You are on page 1of 17

European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16, Number 4 (2010


Service Quality Assessment in Banking Industry of India: A Comparative Study between Public and Private Sectors
Uma Sankar Mishra Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, India, PIN-751030 E-mail: Kalyan Kumar Sahoo Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, India, PIN-751030 E-mail: Satyakama Mishra Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, India, PIN-751030 E-mail: Sujit Kumar Patra Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, India, PIN-751030 E-mail: Abstract The banking industry of India is now running in a dynamic challenge concerning both customer base and performance. Service quality, customer satisfaction, customer retention, customer loyalty and delight are now the major challenges in gripping the banking sector. Service quality plays a major role in getting customer satisfaction and creating brand loyalty in banking sector. Most of the literature reviews referred in the paper reveals that as compared to public sector, private sector bank customers’ level of satisfaction is comparatively more in India. Human element acts an important role in perceived service quality as well as satisfaction. Public sector banks need to redefine the customer service parameter in order to compete with the nationalized private sector banks both in profitability and corporate image. This study is just a small step in understanding the multi dimensional construct of service quality and its implications in competitive environment. This paper attempts to extract few dimensions of service quality as perceived by bank customers and compares with five major dimensions already extracted in past literature.

Keywords: Service quality, SERVQUAL, Bank, India

1. Introduction
The financial reform process initiated in 1991, poses lot of challenges before the banking sector in India as never before. After nationalisation of commercial banks in India in 1969 and 1980, the ownership of major commercial banks was taken over by the Government. Then, the Government decided the agenda for action, directing the flow of credit and even determining the pattern of credit flows to specific sector (Joshi & Joshi, 1998). After nationalisation, competition was restricted and the banking sector was insulated from world financial markets. Over a period of time, the prevailing environment created a mindset, where one began to look for guidance for every thing. There was a comfort among the bankers when approval, guidance or confirmation of actions taken was received 653

the banking sector has become too competitive. Level of customer satisfaction is becoming the major target of banks to increase the market share.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. Recently. The ‘one for all’ and ‘all for one’ syndrome is being given a go-by. expectations rise and customers become more critical of the quality of service. Again. the deregulation in this sector created a great change in present scenario. more so for the public sector banks. 1983). With the entry of new generation tech-savvy private banks and the expansion of operations of foreign banks. The awareness has already dawn that prompt. Service quality. 7-day and anywhere banking. efficient and speedy customer service alone will tempt the existing customers to continue and induce new customers to try the services offered by a bank. bankers have to shed a lot of old ideas. 1995). customer satisfaction. In today’s competition in Indian banking industry. More specifically. All banks look back in order to learn from the corporate failures of the past while designing their future strategies. Customer satisfaction can be viewed as the future intentions of customers towards the service provider. In addition to the service diversification. Another significant aspect is the gradual weakening of the financial base of the banks and over loaded with non-performing loans. the idea of customer satisfaction and formulation of marketing strategies to drag the customer towards the banks are now the key issues in order to survive (Aurora et al. it has been realised that Indians banks have miles to go to capture the recent trends and to be at par with the Western counterparts. which is more or less related to the attitude (Levesque T et al. In matters relating to adoption of technology and handling difficult issues like credit proposals and personnel matters. Hence. The situation was further worsening with increasing competition because of the entry of new players and the impact of changing environment. 1997). many banks have introduced new customer friendly measures like 24-hour banking. 1996). internet banking. As a result. Customers perceive services in terms of the quality of the service and how satisfied they are overall with their experiences (Zeithaml and Bitner. customers have to make a choice among various service providers by making a trade-off between relationships and economies. In a fiercely competitive market. 2004). Indian banks have already taken lot of initiatives in this regard. 2004). it is desirable for banks to develop a customer-centric approach for future survival and growth. and adopt a distinct approach to meet the challenges ahead. 1999). riddled with the threat of capital flight and erosion of tax base. Customer satisfaction is a measure of extent the existing bank is fulfilling the general expectations of a customer and how far and/or close does the existing bank come to the customer’s ideal bank in his mind (Beerli et al. customer retention and delight are now the major challenges in gripping the banking sector in India. the public sector banks face the thorny path. To deal with the emerging situations. It was not able to attract foreign investment. etc. In issues like changing the attitude of personnel and developing strategies for survival of both the strong and weak banks are more justified. trust and products. La Barbera et al. Customers are increasingly aware of the options on offer in relation to the rising standards of service (Krishnaveni et al. suffered worst in real interest rates in an attempt to attract capital. 1994. especially in banking. 2004). non-price factors like customer service become more important (Kotler. A country without efficient and profitable financial markets suffers from multiple disadvantages in a more open world. or service and efficiency (Sachdev et al. there has been a keen interest. the cost of retaining existing customers by enhancing the products and services that are perceived as being important is significantly lower than the cost of winning new customers (Krishnan et al. change in practices. Customer satisfaction is nothing but an outcome of purchase and use resulting from the comparison of the rewards and costs vis-à-vis customers’ expectations and actual performance of the product purchased in relation to the expected consequences (Anderson et al. extended business hours. Satisfaction is the consumer’s 654 . 2003). Number 4 (2010) from the higher authority. Further. When India opened up its financial markets in the early 1990s. ATM network. the weaknesses in its financial sector were exposed. In this context. 2003). It is important to continuously build on this goodwill in the months to come. where banks are looking at the life time value of the customer base rather than focusing on the cost of transactions (Ambler. develop customer loyalty programmes. The banking personnel have completely lost their vigour and stopped thinking and operating like business organisation.

