See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340436882

Customers’ experienced product quality: scale development and validation

Article  in  European Journal of Marketing · April 2020

DOI: 10.1108/EJM-03-2018-0156

CITATIONS READS

22 4,466

2 authors:

Ramesh Roshan Das Guru Marcel Paulssen

Indian Institute of Management Bodhgaya University of Geneva
2 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   870 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD dissertation View project

Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Model View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcel Paulssen on 04 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm

Customers’
Customers’ experienced product experienced
quality: scale development product
quality
and validation
Ramesh Roshan Das Guru and Marcel Paulssen 645
Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva,
Geneva, Switzerland Received 2 March 2018
Revised 21 December 2018
19 July 2019
Accepted 20 October 2019

Abstract
Purpose – Product quality is a central construct in several management domains. Theoretical
conceptualizations of product quality unanimously stress its multidimensional nature. Yet, no generalizable,
multidimensional product quality scale exists. This study develops and validates a multidimensional
Customers’ experienced product quality (CEPQ) scale, across four diverse product categories.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the exploratory studies, CEPQ is conceptualized as a
second-order reflective-formative construct and validated in quantitative studies with survey data collected in
the USA.
Findings – Results reveal that the CEPQ scale and its underlying quality dimensions possess sound
psychometric properties. In addition, CEPQ has a substantial impact on customer behavior over and above
customer satisfaction. The strength of this impact is positively moderated by expertise and quality
consciousness. CEPQ predicts objective quality scores from consumer reports substantially better than the
existing measures of product quality.
Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional nature of the main study, as well as samples
from only one country, restricts the generalizability of the findings.
Practical implications – Operations managers and marketers should start to measure CEPQ as an
additional key metric. The formative weights of the first-order quality dimensions explain how customers
define product quality in a specific product category.
Originality/value – A generalizable, multidimensional scale of product quality, CEPQ, is developed and
validated. Materials as a new product quality dimension is identified. Once correctly measured, product
quality ceases to be a mere input to satisfaction. Boundary conditions for CEPQ’s relevance were
hypothesized and confirmed.
Keywords Scale development, Expertise, Product quality, Willingness to pay premium,
Quality consciousness
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Product quality is one of the key parameters for building a competitive advantage in the
marketplace (Aaker, 1991; Jacobson and Aaker, 1987). The relevance of perceived quality has
been confirmed through numerous studies which have supported its role as a significant driver
of, among others, company profitability, export outcomes, stock returns and even the market
success of a new product (Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Gervais, 2015; Mizik and Jacobson, 2004; Rust
et al., 1995; Sethi, 2000). Thus, product quality as a long-term driver of business performance
represents a very relevant piece of information for both managers and investors alike. European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 54 No. 4, 2020
pp. 645-670
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the area editor for their constructive © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
comments and suggestions made during the review process. DOI 10.1108/EJM-03-2018-0156
EJM Given the importance of quality for company performance, it is not surprising that a
54,4 considerable body of research has gone into exploring this crucial construct over the past
40 years (Garvin, 1984a, 1988; Golder et al., 2012; Grönroos, 1984; Maynes, 1976;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). Instruments used to measure service quality (e.g. SERVQUAL
and SERVPERF) have been discussed and improved on extensively in academic literature
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Zeithaml et al., 2002) and have
646 been widely applied in business practice and adapted to various contexts (Dabholkar, 1995;
Parasuraman et al., 2005). Compared to the highly advanced understanding of service
quality and its constituent dimensions, comparable work on the product side is lacking.
Even though the literature on product quality unanimously agrees that product quality
should be a multidimensional construct, no established and validated multidimensional
measure of product quality exists (Brucks et al., 2000; Garvin, 1984a, 1988; Molina-Castillo
et al., 2013; Stone-Romero et al., 1997). Further, there is considerable disagreement
concerning the number and nature of the constituent dimensions (e.g. performance,
durability, etc.) of product quality (Brucks et al., 2000; Curkovic et al., 2000; Garvin 1984a,
1988; Molina-Castillo et al., 2013; Stone-Romero et al., 1997). Existing measures of product
quality in the literature either use unidimensional measures of product quality or focus only
on select quality dimensions. For example, the quality measure used in the American
Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) only considers the reliability and durability aspects of
product quality (Fornell et al., 1996). From a scientific standpoint, the lack of a validated,
multidimensional measure of product quality can result in misinterpretations of antecedents
and consequences of product quality (Szymanski and Henard, 2001). To sum up, a
theoretically consistent and empirically tested measurement instrument for product quality
is needed that will provide useful research and managerial implications similar to the
SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988), which not only is one of the most
extensively cited research works but also is widely used in managerial practices
(Stone-Romero et al., 1997). Therefore, this paper aims to contribute to the literature by
conceptualizing and validating a generalizable, multidimensional measure of product
quality.
Against this background, we aim to bridge this crucial gap in the literature on product
quality through conceptualizing customers’ experienced product quality (CEPQ), developing
a scale to measure it and testing its relationship with other related managerial constructs.
To this end, a concise review of existing literature on product quality is provided in Section
2. In Section 3, we present the scale development and validation of the CEPQ construct in
Section 4. In Section 5, we discuss the findings and implications, along with research
limitations.

2. Literature review
A precondition for measuring quality is a precise definition (Garvin, 1984a;
Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002). Pirsig (1974, pp. 185, 213) captured the ambiguity
and difficulty in defining the concept of quality among researchers when he stated,
Quality is neither mind nor matter, but a third entity independent of two, even though
quality cannot be defined, you know what it is. A key reason for the difficulty in defining
quality is due to the different perspectives on quality rooted in different disciplines
(Garvin, 1984a; Golder et al., 2012). Every perspective on quality results in a different
definition, e.g. the user-based approach says quality is the extent to which a product or
service meets or exceeds customer expectations. In contrast, the manufacturing-based
approach defines quality as conformance to design standards and specifications
(Garvin, 1988).
 From the user-based perspective, only the customer’s judgment of quality matters. Many Customers’
scholars in management have emphasized this point, e.g. Buzzell and Gale (1987) claimed that experienced
for services as well as manufactured products, quality is whatever the customer says it is (p. 111).
Traditionally, operations management and engineering adhered to the manufacturing-based
product
approach, where quality is conceptualized as conformance to design specifications or as the quality
reliability of internal processes (Golder et al., 2012). Customer behavior is driven by their
evaluation or perceptions of product quality rather than any objective measures such as
conformity to engineering standards. Thus, for this paper, we follow the user-based perspective 647
on product quality and define CEPQ as the customers’ judgment of the overall excellence,
esteem or superiority of a product (with respect to its intended purposes) relative to alternative
products (Netemeyer et al., 2004).
Researchers have conceptualized the quality of both products and services as
multidimensional constructs (Garvin, 1984b; Parasuraman et al., 1988). As stated earlier, in
contrast to the rich literature on service quality, as of now no validated, generalizable,
multidimensional measure of product quality exists. In most of the studies, product quality
has been conceptualized as a unidimensional, reflective construct (Aaker and Jacobson,
1994; Fornell et al., 1996; Netemeyer et al., 2004). Some studies which dealt with dimensions
of product quality kept their focus limited to only some specific dimensions (Brucks et al.,
2000; Stone-Romero et al., 1997), were restricted to a specific product category (Stone-
Romero et al., 1997), or focused on quality perceptions measured at the manufacturer’s or
operation managers’ end (Molina-Castillo et al., 2013; Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002). Some
work on perceived product quality covering customers’ viewpoints is available regarding
perishable goods such as agricultural and meat products (Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1996),
wood (Toivonen, 2012) and wine (Charters and Pettigrew, 2006) , but not much has been
done in the case of durable goods. For a comprehensive literature review on
multidimensional conceptualizations of product quality in various research studies, see
Molina-Castillo et al. (2013, p. 397).
The key mediating variable theory proposes that the effects of relationship marketing
activities on performance outcomes are fully mediated through several key relational
variables, including customer satisfaction (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006).
The basic idea is that a company’s efforts translate into stronger customer relationships, i.e.
a highly satisfied customer, which in turn drives performance outcomes such as revenue
growth and profits (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). On the individual level, stronger customer
relationships are assumed to drive retention, cross-buying and share of wallet (Palmatier
et al., 2006). Consistent with key mediating variable theory, most of the existing literature
conceptualizes perceived quality as an antecedent of customer satisfaction, which in turn
mediates quality’s impact on relationship outcomes such as customer loyalty and retention,
positive word-of-mouth and others (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell et al., 1996;
Szymanski and Henard, 2001). In fact, the hugely popular ACSI (Fornell et al., 1996) and its
underlying model claim that the impact of perceived quality on customer behavior such as
complaining and loyalty is fully mediated through customer satisfaction. Even recently,
Golder et al. (2012) adhered to this view, stating that overall, evaluated quality is an input to
customer satisfaction (p. 9). Yet, some research results suggest that satisfaction and
perceived quality are distinct and both impact loyalty intentions (Iacobucci et al., 1995).
Results concerning the mediating role of satisfaction on the quality ! loyalty relationship
are far from conclusive. Some studies confirm an indirect mediated effect of quality on
loyalty intentions (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Fornell et al.,
1996); some confirm a direct positive effect (Boulding et al., 1993; Carman, 1990; Zeithaml
et al., 1996); and some show both a direct and an indirect effect mediated through
EJM satisfaction (Hogreve et al., 2017; Tsiotsou, 2006). An inconsistent measure of quality used
54,4 across these studies primarily accounts for this inconclusiveness.
This brief literature review supports the essential point raised by Stone-Romero et al. (1997)
that there is a pressing need for research that identifies the major dimensions of perceived
product quality and develops appropriate measures of these dimensions (p. 93). Next, regarding
the demand for a psychometrically sound, multidimensional measure of product quality, it is
648 also necessary to empirically test and clarify the interrelations among the constructs of product
quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions such as repurchase intentions (RI) or
willingness to pay premium (WTPP) (Tsiotsou, 2006). Not only are the empirical results
concerning those relationships inconsistent across studies (Tsiotsou, 2006), but they may be
artifacts of the suboptimal measures of perceived product quality that have been used in these
studies (Molina-Castillo et al., 2013; Stone-Romero et al., 1997). To meet these objectives, we
develop a scale for CEPQ by first identifying its constituent dimensions and then testing its
validity and reliability across diverse product categories. Further, we clarify the relationship
between CEPQ, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions such as RI and WTPP. Finally,
we investigate boundary conditions for the relevance of CEPQ in explaining behavioral
intentions.

