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

net/publication/330124513

Measuring customer experience in service: A systematic review

Article  in  The Service Industries Journal · January 2019

DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1561873

CITATIONS READS

76 8,567

4 authors, including:

Tiziana Brenner Beauchamp Weber Heitor TAKASHI Kato

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
8 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS    71 PUBLICATIONS   484 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

The social construction of the haute cuisine market in Curitiba, Brazil View project

Strategy in Retailing and Services View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tiziana Brenner Beauchamp Weber on 02 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Service Industries Journal

ISSN: 0264-2069 (Print) 1743-9507 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

Measuring customer experience in service: A

systematic review

Eduardo Veiga Bueno, Tiziana Brenner Beauchamp Weber, Emerson Luiz

Bomfim & Heitor Takashi Kato

To cite this article: Eduardo Veiga Bueno, Tiziana Brenner Beauchamp Weber, Emerson Luiz
Bomfim & Heitor Takashi Kato (2019): Measuring customer experience in service: A systematic
review, The Service Industries Journal, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1561873

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1561873

Published online: 03 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1561873

Measuring customer experience in service: A systematic

review
衡量客户服务体验：一个系统的文献综述
Eduardo Veiga Bueno , Tiziana Brenner Beauchamp Weber, Emerson Luiz Bomfim
and Heitor Takashi Kato
Business School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do ParanáPUCPR, Curitiba, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of this systematic review is to identify how customer Received 23 August 2017
experience in the service sector has been measured in relevant Accepted 13 December 2018
publications in the marketing field. A sample of 33 papers was
KEYWORDS
collected from two electronic databases—the Web of Science Customer experience; service;
(Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier)—covering a large measurement; marketing
number of publications. After analyzing the articles and reviewing
the customer experience literature, the following are our main 关键词
contributions: (i) clarification of the concepts that appear in the 客户体验;服务;测量;营销
literature review of customer experience in the service sector; (ii)
classification of the variables, scales, and constructs related to
customer experience in service; (iii) demonstration of the service
experience as the preponderant construct that is used to measure
customer experience in service; and (iv) proposal of a new
dimension—the concept of ‘pre-experience’—to measure
customer experience in service. These contributions can provide a
more solid basis for measuring customer experience in service.

摘要
这篇系统的文献综述的目的是确定在营销领域的相关出版物中如
何衡量服务部门的客户体验。从两个电子数据库 - 科学网
(Thomson Reuters) 和 Socopus (Elsevier) - 收集了33篇论文的样
本，涵盖了大量的出版物。在分析了文章并回顾客户体验文献之
后，我们的主要贡献如下：（一）澄清了服务部门客户体验文献
综述中出现的概念; （二）对与客户服务体验相关的变量、规模
和结构进行分类; （三）证明服务经验是用于衡量客户服务体验
的优势结构; （四）提出新的维度, 即“预先体验”的概念, 以衡量
客户在服务中的体验。这些贡献可以为衡量客户服务体验提供更
坚实的基础。

1. Introduction
The service sector is critical to the economic success of developed countries, including the
United States (US), and has, thus, been an increasingly recurring area of interest in aca-
demic research (Alzaydi, Al-Hajla, Nguyen, & Jayawardhena, 2018; Gentile, Spiller, &
Noci, 2018; Guesalaga & Pitta, 2014; Ramanathan, Win, & Wien, 2018). In the literature,

CONTACT Eduardo Veiga Bueno edubuenno@gmail.com Business School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do
Paraná PUCPR PhD and MSc Program in Management, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Prado Velho, Curitiba, Brazil.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

the approaches to this topic are diverse and do not relate solely to the traditional types of
service, such as hotels, airlines, and spas. The general manufacturing and marketing of pro-
ducts are also associated with other forms of service, such as transportation, after-sales
care, replacement, and assistance (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
For Lemon and Verhoef (2016), customer experience is an important driver of commer-
cial success and competitive advantage. With regard to marketing—particularly services—
academics and practitioners agree that focusing on customer experience is positive and
can create a unique and sustainable advantage for any company over time (Edvardsson,
2005; Hunter, 2015). Therefore, defining the concept of customer experience and deter-
mining how to measure it are critical to marketing.
Due to the magnitude and complexity of the service industry, there are multiple diverse
methods of measuring qualities related to service. Quality of service, satisfaction, and
service experience are examples of constructs related to the customer experience in
service. These different concepts often complement each other, but they also generate
doubts and errors among professionals and researchers (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
Because the complexity of the customer experience in service makes understanding it
challenging, and there is no clear consensus on the construct, other similar constructs
are widely used to address this divergence.
The review of the literature has shown that the terms service experience, customer
service experience, and customer experience have been commonly used in numerous
studies (Beltagui, Darler, & Candi, 2015; Brady & Cronin Jr, 2012; Klaus & Maklan, 2012;
Mohsin & Lengler, 2015; Vasconcelos et al., 2015). Customer experience and service experi-
ence are similar in their conceptualizations and share many features (Jaakkola, Helkkula, &
Aarikka-Stenroos, 2017). Some of these features include characterization as phenomenolo-
gical, process, and output-based experience; functional, rational, affective, and emotional
responses or perceptions; characteristics internal, subjective, and unique; co-creation invol-
ving individuals, communities, and organizations; and relationships with organizational per-
formance through perceived value, customer satisfaction, loyalty, and other factors
(Jaakkola et al., 2017; Ramanathan et al., 2018). The main difference between the concepts
of service experience and customer experience lies in the subjects of the experiences. The
service experience concept addresses any actors, including customers, while the customer
experience focuses on customers as the experience actors (Jaakkola et al., 2017). In addition
to customers, service experience includes the representatives of the service providers who
also experience the service, as well as other people’s social experience networks (Heinonen
& Strandvik, 2011), while customer experience is described as an internal and subjective cus-
tomer response (Dagger & Sweeney, 2018; Meyer & Schwager, 2007).
The customer experience has become the focus of management research because
creating meaningful customer experience results in customer satisfaction, which is essen-
tial to achieving competitive advantage (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015; Mosavi, Sangari, &
Keramati, 2018). At the same time, services are becoming increasingly important for
firms competing in industrial markets (Finsterwalder & Tuzovic, 2017). The service research
follows this increasing trend of service relevance in the manufacturing industry, which is
described in the literature in various ways from the perspective of the service-dominant
logic of value creation, such as ‘product–service systems’ (Bertoni, Bertoni, Panarotto,
Johansson, & Larsson, 2016; Spring & Araujo, 2009), ‘servitization’ (De Rojas & Camarero,
2018; Smith, Maull, & Ng, I., 2014), and, more recently, ‘service infusion’ (Finsterwalder &
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 3