such as banks. but consensus continues to elude as to which one is a better scale.’ with some points along the continuum representing satisfactory quality. They were amongst the earliest researchers to emphatically point out that the concept of quality prevalent in the goods sector is not extendable to the services sector. As a gap or difference between customer ‘expectations’ and ‘perceptions.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. Numerous studies have been undertaken to assess the superiority of two scales. Poor quality places a firm at a competitive disadvantage. Parasuraman. But. Servqual Scale Though initial efforts in defining and measuring service quality emanated largely from the goods sector. it implies less than satisfactory service quality. and entailing simultaneity and inseparability of production and consumption. Such differentiation can yield a higher proportion of consumers’ choices and. thus. Perceived quality is defined as the degree and direction of discrepancy between a consumer’s perceptions and expectations (Parasuraman. Zeithaml and Berry. it is clear that service quality offers a way of achieving success among competing services. 2002). Being inherently and essentially intangible. where establishing service quality may be the only way of differentiating oneself. Zeithaml and Berry (1988) held that when perceived or experienced service is less than expected service. 2. 1982).’ service quality is viewed as lying along a continuum ranging from ‘ideal quality’ to ‘totally unacceptable quality. Zeithaml and Bitner. et al. In line with the propositions put forward by Gronroos (1982) and Smith and Houston (1982). a few variants of the scale have also been proposed. Number 4 (2010) fulfilment response (Oliver. perishable. 2003). they proposed a service quality measurement scale called ‘SERVQUAL’. 1985.e. Zeithaml and Berry (1985. the gap model maintains that satisfaction is related to the size and direction of disconfirmation of a person’s experience vis-à-vis his/her initial expectations (Churchill and Surprenant. Zeithaml and Berry (1985. and explicated it as involving evaluations of the outcome (i. the manner in which service is delivered). 1988). they may be quick to take their businesses else where. 1982. The construct of quality measured by SERVQUAL scale involves service quality (as opposed to object quality). quality in the service context is explicated in terms of parameters that largely come under the domain of ‘experience’ and ‘credence’ properties and are as such difficult to measure and evaluate (Parasuraman et al 1985. In the light of the research findings. Zeithaml and Berry (1985). mean the difference between financial success and failure. Parasuraman. hence.. interest in service quality is. With roots in disconfirmation paradigm. or attitude.. service quality and brand image (Wirtz. Customer satisfaction is influenced by price. As against the goods sector where tangible cues exist to enable consumers to evaluate product quality. They defined service quality as ‘a global judgment. Perceived quality is the consumer’s judgement of overall excellence or superiority an entity. Thus.e. product quality. relating to the superiority of the service’. what the customer actually receives from service) and process of service act (i. The ‘SERVPERF’ scale is one such scale that has been put forward by Cronin and Taylor (1992) in the early nineties. while expectations are viewed as desire or wants of consumers (not predicted of what will be provided). particularly in the case of firms that offer nearly identical services. unarguably high. One major contribution of Parasuraman et al (1988) was to provide a terse definition of service quality. Parasuraman. similar to an overall attitude. The foundation for the SERVQUAL scale is the gap model proposed by Parasuraman. If customers perceive quality as unsatisfactory. when perceived service is less 655 . 1988). Smith and Houston. Quality is distinguished from satisfaction in that the latter is assumed to involve specific transactions. The scale constitutes an important landmark in the service quality literature and has been extensively applied in different service settings. 1988) posited and operationalized service quality as a difference between consumer expectations of ‘what they want’ and their perceptions of ‘what they get.’ Based on this conceptualization and operationalization. a solid foundation for research work in the area was laid down in the mid-eighties by Parasuraman. Over a period of time. services require a distinct framework for quality explication and measurement. 2003). heterogeneous.

Pointing to conceptual. Despite considerable work undertaken in the area. Reliability. Parasuraman et al 1985. a positive discrepancy leads to consumer delight. 1993. Various definitions of the term ‘service quality’ have been proposed in the past and. In this direction. 1992. Communication. P=3. Lewis and Mitchell 1990. Reliability. 1991. 2000. Teas (1993. Cronin and Brady. Competence. Responsiveness. Finn and Lamb. and the precise wording of the SERVQUAL items.. 1997). 1988. 1990. They relate to respondent’s difficulties with negatively worded statements. 1991) and in other research studies (Babakhus and BoIler 1992.=2. and Understanding the customer. Zeithaml and Berry’s (1988) scale and the overall service quality measured directly through a singleitem scale (e. Credibility. They had originally identified ten determinants of service quality generic to the service industry. Cronin and Taylor 1992. researchers have developed conceptualizations of the dimensions of service quality. Most studies have found a poor fit between service quality as measured through Parasuraman. et al (1985: 1988). Dabholkar et al 2000. E=4. Carman 1990. 1985. P=4. Babakus and Mangold. theoretical.g. there is no consensus yet as to which one of the measurement scales is robust enough for measuring and comparing service quality. Assurance and Empathy. E=5. Carman 1990. Such interchange will help refine the meaning of service quality. E=7 and these tied gaps cannot be construed as implying equal perceived service quality 656 . Subsequent research. One major problem with past studies has been their preoccupation with assessing psychometric and methodological soundness of service scales that too in the context of service industries in the developed countries (Jain & Gupta 2004). Carman. Courtesy. based on different definitions. (1988) have condensed these into five dimensions of service quality namely: Tangibility. 1991). 1988). much of the programme research work in the management domain of services is the conceptual model of ‘SERVQUAL’ presented by Parasuraman. 1990. Number 4 (2010) than expected service. Based on different conceptualizations. different scales for measuring service quality have been put forward. While there is a healthy and for most part a productive debate regarding the dimensionality of SERVQUAL across industries. analysis and testing by Parasuraman et al. P=2. 1994. and measurement problems associated with the disconfirmation model. Zeithaml el al. Parasuraman 1997. 1994). E=6 and P=6. 1994. Berry and Parasuraman. Zeithaml and Berry have further developed promulgated and promoted SERVQUAL through a series of publications (Parasuraman et al. i. Parasuraman. and Smith 1992). Parasuraman et al.. 1989. P=5. ease of consumer assessment and timing of measurement—before. These determinants were Tangibles. the obvious inference is that service quality is more than satisfactory. Access. disconfirmation model. Responsiveness. researchers generally agree that the scale items are good predictors of overall service quality (Babakus and BoIler 1992. 1996. Security. 1992. As the understanding of service quality has emerged. alternative scales have been proposed for service quality measurement (Brady 2001. using two lists of statements for the same items. Babakus and BoIler. Several issues have been raised with regard to use of (P-E) gap scores. E=3. Spreng and Singh.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. Furthermore. Bolton and Drew 1991. the number of dimensions of service being assessed. The innovators. Zeithaml and Berry (1988) posited that while a negative discrepancy between perceptions and expectations — a ‘performance-gap’ as they call it causes dissatisfaction. The debate underscores the importance of the subject and the significance of the contribution to date.1990. 1993). Cronin and Taylor 1992. 1994) observed that a (P-E) gap of magnitude ‘-1’ can be produced in six ways: P=l. Iacobucci. Lewis 1993. 1991. the ability of these scores to provide additional information beyond that already contained in the perception component of service quality scale is under doubt (Babakus and BoIler. Though the use of gap scores intuitively appealing and conceptually sensible. during or after a service encounter. Grayson and Ostrom.e. E. Limitations with SERVQUAL are highlighted by the authors themselves (Parasuraman el a!. Brown and Swartz 1989. Virtually no empirical efforts have been made to evaluate the diagnostic ability of the scales in providing managerial insights for corrective actions in the event of quality shortfalls. Parasuraman. little work has been done to examine the applicability of these scales to the service industries in developing countries.

