Determining attribute importance in a service satisfaction model

被引:117
作者
Gustafsson, A [1 ]
Johnson, MD
机构
[1] Karlstad Univ, Serv Res Ctr, SE-651 Karlstad, Sweden
[2] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
attribute importance; customer satisfaction modeling;
D O I
10.1177/1094670504268453
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Determining the importance that customers place on the product and service attributes that drive their satisfaction with, and loyalty to, service providers is an essential part of a firm's resource allocation process. An unsettled issue is whether importance measures should come directly from customers or be derived statistically and, if so, how. The authors compare direct importance ratings with a variety of methods for statistically deriving attribute importance in a customer satisfaction model. Using three data sets, the methods are compared on criteria that include their ability to explain variation in satisfaction, to identify customers' more important attributes, and to be interpretable. The findings suggest that because each of the tested methods has its strengths and weaknesses, it is essential to choose a method that is compatible with the research goals and context.
引用
收藏
页码:124 / 141
页数:18
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Anderson E., 2000, J SERV RES-US, V3, P107, DOI DOI 10.1177/109467050032001
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, IMPROVING CUSTOMER S
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1966, Multivariate Analysis
[4]   THE SELF-REGULATION OF ATTITUDES, INTENTIONS, AND BEHAVIOR [J].
BAGOZZI, RP .
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY, 1992, 55 (02) :178-204
[5]   Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: Direct rating versus point allocation [J].
Bottomley, PA ;
Doyle, JR ;
Green, RH .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2000, 37 (04) :508-513
[6]   A DYNAMIC PROCESS MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY - FROM EXPECTATIONS TO BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS [J].
BOULDING, W ;
KALRA, A ;
STAELIN, R ;
ZEITHAML, VA .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 1993, 30 (01) :7-27
[7]  
CARMAN JM, 1990, J RETAILING, V66, P33
[8]  
DILLON WR, 1997, MARK RES, V9, P22
[9]   Missing data in Likert ratings: A comparison of replacement methods [J].
Downey, RG ;
King, CV .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 125 (02) :175-191
[10]   Judging relative importance: Direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent [J].
Doyle, JR ;
Green, RH ;
Bottomley, PA .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1997, 70 (01) :65-72