Tuzovic, 2017; Rabetino, Kohtamäki, Lehtonen, & Kostama, 2015). Motivated by this
context, the objective of this study is to identify how customer experience in service
has been measured in relevant publications in the marketing field. This will help guide
researchers and professionals regarding which forms of measurement are the most appro-
priate for achieving their goals. Consequently, it will be possible to solidify the constructs
and improve the empirical analysis of the subject.
For this body of research, a systematic review of the literature was carried out using the
ISI Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases to search relevant
marketing publications for articles dealing with the measurement of customer experience
in service. Although service is studied in other areas, this is a fundamental topic for market-
ing researchers due to its economic relevance to organizations and countries (Grönroos,
2014). The results indicate that the most widely used independent variables are physical
structure, service quality, and customers’ personal factors, while the dependent variables
that appear the most are satisfaction, behavioural intent, and loyalty. The most used con-
struct in the sample papers is service experience, and the most adapted scale is SERVQUAL
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). In addition, it is noted that the authors of more
than half of the articles created their own new scales.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on customer experi-
ence in service. Section 3 presents the methodology used to select the articles for the sys-
tematic review, as well as the exclusion criteria for the papers. Section 4 presents the
results of the analysis of the selected papers. These are presented in the form of tables,
with variables used to measure customer experience in service, main publications, and
types of services found. Finally, Section 5 presents the theoretical contributions and man-
agerial implications of the research, as well as the limitations and future lines of research.

2. The customer experience in service

In the marketing domain, the authors of empirical articles in which customer experience in
service is measured often use three terms in their research: customer experience, customer
service experience, and service experience. At first glance, these constructs seem to deal
with different concepts, but the refinement of reading customer experience studies in the
service sector shows their similarities and differences. These particularities will be dealt
with before reviewing the constructs used to measure customer experience in services.
Customer experience is defined by Meyer and Schwager (2007) as ‘the subjective and
internal responses that customers have in any direct or indirect contact with a company’
(p. 2). Direct contact is usually initiated by the customer and occurs during the purchase of
a product or the use of a service. Indirect contact occurs in unplanned encounters with a
company’s brand, products, or services and may be in the form of advertising, news, rec-
ommendations, or word of mouth (Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Ramanathan et al., 2018).
These interactions between the customer and the company evoke personal reactions
that imply customer involvement at different levels: rational, emotional, sensory, physical,
and spiritual (Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002; Gabbott, Tsarenko, & Mok, 2007; Roy, 2018).
While customer experience represents the customer-oriented interaction between com-
panies, brands, products, and services, the service experience dimension has greater breadth
in the service sector and is considered a key concept of service-dominant logic and the basis
for all business (De Rojas & Camarero, 2018; Grönroos, 2008; Heinonen & Strandvik, 2011).
4 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Jain, Aagja, and Bagdare (1997) define service experience as the result of interactions
between organizations, related processes, service employees, and customers. Researchers
of service experience also study relationships other than those existing between customers
with representatives of the service provider (Arnould & Price, 1993; Berry et al., 2002; Millard,
2006; O’Donohoe & Turley, 2007), B2B service (Helkkula, 2013; Morgan, Deeter-Schmelz, &
Moberg, 2007; Zolkiewski et al., 2017), and learning processes (Coffey & Wang, 2006; Edvards-
son, 2005; Homburg, Schwemmle, & Kuehnl, 2007; Madsen & Turnbull, 2006).
While customer experience and service experience are different but complementary
concepts, the term ‘customer service experience’ is treated by various authors as referring
solely to the service experiences of customers (Froehle & Roth, 2004; Khan, Garg, &
Rahman, 2015; Klaus & Maklan, 2012; Meyer & Schwager, 2007). In her systematic
review that aims to conceptualize service experience, Heinonen and Strandvik (2011)
also considers customer service experience as the dimension of service experience that
deals with customer reactions. Consequently, the key concepts used to measure customer
experience in service are customer experience and service experience.

2.1. Customer experience

Various definitions of customer experience exist in the literature (Holbrook, 2015; McLean
& Osei-Frimpong, 2017; Verhoef et al., 2009). However, historically, the construct was not
treated as a separate concept but, rather, as an element related to service quality and sat-
isfaction (Verhoef et al., 2009). Today, the importance of the construct as an integrated and
self-sufficient concept is recognized, and it seeks to integrate dimensions of concepts that
are fundamental to the marketing field and to thereby improve the already-established
constructs, such as customer satisfaction, service quality, customer equity, and relationship
(Dagger & Sweeney, 2018; Klaus, 2018; Roy, 2018).
It is important to emphasize that in academia, consumers’ buying behaviour has not
always been related to customer experience nor to other motivational aspects that are
more hedonic in nature. Early theorists sought to explain consumer actions through
rational cognitive processes in which service evaluation was the simple sequential result
of previous expectations versus outcomes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Goduscheit & Faullant,
1997). Today, this concept, which is based on rationality, is controversial because it is
understood that consumer behaviour can also be determined by the consumption experi-
ence. This consists of rational and emotional evaluations (Brun, Rajaobelina, Ricard, &
Berthiaume, 2017; Roy, 2018), which, for Lemon and Verhoef (2016), can even be extended
to other spiritual, sensory, and physical elements.
Customer experience is a comprehensive construct that should include the three classic
stages of purchase: pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase. It is, therefore, a process
that combines affective and cognitive dimensions (Verhoef et al., 2009). Homburg et al.
(2015, p. 8) define customer experience as ‘the evolvement of a person’s sensorial,
affective, cognitive, relational and behavioural responses to a brand by living through a
journey of touchpoints along pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase and continually
judging this journey against response thresholds of co-occurring experiences.’ The
breadth and complexity of the construct are clear in the definition by Holbrook (2015),
which encompasses affective, cognitive, relational, and behavioural responses at
different times of contact (pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase) during the
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 5

course of co-occurring experiences. Lemon and Verhoef (2016) state that the customer
experience is the result of interaction between the customer and elements or parts of
the organization, such as products, services, or employees. The experience is particular
to each customer; therefore, it is a personal experience with different levels of involve-
ment: rational, emotional, sensorial, physical, and spiritual. Customer experience responds
to all moments of interaction with the company, as well as its brand, products, services,
structure, and/or employees (Gabbott et al., 2007; Lemke, Clark, & Wilson, 2011; Lemon
& Verhoef, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2009).
The customer experience construct is fundamental to the marketing field, as well as to
the service industry. Thus, according to Schmitt, Joško Brakus, and Zarantonello (2015),
every service exchange involves a form of customer experience. Despite its fundamental
importance, there is no consensus on how to measure customer experience (Jaakkola
et al., 2017; Kumar & Anjaly, 2017). In the services sector, the uncertainties regarding
measurement are even more significant; therefore, researchers need to deal with the com-
plexity of the customer experience and the specificity of the sector and its particularities.
Thus, to better understand the phenomenon, several constructs, such as quality of service,
satisfaction, and service experience, have been used (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
For authors wishing to measure customer experience in the service sector, SERVQUAL is
a significant starting point (Meyer & Schwager, 2007), and using this scale, efforts have
been made to define and measure customer experience in service. Klaus and Maklan
(2012) are representatives of this evolution; these authors developed the scale of custo-
mers’ service experience (EXQ) to validate the concepts of customer experience and
service experience and replace the service quality construct with service experience.

