic has been non-
existent. It is therefore our purpose to study as to
what extent Žand how. the waiting environment af-
fects the experience of the wait, and eventually,
overall satisfaction with the service.
In this study, we distinguish two aspects of the
waiting environment: Ž1. the attractiveness of the
waiting environment based on physical attributes
such as design and decoration, and Ž2. specific stim-
uli, such as television ŽTV., purposely introduced to
the waiting environment to distract customers’ atten-
tion from waiting. Both aspects of the waiting envi-
ronment are seen as means to positively influence
the appraisal of the wait and satisfaction with the
service. The underlying process, however, may differ
between these two aspects of the waiting environ-
ment in terms of cognitions and affects. Pruyn and
Smidts Ž1993. found that an attractive waiting envi-
ronment directly and positively influences satisfac-
tion with the service. Thus, the design element of the
waiting environment may induce a positive mood
which influences the appraisal of the wait without
necessarily influencing the perceived duration of the
wait. In contrast, explicit Žor foreground. distracters
in the waiting environment are supposed to affect the
cognitive timer Žinternal clock. by means of distract-
ing the attention from the passage of time itself
ŽZakay, 1989.. This would result in shorter perceived
durations and thus, a more positive appraisal of the
wait. As both the design element and explicit dis-
tracters may influence satisfaction, it is important to
investigate differences in effect and process of these
two characteristics of the waiting environment.
A time perception management approach is pur-
sued in this study by investigating how objective
waiting time and waiting environment influence sat-
isfaction with the service via subjective mediators.
To this end, we developed an integrative model,
partly based on the wait experience model of Taylor
Ž1994.. Although Taylor did not pay attention to the
waiting environment, she did assess the effects of
objective waiting time on the evaluation of the ser-
vice and the mediating role of affect. In modeling
that process, however, she did not include the cus-
tomer’s acceptable waiting time Žor the level of
tolerance for waiting.. Such a level of tolerance may
act as a subjective point of reference proven to be
important in the evaluation of service quality and
satisfaction with the service Žsee, e.g., Zeithaml et
al., 1993.. We expect that this variable has a strong
impact on affective responses to the wait. Moreover,
one may question as to what extent the acceptable
waiting time is affected by the attractiveness of the
waiting environment. The potential role of accept-
able waiting time will therefore also be investigated
in this study.
2. Conceptual background
In Fig. 1, the conceptual model is shown. Both
the objective waiting time and the waiting environ-
ment are seen as instrumental variables that affect
the satisfaction with the service through wait-related
subjective variables.
A central variable of interest is the customers’
appraisal of the wait. Two components of the ap-
praisal are distinguished: Ža. a cognitive component
which reflects the perception of the time span in
terms of long or short; and Žb. an affective compo-
nent which consists of emotional responses to wait-
ing, such as irritation, boredom, stress, etc. As noted
by, e.g., Bagozzi Ž1996., the causal order of affect
and cognition is a topic of controversy. Whereas
Lazarus Ž1982. argues that affect is the product of
cognitive processes, others claim that affect may
precede cognitions Že.g., Zajonc, 1980.. Thus, the
experience of a lengthy wait may negatively affect
the subject’s emotions, but alternatively, the affec-
tive state Žsuch as irritation because of waiting. may
also influence the time perception ŽHornik, 1993..
 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
Fig. 1. A model of customer’s reactions to waiting.
The causal order is therefore not stated in advance
and left open for empirical testing.
2.1. Waiting time
An important factor that will affect customers’
appraisal of the wait is the length of the wait Žwait-
ing time.. As already suggested by Hornik Ž1984.,
waiting time has to be distinguished in objective
Ži.e., the actual or clocked. waiting time and the
perceived duration. The latter variable is defined as
the subjective estimate of the waiting time in min-
utes. Of course, perceived waiting time will depend
on the objective waiting time ŽAllan, 1979.. It has
been suggested, however, that customers’ reactions
to waiting are more strongly affected by perceived
than by objective waiting time ŽHornik, 1984; Pruyn
and Smidts, 1993.. This would imply that perceived
waiting time acts as a mediator. Thus,
H1: The effect of objective waiting time on the
appraisal of the wait is mediated by the perceived
waiting time.
323
Moreover, we expect that the perceived duration
of the wait will particularly affect the cognitive
component of the appraisal thereof, because an esti-
mation of a time span in terms of minutes will be
more closely related to a longrshort judgment than
to the emotional response that may eventually fol-
low. Hence we hypothesize,
H2: The longer the perceived waiting time, the more
negative the appraisal of the wait. The cognitive
component will be affected more strongly than the
affective component.
In line with the expectancy–disconfirmation
paradigm in consumer satisfaction literature ŽOliver,
1980; Tse and Wilton, 1988. and in service quality
literature ŽZeithaml et al., 1993., we assume that
subjects employ a point of reference from which
they judge the waiting experience: the acceptable
waiting time. The acceptable waiting time is defined
as the maximum number of minutes tolerated in a
specific waiting situation. It should be regarded as
the minimum level of service the customer expects.
As such, the concept of acceptable waiting time is
324 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
treated in a similar way as the definition of service
adequacy level ŽZeithaml et al., 1993.. The model
asserts that the acceptable waiting time will serve as
a standard with which the perceived time is com-
pared, resulting in a Žpositive or negative. appraisal
of the wait. A significant disconfirmation of the
acceptable waiting time will thus affect the appraisal
of the wait. As research has shown that disconfirma-
tion influences emotional responses in service en-
counters ŽWoodruff et al., 1983; Bolton and Drew,
1994., we propose that particularly the affective
component of the appraisal of the wait will be
affected. By surpassing the acceptable level, waits
will not just be experienced as long, but as intolera-
bly long; shorter perceived waiting times can be a
relief, instead. We therefore hypothesize,
H3: Differences between the acceptable waiting time
and the perceived waiting time will affect the ap-
praisal of the wait. The affective component will be
affected more strongly than the cognitive component.