Parasuraman.. 2000. 2004.’ i. 1989.. The Scale Description Parasuraman et al. therefore. This conceptualization was based on the reasoning that the term ‘expectation’ has been used differently in service quality literature than in the customer satisfaction literature where it is defined as a prediction of future events. called as SERVQUAL for assessing customer perceptions of service quality in service organizations. Zeithaml and Berry. what customers feel a service provider would offer. Initially.g. 1991. It also helps in identifying the areas of managerial attention for future improvement. reliability. Number 4 (2010) shortfalls. Brown. Zeithaml and Berry (1985. some researchers manner as the consumer’s belief about service is experienced. the empirical study by Peter. Churchill and Brown (1993) found difference scores being beset with psychometric problems and. like Babakus and Boiler (1992). expectation (E) is subject to multiple interpretations and as such has been operationalized differently by different authors/researchers (e. and Carman (1990) stressed the need for developing a methodologically more precise scale. Jain and Gupta. They gave a distinction between service quality and satisfaction by saying that perceived service quality is a global judgment. It has now a variety of applications in banking industry. Babakus and Inhofe. Churchill and Peter (1993). In an equation form. viz. 1993. especially in assessing customer expectations about and perceptions of service quality delivered by different banks.. what the customer would expect from ‘excellent’ service (Parasuraman. Initially.Ei Where: SQi = perceived service quality of an attribute Pi = Average perception of individual ‘ i ’ with respect to performance of a service attribute Ei = Average expectation of individual ‘ i ’ with respect to performance of a service attribute 657 . realizing the problem with this interpretation. 1990.’ and posited it as being similar to ‘ideal expectation’ (Zeithaml and Parasuraman. Customers’ responses to their expectations and perceptions are obtained on a 7-point Likert scale and are compared to arrive at (P-E) gap scores. what they feel a service provider should offer rather than would offer. The new dimensions of service quality are five in number. (1988) developed a 22-item instrument.e. Parasuraman. Teas. Validity of (P-E) measurement framework has also come under attack due to problems with the conceptualization and measurement of expectation component of the SERVQUAL scale. but satisfaction is linked to a specific transaction. their service quality measurement scale is comprised of a total of 44 items composed of two matched sets of 22 items (22 for expectations and 22 for perceptions). the measurement of service quality can he expressed as follows: SQi = Pi . Bolton and Drew (1991a). 1994). Dabholkar et al. The SERVPERF scale — developed by Cronin and Taylor (1992) — is one of the important variants of the SERVQUAL scale. 1994).European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. it has been conceptually and methodologically posited as a better scale than the SERVQUAL scale which has its origin in disconfirmation paradigm. Brown and Swartz. tangibles.e. they themselves proposed a revised expectation (E) measure. The higher (more positive) the perception minus expectation score. being based on the perception component alone. Since they have defined service quality as being a gap between customer’s expectations and perceptions of performance on these variables. It is because of the vagueness of the expectation concept.. assurance and empathy.. Gronroos. cautioned against the use of (P-E) scores. while perception (P) is definable and measurable in a straight forward manner. i. 3. responsiveness. 1991). relating to the superiority of the service. Later.e. In a similar vein. or attitude. 1988) defined expectation close in the lines of Miller (1977) as ‘desires or wants of consumers. For. the higher is perceived to be the level of service quality. Berry and Zeithaml (1990) labelled this ‘should be’ expectation as ‘normative expectation. i. the researchers took ten dimensions of service quality as the input to derive some items for the SERVQUAL scale.

Number 4 (2010) A number of other industry specific empirical studies have been conducted using SERVQUAL Model which includes some mostly cited studies carried out in banks are Lewis (1991). ways and means for improving service quality in banks with a view to make overall banking service more effective arid efficient. gender.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. while. The data regarding perceptions and expectations of customers were collected in a 7 – point interval scales. 4. This may be due to the fact that they have an account with public sector banks before the entry of private banks into their location in mid-1990s. except 40-60 years age group. above or below the perceptions of their respective customers. on the basis of study results. where 1 stands for strongly agree and 7 stands for strongly disagree.e. Initially 600 samples were planned covering 300 customers of both private and public sector banks.58 %) have a choice for public banks and the post-graduates more inclined to private banks (45. The questionnaire containing all the 22 numbers of statements of SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parsuraman et al for customer survey is administered keeping the broad parameters in mind. which was pretested before finalisation. A questionnaire for customer survey is designed keeping the broad parameters in mind. Therefore. In view of the above mentioned facts. Study Design and Methodology The data for the study were collected through a structured questionnaire from 387 customers selected on stratified random basis. education. The present paper. Sample Profile The demographic backgrounds of the sample respondents in six parameters are presented in Table 1 to understand the customer profiles i.90%). The χ2 .value is significant at 1 per cent level of significance indicating the dependence between type of education and choice of a bank. It is evident from the table that 58. SERVQUAL is chosen as an ideal instrument for studying service quality perceptions in banks. Such an analysis will provide banks a quantitative estimate of their services being perceived with intricate details such as whether banks are meeting. and income. an analysis of service quality perceptions from customer’s point of view may sound interesting at this juncture. 41. where the dominance of public sector banks (78.(2000). attempts to achieve the following objectives: • Make a comparative study of service quality perceptions of banks. 658 . Because of the small number of branches of private banks and their urban concentration. It is observed from the same table that less educated customers (81. This trend is observed may be due to the large presence of public banks with wide ranges products more suitable for lower income groups.79 %) is visible. and • Suggest.82 per cent of the young respondents transacts with public sector banks. Lassar et al. under study. (1999) and Blanchard et al. occupation. exceeding or are below the perceptions of their respective customers. (1994). out of which 242 from public banks and 145 from private banks. All the respondents in different age groups have shown similar behaviour. More or less the behaviour in gender is similar. All the data were collected from bank customers through personal contact approach. Angur el al. age. class-banking approaches). time and budgetary constraints restricted the sample size to 387. with service quality expectations of their respective customers. Table describes the customer profile and the type of banks they have chosen for their transactions. therefore. 5.18 per cent with private banks. and the χ2 value for gender variation is not significant. The χ2 value is significant at 1 per cent level of significance indicating age-groups of the respondents and their choices of the bank are dependent on each other. unwillingness of the customers to provide data.. while private banks are offering value-added services for special group of customers (mass-banking vs. • Know whether the banks are at.