2.2. Service experience

Service experience is not merely a consequence of delivery; the concept is constantly evol-
ving. Zomerdijk and Voss (2010) describe the concept of service experience as the core of
the service offering and design. Service experience is touted as a key concept of the
service-dominant logic, which regards the service experience as the basis of all business
(Hunter, 2015; Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Schembri, 2006; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). According to
Hilton, Hughes, Little, and Marandi (2006) and Klaus and Maklan (2012), service experience
has its roots in economics, but it has been developed and expanded to different areas,
such as psychology, sociology, marketing, and consumer behaviour.
Díaz-Garrido, Pinillos, Soriano-Pinar, and García-Magro (2005) defines service experi-
ence as ‘the service encounter and/or service process that creates the customer’s cogni-
tive, emotional and behavioral responses which result in a mental mark, a memory.’ For
Chang and Horng (2010), the service experience is composed of four key parts: the
actors (people involved in the service), public (consumers), physical environment, and
service performance. Experience is, therefore, unique to each consumer and cannot be
generalized (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
Drawing inspiration from the mortgage service, Klaus and Maklan (2012) also delineate
four dimensions of the service experience construct: (i) product experience, which reflects
the importance of consumer perception in regard to having choices and comparing offers;
(ii) focus on the result, which reflects the importance of experiences that are guided by a
specific objective; (iii) moments of truth, which emphasize the importance of service
6 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

recovery and flexibility; and (iv) peace of mind, which is related to interactions before,
during, and after the service offer and which reflects emotional benefits.
Conversely, Vasconcelos et al. (2015) conceptualize the construct and identify three
dimensions of the service experience through their systematic review of the literature:
(i) predispositions, which are characterized by sociocultural, environmental, and precon-
ceived images, experiences, personality traits, needs, values, beliefs, and abilities; (ii) inter-
actions, which are characterized by company staff, infrastructure, technology, and
duration and nature of the event; and (iii) reactions, which are characterized by beha-
viours, feelings, learning, perception of value, intentions, and desires.
In general, organizations do not have direct control over the first and last dimensions,
but they can use their marketing actions to influence them (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
These dimensions relate to consumer issues and may vary from one situation to the
next. The first dimension of the construct—predispositions—refers to the issues that
the consumer already has and that influence his or her service experience (De Rojas &
Camarero, 2008; Yeung & Leung, 2007). Introverted individuals, for example, are less
likely to be inclined to try a service that has high personal exposure, as shyness is a per-
sonality trait that is not easily modified. Preconceived images, previous experiences, reli-
gion, and sociocultural context are other examples of predispositions that are quite
relevant to the service experience (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
The second dimension—interaction—identifies the moment when the service is deliv-
ered and the consumer makes contact or interacts physically or virtually with the organ-
ization. As this is the stage during which the organization has the closest contact with the
consumer, it also reflects the dimension in which the company has the greatest amount of
influence on the customer experience (Vasconcelos et al., 2015). These circumstances are
known as service encounters (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Ferguson, Paulin, & Bergeron, 2010),
decisive moments (Klaus & Maklan, 2012; Svari, Slåtten, Svensson, & Edvardsson, 2011;
Zehrer, 2009), or critical incidents (Cassab & MacLachlan, 2010; Verhoef et al., 2009). The
tangible elements of the environment, the organization’s technology, the consumer–
employee interaction, and the information system are all examples of factors that can con-
tribute to a positive service experience (Vasconcelos et al., 2015).
The third dimension—reactions—illustrates how the experience changes the customer,
triggering emotions, decisions, desires, actions, learning, and perceptions that either soli-
dify or alter his or her image of the organization. Therefore, this last dimension comprises
the predispositions that, in turn, influence the customer’s future contacts with the organ-
ization in question. These reactions may be explicit, silent, conscious, or subconscious, and
they may indicate, mediate, or moderate current and future purchasing decisions (Vascon-
celos et al., 2015).
The study carried out by Vasconcelos et al. (2015) sought to refine the definition of the
service experience concept by dividing it into three interdependent and complementary
dimensions: predispositions, interactions, and reactions. As a result, the need to identify
how variables have been used to date to measure this construct was emphasized.

3. Methodology
To guide this research, a systematic literature review method was applied based on pre-
vious studies (David & Han, 2004; Mustak, 2014; Newbert, 2007). Existing publications
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 7