3. Scale development of customers’ experienced product quality

3.1 Conceptualizing customers’ experienced product quality
3.1.1 Customer experienced product quality as a formative second-order construct. In their
integrative quality framework, Golder et al. (2012) describe three quality processes, namely,
quality production, quality evaluation and quality experience. Although the quality
production and the quality evaluation processes have been extensively researched in
engineering, operations management and marketing, the third process of their framework,
i.e. the quality experience process, has been under-researched (Golder et al., 2012). According
to Golder et al. (2012), the core feature of the quality experience process is the translation of
the perceived assessment of quality dimensions into an aggregated evaluation of quality,
which is a summary judgment of the customer’s experience of the firm’s offering (p. 9). The
proposed CEPQ construct can thus be conceptualized as the result of the quality experience
process in Golder et al.’s (2012) integrative quality framework. Because product quality is
conceptualized as multidimensional in nature (Garvin, 1988; Brucks et al., 2000), it is
important that the new measure captures product quality in terms of its dimensions and
CEPQ is therefore defined as an aggregation of the customer’s evaluation of a product’s
performance on relevant quality dimensions into an overall quality judgment based on
actual experience.
Because CEPQ aggregates experiences of different quality dimensions, the essential first
step is to clarify CEPQ’s conceptualization as a reflective or a formative construct. This choice
of the construct is specified based on the nature of the construct and the observed items used to
measure it (Henseler, 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2016). In case of a reflective conceptualization, highly
correlated and interchangeable indicator items are considered to be caused by the construct.
Contrary to this, in a formative conceptualization, the indicator items form the construct and
are not necessarily correlated. In addition, any change in the items will change the conceptual
meaning of the construct, so removal/deletion of items of formative constructs should
be avoided (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Hair et al., 2017). Following these
conceptualizations, CEPQ with its distinct dimensions clearly qualifies as a formative
construct. Being formative, the direction of causality flows from quality dimensions to the
CEPQ, which is consistent with Garvin’s (1988) theoretical conceptualization. Also, by
definition, any change in the product dimensions causes a change in the construct (CEPQ). For
example, an increase in the reliability of a product will result in an increase in its CEPQ. Customers’
However, an increase in CEPQ does not necessarily imply an increase in a product’s reliability experienced
because that could possibly be caused by an improvement of any other quality dimension(s)
(e.g. performance, features, etc.) of the product. The quality dimensions are also not necessarily
product
highly correlated, meaning a product can score high on one dimension and at the same time quality
score low on other dimension(s). Therefore, dropping a quality dimension, e.g. the performance
dimension, would fundamentally alter the conceptual meaning of the CEPQ construct
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Jarvis et al., 2003). Consequently, based on these 649
theoretical considerations, a formative approach seems appropriate for aggregating the
customers’ evaluation of experiences at the dimensional level to constitute the overall CEPQ
measure.
More specifically, we propose CEPQ as a second-order latent construct, whereby the first-
order quality dimensions are measured reflectively and the second-order CEPQ construct is
a formative aggregation of the reflective first-order dimensions (Becker et al., 2012;
Lohmöller, 1989). The reflective first-order conceptualization allows us to test for
discriminant and convergent validity of the first-order quality dimensions. This is necessary
because, as stated, there is no agreement on the number and nature of product quality
dimensions, and discriminant validity between some of the proposed quality dimensions
(e.g. reliability and durability) has been debated in the literature (Brucks et al., 2000; Molina-
Castillo et al., 2013).
It should be noted that we only measure experienced performance and refrain from
explicitly measuring any related expectations. This decision is informed by extensive
research on service quality. The results of Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994) show that a
performance-based alternative is from both a theoretical and a practical perspective superior
to SERVQUAL’s gap formulation (performance-expectations). Furthermore, in our
exploratory study (Table II), only a minority of the respondents mentioned expectations
when defining product quality for their specific product categories. This result confirms
previous research, which has shown that customer expectations are not well-formed and
customers have difficulties in expressing them (Grapentine, 2003; Mick and Fournier, 1995).
3.1.2 Identifying dimensions of customers’ experienced product quality. A key problem in
the literature on product quality is the existing disagreement concerning the number and
nature of the constituting dimensions of product quality. Therefore, a necessary first step in
this research project was to conduct an exploratory study and identify relevant product
quality dimensions from the customer’s point of view across a set of diverse product
categories.
3.1.2.1 Exploratory study: Method. To address this issue, we conducted an exploratory
study through online surveys with customers in India and the USA in four product
categories, namely, cars, running shoes, headphones and smartphones, to get a
comprehensive idea of the constituting dimensions of product quality from a customer’s
perspective. Cultural and economic differences between India and the USA were reasons to
select these two countries for our study. The sample consisted of 25 customers in each
product category for both India and the USA. In all, we conducted 200 survey interviews
lasting 20-40 min, collaborating with an international panel provider. Each respondent was
incentivized to write a minimum of 50 words for each of the six open-end questions. Only
respondents who owned and used their products at least once a week for a minimum of over
6 months were selected to participate in the survey. These selection criteria ensured that
respondents’ quality judgments were based on true usage experience, thus meeting the
needs of our CEPQ conceptualization (Golder et al., 2012). Respondents fairly represented the
populations with respect to the demographic characteristics across the product categories
EJM and countries. First, respondents were asked about how they would define product quality
54,4 and a high-quality product in general. The interview questions were simple and direct, e.g.
“What does the term ‘product quality’ mean for you?” The aim of this section was to uncover
the customer’s understanding of product quality in general. Subsequently, respondents were
asked to focus on their specific product category (e.g. car) and to define product quality for
this specific product category. Questions in this section were also non-ambiguous and
650 simple, such as “As a car user, how would you define ‘product quality’ for a car?” The
purpose of this section was to facilitate the identification of specific quality dimensions for
each product category.
3.1.2.2 Exploratory study: Analysis and results. The individual responses were
independently content analyzed by two researchers and categorized using existing product
quality dimensions and their definitions (Brucks et al., 2000; Garvin, 1988) as the reference
framework. Overall, the two researchers agreed in more than four out of five cases, which
can be considered very good (Rust and Cooil, 1994). The few cases of disagreement between
the two researchers over assigning consumer responses to one of the quality dimensions
were resolved through discussion. Seven dimensions from existing product quality
conceptualizations – performance, features, aesthetics, durability, ease of use, reliability and
serviceability – emerged as product quality dimensions that respondents mentioned as
characteristics of product quality across product categories. (Table I shows selected
verbatim illustrations for these dimensions from our online surveys).
Our study also revealed a new dimension that has not been included in any of the
existing product quality conceptualizations. During the content analysis, coders noted that
the materials used in a product were mentioned as an important aspect of both general and
category-specific product quality evaluations. For example, a car user from the USA, when
asked to define a high-quality product, answered, A high-quality product would include
higher-end fabrics, finishes, and materials. A piece of ‘high quality’ furniture, for example,
would be made of all real wood; there would be no ‘man-made’ materials (such as fiberboard,
whether of medium or high density). For the same question, an Indian running shoe user
answered, The material used to make the running shoe must be of the first-class because that
is the most important aspect, and everything depends on it.
To the best of our knowledge, the materials used in a product have not been identified
and discussed in the existing literature as a distinct dimension of product quality. Because
respondents consistently mentioned materials as a defining characteristic of product
quality, both in general as well as in the product-specific questions, we included materials as
a new product quality dimension in our conceptualization of the CEPQ construct. Table II
summarizes the results of the exploratory study and displays the percentage of respondents
who mentioned each of the identified quality dimensions as indicators of general or
category-specific product quality across countries and product categories. As discussed,
only a minority of respondents mentioned (exceeding) expectations as defining
characteristics of product quality, especially in the case of product-specific quality questions
(Table II).
Combining the new product quality dimension “materials” together with the seven
confirmed existing product quality dimensions, we conceptualize CEPQ as a formative
second-order construct with eight first-order reflective quality dimensions (as shown in the
hypothesized model in Figure 1).