2.2. Waiting enÕironment
Waiting environments consist of physical design
elements Žsuch as architecture, layout and lighting,
which create attractiveness in terms of, e.g., comfort,
spaciousness and atmosphere., and elements of ex-
plicit distraction Žsuch as reading material and TV..
According to the attentional model of time percep-
tion ŽThomas and Weaver, 1975., explicit distraction
leads to shorter perceived durations of waiting. This
is due to the fact that attention is drawn away from
the internal clock responsible for the perception of
time passage ŽZakay, 1989.. Thus, watching TV in a
waiting room, for example, would cause customers
to be less occupied with time since their cognitive
systems are processing Žnon-temporal. external stim-
uli.
The contextual change Žor segmentation. model of
time perception ŽPoynter, 1983; Block, 1990. alter-
natively predicts that the more changes there are in
the environment during an interval, the longer its
perceived duration. This would imply that a dis-
tracter that segments the time interval into easily
remembered chunks of information Žsuch as a TV
with various programs. increases the perceived dura-
tion of waiting. A reconciliation of the conflicting
attentional model and segmentation model is offered
by empirical research which has shown that time
estimates are dependent on whether subjects have to
perform a prospective or a retrospective time estima-
tion task ŽBlock, 1989.. In a prospective task, sub-
jects are requested to make a time judgment before
they experience the event Žtime is made salient to
them.. In a retrospective task, subjects have to make
time judgments about an interval without being in-
formed beforehand that they will be requested to do
so. Zakay Ž1989. suggests that the attentional model
explains prospective time estimates, whereas retro-
spective time estimates are explained more accu-
rately by the contextual change model. Since for
subjects in waiting situations time can be considered
to be a salient attribute Žespecially when they have
an appointment., for them time estimation thus re-
sembles a prospective rather than a retrospective
task. Consequently, we propose that in waiting situa-
tions, the effect of an explicit distracter on perceived
duration is explained best by the attentional model.
Hence,
H4: Waiting customers exposed to an explicit dis-
tracter will estimate the waiting time to be shorter as
compared with customers who are not explicitly
distracted.
Another element of the waiting environment con-
cerns its perceived attractiveness Žas related to the
physical design of the waiting room.. Whereas a
pleasant environment can be expected to increase
their tolerance for waiting, customers may find, e.g.,
a cold and noisy waiting room with uncomfortable
seating less acceptable. Thus,
H5: The greater the perceived attractiveness of the
waiting environment, the longer customers are will-
ing to wait.
We also propose that an attractive environment
directly influences customers’ moods ŽMehrabian and
Russell, 1974; Bitner, 1992; Baker and Cameron,
1996. and thus the affective component of the ap-
praisal of the wait. Moreover, there is ample evi-
dence that mood states may bias overall evaluations
and judgments Žsuch as satisfaction with the service
and evaluations of quality. in mood-congruent direc-
 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
tions ŽGardner, 1985; Mayer et al., 1992.. Thus, we
expect that customers perceiving the waiting envi-
ronment as attractive are brought into a positive
mood, which will set the tone for a favorable ap-
praisal of the wait. A positive mood will also directly
increase the overall satisfaction with the service.
Therefore we expect that,
H6: The greater the perceived attractiveness of the
waiting environment, the more positive the appraisal
of the wait. The affective component will be affected
more strongly than the cognitive component.
H7: The greater the perceived attractiveness of the
waiting environment, the greater the satisfaction with
the service.
Finally, a number of studies have shown that the
appraisal of the wait will influence Ždis.satisfaction
with the service process Že.g., Pruyn and Smidts,
1993; Taylor, 1994, 1995; Hui and Tse, 1996.. Hence
we hypothesize,
H8: The more negative the appraisal of the wait, the
less satisfaction with the service.
It will be explored as to what extent this effect is
to be attributed to either the cognitive or the affec-
tive component of the appraisal of the wait.
3. Method
3.1. General setting and subjects
The study involved waiting in Dutch hospital
polyclinics. In almost one third of the polyclinics in
the Netherlands, an advertising agency has installed
video equipment and TV monitors. This service,
already operative for 4 yr, is being exploited under
the argument that by watching the programmed in-
formation, visitors to polyclinics would be distracted
from waiting and thus be less aggravated by an
eventual delay. The service is being paid for by
advertisers who buy commercial time on the medium.
Subjects were 127 men and 210 women visiting a
polyclinic in one of three hospitals. In each hospital,
subjects were visiting one of the following poly-
325
clinics: gynaecology, dermatology, ophthalmology,
laryngology, or internal medicine. Subjects’ ages
varied between 16 and 89 Žmean age: 46.. All sub-
jects had an appointment. The sample consists of a
demographically and socio-economically diverse
group of subjects with all sorts of medical com-
plaints Žexcept cardiac illnesses and cancer, which
were purposely left out..
3.2. Experimental design and procedure
The study was conducted on six consecutive
working days. In each hospital, observations took
place in three randomly selected waiting rooms. The
waiting rooms differed Žboth within and between the
hospitals. with respect to layout, atmosphere, decora-
tion and furniture Žarrangement.. The TV set was
always located in one of the corners of the waiting
room so that each visitor was able to watch the
screen. Each day was divided into four blocks of 2 h.