were identified and analyzed with a focus on the proposed objective, and the study results
are presented with a view to answering the following research question: How has the cus-
tomer experience in service been measured in the marketing literature? The objectives are
to identify a significant sample of published articles that test customer experience in
service and to isolate a manageable sample of studies that create or adapt scales to
measure the constructs related to the proposed theme.
First, only articles published in journals have been included, thus excluding chapters of
books or papers published in congresses. Journal articles have undergone a review
process that serves as a quality filter, thereby allowing for the analysis of studies that main-
tain a certain level of conceptual and methodological objectivity (Dahm, Wentzel, Herzog,
& Wiecek, 2004). To identify appropriate and relevant publications, two electronic data-
bases covering a large number and variety of publications—the ISI Web of Science
(Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier)—were used.
Second, to ensure that the publication was in line with the area of interest, the key-
words ‘marketing’ AND ‘services’ were the selection criteria for the topic (title, keywords,
or abstract). For this search, the ISI Web of Science resulted in 40,752 documents, and
Scopus resulted in 54,437 documents. Then, to ensure adherence to the search theme,
only papers that contained the phrase ‘customer experience’ in their titles, summaries,
or keywords were selected. This search resulted in 7,847 documents located on the ISI
Web of Science and 2,237 on Scopus. The two searches were combined using the
Boolean operator ‘AND’ to find records containing all terms that had been separated by
the operator. This operation resulted in 1,232 documents located on the ISI Web of
Science and 422 documents on Scopus.
The fourth criterion was the elimination of articles without methodological compatibil-
ity, excluding those that did not contain expressions referring to measurement or scale
—‘measur*’ or ‘scale*’—in their titles, keywords, or abstracts. The search query contained
quotation marks to avoid results that had a different word order or were out of context,
and the character (*) was adopted to include all variations of the searched words. After
this criterion was met, 76 documents from the ISI Web of Science database and 19 from
the Scopus database remained.
Subsequently, 11 articles that appeared in both databases were identified and were
removed from the sample, leaving 84. The abstracts of these papers were read, and
those that were not empirical or did not relate to the proposed study theme were
omitted, leaving 64 articles in our sample. These 64 articles were read in their entirety
to verify whether they created or used scales to measure consumer experience in services,
and 31 were eliminated because they did not meet this criterion. This left 33 articles in our
sample, and these were selected for the analysis. Table 1 presents a step-by-step meth-
odological summary of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles.
This article utilizes qualitative synthesis to provides a tabulation of key characteristics of
the studies resulting from the selection process (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). All
papers in the sample were analyzed descriptively and thematically following the pre-
defined standard. The descriptive analysis was conducted based on a deductive approach
in which the classification of papers was carried out according to year, journal, country,
service type, and sample size. Conversely, the thematic analysis was more inductive in
nature, and the aim was to identify the constructs and the dependent and independent
variables used in the scales created or adapted in the papers to measure customer
8 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of the Selection Criteria.

Results
Type of Filter Description WOS Scopus
Substantial All articles with the keywords ‘marketing’ and ‘services’ in the title, 40,752 54,437
keywords, or abstract
Substantial All articles with the keywords ‘customer experience’ in the title, keywords, 7,847 2,237
or abstract
Substantial Combine the previous results using the Boolean operator AND 1,232 422
Methodological At least one of the keywords ‘measur*’ or ‘scale*’ indicating empirical data 76 19
or analysis must also appear in the title, keywords, or abstract
Duplicate Exclusion of duplicate articles found in both databases 95
Substantial and Reading of the abstracts of articles to check the substantial relevance and 84
Methodological scales used to measure customer experience in service
Substantial and Reading of the remaining articles to verify substantial relevance and scales 64
Methodological used to measure customer experience in service
Articles analyzed 33

experience in service. The variables were then grouped according to the dimensions pro-
posed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015): predispositions, interactions, and reactions. The results
of the analyses are presented in the following sections.

4. Results
In this section, we provide the search results from the databases, as well as a descriptive
and thematic analysis of the variables used to measure customer experience in service in
the sample articles. Studies that investigate beyond service quality and seek to understand
customer experiences are more recent. The first articles that were selected for this sys-
tematic review were published after 1995, and by 2007, publications were still scarce. A
peak in the number occurred in 2015, when seven articles on this subject were published.
More than 50% of the articles included in this study were published from 2011 onwards.
As shown in Table 2, of the 33 articles that were selected for this study, 5 were pub-
lished in the Tourism Management journal. This indicates the importance of understanding

Table 2. Journals (Publications).

Journal # Articles % Articles
TOURISM MANAGEMENT 5 15%
JOURNAL OF SERVICE MANAGEMENT 4 12%
JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH 4 12%
JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING 2 6%
MANAGING SERVICE QUALITY 2 6%
PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETING 2 6%
SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 2 6%
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT 1 3%
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING 1 3%
JOURNAL OF DESTINATION MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 1 3%
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT 1 3%
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1 3%
JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 1 3%
JOURNAL OF RETAILING 1 3%
JOURNAL OF RETAILING AND CONSUMER SERVICES 1 3%
JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT 1 3%
LONG RANGE PLANNING 1 3%
MARKETING INTELLIGENCE AND PLANNING 1 3%
Total 33 100%
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 9

Table 3. Locations of the Publications

Country # Articles % Articles
US 7 21%
UK 7 21%
Canada 4 12%
Australia 3 9%
Germany 2 6%
China 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
US and Canada 1 3%
US and Japan 1 3%
US and UK 1 3%
Finland 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Taiwan 1 3%
Turkey 1 3%

Total 33 100%

the customer experience in tourism, which is an area that sells experiences and is highly
dependent on the quality of all services offered. Regarding the journals with the highest
number of publications, those in second, third, fourth, and fifth place referred to the
service area. The customer experience was also present in psychology, marketing, inno-
vation, retail, and sports journals, among others, thereby revealing the scope and complex-
ity of this construct.
Developed countries, in which the service sector is more representative of the economy
than in developing countries, have the largest number of publications on this topic. The
vast majority of the studies on customer experience in service have been conducted in
countries such as the US and the United Kingdom (UK), from which 21% of the articles
in this study were selected, as illustrated in Table 3. American authors have also contrib-
uted to or played a role in other studies in Canada, Japan, and the UK. The third country is

Table 4. Types of Service.

Types of Service Total Sample #n %
Tourism 110.954 9 24%
Health 4.720 5 15%
Diversified retail Bank 1743 4 12%
681 3 9%
Sport 886 3 9%
Air travel 570 2 6%
Education 620 2 6%
Movie theatre 115 1 3%
Tax collection 501 1 3%
Mortgage purchase 218 1 3%
E-contact centre 210 1 3%
Family recreation 124 1 3%
Repair 280 1 3%
Technology 305 1 3%
Telephony 311 1 3%
Public transportation 361 1 3%
Websites 299 1 3%
Total 126.822* 38** 100%
*Total sum of the samples of the 33 papers selected in the systematic review
**Some papers use samples of more than one type of service.
10 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Table 5. Main Independent Variables

Independent Variables #n1 % Total #n # Items % Total Items
Consumer’s personal factors 11 7.97% 57 7.85%
Physical structure 9 6.52% 36 4.96%
Service quality 7 5.07% 88 12.12%
Satisfaction 5 3.62% 18 2.48%
Confidence 5 3.62% 21 2.89%
Service experience 5 3.62% 40 5.51%
Access 3 2.17% 11 1.52%
Customer interaction 3 2.17% 37 5.10%
Employees 3 2.17% 18 2.48%
Involvement 3 2.17% 14 1.93%
Peace of mind 3 2.17% 16 2.20%
Hedonism 3 2.17% 31 4.27%
Benevolence 2 1.45% 9 1.24%
Recognition 2 1.45% 4 0.55%
Transparency 2 1.45% 8 1.10%
Appearing only once 72 52.17% 318 43.80%
Total 138 100.00% 726 100.00%
1
Number of times the variable was identified in the articles