3.2 Operationalizing customers’ experienced product quality

3.2.1 Item generation. Based on the literature review and the results of the exploratory
study, an initial pool of 5-8 items for each of the eight identified quality dimensions were
Dimensions Verbatim illustrations
Customers’
experienced
Aesthetics How a product looks, feels, sounds, tastes or smells product
To me, a high-quality product has to have the look and feel of high craftsmanship
A high-quality car needs to look very sleek and attractive from outside and should make quality
everyone feel great with it’s inside looks
Durability Measure of the product’s useful life
A product with perfect quality will work flawlessly forever without any interventions 651
High quality is durable but low quality is not durable
Ease of use Ease of understandability and comfort in using the product
A high-quality product should be comfortable to use and should not need too much of
effort to perform its work
The easier to drive in any conditions the more high quality the product it is
Features Secondary aspects of performance, more like the “bells and whistles” of products
its camera, music player, support for various web browser, its RAM and high internal
memory and other such extra features make the smartphone high quality product for me
More upgraded features like leather, heated seats, satellite radio and navigation, back up
camera, Bluetooth capability. Any kind of fancy wheels or sunroof
Performance The product’s primary operating characteristics
A high quality product is defined by its performance compared to its competitors. It
should beat out most if not all other products of its type
A high-quality smartphone would be one that provides very clear and reliable call function
Reliability The probability of a product malfunctioning or failing within a specified period
Product quality to me means a product that is something dependable and can be used in Table I.
everyday life without worrying about it breaking down Dimensions of
A low quality product gives various issues every now and then but a high quality product
product quality
gives a nice working experience and stays a class apart
Serviceability The speed, courtesy, competence and ease of repair associated with the product identified in
If the product breaks down, it can be repaired easily without much hassle exploratory study as
A high-quality car should need minimum servicing and when it does need it, the service per the verbatim
must be of high quality responses

generated. For each quality dimension, the items from this initial item pool were evaluated
for their content and face validity by five practitioners and six academics familiar with the
quality topic (Rossiter, 2002). The experts indicated how representative the items were for
the respective quality dimensions they were supposed to measure. The experts were also
asked to assess the clarity of the item formulations and provide suggestions for improving
item formulations in case they found the initial item formulations to be complicated,
ambiguous or vague (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Afterward, the procedure was repeated with 10
master’s students, who also assessed the items for their comprehensibility and judged how
well each item corresponded to the quality dimension it was intended to measure. A
description of each quality dimension was provided as supporting material for the students,
academics and practitioners. Based on the feedback from experts and students, some of the
items were deleted and some were appropriately rephrased. The initial item pool was
reduced to 4-7 items per quality dimension and 47 items in total.
3.2.2 Scale purification and initial validation. The final pool of 47 items was pretested
in two product categories among US customers: cars (N = 250) and smartphones (N =
240). Data were collected in collaboration with an international panel provider during
the last two weeks of November 2016. Similar to the exploratory study, qualification
criteria for both the pretest and the subsequent main study were that respondents must
have owned and used the respective product regularly (at least once a week) for a
minimum of 6 months. Table III presents the demographic characteristics of
EJM India General product quality Category-specific product quality
54,4 Quality dimensions Cars HP RS SP Cars HP RS SP

Aesthetics 20 22 52 40 36 39 36 36
Durability 80 65 84 68 36 52 60 32
Ease of use 16 26 48 40 44 57 76 44
Features 36 44 36 60 64 74 60 96
652 Materials 32 48 44 24 32 35 28 8
Performance 48 44 44 64 68 70 68 92
Reliability 32 30 36 48 24 22 16 40
Serviceability 24 17 16 24 36 4 0 28
Expectations 12 17 8 24 4 17 0 16
US General product quality Category-specific product quality
Quality dimensions Cars HP RS SP Cars HP RS SP
Aesthetics 40 24 36 28 36 24 44 32
Durability 88 80 92 72 52 48 64 40
Ease of use 0 0 4 8 8 16 0 32
Features 24 20 24 32 68 88 56 96
Table II. Materials 68 56 64 40 52 32 44 20
Perceived product Performance 84 88 64 68 80 100 84 56
Reliability 72 76 72 76 56 52 56 36
quality distribution Serviceability 16 20 16 16 44 12 4 8
(in %) across the Expectations 16 20 32 32 8 8 4 12
dimensions for India
and the US Note: HP: Headphones, RS: Running shoe and SP: Smartphone

Figure 1.
Hypothesized model

respondents in the pretest and main study across the investigated product categories.
The sample demographics of the online pretest and main study samples show that they
are a fair representation of the population of US customers (Colby and Ortman, 2017;
Grewenig et al., 2018). Analyzing the pretest data with initial exploratory factor
 Pretest Main study
Customers’
Cars SP Cars DW HP TC experienced
product
Sample size 250 240 1011 523 521 519
quality
Gender (%)
Women 50 55 51 46 43 42
Age (%) 653
18-24 years 5 7 1 21 23 23
25-34 years 19 18 6 22 21 22
35-44 years 17 19 9 21 21 22
45-54 years 22 19 17 13 13 13
55-64 years 18 18 34 12 12 12
65 years 19 19 32 11 9 9
Education (%)
High school or lower 25 7 9 17 17 13
Associate/bachelor 68 64 59 66 68 65
Masters 5 25 27 15 13 19
Doctorate 2 4 5 2 2 3
Prefer not to say 1 1 1 1
Household income (%)
Less than $20,000 2 5 2 4 8 7
$20,000-$39,999 8 10 7 12 17 14
$40,000-$59,999 12 16 12 18 20 18
$60,000-$79,999 15 15 15 18 16 14 Table III.
$80,000-$99,999 16 14 13 9 12 11
>$100,000 39 33 42 30 22 30
Sample
Prefer not to say 8 6 10 8 5 5 characteristics for the
pretest and the main
Note: SP: Smartphone; DW: Dishwasher; HP: Headphones; and TC: Tablet computer study

analysis using varimax rotation resulted in eight factors based on the eigenvalue
criterion (Kaiser,1960). The initial eight factors explained 77.43 per cent of the total item
variance for cars and 75.41 per cent for smartphones. Most of the items had loadings
greater than 0.70 on the hypothesized quality dimensions in both product categories.
Items with low loadings on the hypothesized quality dimension and/or high cross-
loadings for both product categories were deleted. Finally, the initial pool of 47 items
was reduced to 35 items to measure the eight product quality dimensions for the
subsequent main study.