Per block, it was randomly decided whether the TV
set was turned on or off. Of the subjects, 53.4% Ž64
men; 116 women. were exposed to a variety of light
entertainment Žsports, nature, medical information,
etc... In between these programs, small blocks of
commercials were broadcast. The remaining subjects
Ž63 men; 94 women. were waiting under the same
conditions but with the TV set turned off and con-
cealed behind doors.
Observers, trained graduate students, sat incon-
spicuously in the waiting rooms to watch the sub-
jects. A systematic random sample was drawn by
selecting every tenth visitor for observation. The
total time spent in the waiting room was objectively
assessed by registering the time of entrance and the
time the subject was called into the physician’s
room. After consultation, subjects were intercepted
by an interviewer and asked to fill out a question-
naire. Response rate was 70.4% Ž337 of 479 subjects
observed in the waiting rooms..
3.3. Measures
The questionnaire started by asking for the time
of the appointment. Thus, the objective waiting time
could be calculated by taking the difference between
the appointment time and the Žregistered. time the
subject was called into the physician’s room. Two
326 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334

perceived duration variables were subsequently as-
sessed. Perceived time spent in the waiting room
was measured by asking the subject to estimate Žin
minutes. the total time spent in the waiting room Žthe
time span between arrival, sometimes amply before
the appointment and consultation with the doctor..
Perceived waiting time was assessed by asking the
subject to give an estimation Žin minutes. of the time
that passed from the moment of appointment until
the start of the consultation. Next, overall satisfac-
tion with the service in the polyclinic was measured
Žon a 10-point scale ranging from ‘ very dissatisfied’
Ž1. to ‘ very satisfied’ Ž10...
Then the appraisal of the wait was assessed. The
cognitive component of the appraisal was measured
on a five-point scale ranging from ‘ very short’ Ž1. to
‘ very long’ Ž5.. The affective component consisted
of five semantic differential items Žfive-point scales.
on which subjects were asked to rate the irritation,
fairness, annoyance, boredom and stress experienced
during waiting. A confirmatory factor analysis
ŽSteenkamp and van Trijp, 1991. showed that this
affect measurement is one-dimensional Ž x 2 Ž5. s
9.30, p s 0.10; GFI s 0.99; TLI s 0.98; RMSEAs
0.055; CFI s 0.99. and sufficiently reliable ŽCron-
bach a s 0.80.. A composite scale was formed by
averaging these items. Also on five-point scales, the
perceived attractiveness of the waiting environment
was assessed by means of four attributes: atmo-
sphere, cleanliness, spaciousness and climate. This
scale also appeared to be one-dimensional Ž x 2 Ž2. s
6.01, p s 0.05; GFI s 0.99; TLI s 0.91; RMSEAs
0.084; CFI s 0.97., although lower in reliability
ŽCronbach a s 0.62.. Again, a composite scale was
formed. The nine waiting rooms differed signifi-
cantly in perceived attractiveness Ž F8,323 s 3.48, p -
0.0007.. The average attractiveness is 4.17 and ranges
from 3.91 to 4.54.
Finally, the subject was asked to indicate the
maximum acceptable waiting time Žin minutes. in
such a polyclinic. Subjects in the TV condition were
posed an additional question about the intensity of
watching TV Žfive-point scale.. A number of demo-
graphic variables Žsex, age, education. were also
measured for descriptive purposes.
4. Results
4.1. Characterization of the wait
On average, patients of the polyclinics appear to
have spent 23 min in the waiting room Žsee Table 1.;

Table 1
Summary statistics Žmeans. of the waiting experience and effects of the TV as an explicit distracter Žtime is presented in minutes.
Total No TV TV Significancea Do not Watch Significanceb
p- watch TV TV p-
n 337 157 180 51 110
Objective time spent 23.1 23.7 22.5 ns 19.6 24.5 0.039
Perceived time spent 22.6 23.8 21.6 ns 15.0 25.4 0.001
Objective waiting time 15.0 15.7 14.5 ns 10.2 16.7 0.004
Perceived waiting time 16.1 17.4 14.9 ns 9.4 18.2 0.003
Acceptable waiting time 23.1 23.5 22.8 ns 22.9 22.8 ns

Appraisal of the wait

(on fiÕe-point scales)c
Longrshort judgment 2.5 2.6 2.4 ns 2.0 2.7 0.006
Affective response 2.0 2.0 2.1 ns 1.9 2.2 0.064
Satisfaction with the service 7.9 7.9 7.9 ns 8.3 7.8 0.025
Ž10-point scale.
a
t-tests Ž df s 335.; ns denotes p ) 0.10 Žtwo-tailed..
b
t-tests Ž df s 159.; ns denotes p ) 0.10 Žtwo-tailed..
c
High scores represent negative responses Žlong, annoying, irritating, boring, unfair, stressful..
Note: performing nonparametric tests yields an identical pattern of results.
 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
28% spent more than half an hour. Since most
patients arrive earlier than their scheduled appoint-
ment, the mean waiting time is shorter: 15 min Ži.e.,
about two-thirds of the time spent in the waiting
room is to be classified as waiting time.. Although
the mean objective waiting time appears to be rela-
tively short, the variation is quite substantial Žstan-
dard deviation is 13.5 min.. Whereas 31% of the
patients were served within 5 min of their appoint-
ment time Ž10% were served exactly on time or even
sooner., 15% of the patients had to wait longer than
half an hour.