53 Private f % 77 41. Referring to Table 2.81 16 80.00 100.07 Occupation 23.21 13 40.31 51 56.67 10 47.38% respectively).00 6 60. The professionals and house-wives have shown more preference for private banks compared to the other groups (52% and 52.3-4 lakh Rs. Students and self-employed persons have a clear preference for public sector banks. 6. 659 .67 134 59. implying that customers with occupational variations have a preference for a bank.2 –3 lakh Rs.81* Education 13.00 100.12 31 73.38 31 81.00 100.50 %).00 100.62 66 54.33 91 40.00 100.00 100. Number 4 (2010) Table 1: Customer Profile by Type of Banks Public f % 110 58.00 100. while almost all the businessmen have chosen to transact with public sector banks (87.00 4 40.50 12 22. Results and Discussion The views of the sample respondents regarding the services offered by the banks under study are presented in Table 2.33 11 52. The χ2 value is significant at 1 per cent level of significance.00 100.00 191 64.10 78 45.44 2 25.80 52 78.00 145 37.38 56 45.18 41 40.63 7 18. the comparison of customer expectations and perceptions of public banks.19 4 20.00 100.00 106 35.69 39 43. The χ2 value is significant at 1 per cent level.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100. for different income groups public sector banks are more preferred.00 100.08* Gender 2.4 lakh and above Age 12.00 100.78 17 56.42 40 37.00 Chi Square Parameters Below 30 years 30-40 years 40-60 years 60 years and above Up to HSC Graduate Post Graduate Professional Male Female Salaried Self-employed Professional Business Student Retired Housewife Less than Rs.22 13 43.00 12 48. Similarly.82 61 59.50 42 77.46 Total f 187 102 66 32 38 107 122 120 297 90 225 8 25 24 54 30 21 145 170 42 20 10 387 % 100.00 3 12.38 48 33.79 19 59.00 100.00 100.00 100.27* All Samples * 1% level of significance Taking into account the occupation of the customers.90 42 35.1 lakh Rs.10 78 65.58 67 62.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16.1 – 2 lakh Rs.00 100.20 14 21.62 97 66. indicating the influence of levels of income for choice of a bank.00 242 62.56 6 75.00 100.00 21 87.00 100.00 100.90 92 54. it is observed that the sample customers have very similar opinion as indicated from the mean values of different dimensions. salaried persons dominate the sample.00 13 52.33* Income 15.88 11 26.

453 -0.282 2.589 4.021 5.589 -0.983 5.355 -0.295 4. Number 4 (2010) Table 2: Comparison of Mean and t-Values of Expectations and Performance by Bank type Public Expectat Gap ion 5.316 4.263 0.095 5.238** -2.729 4.211 5.488 t Value -2.570 -0.073** 1.188 0.095 -0.454 -2.205 4.939 4.147 3.178 4.989 4.274 4.674 -2.911 -0.737 -0.263 -0.980 4.377** -4.253 0.769 0.747 4.010 4.678 4.874 4.570 4.087 -0.736 4.200 0.545 -1.811 4.901 4.21** 0.675 -2.653 -2.103 4.484 4.122* 1.121 -0.884 4.926 4.032 4.421 0.905 0.768 0.843 5.115* 0.723 0.148 1.800 5.216 4.179 -2.496 4.248 0.947 4.734 '-5.853 4.863 4.009 3.116 5.112 4.400 -0.453 -1.388 -2.399* 4.168 -0.032 -0.705 4.784 660 .232** -4.505 4.447** 1.525** -4.074 4.227 -0.454 -2.744 -0.288 -0.388 5.063 4.735 -0.178 0.643* 3.186 4.339 0.642 -0.800 4.737 4.482 -5.889 4.050 0.232 4.154 -0.832 4.579 4.200 5.663 5.095 5.182 5.537 -0.763* 2.377* 4.860 -0.516 t Value -1.595 -0.674 2.151** 4.732* 2.273 4.115 0.855 4.032 0.116 4.811 4.116 -0.512 Private Expectat Gap ion 5.995 1.364 4.000 0.204 0.663* -0.768 5.164* 0.095 4.179 0.525 0.053 3.189 5.620 2.888* Perform ance 5.284 -0.137 4.475 4.042 5.737 4.017 4.634 3.087 5.884 5.157 -7.616 5.116 -0.008 5.095 4.169 0.922* 4.704* -0.847 5.253 Component Modern Looking Equipment Visually Appealing Physical Facilities Neat Appearance of Employees Visually Appealing Materials Tangibility Keeping Promises Sincere in Solving Customer Problems Dependable Provide Services as Promised Keeping Accurate Records Reliability Inform When Service will be Performed Prompt Service from Employees Employees’ Willingness to Help Employees’ Response to Requests Responsiveness Customers’ Confidence on Employees Safe Feeling of Customers in Transaction Courteous Employees Adequate Support to Employees Assurance Individual Attention by Bank Personal Attention by Employees Understanding Perform ance 5.568 -0.384 -0.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16.093* 2.009 3.835 4.988 4.158 -0.764 3.299 4.400 0.657 0.001** 4.274 5.876 1.413 4.011** -1.808 2.442 4.124 4.288 -0.579 0.070 5.372 -0.152 0.210 -1.687* -1.818 4.831 4.202 5.708* 4.