4. Validation of customers’ experienced product quality

4.1 Method
For our main study, we targeted customers of four diverse product categories: cars,
dishwashers, headphones and tablet computers in the USA. The reporting of the main
study is structured in three sections. In the first section, we provide details on data
collection and the measures used. A thorough assessment of common method bias is
conducted. Subsequently, results on convergent and discriminant validity tests for the
first-order quality dimensions of CEPQ are reported. In the third section, the
nomological validity of the CEPQ construct is assessed. The impact of CEPQ on
customers’ RI and WTPP is assessed next to customer satisfaction. The mediating role
EJM of customer satisfaction for CEPQ is tested against models with direct effects of CEPQ
54,4 on customer outcomes (Figure 1). The nomological validity tests close with an
investigation of moderators of the relevance of CEPQ for customer outcomes: quality
consciousness and expertise. In the fourth section, we report the results of concurrent
and predictive validity tests of CEPQ.
4.1.1 Data collection and measures. The survey of the main study consisted of four parts
654 and was identical for all four product categories. Considering the cross-sectional nature of
our data collection, we strictly adhered to the procedural remedies suggested by Podsakoff
et al. (2003) while designing our instruments to avoid and minimize the risk of common
method bias. Accordingly, the first part collected information about the product (e.g. brand
and exact model name, price, age, etc.). The second part consisted of the refined item pool to
measure CEPQ. The full initial item list including sample statistics is available in Web
Appendix. CEPQ Survey Instrument shows the final CEPQ-instrument with detailed
respondent instructions:
Performance1
Direction: Please evaluate the performance of your current [product] in comparison with
other [product] in the same age range by answering the questions below.
By performance we mean the primary operating characteristics of your [product]. (Ex.
[product] specific examples)
Compared to other [product]
The overall performance of my [product] is
My [product] consistently performs
How well does your [product] perform its core functions?
Features1
Direction: Please evaluate the features that your current [product] offers in comparison
with other [product] by answering the questions below.
By features we mean the equipment and features included in your [product] which add to
its performance and your user experience. (Ex. [product] specific examples)
Compared to other [product]
The number of additional features my [product] offers is
The innovativeness of the extra features offered by my [product] is
The excitement I get from my [product]’s extra features is
Aesthetics1
Direction: Please indicate how you would evaluate the attractiveness of your current
[product] in comparison with other [product] by answering the questions below.
Compared to other [product]
The appeal of my [product]’s design is
The overall attractiveness of my [product] is
The look and feel of my [product] is
Serviceability1
Direction: Now we would like to know how you would evaluate the servicing of your
current [product] in comparison with other [product].
We would like you to answer the following questions either based on your experience or
based on your knowledge (word of mouth, reviews, experience with the sales staff etc.)
Compared to other [product]
The competence of my [product]’s customer service staff is
The responsiveness of my [product]’s customer service staff is
The promptness with which my [product]’s customer service reacts to my issues is
 Durability2 Customers’
Direction: Please evaluate the durability of your [product] in comparison with other experienced
[product] by answering the questions below.
By durability we mean how long you think your [product] can be used before it breaks
product
down or needs to be replaced with a new one. quality
Compared to other [product]
The time span for which my [product] runs/will run without any major defects is
The life span of my [product] is/will be 655
The amount of time for which my [product] works/will work perfectly even under heavy
usage is
Reliability3
Direction: Please evaluate the reliability of your [product] in comparison with other
[product] by answering the questions below.
By reliability we mean how likely defects and glitches (i.e. sudden malfunctions or
shutdowns) will impair the proper functioning of your [product]
Compared to other [product]
The frequency of defects/glitches of my [product] is
The severity of defects/glitches of my [product] is
My [product]’s probability of failure or malfunctioning is
Ease of Use1
Direction: Now we want you to evaluate the ease of use of your [product] in comparison
with other [product].
By ease of use we mean how difficult or hard you think it is or it was when you started
using your current [product] for the first time as well as the clarity of its instrumentation
and instructions in the user guide.
Compared to other [product]
My user experience with the various functions my [product] offers is/was
My [product]’s ease of use is
The usability of my [product] is
Material1
Direction: Please evaluate the material used in your [product] in comparison with other
[product] by answering the questions below.
By material we mean the materials used for the body and the interior of the [product] as
well as its accessories.
Compared to other [product]
The endurance of the materials used in my [product] is
The robustness of the materials used in my [product] is
The standard of materials used in my [product] is
The scales were anchored as per the prefix for each scale below:
1
(1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = very good);
2
(1 = very short, 2 = short, 3 = average, 4 = long, 5 = very long); and
3
(1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = average, 4 = high, 5 = very high).
In this section, respondents were asked to evaluate their product on each of the eight defined
quality dimensions. For each quality dimension, a short introduction with a definition of the
respective dimension preceded the questions. For example, in the case of the performance
dimension in the product category “cars,” the instructions were:
EJM Please evaluate the performance of your car in comparison with other cars in the same category
by answering the questions below. By performance, we mean the primary operating
54,4 characteristics of your car (e.g., engine power, speed, acceleration etc.).
Respondents rated their product on each of the product quality dimensions on a five-point
scale. Depending on the question, three sets of scale labels were used, ranging from 1 being
“very-poor”/“very-short”/“very-low” to 5 being “very-good”/“very-long”/“very-high.” An
656 overview of the final items used in the CEPQ scale is available in Figure 1. In the third part
of the questionnaire, participants answered a set of questions about themselves and their
relationship with the product and its manufacturer. This part consisted of items drawn
directly or slightly modified from established scales for the following constructs: quality
consciousness (Völckner, 2008), satisfaction (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002), perceived
quality (Netemeyer et al., 2004), the Amazon star rating, WTPP (Jones et al., 2008), expertise
(Thompson et al., 2005) and RI (Dutta et al., 2007). The last part of the questionnaire collected
demographic information (Table III).
4.1.2 Common method variance. After the data collection, three different statistical
techniques were used to assess the presence of common method variance in our study
(Hulland et al., 2018). First, Harman’s single factor test was conducted. An unrotated
principal component analysis for our model constructs resulted in six or more factor
solutions based on the eigenvalue criterion (Kaiser, 1960) across product categories. In
none of these solutions does the first (i.e. the largest) factor account for more than 50 per
cent of the total variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, we did a full collinearity
assessment by running multiple regression analysis using the composites of the latent
factors (Kock and Lynn, 2012) and found that variance inflation factor (VIF) values across
the four categories were below the recommended VIF threshold of 5, indicating no
evidence of common method bias (Kock, 2015; Kock and Lynn, 2012). Finally, we added a
marker variable to the model and observed that the correlation of this conceptually
unrelated variable with the constructs in the model was small (the highest average was
r = 0.16 across product categories). Further, when we include the marker construct as a
control in our models, none of the reported results below substantially changed (Williams
et al., 2010). Based on the results of these tests, we can conclude that common method bias
is not an issue in the present study.

4.2 Convergent and discriminant validity of quality dimensions

A necessary first step in the quantitative analysis was to test the convergent and
discriminant validity of the proposed first-order quality dimensions in the study. Therefore,
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using Mplus 7 (Muthén and Muthén, 2007).
Items with either low loadings or high cross-loadings were discarded. After deleting five of
the 35 items, the resulting confirmatory factor solutions already possessed a very good
overall fit across the four product categories (Table IV). However, keeping in mind future
users of the CEPQ scale in both academia and practice, for the sake of parsimony the
number of items was further reduced to only three per quality dimension. The overall fit of
this final model with eight hypothesized quality dimensions is excellent in all four product
categories investigated (Table IV).
Individual item and construct reliabilities were all above the recommended thresholds.
None of the item reliabilities were below 0.50, and all construct reliabilities were clearly
above 0.70 across product categories. Furthermore, all quality dimensions fulfilled the
Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria for discriminant validity. It is further noteworthy that
none of the correlations between the eight quality dimensions across the four product
categories were above 0.70 (the highest correlation was 0.69 between the quality dimensions
Product category Model x 2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Cars Model with 30 items 1,132 (377) 0.963 0.958 0.045 0.041
Final model 3 items per dimension 412 (224) 0.988 0.985 0.029 0.023
Dishwashers Model with 30 items 629 (377) 0.976 0.972 0.036 0.036
Final model 3 items per dimension 282 (224) 0.992 0.990 0.022 0.026
Headphones Model with 30 items 742 (377) 0.961 0.955 0.043 0.041
Final model 3 items per dimension 356 (224) 0.981 0.977 0.034 0.032
Tablet computers Model with 30 items 557 (377) 0.976 0.972 0.033 0.035
Final model 3 items per dimension 285 (224) 0.989 0.986 0.025 0.029

Note: CFI = Comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = Standardized root mean square
residual

the first-order CEPQ

Customers’

dimensions
Table IV.
657
quality

Overall model fit for

product
experienced
EJM “features” and “aesthetics” in the product category “dishwashers”), providing further
54,4 evidence of the discriminant validity of the quality dimensions (Web Appendix). In the next
step, measurement invariance of the first-order quality dimensions across the four product
categories was tested. A chi-square difference test between a model with full metric
invariance versus a model with configural invariance of the eight quality dimensions [ x 2
diff (48) = 72.78 (p < 0.05)] indicated that full metric invariance across product categories
658 could be rejected. However, a model with partial metric invariance for the quality dimension
“ease of use” (the loading of one item was allowed to vary across product categories) and full
metric invariance for all other quality dimensions could be accepted [ x 2 diff (45) = 51.734
(p > 0.05)]. These results show that the developed quality dimensions have the same
meaning across product categories (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012).