Patients are quite competent at estimating the
waiting time. The correlation between actual and
perceived waiting time is 0.73 Ž p - 0.001.. In addi-
tion, when the objective and perceived waiting time
are compared per indiÕidual, there is a tendency that
overestimation occurs especially when patients have
to wait for a considerable length of time. Underesti-
mation, however, seems to be the dominant response
when the patients’ wait is relatively short.
The mean acceptable waiting time is 23 min
ŽSD s 12.7.. Only 10% of the patients are willing to
accept more than 30 min of waiting and nobody
appears to accept waiting times of more than an
hour. The maximum acceptable waiting time for the
majority of patients is clearly between 11 and 30
min. In comparing objective waiting time with the
acceptable waiting time, it appears that for three-
quarters of the patients, the actual waiting time
remains within the tolerance level set by the patient
Žthe same percentage of patients does not perceiÕe
any surpassing of the acceptable waiting time either..
However, despite the fairly high mean acceptance
level, for 8.5% of the patients, actual waiting times
appear to exceed their set level by more than 15 min.
Table 1 further shows that, on average, patients
consider the wait as somewhat lengthy. Their affec-
tive response Žin terms of irritation, boredom, fair-
ness, etc.. is less negative. Satisfaction with the
service is high Ža mean of 7.9 on a 10-point scale..
4.2. The effect of TV as a source of distraction in the
waiting room
The experimental effects of TV in the waiting
room ŽHypothesis H4. are presented in columns two
327
through four of Table 1. The results show that no
significant difference between the experimental con-
ditions appears for the perceived waiting time Ž t s
1.19, p s 0.24.. Neither do we find a significant
effect of the TV on the cognitive component Žthe
longrshort judgment: t s 1.20, p s 0.24. or on af-
fective responses to the wait Ž t s 0.27, p s 0.78..
This would lead to the conclusion that the presence
of a TV does not serve as a distracter in the waiting
room as it does not result in any change in the
waiting experience.
An explanation for the absence of effects might
be that patients in the waiting room simply do not
watch TV because they are talking to one another,
reading magazines, etc. In the questionnaire, the
respondents reported their watching intensity. About
33% stated not to have watched TV at all; 59%
reported to have watched ‘every now and then’ and
8% reported to have watched Žalmost. continuously.
One may expect that effects of the TV on the
perceived waiting time Žand appraisal of the wait.
would particularly occur for people who in fact
watched it. To investigate this, in Table 1, the expe-
rimental group that is exposed to the TV is split up
on the basis of the reported watching behavior. This
reveals a number of interesting Žalthough unex-
pected. findings Žcolumns five through seven in Table
1.. For the majority of variables, a significant differ-
ence appears between viewers and non-viewers. Sub-
jects who watch TV spend more time in the waiting
room, they have to wait longer, perceive the wait as
longer, feel more negative about the wait and are less
satisfied with the service. However, corrected for
objective waiting timerobjective time spent Žin anal-
yses of covariance., these significant differences be-
tween viewers and non-viewers disappear for all
variables except for perceived time spent Ž F1,156 s
4.30, p - 0.04.: viewers overestimate the time spent
in the waiting room, whereas non-viewers underesti-
mate this time.
From these findings, we cannot confirm our
proposition that watching TV distracts customers
from the wait and, as a consequence, makes the time
pass quicker. On the contrary, it seems that the
causal order is the other way around: patients who
have to wait longer and are thus more annoyed, seem
to be more eager for distraction and start watching
TV.
328 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
Fig. 2. Estimated path model Žstandardized regression coefficients, t-values in brackets..
4.3. Test of the model: Procedure
In order to test the eight hypotheses underlying
the theoretical model presented in Fig. 1, the direct
and indirect effects were estimated by means of path
analysis Žusing LISREL, Joreskog¨ ¨
and Sorbom,
1989.. In Fig. 2, the results of the analysis are
shown. Before the results are discussed, we describe
the procedure of analysis. First, as no effects of the
explicit distracter Žthe TV. were found ŽHypothesis
H4., we did not include this variable in the estima-
tion. Second, for the test of Hypothesis H3, we
introduced the variable ‘disconfirmation of the ac-
ceptable waiting time’ which represents the differ-
ence Žin minutes. between the acceptable waiting
time and the perceived waiting time. A negative
score on this variable means that the subject per-
ceives the waiting time to be longer than acceptable
Žnegative disconfirmation.. A positive Ždisconfirma-
tion. score means that the perceived waiting time
stays within the zone of tolerance. Since this variable
is a difference score, it is correlated with its compo-
nents. This relationship is taken into account by
specifying a path from perceived waiting time to
‘disconfirmation of the acceptable waiting time’. 2
Third, in the theoretical model, the causal order of
the cognitive and affective component of the ap-
praisal of the wait was not specified. Therefore, in
the empirical model, we specified reciprocal effects
between cognitive and affective components: both
components are expected to influence one another.
This specification of a non-recursive model has con-
sequences for the test of Hypotheses H2, H3 and H6,
in which effects of, respectively, perceived waiting
time, disconfirmation of the acceptable waiting time
and perceived attractiveness of the waiting environ-
ment on both components of the appraisal of the wait
were proposed Ža total of six paths.. In order for the
non-recursive model to be identified, at least one of
¨
these six paths has to be constrained to zero ŽJore-
¨
skog and Sorbom, 1989.. Consequently, Hypotheses
2
In contrast to Mittal et al. Ž1998. who found that negative
disconfirmation had a greater impact on satisfaction than positive
disconfirmation, we found that the effect of disconfirmation is
symmetrical Žand also linear..