591 3. v) willingness of employees to help.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16.e. Figure 1: Mean Comparisition between Expectation and Performance .826* 0. i) keeping accurate and error-free records. 1 and Fig.0000 This indicates the major reasons of dissatisfaction of customers in public banks are staff related.716 4.0000 0.350 -5. where as they are dissatisfied with assurance dimension 661 M od Ap e rn N pe Lo ea t A ali n oki pp g P ng E Vi ear hy s q u su an ica ip Si m al ce l nc e F y er Ap of E aci nt e p e m litie in ali plo s So ye lvi Ke ng es ng e p M in ate C g us Pr P ri als to ov m ro m In id er i fo e Pr s es rm S K W ee ervi De obl he pin ce p em en s s n g Pr Se A c as d a om rv c u P r ble om ic p e r ate is w E tS Em mp erv il l b Re ed c ic lo pl y e e e P ord C o f Sa us to yee es’ rom er fo s W fe m s E rm ed Fe ers ’ Re i llin m el ’ C s p gn pl o in on on e s ye g of fid se s t es o C en us ce to R H e to on equ lp m Ad e Em es eq C rs U p ts u a ou i n nd r te T r l o y te er S u ou ans ees st an s P Ind a di ers i vi ppo Em c tio ng on du rt t pl n oy o Sp al al E A e C ec i Atte tte m p es us fic lo nt nti to y m Nee i on on b ee er d s by y s s’ Em Ba o B C e s f th pl nk on t e ve I n t C oye us e ni ere en s to m s t O ts e pe at H r s ra e ti n a r g ty H ou rs lly Vi su a . assurance and empathy) the gap is negative indicating dissatisfaction of the customers.467 -0. Further.616 4.236 -0.800 4. visually appealing materials.099* 3. The levels of satisfaction with private bank are significant for reliability dimension.E) as shown in Fig.084 -0.529 -0. which are also statistically significant as indicated from the t–values.0000 1.0000 6. in all components of assurance. In the rest three factors (i. responsiveness.495 4.632 0.814 0.0000 5.443* 1.Public Sector Bank 7.0000 4.295 -2.397 -1. A comparison between opinion of respondents for perceptions and expectations exhibits that out of the five dimensions of service quality gaps two are positive indicating customers satisfaction and rest three are negative indicating customer dissatisfaction. tangibility and reliability) of public sector bank respondents indicating satisfaction of the customers. There are only three components where the customer’s satisfaction is statistically significant (i.745 Empathy 4.686 4.e.872 4.173 4.179 * 1% Level of Significance ** 5% Level of Significance The gap (P .851 4. ii) modern looking equipments. componentwise analysis indicates that the higher level of dissatisfactions are observed in factors like. is positive for first two factors (i.0000 2. and empathy except convenient working hours. iii) bank informs when the services will be performed. 2.0000 Performance Expectation 3. Number 4 (2010) Specific Needs of the Customers Customers’ Best Interests at Heart Convenient Operating Hours 3.863 4. iv) promptness of employees.e. sincerity in solving customer problems and the bank is dependable.

0000 4.099*).011**). M od Ap e rn pe L N ea a o t A li n oki n pp g P g E h Vi ear y s q u su an ica ipm Si ce l F al en nc y er Ap of E aci l t e p e m itie in s pl al So oy i ee lvi Ke ng M ng e s C pin ater us g i Pr to P ro als ov m In er mis id fo e Pr es rm K Se ob rv D W ee le he pin ice ep m s s en n g Pr Se A c as d a om rv c u P r ble om ic p e r at is e w E tS e Em m p erv il l b Rec d e ic lo pl ye e Pe ord C s us o y es fro r Sa e m for t ’ m f e om es’ W E ed er R i llin m Fe el s’ C es p gn pl o in y g onf ons e ss ee s of id e to t o H C en us ce R el eq p to m on ue Ad e E e q C rs i m p s ts U n ua ou nd T r l oy te rte er an ee o S st sa s an P Ind up us po Em c tio iv di er n g s o id r n na ua t to p lo Sp l y ec l At Att Em ee C te en pl s ifi us o to c N nti o ti on ye ee n m es er d s by by s’ B Be of Em an t k C o n st I h e pl o v e n t e Cu y e st es ni re o en s t O ts a m e pe t H r s e ra ti n a rt y g H ou rs ly Vi su a 662 . Higher differences for mean scores are observed for public banks. while for public banks but not for private banks is empathy (. Further component-wise analysis indicates highest level of satisfaction is associated with sincerity in solving customer problems (0.3.Private Sector Bank 7.905) while highest level of dissatisfaction with safe feeling of customers in transactions and customer’s best interests at heart.0000 5. Number 4 (2010) (significant at 5 % level). In bank variations.0000 1.0000 0.0000 Perf ormance Expectation 3. Figure 1 and 2 present the mean scores of expectations and perceptions of respondents of public and private banks respectively.0000 The results of SERVQUAL items show similar trend in responses of customers of private and public sector banks. compared to that of private banks.0000 2.0000 6.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. Figure 2: Mean Comparison between Expection and Comparision . the quality gap is significant for private banks but not for the public bank is reliability (2. The mean scores for both expectation and perception of banks are in the middlerange indicating not very-high levels of expectations from the banks.

804 0. Adequate Support to Employees 22. Courteous Employees 9.83% Factor – 1 Reliability / Assurance 17.808 0.43% Factor – 2 Responsiveness / Empathy 16. Inform when service will be performed 11. Keeping Accurate Records 14. Convenient Operating Hours Components Loadings 0. Provide Services as Promised 9.681 0.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16.51 0.24% 7. Inform when service will be performed 12.856 0. Employees’ Willingness to Help 13.33% Factor – 2 Tangibility / Reliability / Assurance Responsiveness / Assurance Tangibility Responsiveness / Assurance Responsiveness Assurance / Empathy 15. Adequate Support to Employees 21.673 0. Customers’ Best Interests at Heart 1.555 0. Courteous Employees 10.468 0.585 0. Visually Appealing Materials 5.3 Factor – 4 Factor – 5 Factor – 6 Factor – 7 Tangibility Empathy Tangibility Reliability / Responsiveness Assurance / Empathy 12.28% 8.738 0.875 0.816 0.774 0. Keeping Accurate Records 14.19% 7. Customers’ Confidence on Employees 1. Individual Attention by Bank 19.609 0. Customers’ Confidence on Employees 15. Prompt Service from Employees 17. Employees’ Response to Requests 17.31% 8.621 0.567 0.607 Variance Explained Factor – 1 Reliability / Responsiveness / Empathy 18.766 0. Modern Looking Equipment 2. Sincere in Solving Customer Problems 8. Individual Attention by Bank 19.824 0.865 0.718 0.593 0.766 0. Dependable 10. Dependable 11. Keeping Promises 6.863 0. Safe Feeling of Customers in Transaction 13. Visually Appealing Materials 7. Sincere in Solving Customer Problems 8.522 0. Customers’ Best Interests at Heart Perceptions 5. Neat Appearance of Employees 12.62% 6. Provide Services as Promised 16.631 0.578 0. Neat Appearance of Employees 4.69% 8. Understanding Specific Needs of the Customers 21.766 0. Visually Appealing Physical Facilities 4.736 0.7 0.689 0. Employees’ Willingness to Help 15.846 0.737 0. Safe Feeling of Customers in Transaction 16.745 0.17% 663 . Number 4 (2010) Table 3: Results of Factor Analysis (Private Banks) Expectation Factors Variables 7.833 0. Convenient Operating Hours 2.755 0.713 -0. Employees’ Response to Requests 20.3 Factor – 4 Factor – 5 Factor – 6 Factor – 7 9. Prompt Service from Employees 18.95% 6.505 0.01% Factor . Keeping Promises 6. Modern Looking Equipment 3.794 0.715 0.81% Factor .721 0. Understanding Specific Needs of the Customers 22.621 0.57% 6.773 0. Personal Attention by Employees 3. Personal Attention by Employees 20.822 0. Visually Appealing Physical Facilities 18.

Adequate Support to Employees Assurance 12. Understanding Specific Needs of the Customers Empathy 21. Dependable Reliability / 10. Courteous Employees 6. Safe Feeling of Customers in Transaction Assurance 16.86% 8.723 0.84 0. Visually Appealing Materials Tangibility 5.589 0.9 0. Adequate Support to Employees 18. Employees’ Response to Requests Responsiveness / 18. Personal Attention by Employees 20.88% 8.609 0.616 0.737 0.539 0. Inform when service will be performed 11. Provide Services as Promised 9. Individual Attention by Bank Empathy 19. Employees’ Willingness to Help 13.679 0.807 0.3 Factor – 4 Factor – 5 5.772 0.683 0.734 0.825 0.501 0.746 0. Understanding Specific Needs of the Customers 21. Convenient Operating Hours 2.722 0. Neat Appearance of Employees Reliability / 4. Employees’ Response to Requests 1. Customers’ Best Interests at Heart 22. Visually Appealing Physical Facilities 3. Modern Looking Equipment Tangibility / 7.69% 7.629 0.573 0. Sincere in Solving Customer Problems Reliability 7. The findings of the initial models 664 .3 Factor – 4 Factor – 5ss Factor – 6 Factor – 7 Factor – 8 Factor – 1 Factor – 2 Factor .839 0.577 0. Individual Attention by Bank Empathy 19. Modern Looking Equipment 2.625 0.742 0. Safe Feeling of Customers in Assurance Transaction 16.07% 9.774 0. Customers’ Best Interests at Heart 22. Keeping Accurate Records Reliability Perceptions 10.38% 12.516 0. Convenient Operating Hours 1.64% 22. Prompt Service from Employees 12. Sincere in Solving Customer Problems Reliability 8.08% 18.913 0. Employees’ Willingness to Help Responsiveness 13.898 0.83 0.9.866 0.802 0.42% 6. Neat Appearance of Employees Tangibility 4.681 0. Visually Appealing Physical Facilities 3. Provide Services as Promised 14. Customers’ Confidence on Employees 15. Customers’ Confidence on Employees 15.704 0.768 0.699 0. Prompt Service from Employees 12.844 0. Courteous Employees 17.45% 6.757 0.74 0. Dependable 17.696 Variance Explained 12. Personal Attention by Employees 20.486 0. Keeping Promises 6.622 0.74% Factor – 2 Factor .857 0.55% 10. Number 4 (2010) Table 4: Results of Factor Analysis (Public Banks) Expectation Components Factors Factor – 1 Variables Loadings 0. Keeping Accurate Records 14.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. Inform when service will be Responsiveness performed 9.56% Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to interpret the 22 components of service quality for expectations and perceptions to compare with the initial findings. Keeping Promises 8.826 0. Visually Appealing Materials 11.633 0.10% 7.459 0.

665 . KMO measures 0. Similarly. to attract customers. 7.848 percent of the variances in customers’ expectations. indicating the applicability of factor analysis. taking the cut off point in the eigen value as ‘1’ (see Table 4).582 percent variations taking the cut off point of eigen value as ‘1’. which is a post-purchase judgement of the consumers.000. Number 4 (2010) were five dimensions. Further. the first factor comprised of nine out of the 22 items of service quality and second factor has clubbed seven items. 1st and 2nd factors combined explain 40. For customers’ expectation in private banks. Again. Here.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16.637 and approximate Chi-Square significant at 1 % level. The study on service quality in banks is measured in five dimensions by using the SERVQUAL scale developed by Parsuraman et al (1988). and 74.456 % of the variations. The KMO measures of sampling adequacy is 0.590 and χ2 is significant at 0. The results of the factor analysis for private banks are given in Table 3. Conclusion Delivering customer satisfaction is at the heart of modern marketing. The respondents of both the banks mostly focus on people (staffs of the banks) factor for improving customer satisfaction. The analysis of responses clearly reveals that there exists a small perceptual difference among customers regarding overall service quality with their respective banks. as compared with seven dimensions extracted for expectations and perceptions of the respondents from private banks. the KMO measures of sampling adequacy is 0. Similarly.698 and significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity at 0. Total variances explained by the first seven factors are 75. the content of the five factors extracted is different from the initial dimensions suggested in the model.000 level indicates the suitability of PCA method for identifying the important components of expectations of respondents of public sector banks. but the contents of the factors are different. However. ATMs.321 % in the analysis of customers’ expectation and perceptions respectively. the analysis of perception of respondents of public sector banks suggests five factors extracted through PCA explain 66. The expectations exceeding performances are clearly visible with Indian banks. suggests the need for factor analysis of performance of private banks as viewed by the respondents. etc. Eight factors have been extracted by the method explaining 76.106 %. the results of principal component analysis indicate that though the dimensions suggested in the model are comparable with the sample results. The solutions for 5 – components suggested by Zeithmal et al are compared with the sample results indicating validity of the scales and suggesting the basis in Table 3 for private bank customers’ expectations and perception. while the banks are focusing on tangible factors such as computerisation.

” Journal of Retailing. E and Beerli A. Anderson. “The Role of Expectations and Attribute Importance in the Measurement of Service Quality” in Gilly M C (ed. 1/2. “A Multistage Model of Customer’s Assessment of Service Quality and Value.224-226. Number 4 (2010) References [1] [2] Adrian.” Journal of Business Research. Proceedings of the Summer Educator’s Conference. (2002). 66(1). Andaleeb. New York. 27 (March). “Searching for a Consensus on the Antecedent Role of Service Quality and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Cross-National Study. Churchill. available at www. (1997).116-123. European Journal of Marketing. M K and Robertson. Pyne (1995). and Jahera. Market Share and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. “Customer Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Public and Private sector Banks”. The Free Press. (2004). M. 51(1) 53-60. 5-24. W. “An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction.R. Staelin. 1-9.9. Babakus. R and Zeithaml. Vol. A K (1994). Vol. C and Zeithaml. J M (1990).17. H (1991a). Churchill. 26(6). The PIMS Principles. A.pp.” Journal of Marketing Research. 767-80.” Journal of Retailing. 92-98. C A and Surprenant. 53-66. New Delhi.managementjournals. Bolton. 38. 33-35. C P (1984). (2005). C and Lehmann. G W (1992). Business Strategy.1. (Jan – Mar).. E and Inhofe.” Health Service Research. “Service Quality Perceptions in Banks: A Comparative Analysis”. Kalra. No. 70(4). Natarajan. 17-31.” Journal of Marketing. 142-44. 55(January). and Business Performance. T A (1989).” Journal of Business Research. D and Quintana A. “An Empirical Assessment of the Servqual Scale. (1999). J H (1991b). pp. No.. C (1982). Fornell. M K. 55(1). 69(1). J and Brand. Brown.). 367-81.A. “A model of customer loyalty in the retail banking market”. pp.” Journal of Consumer Research. E and Boller. M. pp. “Performance—Only Measurement of Service Quality: A Replication and Extension. G A and Peter. Vol. “Stage of the Product Life Cycle.” Journal of Marketing. “Improving the Measurement of Service Quality. and Malhotra. W G (1989). 109 -130. Brady. Babakus. 7-27. 58(3). Decision. S Sand Basu. J. “Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions.” Journal of Retailing. Martin J. “Technical Complexity and Consumer Knowledge as Moderators of Service Quality Evaluation in the Automobile Service Industry. 24(1-4). D R (1994).3. j p (1993). Boulding. Brown. Anderson. R.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. Aurora. 253-275 Bhat. 17(March). Chicago. TJ.” Journal of Marketing. The Essence of Service Marketing. “A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioural Intentions.“Customer Satisfaction. Brady. Cronin. B T (1987). “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality.11-20. 53 (April). “Adapting the Servqual Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Bank Marketing. Angur. Barking up the Wrong Tree – Factors Influencing Customer Satisfaction in Retail Banking in the UK. IL: American Marketing Association. “Service Quality in the Banking Industry: An assessment in a Developing Economy”. 253-68. 24(3). E W. (January – December). R N and Drew. pp.S.” Journal of Business Research. Carman. R D and Gale. 127-39. M. Babakus. R N and Drew. 19(November).G. Buzzell. S. C J (2001). Vision – The Journal of Business Perspective. V A (1993).” Journal of Marketing Research. 375-85. 666 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Prentice-hall of India.” Academy of Management Journal. J. M (1991). No. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Service Changes on Customer Attitudes. Bolton. R. 491-504. 30(February). S W and Swartz.

Grewal. N M and Bojci. M K and Hult. S A (1992). “Customer Satisfaction in Retail Banking”.480-93. Provo. R and Solomon. P A. 87585. 193-218. “Customer satisfaction for financial services: The role of products. 16 (February). et al (eds. Brady. Harvard Business Review. 125-31. 139-73.11-17. J and Taylor. Advances in Services Marketing and Management. Levesque Terrence and McDougall Gordon H. S. “The Calculus of Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: Theoretical and Empirical Differentiation and Integration. “Service Quality: Gaps in the Telemarketing Industry. M D and Ferrell.G (1996). 14. G A (1979). pp. Finland.).25-37. (2005).pp. (2004). Kassim. J and Taylor. pp. (April – June). Ramaswamy V. Vol. Howcroft. J B. New Delhi. (Jan).-October).” Journal of Marketing. pp. XXXIII (1). Vol. and Gupta. S A (1994). “The Management of Customer Contact Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation. 56(July).K. “Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs.94-102. SERVPERF Scales”. pp. G. D A (1983). Gotlieb. Greenwich.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. “Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles”. 12– 20 Levitt. Hartline. S W (1994). Technology and Strategy”. 845-52. September. Garvin. 64-71 Cronin. and Divya Prava. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. 0 C (1996). Jain. February. May-June. D. 55-67. (2003). “Measuring Service Quality in Banking Sector”. “An Evaluation of the SERVQUAL Scale in a Retailing Setting” in Holman. Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.T A. Dhananjayan.7. Advances in Consumer Research. 7(1). 667 [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] . No. D and Brown. 79(6). Meyer Mary C and Damien Perception (1999).” Journal of Applied Psychology. Gronroos. D. services. 45. 9.” Journal of Marketing Management.S. 76(2). 52-70. A L (1994). “Assessing the Effects of Quality. Krishnan M. Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. 6573. 69 (October). “Services Marketing: Integrating People. D I (2000). Prentice Hall of India. Marketing Mastermind. (2004). and information technology”.” Journal of Retailing. of Social and Management Sciences. K A and Ostrom.17-23.” Journal of Retailing. P. T M (2000). 58(January). “A Comprehensive Framework for Service Quality: An Investigation of Critical. UT: Association for Consumer Research. 29 (2). “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-based and Perceptions— Minus—Expectations Measurement of Service Quality. 47-62. J (2002). G.(1991). Grayson. pp. Number 4 (2010) [23] [24] [25] Churchill. Service Industry Journal.167.” Journal of Business Research. Cronin. Vikalpa.. “Quality on the Line. “Service Quality: An International Comparison of Bank Customer’s Expectations and Perceptions. pp. D W and Lamb. J.B. Value and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioural Intentions in Service Environments.” Harvard Business Review. C (1982). pp. lacobucci. CT: JAI Press. M R (eds.” Journal of Marketing Research. Finn. Management Science. “Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking”.” Journal of Marketing. J. Lewis. “Consumer Satisfaction and Perceived Quality: Complementary or Divergent Constructs. Prajnan: Jr. 61(Sept. Shepherd. (1981). “Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and Extension. Conceptual and Measurement Issues through a Longitudinal Study. No. 76(2).” Journal of Marketing.” in Swartz. D C and Thorpe. Kotler. Dabholkar.47-55. T. 1194-1209 Krishnaveni. B (1991). C W (1991). Cronin. R. Marketing Management. 55(11). International Journal of Bank Marketing.).