4.3 Nomological validity of customers’ experienced product quality

4.3.1 Hypothesis.
4.3.1.1 Customers’ experienced product quality and customer satisfaction. As discussed
earlier, the evidence for the mediating role of satisfaction on the impact of quality !
customer loyalty is far from conclusive because of inconsistent findings (Anderson and
Sullivan, 1993; Carman, 1990; Tsiotsou, 2006). Theoretical explanations for the
additional direct effect of quality perceptions on loyalty intentions proposed in the
literature are an increase in dependency and customer-company identification through
perceived quality (Hogreve et al., 2017). The studies on products confirming a full
mediation of the effects of product quality on outcomes such as RI or WTPP have been
hampered by misspecification (reflective instead of formative) of the product quality
construct (Fornell et al., 1996). Furthermore, based on a review of literature on the
satisfaction ! loyalty link, Kumar et al. (2013) advised including additional predictors
of loyalty in addition to satisfaction. Consequently, we propose that a theory-consistent,
multidimensional and formative measure of product quality, CEPQ, should have an
impact on relevant outcomes such as WTPP and RI, over and above customer
satisfaction. Thus:

H1. CEPQ has a positive direct effect on WTPP over and above the mediated effect
through customer satisfaction.
H2. CEPQ has a positive direct effect on RI over and above the mediated effect through
customer satisfaction.
4.3.1.2 Boundary conditions of customers’ experienced product quality. Several
researchers have called for investigations of boundary conditions to examine the
relationships between quality, satisfaction and loyalty intentions (Hogreve et al., 2017;
Kirmani and Baumgartner, 1999). Although the constructs themselves have been
extensively researched, ambiguity concerning their interrelationships remains. Thus,
establishing boundary conditions for these interrelationships could reconcile conflicting
findings and provide a better foundation for model building (Kirmani and Baumgartner,
1999, p. 598). Building on Golder et al.’s (2012) integrative quality framework, we consider
the consumer’s ability and motivation to assess and use quality information as moderators.
The customer’s ability and motivation are operationalized as his/her expertise (EXP) and
quality consciousness (QC), respectively.
4.3.1.3 Expertise. Alba and Hutchinson (1987) define EXP “as the ability to perform
product tasks successfully” (p. 411). EXP represents knowledge of product types, product
attributes, usage and purchase information. Experts differ from novices with respect to the
amount, content and organization of their domain knowledge (Chi et al., 1981; Mitchell and Customers’
Dacin, 1996). In general, experts possess a higher conceptual understanding of a product’s experienced
features and functionalities and have more elaborate mental maps of the respective products
(Johnson and Kieras, 1983). These differences in cognitive structure between experts and
product
novices affect the ways in which purchase decisions are framed (Alba and Hutchinson, quality
1987). Experts have the ability to assess product quality based on intrinsic cues
(performance on attributes/quality dimensions) and have to rely less on extrinsic cues such
as brand, price or warranty compared to novices (Beattie, 1982; Nam et al., 2012). Experts are 659
more likely to appreciate and deal with the complexities of a consumer decision problem and
are more likely to rely on their product quality evaluations when choosing products
(Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Beattie, 1982). In contrast, novices are more likely to represent a
consumer decision problem in terms of its surface structure, “i.e., choose a product that best
satisfies a need” (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987, p. 428). We, therefore, propose that the more
EXP the customer possesses, the more likely he/she is to rely on a product quality evaluation
when making product choice decisions (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Golder et al., 2012).
Recent studies have empirically proven that there is a positive relationship between
perceived product quality and price premium (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Experts have better
abilities to assess product quality based on performance on quality dimensions than novices
do. We, therefore, hypothesize as follows:

H3. The greater the customer’s level of EXP, the greater the influence of CEPQ on RI.
H4. The greater the customer’s level of EXP, the greater the influence of CEPQ on
WTPP.
4.3.1.4 Quality consciousness. Consumers’ choices are, among other factors, shaped by
consumer decision-making styles defining the mental, cognitive and affective orientations
that characterize consumers in their process of decision-making (Sproles, 1985; Sproles and
Kendall, 1986). The basic tenet of consumer decision-making styles is that the purchase
decision is based on several fundamental decision-making modes, such as quality or price
consciousness, which consistently shape their choices of products and services (Sproles,
1985; Sproles and Kendall, 1986). QC is conceptualized as the degree to which a consumer
focuses on buying high-quality products (Völckner, 2008, p. 364). Not all consumers are
equally sensitive to the quality of products and services in their purchase decisions, nor do
they show the same degree of involvement in such decisions (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). For
a quality-conscious customer, product quality is a very important decision criterion in most
of their purchase decisions (Völckner, 2008). Thus, for high-quality conscious customers, the
experienced quality of a product as measured by CEPQ should have a stronger impact on
purchase decisions, including the willingness to pay more for quality products (Rao and
Bergen, 1992; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2015). Thus:

H5. The greater the customer’s level of QC, the greater the influence of CEPQ on RI.
H6. The greater the customer’s level of QC, the greater the influence of CEPQ on WTPP.
4.3.2 Hypotheses tests. Because CEPQ is conceptualized as a formative second-order
construct, partial least squares (PLS) emerged as the most appropriate method for testing
the hypotheses, using the bootstrapping procedure (Chin, 2010; Ringle et al., 2012).
Following the guidelines of Becker et al. (2012), the repeated indicator approach with Mode B
was adopted for the CEPQ construct. The VIF was checked for the hypothesized model
(Figure 1) to determine if the exogenous and endogenous constructs were distinct (Petter
EJM et al., 2007). The results showed that the highest VIF across the product categories was 2.74,
54,4 far below the recommended threshold of 5, indicating that multicollinearity among the
constructs was not an issue in this study (Hair et al., 2012).
As discussed, usually product quality is considered as a mere antecedent of customer
satisfaction, which in turn is supposed to mediate the impact on relationship outcomes such
as WTPP or RI. The study results clearly support the alternative proposition formulated in
660 H1 and H2 that CEPQ has a direct effect on both WTPP and RI over and above the mediated
effect through customer satisfaction (Figure 1). The direct effects of CEPQ are strong and
significant in all the four product categories for both RI and WTPP (Table V). Customer
satisfaction only partially mediates the effect of CEPQ on relationship outcomes. Especially
for WTPP, the direct effect of CEPQ accounts for around 50 per cent of the total effect across
categories. For RI, the relative impact of the direct CEPQ effect is comparatively weaker and
accounts for about 40 per cent of the total effect (see the last two rows in Table V). It is also
noteworthy that the total effect of CEPQ is stronger than the total effect of satisfaction for RI
and WTPP in all the categories. These results are consistent with the conclusions of
Kumar et al.’s (2013) comprehensive review of the satisfaction-loyalty link, notably the weak
explanatory power of satisfaction.
In the next step, the hypothesized boundary conditions for the relevance of CEPQ to
WTPP and RI were tested by including two moderators, EXP QC, in the model (Figure 1).
As the moderators are continuous variables, the interaction terms (QC  CEPQ and EXP 
CEPQ) were estimated using the two-stage moderation method following the guidelines of
Henseler and Fassott (2010), implemented in smartPLS 3 (Ringle et al., 2015). Table VI
shows that for quality consciousness, the interaction moderation term (QC  CEPQ) is
significant in seven out of eight cases, whereas in the case of expertise, the interaction term
(EXP  CEPQ) is significant for five out of eight cases across product categories. The effect
size f 2 values of the interaction terms (in parentheses in Table VI) suggest that the observed
effect of the moderation is medium to strong (Kenny, 2015). The results, namely 12 out of 16
significant moderations, provide partial support for our hypothesis that CEPQ has a
stronger impact on relationship outcomes if either the motivation to process and use quality
information (quality consciousness) or the ability to use and process quality information
(expertise) is high (H3–H6).