 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334 329

H2, H3 and H6 cannot be tested in one run. In the
analysis, we proceeded as follows. First, a model
was fit in which three paths were constrained to zero
Ži.e,. the paths from ‘perceived waiting time’ to
‘affective response’, from ‘disconfirmation of the
acceptable waiting time’ to ‘longrshort judgment’,
and from ‘perceived attractiveness of the waiting
environment’ to ‘longrshort judgment’.. Next, by
relaxing these constraints one by one and performing
a chi-square difference test, it could be tested whether
any of these effects was significant. Note that the
three effects constrained to zero deal with the paths
that are proposed to have the smallest effects. For
example, in Hypothesis H2, the effect of perceived
waiting time is expected to be larger on the
longrshort judgment than on the affective response;
here, the stronger version of that hypothesis is tested:
perceived waiting time affects the longrshort judg-
ment and not the affective response. The results of
this test procedure unequivocally showed that the
parameters of none of the three constrained paths is
significantly different from zero. The maximum in-
crease in fit Ž xd2 Ž1. s 0.47, p s 0.49. is obtained by
relaxing the path from ‘disconfirmation of the ac-
ceptable waiting time’ to ‘longrshort judgment’; the
other effects are even smaller.
4.4. Test of the model: Findings
In Fig. 2, the standardized regression coefficients
of the model are presented together with t-values in
brackets. The covariance matrix was analyzed and
ML estimates are presented. The coefficient of rela-
tive multivariate kurtosis was 1.13, indicating that
the assumption of multivariate normality is tenable.
Moreover, sample size is substantial Ž n s 294. and
the ratio of sample size to the number of free param-
eters is 16:1, which is amply beyond the required
10:1 ratio ŽBaumgartner and Homburg, 1996. for
trustworthy parameter estimates and valid tests of
significance. The fit of the model is very good
Ž x 2 Ž10. s 14.25, p s 0.16; GFI s 0.99; TLI s 0.99;
RMSEAs 0.038; CFI s 1.00..
Hypothesis H1 concerns the mediating role of
perceived waiting time. As can be seen in Table 2,
perceived waiting time affects the appraisal of the
wait more strongly than objective waiting time. Also,

Table 2
Pearson correlations between waiting time variables and the longrshort judgment, affective response, and satisfaction with the service
Ž n s 296.
Appraisal of the wait Satisfaction with
Longrshort judgment Affective response the service
Žhigh s long. Žhigh s positive.
Affective response y0.62 y
Satisfaction with the service y0.47 0.39 y
Objective time spent Žminutes. 0.38 y0.19 y0.24
Perceived time spent Žminutes. 0.55 y0.35 y0.40
Objective waiting time Žminutes. 0.42 y0.26 y0.32
Perceived waiting time Žminutes. 0.51 y0.38 y0.36
Acceptable waiting time Žminutes. ns 0.18 a ns
Disconfirmation of acceptable y0.37 0.34 0.31
waiting time Žobjective. b
Disconfirmation of acceptable y0.48 0.43 0.36
waiting time Žperceived. b
Perceived waiting environment ns 0.19 0.29
Žhigh s attractive.
a
p - 0.01.
All other correlations: p - 0.001.
ns denotes p ) 0.05 Žtwo-tailed..
b
Disconfirmation of the acceptable waiting time represents the difference Žin minutes. between the acceptable waiting time and the
Žobjective or perceived. waiting time: a positive score means that the waiting time stays within the zone of tolerance Žpositive
disconfirmation., a negative score implies that waiting time exceeds the level of tolerance Žnegative disconfirmation..
330 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
there appears to be a significant and strong, positive
relationship between objective and perceived waiting
time Žsee Fig. 2, b s 0.73.. By including the per-
ceived waiting time as a mediator in the model, the
direct effect of objective waiting time on the ap-
praisal of the wait disappears. Thus, Hypothesis H1
is supported.
Perceived waiting time has a significant effect on
the longrshort judgment. The direct effect of per-
ceived waiting time on the affective response is not
significant. The indirect effect of perceived waiting
time on the affective response Žthrough the disconfir-
mation of the acceptable waiting time. is smaller
Žy0.81 = 0.34 s y0.28. than the direct effect on
the longrshort judgment Ž b s 0.37.. These results
support Hypothesis H2.
In Hypothesis H3, it was proposed that differ-
ences between the perceived waiting time and the
acceptable waiting time affect the appraisal of the
wait Žin particular, the affective component.. As can
be seen in Fig. 2, disconfirmation of the acceptable
waiting time indeed affects the affective response to
the wait Ž b s 0.34.; no significant direct effect on
the longrshort judgment appears, only an indirect
effect through the affective component Ž0.13.. Thus,
Hypothesis H3 is also supported: the affective com-
ponent fully mediates the effect of disconfirmation
of the acceptable level of waiting on the longrshort
judgment. 3
In Hypothesis H5, an effect of the perceived
attractiveness of the waiting environment on the
acceptable waiting time was proposed. As the corre-
lation between the two variables is not significant
Ž r s 0.05, p s 0.39., no support is obtained for this
hypothesis.
In Fig. 2, it can be seen that the perceived attrac-
tiveness of the waiting environment does have an
effect on the affective response Ž b s 0.14., and on
3
Note that the acceptable waiting time itself hardly influences
the appraisal of the wait Žsee Table 2: acceptable waiting time is
not significantly related to the longrshort judgment and correlates
only r s 0.18 with affective response.. Instead, it is rather the
difference between the objective Žand even more so, the perceived
waiting time. and the level of acceptance that affects the
longrshort judgment Ž r sy0.37; r sy0.48. and the affective
response Ž r s 0.34; r s 0.43.. These findings show that the ac-
ceptable waiting time serves as a notable reference point for the
appraisal of the wait.
satisfaction with the service Ž b s 0.23., but no sig-
nificant direct effect exists on the longrshort judg-
ment. These findings support Hypotheses H6 and
H7.