Smith. G. L L and Zeithaml. 83-88. New York.” Journal of Marketing. R. “Script-based Evaluations of Satisfaction with Services.K.). Prajnan: Jr. XXXIII (1).sab. J. Spreng. G (eds. Bank Marketing. Vol.” Journal of Retailing.V (2004). A. V A (1990). 655-62. R C (1987). and Making Meaningful Measurements” . Miller. “Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research. M J (1982). A. Hyderabad. available at “Customer Perceptions of Service quality in the Banking sector of a Developing Economy: A Critical Analysis”. 668 [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] . Cristina (1999). G and Upah. Radon. Rust. M H (1992). Oosthuizen P and Morris.A. American Marketing Association. B.9. V A and Berry.” in Peter.N. A K (1993).25-38. Chicago. V (1998). L L (1994). “SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. R L (1994). “The Measurement of Gaps in the Quality of Hotel Service. R. Parasuraman.). J P. “Relative importance of service quality dimensions: A multi-sectoral study”. Cravens. Sureshchandar. Ravichandran. “Customer needs and Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Public and Private sector Banks in Orissa”.” Marketing Research. “Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research. M.10-12.1 – 7. Advantage South Asia.D. The Journal of NMIMS. 64(1). Shostack. Journal of Services Research. pp. 67(4). “Strategy for Customer satisfaction in Rural Banks”. (2003).emeraldinsight. L F. Rawat Publications. Number 4 (2010) [44] [45] Lewis. (July – December). Chandrasekharan. V A (1991). published by AMDISA. 41-50. International Journal of Bank Marketing. A.B. No. New Delhi. Pitt. 2(4). A. “Quality Service – A Low Cost Profit Strategy”. (1987). Srivastava. Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing. A. Chicago. Vol. 6(2). 58(January). Eliciting Expectations. “Customer Service in banks: Need for a Marketing Approach”. L L (1985).21. R T and Oliver. 1-6. Vol. 12-40. Zeithaml. Churchill. T J (1993). Zeithaml. M.19. American Marketing Association. of Social and Management Sciences. pp. (2004). “Guidelines for Conducting Service Quality Decrease. “An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale and the Relationship between Service Quality and Satisfaction.” International Journal of Hospitality Management. and Anantharaman. V A and Berry.5. and Kaur. 72-91. (1994). “Exploring Satisfaction. “Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. (1994) Marketing of Services(ed. 59-81 Sharma. Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing. G. L L and Zeithami. L L (1988).” Journal of Retailing. G. pp. (April-Sept). V A and Berry. Modifying Modes. available in www.233-242.S. Chicago. Parasuraman. Parasuraman. Berry.H. “Customer Expectations and Perceptions of Service Quality in Retail Banking: A Comparative Study of Macau and Guangzhou Banking Consumers”. pp. Mishra. Sousa. in Bidhi. R A and Singh. 4. No. Peter. “Consumer Satisfaction – Determinants and Measurement”. Service Quality in a High Tech Industrial Market: An Application of SERVQUAL.. Marketing Science Institute. Parasuraman. D W. B and Verma H. No. Parasuraman. and Thyagarajan. 34-44. Berry. L.).” in Berry. 59-62. R and Dickson (eds.” Journal of Consumer Research. in Hunt.1. Conceptualisation and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and dissatisfaction. 111-24. C A and Brown. R A and Houston.K. K. (2000).42-55. C.(1977). R. Pp. Cambridge.23-45. 49 (Fall). Zeithaml. 19(March). “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Sage Publications. pp.European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16.(ed). Posing Problems. and Sarangi.386-394. 420-50. pp. Sachdev S. A.” Journal of Marketing. American Management Association. Service Quality — New Directions in Theory and Practice. pp.

1. L L (1993). K R (1994). C. Tata-MçGraw Hill. www. The Free Press. and Berry. M (1994). “The Behavioural Consequences of Service Quality. 3rd Edition. E R and Jenkins. Teas. Parasuraman. No. R L (1983).com www. Zeithaml. V A. 18-34. “The Nature and Determinants of Consuner Expectations of Services”. 296304. L and Lee. 2(Spring). and Consumer’s Perceptions of Quality. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firms. 60(April). A. Zeithaml. Mary Jo (2003). R B. pp.” Journal of Marketing. Performance Evaluation. Zeithaml. “Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: An Assessment of [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] 669 .” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 58(January). New Delhi. A. 31-46. “Modelling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-based Norms. 57(October). Vol. V A and Parasuraman. www.” Journal of Marketing.emeraldinsight.1-12. “Assessing Service Quality as an Effective Management Tool: The Case of the Airline Industry.muohio. Cunningham.sba. Delivering Service Quality: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. Parasuraman. Woodruff.managementjournals. L L (1990).European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 16. and Berry. 132-39. “Expectations. 76-96. Zeithaml. A (1996). New York. V A and Bitner. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science. V A. K R (1993).21. 20(August). Number 4 (2010) [64] [65] [66] Teas.” Journal of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Research. Cadotte.