Product category
Paths Cars DW HP TC

CEPQ ! WTPP 0.31*** 0.42*** 0.38*** 0.36***

CEPQ ! RI 0.15** 0.32*** 0.26*** 0.28***
SAT ! WTPP 0.33*** 0.37*** 0.33*** 0.39***
SAT ! RI 0.50*** 0.50*** 0.53*** 0.54***
CEPQ ! SAT 0.77*** 0.81*** 0.78*** 0.81***
Total effect
CEPQ ! WTPP 0.56*** 0.72*** 0.64*** 0.68***
CEPQ ! RI 0.52*** 0.73*** 0.67*** 0.72***

Table V. Ratio of direct to total effect

WTPP 0.55 0.43 0.60 0.53
Results for model
RI 0.27 0.59 0.39 0.39
depicted in Figure 1
for different product Note: NS: p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; DW: Dishwasher, HP: Headphones, TC: Tablet
categories computer
For the observed non-significant interaction effects in the product categories “cars” and Customers’
“headphones,” additional moderation analyses were conducted based on tercile splits of experienced
respondents’ mean QC and EXP. This was done in accordance with Iacobucci et al. (2015),
who showed that median splits are acceptable if predictors are uncorrelated, as in this case
product
(the highest VIF between EXP and the other predictors was 1.28 across product categories, quality
and the same for QC was 1.37, thus ruling out any collinearity issue). In the case of cars, the
effect of CEPQ on RI is significant for experts ( g = 0.26, p < 0.05) but non-significant at p >
0.10 for novices. Similarly, for high quality-conscious customers, the effect of CEPQ on 661
WTPP is significant ( g = 0.34, p < 0.05), but for low quality-conscious customers, the effect
of CEPQ on WTPP is non-significant at p > 0.10. No significant differences were found
between experts and novices for the effect of CEPQ on WTPP in the two product categories
“cars” and “headphones.” Overall, we find support for 14 out of 16 hypothesized moderation
effects. These results provide unanimous support for the moderating role of QC on the effect
of CEPQ on RI and WTPP as proposed in H5 and H6. The moderating role of EXP for the
effect of CEPQ on RI (H3) is also fully supported. However, concerning the moderating role
of expertise on the relationship between CEPQ and WTPP (H4), the results are mixed. Only
two out of four effects were confirmed.
It is also insightful to compare the different mechanisms that may drive WTPP and RI
for different customer groups. In the case of high-quality conscious customers, the direct
effects of CEPQ on RI and WTPP are stronger in seven out of eight cases than the effects of
satisfaction. In all four product categories, the direct effect of satisfaction on WTPP is not
significant for high-quality conscious customers. For experts, the direct effects of CEPQ on
RI and WTPP are also stronger in seven out of eight cases than the effects of satisfaction.
Thus, for some substantial and relevant customer groups, i.e. experts and quality-conscious
customers, satisfaction is simply not the most relevant metric.

4.4 Concurrent and predictive validity of customers’ experienced product quality

In the last step, the concurrent validity of the CEPQ construct was tested by regressing an
overall reflective measure of perceived quality (Netemeyer et al., 2004) on the CEPQ
construct. The formative CEPQ construct predicts a reflective overall measure of perceived
product quality significantly and substantially in all four product categories [cars ( g = 0.81,
p < 0.01; R2 = 66 per cent), dishwashers ( g = 0.85, p < 0.01; R2 = 72 per cent), headphones
( g = 0.83, p < 0.01; R2 = 70 per cent) and tablet computers ( g = 0.84, p < 0.01; R2 = 71
per cent)]. To assess the predictive validity of the CEPQ scale, product ratings from
consumer reports were regressed on average CEPQ scores. The product ratings given by
consumer reports are a generally accepted measure of objective quality (De Langhe et al.,
2015; Golder et al., 2012). Only CEPQ scores for products for which respondents gave an
exact model specification were used. For benchmarking purposes, the consumer report

Table VI.
Moderation effects Cars DW HP TC Results for the
interaction and
CEPQ*EXP ! WTPP 0.033NS 0.084** (0.02) 0.029 NS 0.084* (0.016)
CEPQ*EXP ! RI 0.036 NS 0.058* (0.011) 0.073* (0.012) 0.074* (0.016) moderation of EXP
CEPQ*QC ! WTPP 0.041NS 0.152*** (0.07) 0.078* (0.012) 0.087** (0.016) and QC applied to
CEPQ*QC ! RI 0.045* (0.004) 0.071** (0.02) 0.073** (0.013) 0.042* (0.004) WTPP and RI as
depicted in Figure 1
Note: NS: p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; DW: Dishwasher, HP: Headphones, TC: Tablet for different product
computer categories
EJM scores were also regressed on two alternative measures of product quality, namely, the
54,4 reflective measure of perceived product quality (PPQ) from Netemeyer et al. (2004) and the
Amazon star rating (respondents were asked to evaluate their product on the Amazon star
scale). Only CEPQ significantly explains objective product quality across product categories
(Table VII). The average explained variance in objective quality across product categories
through CEPQ is more than three times higher (34 per cent) than that of the two alternative
662 metrics (8 and 11 per cent, respectively). The disappointing results for the existing metrics
are in line with the recent work of De Langhe et al. (2015), who conclude that there is a
complete disconnect between objective quality as measured through consumer reports and
user assessment through the Amazon star ratings. In their study, average user ratings on
Amazon (star ratings) and consumer report scores yield an average correlation of 0.18, and
34 per cent of correlations are negative. Considering these findings, the ability of CEPQ to
predict objective quality is particularly noteworthy.

5. Discussion
5.1 Theoretical contribution
In contrast to the rich literature on service quality, not much has been done on the product
quality side. The present study fills this void and contributes to the literature in three ways.
First, we developed a multidimensional, formative measure of product quality, which is
generalizable and validated across four diverse product categories. Through our exploratory
work, we could identify a distinct quality dimension, materials, which to the best of our
knowledge have not been discussed in the existing literature. Both our exploratory study
and model tests demonstrate the importance of the materials quality dimension for
customers’ overall product quality evaluation and experience. In contrast to previous
attempts to construct a formative perceived quality scale (Molina-Castillo et al., 2013), our
quality dimensions have been subjected to a thorough validation procedure. The eight
quality dimensions of the CEPQ scale possess convergent and discriminant validity, as well
as full or partial (only for ease of use) metric invariance across four diverse product
categories. Moreover, in contrast to two widely used alternative quality metrics, the Amazon
star rating and an existing reflective perceived quality scale (Netemeyer et al., 2004), the
CEPQ scores significantly and substantially explain objective quality scores obtained from
consumer reports in all four product categories. CEPQ clearly outperforms the alternative

Product category Path Path coefficient Explained variance (%)

Tablet computers (N = 17) CEPQ ! CR OQ 0.74** 55

Star rating ! CR OQ 0.46** 21
PPQ (reflective) ! CR OQ 0.22NS 5
Dishwashers (N = 37) CEPQ ! CR OQ 0.53** 28
Star rating ! CR OQ 0.01NS 1
PPQ (reflective) ! CR OQ 0.23NS 6
Table VII. Headphones (N = 47) CEPQ ! CR OQ 0.42** 18
Path coefficients and Star rating ! CR OQ 0.23NS 5
explained variance PPQ (reflective) ! CR OQ 0.29NS 8
Car (N = 79) CEPQ ! CR OQ 0.59** 35
for different quality Star rating ! CR OQ 0.21NS 5
measures in the case PPQ (reflective) ! CR OQ 0.50** 25
of consumer report
objective quality Note: NS: p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; CR OQ = Consumer report ratings
metrics in terms of explanatory power: explained variance in objective quality was on Customers’
average three times higher for CEPQ compared with the alternative metrics across product experienced
categories. Furthermore, the formative weights of the first-order quality dimensions show
the relative importance of the different quality dimensions in shaping the overall quality
product
experience of customers across product categories. This important insight for both theory quality
development and practice was unavailable with existing reflective perceived product quality
conceptualizations and opens new possibilities for future research, e.g. how the relevance of
quality dimensions varies over customer segments or the consumption experience?
663
Second, with a theory-consistent, multidimensional measure of product quality, our
results provide unambiguous support refuting the widely accepted notion of product quality
as a mere antecedent of or input to satisfaction (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell et al.,
1996; Golder et al., 2012). CEPQ affects relevant outcomes such as RI and WTPP over and
above customer satisfaction across product categories. Furthermore, the total effect of CEPQ
on both WTPP and RI is higher across categories than that of satisfaction.
Third, following numerous requests in the literature (Hogreve et al., 2017; Kirmani and
Baumgartner, 1999), we have proposed and confirmed boundary conditions for the impact of
CEPQ. Customer expertise and quality consciousness moderate the impact of CEPQ on RI
and WTPP across product categories. These results provide additional nomological
validation of the developed CEPQ scale. Although the constructs themselves have been
extensively researched, the present research on boundary conditions fills a significant gap in
the literature. The identified boundary conditions for the relevance of perceived product
quality can reconcile conflicting findings where both fully mediated, partially mediated, as
well as only direct effects of perceived quality on outcomes, have been found (Tsiotsou,
2006). They could also provide a more solid foundation for theory development and model
building (Kirmani and Baumgartner, 1999).