In Hypothesis H8, we proposed a relationship
between the appraisal of the wait and satisfaction
with the service. Both cognitive and affective com-
ponents indeed have a significant impact on satisfac-
tion. Although it seems that the cognitive component
Žthe longrshort judgment. is the stronger predictor
of satisfaction Ž b s y0.37 vs. b s 0.12., a chi-
square difference test on the equality of the parame-
ters does not confirm this Ž xd2 Ž1. s 1.67, p s 0.19..
The cognitive and affective component of the
appraisal of the wait affect one another reciprocally.
The effect of cognitive response Žlongrshort judg-
ment. on affective response to the wait seems some-
what smaller Ž b s y0.16. than the effect of affect
on cognition Ž b s y0.39.. Testing the equality of
the parameters shows that there is only a tendency of
difference between them Ž xd2 Ž1. s 2.78, p s 0.096..
Therefore, these findings corroborate the reported
mood effects on time perception of Hornik Ž1993.,
but only marginally.
Modification indices suggested that the fit of the
model could be improved only by adding one, not
hypothesized, direct effect from ‘disconfirmation of
the acceptable waiting time’ to satisfaction Ž b s
0.14, t s 2.46.. This effect seems to make sense
when one realizes that, e.g., violation of the level of
tolerance will not only affect subjects’ moods with
respect to the waiting itself, but will also have more
general repercussions in terms of the overall evalua-
tion of the service encounter and the service provider.
Finally, considering that satisfaction with the ser-
vice in a hospital clinic depends on more factors than
only time-related aspects, the relationship between
satisfaction and the variables related to waiting is
quite substantial Ž R 2 s 0.29..
5. Discussion and conclusions
Managing customers’ waiting is relevant because
waiting appears to have a strong effect on overall
satisfaction with the service. In particular, this study
indicates the value of heeding the waiting environ-
ment. The waiting environment proves to be a
stronger determinant of service satisfaction than ob-
 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
jective waiting time Žthe total standardized effect of
the waiting environment on satisfaction is 0.27,
whereas the effect of objective waiting time is
y0.17.. Therefore, service managers can be advised
to be less focused on shortening waiting times, but
pay special attention to their customers’ waiting
conditions instead.
The study also addresses the psychological pro-
cesses involved in waiting. Understanding these pro-
cesses is essential in order to influence the waiting
experience more effectively. The empirical model
shows how objective waiting time and waiting envi-
ronment affect satisfaction with the service. It can be
concluded that objective waiting time affects satis-
faction through both a cognitive and an affective
route, whereas the most influential variable, the wait-
ing environment, operates through affects only. Spe-
cific conclusions are stated below.
Firstly, the total effect of objectiÕe waiting time
on satisfaction Žy0.17. can be partitioned in an
effect through perceived waiting time and the
longrshort judgment Žy0.112. and in an effect
through the disconfirmation of the acceptable wait-
ing time and affective response Žy0.055.. The cog-
nitive route thus appears to be stronger than the
affective route. With respect to the cognitive route,
the results indicate that it is not so much the per-
ceived number of minutes that a customer has to
wait which affects satisfaction as it is the subjective
transformation of these minutes into a longrshort
judgment. In the longrshort judgment, customers
use their own frame of reference from which they
appraise the waiting situation.
Affective responses are dependent on the differ-
ence between the perceived waiting time and the
acceptable waiting time. A disconfirmation process
thus appears to be operative in customers’ assess-
ments of waiting situations. The acceptable waiting
time is used as a critical point of reference: if, for
example, the perceived waiting time exceeds the
level of tolerance, waits become ‘too long’ Žand
thus, aggravating..
In summary, objective waiting time by itself can
only explain about 10% of the variance in satisfac-
tion with the service Žsee Table 2.. Three intermedi-
ary processes determine the impact of objective wait-
ing time on satisfaction: Ža. the Žimperfect. estimate
of the objective waiting time in terms of perceived
331
waiting minutes; Žb. the transformation of perceived
waiting time into a longrshort judgment; and Žc. the
evaluation of any difference between perceived and
acceptable waiting time Žor the Žaffective. response
to the disconfirmation process.. Queue managers
may interfere in any of these processes. For example,
information about actual waiting times can be pro-
vided, which consequently positively influences both
perceived waiting time Žand the longrshort judg-
ment. and the outcome of the disconfirmation pro-
cess. Of course, such a strategy will be especially
effective when customers tend to overestimate their
waiting time in the queue.
Secondly, paying attention to the waiting enÕiron-
ment is certainly one of the easiest and perhaps one
of the most effective means of improving customers’
appraisal of the wait and satisfaction with the ser-
vice. The waiting environment clearly influences the
affective response to the wait Žstandardized effect:
0.14.. It also affects satisfaction: there appears to be
a strong direct effect Ž0.23. and a Žmuch smaller.
indirect effect through the appraisal of the wait
Ž0.04.. As there is no significant direct effect of the
waiting environment on cognitive responses Žneither
on perceived waiting time nor on the longrshort
judgment., it can be concluded that an attractive
waiting environment predominantly serves as a mood
inducer which colors the evaluation of the wait and
the overall service process ŽGardner, 1985.. An at-
tractive waiting environment can thus prevent cus-
tomers from becoming irritated or bored very quickly
even though they may find the wait long.
Perceived attractiveness of the waiting environ-
ment did not affect the acceptable waiting time. It
may be the case that the variation in quality of the
different waiting rooms in this study was not sub-
stantial enough to evoke the proposed effect on
acceptable waiting time Žnote that even the worst
waiting room was still rated quite positively Ž3.91 on
a five-point scale... Also, acceptable waiting time
may be more strongly determined by a number of
other situation-specific variables Že.g., being in a
hurry, having information about the reasons for the
delay. andror trait-like properties Že.g., impatience,
neuroticism.. 4
4
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
332 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
In this study, the presence of TV as a source of
explicit distraction in the waiting environment did
not lead to shorter perceived waiting times. Appar-
ently, the TV does not distract the attention from the
passage of time Žas the attentional model ŽZakay,
1989. would predict. and does not serve to reduce
wait-related boredom. Our results would rather seem
to indicate that it is sooner the length of the wait
Žand thus, boredom. that induces people to start
watching. Presumably, people start to watch TV only
after some time, usually after they have finished
reading or flicking through the magazines or have
exhausted the ‘small talk’ with others in the waiting
room. This would imply that, while waiting, self-
paced means of distraction Že.g., reading material.
are preferred, and only after a while does one start to
seek distraction elsewhere Žvia, e.g., television.. Even
with subjects that reported to have watched televi-
sion intensively, we did not find effects of this
distracter in line with the attentional model. On the
contrary, there is an indication that viewers sooner
overestimate the time spent in the waiting room. A
similar finding has been reported by Hui et al.
Ž1997., who used music as a background Žand there-
fore less explicit. distracter. Taking into account that
in our study the TV programming consisted of short,
varied items interrupted by commercials, the ten-
dency to overestimate is more in line with the con-
textual change model of time perception ŽZakay and
Hornik, 1992.. This model predicts that the more a
time interval is segmented, the longer its perceived
duration. In waiting rooms, it might therefore be
wiser to show longer and less varied programs.
6. Implications and further research
In this study, a perception management approach
to queuing was presented. As waiting appears to
affect customers’ satisfaction and thus the competi-
tive advantage of a company, marketers must deal
explicitly with influential waiting factors. This study
suggests that the perceived waiting environment, the
perceived waiting time, the acceptable waiting time
and the appraisal of the wait should be considered
beyond objective waiting time. For queue manage-
ment, this implies that the performance of a service
system should not be evaluated solely on the basis of
objective waiting times as is the case in operations
management. In designing effective service opera-
tions, marketing and operations management should
thus combine their insights into queuing phenomena.
Further research is required to confirm and en-
hance our findings and model. As the waiting envi-
ronment appears to be an influential factor in cus-
tomers’ reactions to waiting, research into the rele-
vant factors which constitute an attractive waiting
environment is required. 5 Baker and Cameron Ž1996.
have suggested a number of such factors. A frame-
work for studying these factors is provided by Bitner
Ž1992.. Research is also required to detect manageri-
ally relevant instruments to influence the subjective
waiting variables. For example, service managers
may benefit from information about how perceived
waiting time and the longrshort judgment are influ-
enced by, e.g., queue configurations and information
about the length and reasons of the delay. Some
research findings in this respect already exist Žsee,
e.g., Larson, 1987; Clemmer and Schneider, 1989;
Hui and Tse, 1996.. A number of social psychologi-
cal and time perception theories that may help to
explain these relationships have been suggested by
Smidts and Pruyn Ž1993.. Factors that affect the
acceptable waiting time Žsuch as those identified by
Zeithaml et al., 1993. also warrant serious attention
in further queuing research.
Another topic for further research concerns the
question as to how customers can be distracted dur-
ing waiting. In this study, no such effects were
found. It should be noted, however, that the explicit
distracter was operationalized in a distinctive manner
Ži.e., exposure to a commercially exploited TV. and
studied in a specific setting Žwaiting in a hospital..
These factors may hinder the generalizability of the
results. As patients might well enter the setting with
a certain level of uneasiness, perhaps television does
not perform the same function as it might in environ-
ments where customers are usually less anxious.
5
In situations where queues and waiting are really inevitable
Že.g., airport lounges, amusement parks, hospital polyclinics.,
creating an attractive environment may even consist of finding
ways to benefit from customers’ waiting time Žby means of shops
and restaurant facilities, vending products along the queue, adver-
tising relevant information, etc...
 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
That is to say, patients might be so strongly inter-
nally focused that they are ‘immune’ to environmen-
tal distracters. Further research must therefore deter-
mine the conditions in which explicit distracters may
be effective means to distract customers during the
wait.
Besides studying the Žmanagerial. instruments that
can be implemented to manipulate the subjective
waiting variables, more insight is needed with regard
to the processes involved in the appraisal of waiting
situations. One venue is to study the possible moder-
ating role of personal characteristics on several rela-
tionships in the model. For example, the effect of the
waiting environment on the appraisal of the wait
may be moderated by customer characteristics ŽBi-
tner, 1992.. Although in the present study no such
moderating effects of sex, age, education or per-
ceived seriousness of the medical complaint were
found, one may expect that a number of variables
specifically related to impatience Žsuch as Type ArB
coronary personality., need for control or orientation
towards time Žpast, present or future. are of influ-
ence.
Finally, the topic of waiting has so far been
confined to consumers waiting for service. Insights
gained in this area can also be introduced to the
realm of, for example, business-to-business market-
ing and studies on the performance of distribution
channels so as to be able to compete more effec-
tively in a world in which adequate management of
time Žperception. is becoming increasingly important
for companies’ survival ŽKotler and Stonich, 1991..
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Gerrit van Bruggen,
Fred van Raaij, Diane Ricketts, and Berend Wierenga
for helpful suggestions on early drafts of this paper.
We are also indebted to the editors, John Saunders
and Jan-Benedict Steenkamp and to two anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Allan, L.G., 1979. The perception of time. Perception and Psy-
chophysics 26 Ž5., 340–354.
333
Bagozzi, R.P., 1996. The role of arousal in the creation and
control of the halo effect in attitude models. Psychology and
Marketing 13, 235–264.
Baker, J., Cameron, M., 1996. The effects of the service environ-
ment on affect and consumer perception of waiting time: an
integrative review and research propositions. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 24, 338–349.
Baumgartner, H., Homburg, C., 1996. Applications of structural
equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A
review. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13,
139–161.
Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical sur-
roundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing
56, 57–71.
Block, R.A., 1989. Experiencing and remembering time: Affor-
dances, context, and cognition. In: Levin, I., Zakay, D. ŽEds..,
Time and Human Cognition: A Life Span Prospective. North-
Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 333–363.
Block, R.A., 1990. Models of psychological time. In: Block, R.A.
ŽEd.., Cognitive Models of Psychological Time. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1–35.
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1994. Linking customer satisfaction to
service operations and outcomes. In: Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L.
ŽEds.., Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Prac-
tice. Sage, London, pp. 173–200.
Buffa, E.S., Sarin, R.K., 1987. Modern ProductionrOperations
Management. Wiley, New York.
Clemmer, E.C., Schneider, B., 1989. Toward understanding and
controlling customer dissatisfaction with waiting, Report No.
89–115. The Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Dube,´ L., Schmitt, B.H., Leclerc, F., 1989. Consumers’ reactions
to waiting: When delays affect the perception of service
quality. In: Srull, T.S. ŽEd.., Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 16. Association Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp.
59–63.
Dube,´ L., Schmitt, B.H., Leclerc, F., 1991. Consumers’ affective
response to delays at different phases of a service delivery.
Journal of Applied Psychology 21, 810–820.
Gardner, M.P., 1985. Mood states and consumer behavior: A
critical review. Journal of Consumer Research 12, 281–300.
Hornik, J., 1984. Subjective vs. objective time measures: A note
on the perception of time in consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research 11, 614–618.
Hornik, J., 1993. The role of affect in consumers’ temporal
judgments. Psychology and Marketing 10, 239–255.
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, 81–90.
Hui, M.K., Dube, ´ L., Chebat, J.-C., 1997. The impact of music on
consumers’ reactions to waiting for services. Journal of Retail-
ing 73, 87–104.
¨
Joreskog, ¨
K.G., Sorbom, D., 1989. LISREL 7: A Guide to the
Program and Applications. SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Kotler, P., Stonich, P.J., 1991. Turbo marketing through time
compression. Journal of Business Strategy ŽSept.rOct.. 24–29.
Larson, R.C., 1987. Perspectives on queues: Social justice and the
psychology of queuing. Operations Research 35, 895–905.
334 A. Pruyn, A. Smidtsr Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 15 (1998) 321–334
Lazarus, R.S., 1982. Thoughts on the relations between emotion
and cognition. American Psychologist 37, 1019–1024.
Maister, D.H., 1985. The psychology of waiting lines. In: Czepiel,
J.A., Solomon, M.R., Surprenant, C.F. ŽEds.., The Service
Encounter. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 113–123.
Mayer, J.D., Gaschke, Y.N., Braverman, D.L., Evans, T.W.,
1992. Mood congruent judgment is a general effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 63, 119–132.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmen-
tal Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mittal, V., Ross, W.T., Baldasare, P.M., 1998. The asymmetric
impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on
overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Mar-
keting 62, 33–47.
Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research 17, 460–469.
Poynter, D.G., 1983. Duration judgment and the segmentation of
experience. Memory & Cognition 11, 77–82.
Pruyn, A.T.H., Smidts, A., 1993. Customers’ evaluations of
queues: Three exploratory studies. In: van Raaij, W.F.,
Bamossy, G. ŽEds.., European Advances in Consumer Re-
search, Vol. 1. Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 371–382.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H., 1993. Customers’ reactions to queues:
´ J., Sureda, J.
Towards a theory of waiting and delay. In: Chıas,
ŽEds.., Marketing for the New Europe: Dealing with Complex-
ity, Vol. 2. ESADE, Barcelona, pp. 1383–1402.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., van Trijp, H.C.M., 1991. The use of
LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Jour-
nal of Research in Marketing 8, 283–299.
Taylor, S., 1994. Waiting for service: The relationship between
delays and evaluations of service. Journal of Marketing 58,
56–69.
Taylor, S., 1995. The effects of filled waiting time and service
provider control over the delay on evaluations of service.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, 38–48.
Thomas, E.A., Weaver, W.B., 1975. Cognitive processing and
time perception. Perception and Psychophysics 17, 363–376.
Tse, D.K., Wilton, P.T., 1988. Models of consumer satisfaction
formation: an extension. Journal of Marketing Research 25,
204–212.
Woodruff, R.B., Cadotte, E.R., Jenkins, R.L., 1983. Modelling
customer satisfaction processes using experience-based norms.
Journal of Marketing Research 20, 296–304.
Zajonc, R.B., 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no
inferences. American Psychologist 35, 151–175.
Zakay, D., 1989. An integrated model of time estimation. In:
Levin, I., Zakay, D. ŽEds.., Time and Human Cognition: A
Life Span Perspective. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 365–
397.
Zakay, D., Hornik, J., 1992. How much time did you wait in line?
A time perception perspective. Working paper, University of
Tel Aviv, Israel.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1993. The nature
and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 21, 1–12.