Canada with 12%. One can see that the studies that are concentrated in the developed
countries have recognized the fundamental importance of the service sector in regard
to their own economies.
According to Table 4, the services that were most used to assess customer experience
were related to tourism, focusing on hotels, hotel restaurants, museums, and travel sites.
These data were already expected, as the journal with the highest number of publications
was also related to tourism. We observed five occasions on which services related to the
medical/health area were researched, and diversified retail services were addressed four
times, occupying the third position. In addition, in the segments that were studied—
ranging from telephony, to public transportation, to sports and tax collection—there
was stark heterogeneity. Such diversity justifies the number of new scales that have
been developed (i.e. in 19 of the 33 articles). As each segment presents its particularities,
the method of measuring the customer experience also presents peculiarities and specific
needs, even if it is a single construct.
Starting the thematic analysis, we identified 87 independent variables that are
described in Table 5. Fifteen variables appeared at least two times, and 72 were identified
only once. The column items represent the total number of indicators related to the latent
variable. Factors related to personal aspects of the consumer, such as personality, predis-
positions, and knowledge, were the items that appeared most frequently (11). The physical
structure related to service was the second most explored item, appeared nine times in the
analyzed articles. The third was service quality, which appeared only seven times; however,
because of its complexity, this construct had a greater number of items (88) to evaluate. As
seen in the table, variables such as satisfaction and confidence, when used as moderating
variables for analytical purposes, are classified as independent. According to Hair, Black,
Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (1998), moderating variables change the form of the
relationship between an independent and a dependent variable and can, therefore, be
considered a second independent variable.
As Table 6 shows, we identified 38 dependent variables, of which the main ones were
satisfaction, behavioural intention, and loyalty. Quality of experience and service
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 11

experience were identified five and four times, respectively, with the highest number of
items for their measurement being 66 and 67, respectively. These constructs were
assembled for the purpose of this analysis, but this does not mean that they were
measured in the same way in all the articles. Throughout the analysis, we identified
different methods of evaluating satisfaction (Bickart & Schwarz, 2001; Edvardsson,
Enquist, & Johnston, 1990; Forkmann, Ramos, Henneberg, & Naudé, 1999; Oliver &
Swan, 1989; Yi & La, 2004) and quality of service (Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert, & Zeithaml,
& A, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Of the 33 articles, 19 contained newly created
scales, and only 14 made use of already-established scales. Most of the authors adapted
the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al., 1988) for a particular type of service.
The 33 articles and their variables were also tabulated and classified according to the
study conducted by Vasconcelos et al. (2015), because it is one of the most recent
bodies of research in the area in which efforts have been made to refine the concept
and, consequently, the method of measuring service experience, which was the most
used construct among the 33 selected articles. In the study by Vasconcelos et al. (2015),
the construct was treated as a service experience, as proposed by Klaus and Maklan
(2012), because it is an even more specific construct that is inherent to the measurement
of customer experience in the service sector.
According to Vasconcelos et al. (2015), it is possible to identify variables related to the
three dimensions of service experience. In the independent variables, we observed items
related to the ‘predisposition’ dimension. This includes personal factors regarding the con-
sumer and is related to the ‘interactions’ dimension—for example, physical structure,
access, employees, and interactions with other clients. ‘Reactions,’ the third dimension pro-
posed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015), appears in most of the dependent variables, such as sat-
isfaction, behavioural intention, loyalty, word of mouth, and intention of recommendation.
Table 7 shows how the identified variables could be classified according to the dimen-
sions proposed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015). Among the independent variables, customer
predispositions was identified 25 times as belonging to the first dimension of the con-
struct. Regarding the ‘interactions’ dimension, an independent variable was classified 84
times. Finally, 15 variables related to the ‘reactions’ dimension were identified as
mediators. As expected, among the dependent variables, the ‘reactions’ dimension of cus-
tomer experience, which was identified 50 times, predominated.

Table 6. Main Dependent Variables.

Dependent Variables #n % Total #n # Items % Total Items
Satisfaction 12 15.00% 38 8.88%
Behavioural intention 8 10.00% 23 5.37%
Loyalty 6 7.50% 36 8.41%
Word of mouth 5 6.25% 11 2.57%
Quality of service and related aspects 5 6.25% 37 8.64%
Quality of experience 4 5.00% 66 15.42%
Service experience 4 5.00% 67 15.65%
Intent of recommendation 3 3.75% 5 1.17%
Confidence 2 2.50% 7 1.64%
Access 2 2.50% 5 1.17%
Service performance 2 2.50% 4 0.93%
Appearing only once 27 33.75% 129 30.14%
Total 80 100.00% 428 100.00%
12 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Table 7. Service Experience Dimensions.

Dimensions1 #n2 % Total #n # Items % Total Items
Independent Variables
Predispositions 25 18% 119 16%
Interactions 84 61% 455 63%
Reactions 15 11% 74 10%
Predispositions and Interactions 8 6% 55 8%
Predispositions and Reactions 0 0% 0 0%
Interactions and Reactions 5 4% 18 2%
Predispositions, Interactions, and Reactions 1 1% 5 1%
Subtotal 138 100% 726 100%
Dependent Variables
Predispositions 3 4% 15 4%
Interactions 20 25% 115 27%
Reactions 50 63% 191 45%
Predispositions and Interactions 3 4% 52 12%
Predispositions and Reactions 0 0% 0 0%
Interactions and Reactions 3 4% 36 8%
Predispositions, Interactions, and Reactions 1 1% 19 4%
Subtotal 80 100% 428 100%
Total 218 1154
1
Dimensions of service experience, as proposed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015)
2
Number of times a variable was identified.

For the independent variables, the ‘interactions’ dimension had a substantial amount of
control over the company. We primarily observed the variables linked to infrastructure and
technology. Albinsson, Perera, and Sautter (2016) developed a scale to measure the
dimensions of dialogue, access, risk assessment, and transparency in customer inter-
actions in the service experience environment. These dimensions support a climate that
is conducive to co-creation. It is strategic for businesses to have control over these inter-
actions to enable them to improve the perceived value of the service. Beltagui et al. (2015)
show that innovation in service is controlled primarily by the company, as well by variables
such as the spontaneity of the employees and adventure in the service, both of which can
increase customer loyalty.
The reactions that are, for the most part, composed of dependent variables in the
studies are characterized according to Vasconcelos et al. (2015)—that is, by the beha-
viours, feelings, desires, and intentions of the consumers after the service experience. A
client who has pleasant experiences in the service environment is more willing to be
loyal to (Akamavi, Mohamed, Pellmann, & Xu, 2015; Calver & Page, 2009) and perceive
more value in that service (Büttgen, Schumann, & Ates, 2013; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999).
‘Predispositions,’ the final dimension proposed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015), deals with
items that are out of the control of the company, such as the personality traits, needs,
beliefs, and previous experiences of the client. Some variables may be directly related
to the reactions, in the same way that customers’ beliefs are associated with their attitudes
(Fournier & Mick, 1999) or how peace of mind may be linked to the service experience
(Klaus & Maklan, 2012; Otto & Ritchie, 1996). Our results showed that this dimension
was the most neglected by the scales and surveys because it contained variables that
were beyond the control of the organization.
Our analysis indicated that some variables could be attributed to more than one of the
dimensions proposed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015). Items such as access, recognition, and
purchase intentions have previous interaction characteristics but are combined with a
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 13

high capacity to influence the consumer’s buying experience. These variables may be part
of a dimension that we call ‘pre-experience.’ These items relate to the moment prior to the
interaction but can also be controlled, to a lesser extent, by the service provider.
It is noted, therefore, that the ‘predisposition’ dimension includes personal factors
about the customer, which the organization has no control over; however, pre-service
factors, which the organization may have control over, such as previous experiences,
were not included in the construct. This dimension is important because it involves the
pre-purchase of the service, which is a fundamental moment in the customer experience
(Edvardsson, 2005; Holbrook, 2015). Service pre-purchase involves not only factors that the
organization has no control over, such as the predispositions of the customer, but also
aspects that the organization is able to control, such as access to and previous experiences
of the service. According to the classification of the variables identified in the dimensions
proposed by Vasconcelos et al. (2015), there is a weakness in the measurement of the ‘pre-
experience’ moment that the organization can influence; this involves variables such as
price, access, positive or negative word of mouth, communication, past experiences,
and brand reminiscences (Holbrook, 2015).
In Figure 1, we can see how the main constructs of the 33 papers selected in the sys-
tematic review are related to the dimensions of customer experience. Customer experi-
ence is related to product and service areas. In the service area, service experience is an
integral component of the customer experience. The scope of the service experience is
greater because in addition to being used to measure customer experience in services,
it includes the service providers’ representatives, who also experience the service, as
well as others in the social experience network, thereby characterizing it as occurring in
a multi-stakeholder network (Heinonen & Strandvik, 2011).
From the sample of 33 papers, service experience appeared in 13, with the objective of
measuring customer experience in services. Constructs such as service quality, service
value, and service satisfaction are specific to the measurement of the customer experience
in services. The other sample constructs showed that experience quality, customer loyalty,
and customer relationship are used to measure the customer’s experience with the service
as much as with the product.
The first publications on customer experience in marketing date back to 1998 (Lemon &
Verhoef, 2016); however, the authors of these studies analyzed aspects of customer experi-
ence without using the holistic concept of the construct but referred to some aspects that
were mainly related to quality measurement and customer satisfaction. As a recent theme,
the form of measuring customer experience is not consolidated and presents stark hetero-
geneity in published studies. This fact is also justified by the diversity of the areas
addressed; tourism, medical services, sports, culture, public transportation, and taxes are
merely a few examples that illustrate the vastness of the service area.
The service-dominant logic recognizes that more value can be created by engaging
clients through experiences, rather than solely offering a product (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).
Service is the fundamental basis of exchange, and customers are creators or co-creators
of value (Grönroos, 2008). During retail purchases, value co-creation occurs when the cus-
tomer interacts with the technology of sales, delivery, and after-sales support. Companies
that offer high levels of quality in the service experience achieve important marketing
results, such as customer satisfaction and loyalty. Product experience is related to custo-
mer perception before, during, and after service interaction.
14 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Figure 1. Main constructs of the sample articles. *Number of papers.

Following the trend of hybrid product offerings and services, service infusion is a new
opportunity for customer experience researchers and marketing managers. Service infu-
sion refers to a strategic shift in firms’ offerings from traditional core product business
to the development of ancillary service offerings and value-added solutions (De Rojas &
Camarero, 2018). The challenge is to understand the impact of service infusion on the
business result, and measuring the consumer experience in service is a method to
achieve this purpose.

5. Conclusion
Among the 33 selected studies, the authors of 19 created new scales; this number rep-
resents more than 57% of the publications. This corroborates the fact that with regard
to the measurement and understanding of customer experience in service, no consensus
exists among authors, areas, and countries. However, even with such diversification, it was
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 15

possible to categorize the variables identified according to the dimensions proposed by

Vasconcelos et al. (2015): predispositions, interactions, and reactions.
Examining the scales found in the systematic review, we suggest the inclusion of a
new dimension, which we call pre-experience, to measure customer experience in
service. Pre-experience is capable of measuring items related to consumer predisposi-
tion, which is not 100% inherent but, rather, can be influenced by the organization.
In service experience co-creation studies, this dimension is called the ‘pre-purchase
experience,’ but it is not present in the scales used to measure customer experience
in service. With this improvement, we believe that it will be possible to create a standar-
dized method of measuring the customer experience in service. This contribution can
provide researchers with a more solid basis for assessing and measuring customer
experience in service and its dimensions.
This research makes a number of theoretical contributions: (i) It clarifies concepts
that appear in the literature review of customer experience in services, which is
treated as the service experience of customers only, and ‘customer experience’ and
‘service experience’ have not only numerous shared features but also differences
regarding the subject of the experience; (ii) it identifies the variables, scales, and con-
structs related to customer experience in service; (iii) it demonstrates that service
experience is the construct that is, for the most part, used to measure customer experi-
ence in service in the most relevant publications in the area; and (iv) it proposes a new
dimension for the measurement of customer experience in service—the concept of
pre-experience.
Regarding managerial contributions, our study puts together works that present
different ways of measuring customer experience in the most varied types of services.
We also suggest a new dimension—‘pre-experience’—which has aspects that the organ-
ization is able to control. Measuring the customer experience is one of the most significant
challenges for service sector organizations. Identifying the most discussed aspects of the
customer experience helps organizations conduct research and develop analyses more
assertively. A more efficient diagnosis contributes to a more assertive design with the
goal of achieving and sustaining long-term customer loyalty.
Future researchers of customer experience in service can use our data to tailor a scale to
their context, rather than having to create a new scale using the proposed dimensions.
Based on our results, the number of empirical studies in customer experience remains
low, leaving a gap for further investigation. The ‘pre-experience’ dimension can be
better explored, as it encompasses variables related to how companies can influence or
affect customers.
As with any study, this research has limitations. The databases do not allow for the
searching of terms across the totality of the articles, limiting the search to their titles, key-
words, and abstracts. Delimiting a search field is important for optimizing the job;
however, it can also omit some papers from the sample. The small number of empirical
studies in customer experience in service may appear to limit our study; nevertheless, it
represents an opportunity to conduct further research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
16 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

ORCID
Eduardo Veiga Bueno http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8207-0509
Heitor Takashi Kato http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5317-5048

References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
Akamavi, R. K., Mohamed, E., Pellmann, K., & Xu, Y. (2015). Key determinants of passenger loyalty in
the low-cost airline business. Tourism Management, 46, 528–545.
Albinsson, P. A., Perera, B. Y., & Sautter, P. T. (2016). DART scale development: Diagnosing a
firm’s readiness for strategic value co-creation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24(1),
42–58.
Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experi-
ence and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4), 213–221.
Alzaydi, Z. M., Al-Hajla, A., Nguyen, B., & Jayawardhena, C. (2018). A review of service quality and
service delivery: Towards a customer co-production and customer-integration approach.
Business Process Management Journal, 24(1), 295–328.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service
encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24–45.
Beltagui, A., Darler, W., & Candi, M. (2015). Measuring the deliverable and impressible dimensions of
service experience. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(3), 478–492.
Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 43(3), 85–89.
Bertoni, A., Bertoni, M., Panarotto, M., Johansson, C., & Larsson, T. C. (2016). Value-driven product
service systems development: Methods and industrial applications. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, 15, 42–55.
Bickart, B., & Schwarz, N. (2001). Service experiences and satisfaction judgments: The use of affect and
beliefs in judgment formation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 29–41.
Bitner, J., Faranda, M., Hubbert, W. T., & Zeithaml, A. R., & A, V. (1997). Customer contributions and
roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 193–205.
Brady, M. K., & Cronin Jr, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34–49.
Brocato, E. D., Voorhees, C. M., & Baker, J. (2012). Understanding the influence of cues from other cus-
tomers in the service experience: A scale development and validation. Journal of Retailing, 88(3),
384–398.
Brun, I., Rajaobelina, L., Ricard, L., & Berthiaume, B. (2017). Impact of customer experience on loyalty: A
multichannel examination. The Service Industries Journal, 37(5-6), 317–340.
Büttgen, M., Schumann, J. H., & Ates, Z. (2012). Service locus of control and customer coproduction:
The role of prior service experience and organizational socialization. Journal of Service Research, 15
(2), 166–181.
Calver, S. J., & Page, S. J. (2013). Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value,
visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tourism
Management, 39, 23–36.
Cassab, H., & MacLachlan, D. (2009). A consumer-based view of multi-channel service. Journal of
Service Management, 20(1), 52–75.
Chang, T.-Y., & Horng, S.-C. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality: The custo-
mer’s perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 30(14), 2401–2419.
Chelminski, P., & Coulter, R. (2011). An examination of consumer advocacy and complaining behavior
in the context of service failure. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(5), 361–370.
Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (2006). Service learning in a master of business administration (MBA) integra-
tive project course: An experience in China. Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 119–124.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 17

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal
of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
Dagger, T. S., Danaher, P. J., Sweeney, J. C., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2013). Selective halo effects
arising from improving the interpersonal skills of frontline employees. Journal of Service
Research, 16(4), 488–502.
Dagger, T. S., & Sweeney, J. C. (2007). Service quality attribute weights: How do novice and longer-
term customers construct service quality perceptions? Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 22–42.
Dahm, M., Wentzel, D., Herzog, W., & Wiecek, A. (2018). Breathing down your neck! The impact of
queues on customers using a retail service. Journal of Retailing, 94(2), 217–230.
David, R. J., & Han, S. K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost
economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 39–58.
De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. ((2008)). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context:
Evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29(3), 525–537.
Díaz-Garrido, E., Pinillos, M.-J., Soriano-Pinar, I., & García-Magro, C. (2018). Changes in the intellectual
basis of servitization research: A dynamic analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 48, 1–14.
Edvardsson, B. (2005). Service quality: Beyond cognitive assessment. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 15(2), 127–131.
Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B., & Johnston, R. (2005). Cocreating customer value through hyperreality in
the prepurchase service experience. Journal of Service Research, 8(2), 149–161.
Faranda, W. T. (2001). A scale to measure the cognitive control form of perceived control:
Construction and preliminary assessment. Psychology and Marketing, 18(12), 1259–1281.
Ferguson, R., Paulin, M., & Bergeron, J. (2010). Customer sociability and the total service experience:
Antecedents of positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Service Management, 21(1), 25–44.
Finsterwalder, J., & Tuzovic, S. (2010). Quality in group service encounters: A theoretical exploration of
the concept of a simultaneous multi-customer co-creation process. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 20(2), 109–122.
Forkmann, S., Ramos, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2017). Understanding the service infusion
process as a business model reconfiguration. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 151–166.
Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 5–23.
Froehle, C. M., & Roth, A. V. (2004). New measurement scales for evaluating perceptions of the
technology-mediated customer service experience. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1),
1–21.
Gabbott, M., Tsarenko, Y., & Mok, W. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of coping strat-
egies and service outcomes in circumstances of service failure. Journal of Service Research, 14(2),
234–248.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: An overview of
experience components that co-create value with the customer. European Management Journal,
25(5), 395–410.
Goduscheit, R. C., & Faullant, R. (2018). Paths toward radical service innovation in manufacturing com-
panies: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5),
701–719.
Grönroos, C. (1997). Value-driven relational marketing: From products to resources and competen-
cies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(5), 407–419.
Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European
Business Review, 20(4), 298–314.
Guesalaga, R., & Pitta, D. (2014). The importance and formalization of service quality dimensions: A
comparison of Chile and the USA. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(2), 145–151.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heinonen, K., & Strandvik, T. (2009). Monitoring value-in-use of e-service. Journal of Service
Management, 20(1), 33–51.
Helkkula, A. (2011). Characterising the concept of service experience. Journal of Service Management,
22(3), 367–389.
18 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Hilton, T., Hughes, T., Little, E., & Marandi, E. (2013). Adopting self-service technology to do more with
less. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(1), 3–12.
Holbrook, M. (2006). Book reviews: The consumption experience. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2),
259–266.
Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New product design: Concept, measurement, and
consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41–56.
Hunter, D. (2007). The virtual student/client experience. Journal of American Academy of Business, 12
(1), 88–92.
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2015). Service experience co-creation:
Conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. Journal of Service Management,
26(2), 182–205.
Jain, R., Aagja, J., & Bagdare, S. (2017). Customer experience: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, 27(3), 642–662.
Jüttner, U., Schaffner, D., Windler, K., & Maklan, S. (2013). Customer service experiences: Developing
and applying a sequential incident laddering technique. European Journal of Marketing, 47(5–6),
738–769.
Kantsperger, R., & Kunz, W. H. (2010). Consumer trust in service companies: A multiple mediating
analysis. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 20(1), 4–25.
Khan, I., Garg, R. J., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Customer service experience in hotel operations: An empiri-
cal analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 266–274.
Klaus, P. (2018). Luxury patient experience (LPX): review, conceptualization, and future research
directions. The Service Industries Journal, 38(1-2), 87–98.
Klaus, P., Gorgoglione, M., Buonamassa, D., Panniello, U., & Nguyen, B. (2013). Are you providing the
“right” customer experience? The case of Banca Popolare di Bari. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 31(7), 506–528.
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2012). EXQ: A multiple-item scale for assessing service experience. Journal of
Service Management, 23(1), 5–33.
Kumar, A., & Anjaly, B. (2017). How to measure post-purchase customer experience in online retail-
ing? A scale development study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(12),
1277–1297.
Ladhari, R. (2009). Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: A study in the
hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(3), 308–331.
Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and
consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39
(6), 846–869.
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer
journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.
Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements.
Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.
Madsen, S. R., & Turnbull, O. (2006). Academic service learning experiences of compensation and
benefit course students. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 724–742.
Martín-Ruiz, D., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Oviedo-García, M. d. l. Á. (2010). A visitors’ evaluation
index for a visit to an archaeological site. Tourism Management, 31(5), 590–596.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Gustafsson, A., Jaakkola, E., Klaus, P., Radnor, Z. J., Perks, H., & Friman, M. (2015).
Fresh perspectives on customer experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6–7), 430–435.
McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2017). Examining satisfaction with the experience during a live
chat service encounter: Implications for website providers. Computers in Human Behavior, 76,
494–508.
Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 116–126.
Millard, N. (2006). Learning from the “wow” factor: How to engage customers through the design of
effective affective customer experiences. BT Technology Journal, 24(1), 11–16.
Mohsin, A., & Lengler, J. (2015). Service experience through the eyes of budget hotel guests: Do
factors of importance influence performance dimensions? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 23, 23–34.
 THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 19

Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Henseler, J., & da Camara, N. ((2012)). Exploring unanticipated conse-
quences of strategy amongst stakeholder segments: The case of a european revenue service.
Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 395–423.
Morgan, F., Deeter-Schmelz, D., & Moberg, C. R. (2007). Branding implications of partner firm–focal
firm relationships in business-to-business service networks. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 22(6), 372–382.
Mosavi, S. M., Sangari, M. S., & Keramati, A. (2018). An integrative framework for customer switching
behavior. The Service Industries Journal, 38(15–16), 1067–1094.
Mustak, M. (2014). Service innovation in networks: A systematic review and implications for business-
to-business service innovation research. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(2), 151–163.
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and
suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146.
Nguyen, B., Simkin, L., Klaus, P., & Chen, J. (2015). Fairness quality: A conceptual model and multiple-
item scale for assessing firms’ fairness: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Management, 31
(11–12), 1181–1206.
O’Donohoe, S., & Turley, D. (2007). Fatal errors: Unbridling emotions in service failure experiences.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15(1), 17–28.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transactions: A field survey approach. The Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 21–35.
Olsson, L. E., Friman, M., Pareigis, J., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Measuring service experience: Applying
the satisfaction with travel scale in public transport. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19
(4), 413–418.
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3),
165–174.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Park, J., Chung, T.-L., Gunn, F., & Rutherford, B. (2015). The role of listening in e-contact center cus-
tomer relationship management. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(1), 49–58.
Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., Lehtonen, H., & Kostama, H. (2015). Developing the concept of life-cycle
service offering. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 53–66.
Ramanathan, U., Win, S., & Wien, A. (2018). A SERVQUAL approach to identifying the influences of
service quality on leasing market segment in the German financial sector. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 25(6), 1935–1955.
Roy, S. (2018). Effects of customer experience across service types, customer types and time. Journal
of Services Marketing, 32(4), 400–413.
Schembri, S. (2006). Rationalizing service logic, or understanding services as experience? Marketing
Theory, 6(3), 381–392.
Schmitt, B., Joško Brakus, J., & Zarantonello, L. (2015). From experiential psychology to consumer
experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 166–171.
Smith, L., Maull, R., & Ng, I., C. L. (2014). Servitization and operations management: A service domi-
nant-logic approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(2), 242–269.
Spring, M., & Araujo, L. (2009). Service, services and products: Rethinking operations strategy.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(5), 444–467.
Svari, S., Slåtten, T., Svensson, G., & Edvardsson, B. (2011). A SOS construct of negative emotions in
customers’ service experience (CSE) and service recovery by firms (SRF). Journal of Services
Marketing, 25(5), 323–335.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vasconcelos, A. M., Barichello, R., Lezana, A., Forcellini, A., Ferreira, M. G. G., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2015).
Conceptualisation of the service experience by means of a literature review. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 22(7), 1301–1314.
 20 E. V. BUENO ET AL.

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009).
Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of
Retailing, 85(1), 31–41.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors.
Psychology and Marketing, 16(1), 51–68.
Yeung, S., & Leung, C. (2007). Perception and attitude of Hong Kong hotel guest-contact employees
towards tourists from Mainland China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(6), 395–407.
Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase
intention? Investigating the Effects of Adjusted Expectations and Customer Loyalty. Psychology &
Marketing, 21(5), 351–373.
Yilmazsoy, B., Saad, M., & Cicmil, S. (2009). Users’ perceptions of the free, virtual-only service experi-
ence. The Service Industries Journal, 29(7), 1007–1019.
Yoshida, M., Heere, B., & Gordon, B. (2015). Predicting behavioral loyalty through community: Why
other fans are more important than our own intentions, our satisfaction, and the team itself.
Journal of Sport Management, 29(3), 318–333.
Zehrer, A. (2009). Service experience and service design: Concepts and application in tourism SMEs.
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(3), 332–349.
Zolkiewski, J., Story, V., Burton, J., Chan, P., Gomes, A., Hunter-Jones, P., … Robinson, W. (2017).
Strategic B2B customer experience management: The importance of outcomes-based measures.
Journal of Services Marketing, 31(2), 172–184.
Zomerdijk, L., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service
Research, 13(1), 67–82.

View publication stats