5.2 Managerial implications

From a managerial perspective, our findings show that operations managers and marketers
should start to measure CEPQ as an additional key metric. Companies should also include
the CEPQ measure in regular customer experience tracking studies. The CEPQ construct,
with its constituent dimensions, provides an understanding of how customers define
product quality in a specific product category. The formative weights of the first-order
quality dimensions show how strongly they explain CEPQ and, subsequently, WTPP and
RI. Table VIII presents the top four first-order quality dimensions with the strongest
formative weights, i.e. impact on CEPQ, for the four product categories. In the case of tablet
computers, quality evaluations are driven by performance, features, serviceability and ease
of use, whereas in the case of dishwashers, it is all about performance, features, materials,
and durability. Thus, measuring and tracking CEPQ, i.e. on a yearly basis, can help

Cars DW HP TC

Performance (0.30***) Performance (0.43***) Performance (0.32***) Performance (0.40***)

Materials (0.21***) Features (0.25***) Materials (0.20*) Serviceability (0.23***) Table VIII.
Durability (0.19***) Materials (0.18*) Features (0.18*) Features (0.18**)
Significance of the
Reliability (0.14***) Durability (0.15***) Ease of use (0.17*) Ease of use (0.18**)
first-order
Note: NS: p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; DW: Dishwasher, HP: Headphones, TC: Tablet dimensions in all
computer product categories
EJM companies to decode how exactly their customers experience and perceive product quality
54,4 and can pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of a company’s product portfolio on a quality
dimension level. This information would enable product and subsequently operations
managers to allocate resources more effectively for improving the quality of their products
through focusing on the really critical product quality dimensions in the respective
categories (Table VIII).
664 For product managers, it can also be of tremendous relevance to identify how different
quality dimensions shape the overall quality experience in different market segments within
a product category. Additional analyses in the smartphone category, for example, revealed
that in the premium segment CEPQ is driven by multiple dimensions such as performance,
ease of use and aesthetics, whereas in the mass-market segment CEPQ was mainly
determined through performance. This segment-specific, dimensional significance is crucial
for product managers when targeting and positioning existing and new products by
allowing them to prioritize which product aspects to improve for existing products or which
product aspects to focus on in research development for new products. For example, a mass-
market manufacturer of mobile phones should focus its development efforts on a new
smartphone line with more premium positioning on aspects beyond performance such as
aesthetics or ease-of-use. Also, important from an implementation perspective is that the
developed CEPQ scale produced largely equivalent results even when only one item per
dimension was selected. A simplified scale with only eight items could be used for practical
applications. In general, measuring and tracking CEPQ can pinpoint the strength and
weaknesses of the current product portfolio, improve targeting and positioning decisions,
inform new product development and improve prioritization and quality control in
manufacturing processes.
As discussed, the impact of satisfaction on outcomes is limited (Kumar et al., 2013),
and CEPQ represents a strong additional predictor. As our results earlier showed, in
certain substantial and highly relevant customer groups, such as experts or high-
quality conscious customers, the satisfaction metric is not very relevant across product
categories for RI and WTPP. Thus, optimizing satisfaction for these customer groups is
likely to be an ineffective strategy that will deliver disappointing results. Measuring,
understanding and improving CEPQ for these respective customer groups will be a
much more promising approach.

5.3 Limitations and further research

This study, despite its theoretical and practical relevance, still suffers from limitations that need to
be addressed in future research. The key limitation of the present study was that our dependent
constructs were behavioral intentions and not real repurchase behavior. Previous research has
shown that RI and real repurchase behavior are partially driven by different antecedents and
processes (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001). Future research should, therefore, investigate the impact of
CEPQ compared to customer satisfaction and other constructs on real repurchase behavior and
not only RI in longitudinal studies (Kumar et al., 2013; Seiders et al., 2005).
Because recent research has shown that customer-company identification accounts for
the important customer- and firm-level outcomes over and above customer satisfaction
(Haumann et al., 2014; Homburg et al., 2009), customer-company identification should be
included in such a longitudinal study. In addition to customer behavior, it would also be
interesting to assess the relative impact of customer satisfaction and CEPQ on the financial
performance of firms, such as stock returns, in future research (Homburg et al., 2009;
Sorescu and Sorescu, 2016).
 The cross-sectional approach adopted here cannot account for the dynamics with which Customers’
CEPQ may change as the product consumption experience of the customer unfolds experienced
(Mittal et al., 1999). The relevance of quality dimensions could shift over time with search
quality dimensions such as aesthetics possibly losing relevance compared with experience
product
quality dimensions such as durability or serviceability (Nelson, 1970; Srinivasan and Till, 2002). quality
The differences between Indian and US customers with respect to the salience of quality
dimensions (e.g. ease of use is more relevant for Indian customers, whereas performance is
more relevant for US customers) that surfaced in the exploratory study points to promising
665
cross-cultural research opportunities. A possible avenue for future research would be to
investigate cross-cultural differences in terms of the importance of quality dimensions and
maybe of CEPQ in general.
A further limitation of the present study is that all customers were assumed to weigh the
eight quality dimensions equally in the four investigated product categories. In the product
category “tablet computers,” we ran models for two product manufacturers, i.e. a premium
manufacturer and a mass-market manufacturer. For the premium manufacturer,
performance, features, ease of use and materials were the most important and significant
quality dimensions, whereas for the mass-market manufacturer, the only significant quality
dimensions were performance and features. Similar differences between product
manufacturers were found in other product categories as well. Future research should model
unobserved heterogeneity using finite mixture PLS to identify segments that differ with
respect to the relevance of quality dimensions (Sarstedt and Ringle, 2010).
With the availability of a multidimensional, generalizable scale of product quality, a
multitude of further research opportunities is possible. Additional moderators of the
relevance of CEPQ and/or its constituting dimensions for relevant outcomes should be
investigated. One possible moderator would be the purchase motivation, i.e. hedonic versus
utilitarian purchase motivation (Steenkamp, 1990). It would be equally interesting to
investigate how experiencing various types of product defects and/or product recalls
altering customers’ quality perceptions over time and which factors could moderate these
relationships (Archer and Wesolowsky, 1996; Dawar and Pillutla, 2000). Research directions
in operations management could be to examine relationships between operational levers,
such as product variety and capacity utilization, and average quality performance as
measured through CEPQ (Shah et al., 2016) or how supply chain characteristics could impact
average CEPQ.

5.4 Conclusion
Improving customer satisfaction ratings is still a strategic imperative for most firms
(Mittal and Kamakura, 2001), despite the mounting evidence that customer satisfaction is only
weakly related to important customer outcomes such as true repurchase behavior (Kumar et al.,
2013; Seiders et al., 2005; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). Conceptualized as a mere antecedent or
input to customer satisfaction, product quality was confined to an existence in its shadow and
has in comparison to customer satisfaction been neglected as a research topic. Consequently, no
theoretically consistent, multidimensional and generalizable measure for product quality exists.
The present study will hopefully put the product quality construct back in the limelight of
research interest. We have highlighted selected promising avenues for future research above,
but given the centrality of the quality construct, many more are possible. The presented results
are promising, and with the new CEPQ scale, research on the antecedents and consequences of
product quality has considerable room to evolve.
Web Appendix can be found here - http://bit.ly/CEPQ_Web_Appendix
EJM References
54,4 Aaker, D.A. (1991), Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), “The financial information content of perceived quality”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 191-201.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-454.
666 Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Archer, N.P. and Wesolowsky, G.O. (1996), “Consumer response to service and product quality: a study
of motor vehicle owners”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Beattie, A.E. (1982), “Effects of product knowledge on comparison, memory, evaluation, and choice: a model
of expertise in consumer decision-making”, ACR North American Advances, Vol. 9, pp. 336-341.
Becker, J.-M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M. (2012), “Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines
for using reflective-formative type models”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 359-394.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), “A dynamic process model of service quality:
from expectations to behavioral intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-27.
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V.A. and Naylor, G. (2000), “Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions
for consumer durables”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 359-374.
Buzzell, R. and Gale, B. (1987), The PIMS Principles, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Charters, S. and Pettigrew, S. (2006), “Product involvement and the evaluation of wine quality”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-193.
Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Rees, E. (1981), Expertise in Problem Solving, Pittsburgh Univ PA Learning
Research and Development Center, Pittsburg, PA.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Espositi Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J.
and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Colby, S.L. and Ortman, J.M. (2017), “Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014
to 2060”, available at: www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/
p25-1143.pdf (accessed 4 July 2019).
Cronin, J.J., Jr. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J., Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-131.
Curkovic, S., Vickery, S.K. and Droge, C. (2000), “An empirical analysis of the competitive dimensions
of quality performance in the automotive supply industry”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 386-403.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1995), “A contingency framework for predicting causality between customer
satisfaction and service quality”, ACR North American Advances, Vol. 22, pp. 101-108.
Dawar, N. and Pillutla, M.M. (2000), “Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: the moderating
role of consumer expectations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 215-226.
De Langhe, B., Fernbach, P.M. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (2015), “Navigating by the stars: investigating the
actual and perceived validity of online user ratings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 42
No. 6, pp. 817-833.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), “Index construction with formative indicators: an Customers’
alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 269-277.
experienced
Dutta, S., Biswas, A. and Grewal, D. (2007), “Low price signal default: an empirical investigation of its
consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 76-88. product
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and quality
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 382-388.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American customer
satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
667
Garvin, D.A. (1984a), “What does ‘product quality’ really mean?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 25-43.
Garvin, D.A. (1984b), “Product quality: an important strategic weapon”, Business Horizons, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 40-43.
Garvin, D.A. (1988), Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge, Simon and Schuster, New
York, NY.
Gervais, A. (2015), “Product quality and firm heterogeneity in international trade”, Canadian Journal of
Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 1152-1174.
Golder, P.N., Mitra, D. and Moorman, C. (2012), “What is quality? An integrative framework of
processes and states”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 1-23.
Grapentine, T. (2003), “Problematic scales”, Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 16-19.
Grewenig, E., Lergetporer, P., Simon, L., Werner, K. and Woessmann, L. (2018), “Can online surveys
represent the entire population?”, CESifo Working Paper 7222, CESifo, Munich.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Thiele, K.O. (2017), “Mirror, mirror on the wall: a
comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 616-632.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Haumann, T., Quaiser, B., Wieseke, J. and Rese, M. (2014), “Footprints in the sands of time: a
comparative analysis of the effectiveness of customer satisfaction and customer–company
identification over time”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 78-102.
Henseler, J. (2017), “Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation
modeling”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 178-192.
Henseler, J. and Fassott, G. (2010), “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of
available procedures”, in Espositi Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds),
Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 713-735.
Hogreve, J., Iseke, A., Derfuss, K. and Eller, T. (2017), “The service–profit chain: a meta-analytic test of a
comprehensive theoretical framework”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 41-61.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Hoyer, W.D. (2009), “Social identity and the service – profit chain social
identity and the service-profit”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 38-54.
Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H. and Smith, K.M. (2018), “Marketing survey research best practices:
evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-108.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Grayson, K. (1995), “Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: the voice of the consumer”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 277-303.
Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S.S., Kardes, F.R., Schneider, M. and Popovich, D. (2015), “The median split:
robust, refined, and revived”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 662-665.
EJM Jacobson, R. and Aaker, D.A. (1987), “The strategic role of product quality”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 31-44.
54,4
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Johnson, W. and Kieras, D. (1983), “Representation-saving effects of prior knowledge in memory for
simple technical prose”, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 456-466.
668
Jones, T., Taylor, S.F. and Bansal, H.S. (2008), “Commitment to a friend, a service provider, or a service
company – are they distinctions worth making?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 473-487.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960), “The application of electronic computers to factor analysis”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 141-151.
Kenny, D.A. (2015), “Moderation”, available at: http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm (accessed
March 3 2017).
Kirmani, A. and Baumgartner, H. (1999), “Special session summary perceived quality and value,
satisfaction and loyalty: new insights into processes underlying some familiar constructs”, ACR
North American Advances, Vol. 26 No. 1, p. 598.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of E-Collaboration ( e-Collaboration), Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kock, N. and Lynn, G. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an
illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 7, pp. 546-580.
Kumar, V., Dalla Pozza, I. and Ganesh, J. (2013), “Revisiting the satisfaction–loyalty relationship: empirical
generalizations and directions for future research”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 246-262.
Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989), “Predictive vs. structural modeling: PLS vs. ML”, Latent Variable Path Modeling
with Partial Least Squares, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 199-226.
Maxham, J.G., III. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “A longitudinal study of complaining customers’ evaluations
of multiple service failures and recovery efforts”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 57-71.
Maynes, E.S. (1976), “The concept and measurement of product quality”, Household Production and
Consumption, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 529-584.
Mick, D. and Fournier, S. (1995), “Technological consumer products in everyday life: ownership,
meaning, satisfaction”, working Paper, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Mitchell, A.A. and Dacin, P.A. (1996), “The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 219-239.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-142.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P. and Tsiros, M. (1999), “Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions over time: a consumption-system approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 88-101.
Mizik, N. and Jacobson, R. (2004), “Stock return response modeling”, in Moorman, C. and Lehmann, D.
R., (Eds), Assessing Marketing Strategy Performance, Cambridge, MA, pp. 29-46.
Molina-Castillo, F., Calantone, R.J., Stanko, M.A. and Munuera-Aleman, J. (2013), “Product quality as a
formative index: evaluating an alternative measurement approach”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 380-398.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2007), Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed., Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles,
CA.
Nam, M., Wang, J. and Lee, A.Y. (2012), “The difference between differences: how expertise affects Customers’
diagnosticity of attribute alignability”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 736-750.
experienced
Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 311-329. product
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, quality
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
669
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R. (2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of
relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-153.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perception of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “E-S-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
Petter, S., Straub, D. and Rai, A. (2007), “Specifying formative constructs in information systems
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 623-656.
Pirsig, R.M. (1974), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, Random House,
New York, NY.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rao, A.R. and Bergen, M.E. (1992), “Price premium variations as a consequence of buyers’ lack of
information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 412-423.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D. (2012), “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS
quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Ringle, C.M. Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3”, Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH,
available at: www.smartpls.com
Rossiter, J.R. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-335.
Rust, R.T. and Cooil, B. (1994), “Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and implications”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. and Keiningham, T.L. (1995), “Return on quality (ROQ): making service quality
financially accountable”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 58-70.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Thiele, K.O. and Gudergan, S.P. (2016), “Estimation issues with PLS
and CBSEM: where the bias lies!”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 3998-4010.
Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2010), “Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modeling: a
comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies”, Journal of Applied Statistics,
Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1299-1318.
Sebastianelli, R. and Tamimi, N. (2002), “How product quality dimensions relate to defining quality”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 442-453.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L. (2005), “Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining
moderating influences in a retailing context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 26-43.
EJM Sethi, R. (2000), “New product quality and product development teams”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64
No. 2, pp. 1-14.
54,4
Shah, R., Ball, G.P. and Netessine, S. (2016), “Plant operations and product recalls in the automotive
industry: an empirical investigation”, Management Science, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 2439-2459.
Sorescu, A. and Sorescu, S.M. (2016), “Customer satisfaction and long-term stock returns”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 110-115.
670 Sproles, G.B. (1985), ““From perfectionism to fadism: measuring consumers’ decision-making styles”,
Proceedings, American Council on Consumer Interests, Vol. 31, ACCI, Columbia, MO, pp. 79-85.
Sproles, G.B. and Kendall, E.L. (1986), “A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision making
styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 267-279.
Srinivasan, S.S. and Till, B.D. (2002), “Evaluation of search, experience and credence attributes: role of brand
name and product trial”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 417-431.
Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1990), “Conceptual model of the quality perception process”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 309-333.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and van Trijp, H.C.M. (1996), “Quality guidance: a consumer-based approach to
food quality improvement using partial least squares”, European Review of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 195-215.
Stone-Romero, E.F., Stone, D.L. and Grewal, D. (1997), “Development of a multidimensional measure of
perceived product quality”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical
evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Thompson, D.V., Hamilton, R.W. and Rust, R.T. (2005), “Feature fatigue: when product capabilities
become too much of a good thing”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 431-442.
Toivonen, R.M. (2012), “Product quality and value from consumer perspective—an application to
wooden products”, Journal of Forest Economics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 157-173.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006), “The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase
intentions”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207-217.
Van Doorn, J. and Verhoef, P.C. (2015), “Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 436-450.
Völckner, F. (2008), “The dual role of price: decomposing consumers’ reactions to price”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 359-377.
Williams, L.J., Nathan, H. and Cavazotte, F. (2010), “Method vari-ance and marker variables: a review
and comprehensive CFA MarkerTechnique”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 477-514.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery through web sites: a
critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 362-375.

Corresponding author
Ramesh Roshan Das Guru can be contacted at: rameshroshan@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats