of 14
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
1/14
Review and future directions of cross-cultural consumer services research
Jingyun Zhang a,, Sharon E. Beatty b,1, Gianfranco Walsh c,2
a Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USAb Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Alabama, P. O. Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225, USA
c Institute for Management, University of Koblenz-Landau, Universittsstrasse 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany
Abstract
It is widely recognized that an increasing number of service firms are expanding into international markets. Many studies in the servicesmarketing literature have focused on the identification and discussion of similarities and/or differences in consumer service experiences across
nations and cultures. In this paper we review the relevant literature, address conceptual and methodological issues associated with extant cross-
cultural consumer services research and suggest theories and approaches in regards to future research in the area. In addition, we introduce and
discuss the concept of cultural service personality as a potential new theoretical perspective.
2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Cross-cultural; Services research; Service expectations; Evaluations of service; Reactions to service
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112. Article selection method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
3. Consumer service experiences and culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
3.1. The consumer service experience and our framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
3.2. Culture and service expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
3.3. Culture and service evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3.4. Culture and reactions to service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
4. Conceptual issues: critique and future directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
4.1. Going beyond Hofstede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
4.2. Cultural service personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5. Methodological issues: critique and future directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.1. Emic vs. etic oriented research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.2. Operationalization and measurement of culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.3. Selection of country and context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
6. Limitations and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
1. Introduction
Services are increasinglyimportant worldwide. In the U.S., the
service sector accounted for more than 79% of the GDP in 2006
(US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007) and 80% of its workforce
come from the service sector (Czinkotaand Ronkainen, 2002).As
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 419 372 9529; fax: +1 419 372 8062.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Zhang), [email protected]
(S.E. Beatty), [email protected] (G. Walsh).1 Tel.: +1 205 348 6184; fax: +1 205 348 6695.2 Tel.: +49 261 287 2852; fax: +49 261 287 2851.
0148-2963/$ - see front matter 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.003
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.003mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
2/14
the economic significance of the service industry grows, so does
the interest in services research, as demonstrated by the fast-
growing body of services marketing literature in the past decade,
especially in the consumer services area. In fact, Vargo and Lusch
(2004) recently suggested that the marketing discipline is going
through a paradigmatic change, shifting its focus from exchanges
ofgoods to service-centered exchanges.
An increasing number of service providers are marketingservices internationally and it is the fastest-growing area of
international trade (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2007). American firms
have experienced dramatic growth in service exports over the past
decade, generating a $65 billion balance of payments surplus in
services in 2003, helping to offset the country's $483 billion
deficit in goods (US Department of Commerce, 2005). This
growth creates opportunities as well as challenges for businesses,
especially when firms attempt to globally standardize their service
delivery (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2004). One reason for such
challenges is that consumers' perceptions of service are culturally
bound (Zeithaml et al.,2002). de Ruyter etal. (1998, p. 189) argue
that [i]n order to market services effectively to internationalconsumers, service providers must have a thorough knowledge of
their target group(s). A solid understanding of the role of culture
in the service delivery process is more crucial than ever for service
firms operating globally.
Despite growing research in consumer service experiences,
relatively littleresearch has examinedthe roleof culture in regards
to these experiences, with little attempt aimed at synthesizing it.
As Maheswaran and Shavitt (2000) point out in regard to global
consumer psychology research, systematic research in consumer
services is in its infancy. In this article, we attempt to review cross-
cultural services research that focuses on the consumer. First, we
introduce our conceptual framework and its components. Second,
we review existing studies using our framework and suggest
future research directions. Third, we discuss overall conceptual
issues in the literature and introduce the concept of cultural
service personality, developed from our review, as a potential
new theoretical perspective. Finally, we address overall method-
ological issues and point to future research directions.
2. Article selection method
Our goal was to locate academic cross-cultural services
research focusing on consumers and published in major
journals. We used three criteria in choosing articles to include.
1. It should be empirical cross-cultural or cross-national
comparative studies for two or more cultures/countries.
2. Studies need to involve consumer services, i.e., be related to
the service experience.
3. Studies need to have investigated the topic from a consumer
behavior perspective, rather than a more general focus on
international services marketing, from a firm perspective(cf. Knight, 1999).
We focused our search in a set of leading and influential
academic journals that we felt would cover the topics of interest
here. We also conducted a search in major electronic databases
including ABI Inform and EBSCO using keywords such as
cross-cultural, cross-national and services. A total of 40
relevant articles were located, covering 11 years of research
published from 1996 to 2006. Earlier Knight (1999) reviewed
international services marketing studies from a firm's perspec-
tive (19901998), focusing, for example, on issues like mode of
entry. Our review covers cross-cultural services from a different
perspectivefrom the perspective of the consumer and onlyoverlaps with Knight by 3 years. A summary of the journals
reviewed and the number of relevant articles found per journal
are shown in Table 1. We note that our focus on journals leaves
out a number of conference or book articles on this topic.
However, we focused on journal articles due to their wide
availability across countries.
Fig. 1. A framework of the role of culture in consumers' service experiences.
Table 1
Journals included in the review
Name of journal Number of articles
located
Journal of Service Research (JSR) 8
Journal of Services Marketing (JSM) 6
International Journal of Service Industry Management(IJSIM)
5
Journal of Business Research (JBR) 5
International Marketing Review (IMR) 4
Journal of Retailing (JR) 4
Journal of Consumer Marketing (JCM) 2
Service Industries Journal 2
European Journal of Marketing (EJM) 1
Journal of Marketing 1
Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice (JMTP) 1
International Journal of Research in Marketing (IJRM) 1
Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) 0
Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) 0
Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) 0
Journal of International Marketing (JIM) 0
Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 0Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS) 0
Marketing Science (MS) 0
Psychology & Marketing (P&M) 0
212 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
3/14
3. Consumer service experiences and culture
3.1. The consumer service experience and our framework
Fig. 1 provides the conceptual framework we use here to
review and organize our presentation of the literature. This
framework represents our view of the effects of culture onimportant dimensions of consumers' service experiencestheir
expectations, their subsequent evaluations of the service
experience, and finally their reactions to the service experience.
Our view of consumers' service experiences is consistent with
three-stage models of service consumption used in the services
marketing literature (cf. Lovelock and Wirtz, 2007) and with
major service paradigms, such as the SERVQUAL framework
(Parasuraman et al., 1993; Zeithaml et al., 1993).
Expectations are commonly defined as [p]retrial beliefs about
a product that serve as standards or reference points against which
product [or service] performance is judged (Zeithamlet al.,1993,
p. 1) and are important in service experiences. In regard to service
expectations (as well as evaluations of services), the most widely
acceptedframework is the SERVQUAL framework developed by
Parasuraman and his colleagues (Parasuraman et al., 1988;
Zeithaml et al., 1993). This framework conceptualizes the
customer's assessment of service quality as the gap between
what they expect and their evaluation of the performance of aparticular service provider. The SERVQUAL framework also
incorporates an instrument to measure service quality, which is
proposed to include five dimensionstangibility, reliability,
assurance, responsiveness, and empathy. The SERVQUAL
instrument, originally developed in North America, has been
tested in various service contexts and is highly regarded.
In the second stage, individuals evaluate the service
performance, often against expectations (Patterson and John-
son, 1993). An individual will confirm or disconfirm aspects of
the service performance based on expectations, which influ-
ences their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service
provider. Following a satisfying or dissatisfying serviceexperience, in the third stage, individuals will have varying
reactions to the service. When poor service is received, the
customer may take various actions, such as complaining and/or
switching. Further, they could have varying reactions to the
service provider's recovery efforts. On the other hand, a
satisfying service encounter or service recovery may lead to the
formation of an ongoing relationship between the parties.
Our framework (in Fig. 1) shows culture as potentially
impacting on each stage of the service experience. National
culture has been defined as patterns of thinking, feeling, and
acting that are rooted in common values and societal
conventions (Nakata and Sivakumar, 2001). Hofstede (1991,
p. 5) defined culture as the collective programming of the mindwhich distinguishes the members of one group or category of
people from those of another. We identify some of the most
popular categorizations of national culture or cultural dimen-
sions in Table 2. Further, Table 2 indicates which paradigms are
used by the studies reviewed here. The popularity of Hofstede's
(1984, 1991) framework is notable here.
Each article in our review was categorized by the primary
service experience dimension addressed. Then, Table 3 was
developed in which we chronologically present the articles and
a summary of a) how culture was treated, b) which countries and
the service contexts were studied, and c) a summary of the
findings. Our goal in the sections to follow is to summarize thefindings, highlighting what they tell us about the topic in regard
to universals and differences.
3.2. Culture and service expectations
Many researchers have attempted to test the robustness of the
SERVQUAL dimensions across cultures. Based on our review, it
appears that while the majority of reviewed studies attempted to
validate the SERVQUAL scale by assessing its psychometric
properties and by examining the structure and relative importance
of the resulting dimensions across cultures (Donthu and Yoo,
1998; Espinoza, 1999; Furrer et al., 2000; Sultan and Simpson,
2000; Witkowski and Wolfinbarger, 2002), others looked for or
Table 2
Categorizations of national culture/cultural dimensions
Source Cultural dimensions Number of studies
incorporating the
dimension
Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck
(1973) a
Human nature orientation; man
nature orientation; time orientation;
activity orientation; relational
orientation
0
Hall (1976)b High context/low context 6
Hofstede (1980,
1984, 1991) aPower distance; individualism/
collectivism; masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance; long-term
orientation
27 c
Hofstede and Bond
(1988)a
Riddle (1986) a Achievement orientation; time
orientation; activity orientation;
relationship orientation
1
Gudykunst and
Ting-Toomey
(1988) b
Direct vs. indirect; elaborative vs.
succinct; personal vs. contextual;
instrumental vs. affective
0
Schwartz (1992,
1994) aPower; achievement; hedonism;
stimulation; self-direction;
universalism
1
Benevolence; tradition; conformity;
security
Keillor et al.
(1996) aNational identity: national heritage,
cultural homogeneity, belief system,
consumer ethnocentrism
0
Trompenaars andHampden-Turner
(1997) a
Universalism vs. particularism;communitarianism vs. individualism;
neutral vs. emotional; defuse vs.
specific cultures; achievement vs.
ascription; humantime relationship;
humannature relationship
0
Triandis and
Gelfand (1998) aHorizontal/vertical 4 c
Triandis (1995) a Individualism/collectivism
Steenkamp (2001) a Autonomy; egalitarianism;
mastery; uncertainty avoidance
0
a Cultural dimensions relate to abstracts of intangible elements of culture such
as values and belief systems.b Cultural dimensions relate to the communication systems of a culture.c
Four studies cited both Hofstede's and Triandis's (and other related work)work related to individualism/collectivism.
213J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
4/14
Table 3
Summary of cross-cultural services literature
Source Treatment of culture Countries/service context Findings
Service expectations
Lee and Ulgado
(1997) JSM aUsed Hofstede's individualism/
collectivism as post-hoc explanation.
U.S. vs. Korea/fast food Differences between U.S. and South Korean patrons
in terms on expectations and perceptions of fast-food
restaurant services. For U.S. customers, low foodprices and assurance were more important; for Korean
customers, reliability and empathy were more important.
Donthu and Yoo
(1998) JSR
Applied Hofstede's dimensions
directly in hypotheses, measured at
individual level.
U.S., Canada, and India/banking Individuals rated lower on power distance, higher on
individualism and uncertainty avoidance, and those
who are short-term oriented had higher overall service
quality expectations.
Low powerdistanceresponsiveness and reliability ratings
Individualismempathy and assurance
Espinoza
(1999) IJSIM
Applied individualism/collectivism,
monochronic time, and polychronic
time in hypotheses, pre-hoc
justification, not measured.
Quebec (Canada) vs. Peru/
supermarket
Similar dimensional structure of SERVQUAL in two
cultures. Importance of the dimensions:
Reliability: equality important in Quebec and Peru
Responsiveness: more important for Quebecois
Tangibles: More important for Peruvians
Furrer et al.
(2000) JSR
Applied Hofstede's dimensions in
hypotheses, measured.
U.S., Switzerland and, China,
Singapore, South Korea/banking
Individualismhigh service quality expectations.
In cultures with greater power distance: weakerrespondents were more likely to tolerate failure from
more powerful service providers. In cultures with high
degree of masculinity, respondents expected a female
service provider to be more feminine than professional.
Sultan and Simpson
(2000) JSM aNo specific cultural dimensions used. U.S. vs. Europe/airline No difference in the order of importance of SERVQUAL
dimensions by nationality. Expectations, perceptions and
overall assessment of service quality varied by nationality.
U.S. respondents had higher expectations of service quality
than Europeans; Europeans found theservice qualityof U.S.
airlines to be lower than their own international carriers.
Witkowski and
Wolfinbarger
(2002) JBRa
No specific cultural dimensions used.
Focused on service environment and
cultural norm differences.
U.S. vs. Germany/banks, medical care,
retailing, postal facilities, restaurants
German respondents had lower service expectations,
lower perceived service outcomes than did U.S.
respondents.
Raajpoot (2004) JSR Applied Hofstede's dimensions,
+national culture dimensions(Dorfman and Howell, 1988) and
personal values (Schwartz, 1992).
Pakistan/banks, hospitals, retail,
and insurance industries
Developed new service quality scale, PAKSERV for
Asian culture. six dimensions: tangibility, reliability,sincerity, formality, personalization, assurance.
Laroche et al.
(2005) IMR
Applied individualism/collectivism in
hypotheses, measured.
English speaking vs. French speaking
Canadians/airline
Both individualists and collectivists relied more on
external information sources in formulating service
expectations. Internal (external) information sources
were relatively more important in forming expectations
for collectivists (individualists) than for individualists
(collectivists), and will (should) expectations were
more diagnostic for collectivists (individualists) than
for individualists (collectivists).
Malhotra et al.
(2005) IMR
Used Hofstede's power distance, and
individualism/collectivism as pre-hoc
justification, not measured. Focused on
economic and social-cultural factors.
U.S., India, the Philippines/banking Examined differences in perception of service quality
dimensions between developed and developing
economies. Developed countries: better established
reliability, more emphasis on breakthrough service,
emotional security, and credibility based on performancestandards, communication geared to individuals,
continuous improvement of service quality and higher
levels of relationship marketing.
Johns et al.
(2005) SIJ
No specific cultural dimensions used. Northern Cyprus vs. U.S./travel agents Promptness, empathy, efficiencyand servicescape aesthetics
were main determinants of customer satisfaction. Instead of
the predicted SERVQUAL five-factor solution, factor
analysis showed an underlying unidimensionality.
Evaluations of service
Herbig and Genestre
(1996) JCM
No specific cultural dimensions used. U.S. vs. Mexico/banks, grocery
stores, specialty stores, and
department stores
Mexican respondents rated perceived service quality
higher than U.S. respondents. Different importance of
service quality factors: U.S. respondents
focused more on personalized service. Mexican
respondents emphasized availability more and
confidence in the support staff.
214 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
5/14
Source Treatment of culture Countries/service context Findings
Evaluations of service
Winsted (1997) JR;
(1999) JMTP;
(2000) IJSIM
Occidental vs. oriental cultural heritage
and Hall's communication context,
pre-hoc, not measured.
U.S. vs. Japan/restaurant, health care Friendliness, being personal, authenticity, and
promptness were more common from the U.S. sample;
caring for the customer was more consistent from the
Japanese sample. Results were consistent in both
restaurant and health care.
Mattila (1999a) JSR
Mattila (1999b) JSM
Applied Hall's and Hofstede's
power distance and individualism/
collectivism in hypotheses, pre-hoc
and post-hoc, not measured.
Western vs. Asian consumers/hotel Individuals of different cultures focus on cues. Respondents
from Western cultures were more likely than Asian
counterparts to rely on tangible vs. intangible cues.
Stauss and Mang
(1999) JSM
Used Hofstede's, Hall's, and Riddle's
to derive cultural distance, pre-hoc
justification, not measured.
Japanese, U.S.,
Germany/airline
Contrary to predictions, customers recalled more critical
incidents with respect to 1) intra-cultural encounters than
inter-cultural encounters, 2) encounters between partners
with small cultural distances vs. encounters between
partners from distant cultures, and 3) the percentage of
negative critical incidents was higher in intra-cultural
encounters than in inter-cultural encounters.
Brady and Robertson
(2001) JBRbNo specific cultural dimensions used. U.S. vs. Ecuador/fast food Effect of service quality on behavioral intentions such
as repurchase intentions, loyalty, and word of mouth is
mediated by satisfaction, consistently across cultures.
Gilbert et al.
(2004) JSM
No specific cultural dimensions used. Jamaica, Scotland, U.S.,
Wales/fast food
Revealed two empirically derived cross-cultural fast-food
customer satisfaction dimensions: satisfaction with the
personal service and satisfaction with the service setting.
Keillor et al.
(2004) JIM
Used Hofstede's dimensions as
pre-hoc justification, not measured.
Australia, China,
Germany, India, Morocco,
Netherlands, Sweden,
U.S./fast food and grocery
Drew on theory from Nordic School of Service
Marketing (NSSM), tested direct effects of technical
(physical good quality) and functional (service quality
and servicescape) elements of the service encounter
on intentions. Differences found between fast-food
and grocery customers in the eight countries. Relative
effects of the service elements on intentions also differ.
Laroche et al.
(2004) JIM
Used Hall's communication context
and Hofstede's dimensions as
pre-hoc justification, not measured.
U.S., Canada, Japan/dentist's
office
Japanese respondents were more conservative in their
evaluations of superior service (lower ratings) but were
less critical (more forgiving) of inferior service
(higher ratings) than North U.S. respondents.
Ueltschy et al.(2004) JBR No specific cultural dimensions used. U.S., English vs. French speakingCanadian/dentist's office Some measures of satisfaction and service quality arenonequivalent across cultures (due to response bias
introduced by translation, interpretation and meaning
of particular items). In situations with high expectations
and performance, English Canadians perceived lower
service quality than U.S. and FrenchCanadians
subjects. In situations where expectations and
performance were lower, ECs perceived higher
quality than U.S. and FC respondents.
Voss et al.
(2004) JSR
Used Hofstede's uncertainty avoidance
dimension, pre-hoc and post-hoc, not
measured.
U.K. and U.S./
financial service,
retail, restaurant, hotel
U.K. customers were more tolerant of poor service quality
than U.S. customers. The use of systematic procedures for
capturing customer feedback and complaints had a direct
and positive influence on satisfaction.
Brady et al.
(2005) b (JR)
Used Hofstede's dimensions as country
selection criteria only, not measured.
Australia, Hong Kong,
Morocco, Netherlands, U.S./fast
food and grocery(PhysiciansU.S. study)
Identified four service evaluation models from the
literature involving the relationships amongst sacrifice,
service quality, service value, service satisfaction, andbehavioral intentions. The comprehensive model fit
best across countries and service settings.
Cunningham et al.
(2005) SIJ
No specific cultural dimensions used. U.S., Korea, Taiwan/multiple Examined how US, Korean and Taiwanese consumers
perceived and classified 13 services. Results showed
consumers view services primarily based on whether
they are personalized or standardized, and whether there
is a physical component of the service. Convenience
perceptions and evaluations of banking, public transit
and university services differed across countries.
Imrie (2005) IMR Used Confucianism as post-hoc
explanation, not measured.
Taiwan vs. U.S./multiple
(unspecified)
Generosity, reflecting the Confucian relational ethic,
had a filtering role on individuals' evaluations of service
experiences in the Taiwanese context, due to hierarchical
nature of Taiwanese society, where service providers
adhere to strict roles and appear content to do so.
(continued on next page)
Table 3 (continued)
215J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
6/14
Table 3 (continued)
Source Treatment of culture Countries/service context Findings
Evaluations of service
Veloutsou et al.
(2005) EJM
No specific cultural dimensions used. Greece, Jamaica, U.K.,
U.S./fast food
There were more similarities than differences in the
measurement of satisfaction across cultural contexts
suggesting that the development of measures to examine
and compare consumer satisfaction across cultures andlanguages is feasible.
Reactions to service
De Wulf et al.
(2001) JM
Used Hofstede's dimensions as
justification for country selection,
not measured.
U.S. the Netherlands, Belgium/
food and apparel retail
Different marketing relationship tactics such as direct
mail, preferential treatment, interpersonal communication
and tangible rewards have a differential impact on
consumer perceptions of retailer's relationship
investment, which in turn affect relationship quality and
behavioral loyalty.
Liu et al. (2001) JSR Applied Hofstede's dimensions in
hypotheses, measured.
U.S., Switzerland, China, Singapore,
South Korea/banking
With superior service, individuals from low
individualism or high uncertainty avoidance cultures
tended to plan to praise more than individuals from
high individualism or low uncertainty avoidance
cultures. With poor service, individuals from high
individualism or low uncertainty avoidance culturesmore often said they would switch, give negative
word of mouth, or complain than individuals from
low individualism or high uncertainty avoidance
cultures.
Liu and McClure
(2001) JCM
Used individualism/collectivism,
in-group/out-group as pre-hoc
justification, not measured.
U.S. vs. Korea/retail
and restaurant
When dissatisfied, customers in collectivist culture
were less likely to engage in voice behavior, but
more likely to engage in private behavior (WOM or
exit) than customers in an individualist culture. Those
who voice dissatisfaction in individualistic cultures
were less likely to exit while those who did not voice
dissatisfaction in collectivistic cultures were less likely
to exit.
Patterson and Smith
(2001a) IJISM;
(2001b) JSM
Used Hofstede's uncertainty avoidance,
individualism/collectivism, femininity/
masculinity as pre-hoc justification,not measured.
U.S. vs. Thailand/medical,
hairdressers, auto mechanics,
travel agents, and retail financialadvisors
While the same set of benefits motivated both U.S.
and Thai respondents'
propensity to maintain relationships with a range ofservice providers, special treatment benefits (reflecting
social bonds) were more important for Thai
respondents and confidence benefits were more
important for U.S. respondents.
Hui and Au
(2001) JBR
Used Hofstede's long-term orientation
as part of pre-hoc justification, not
measured.
China vs. Canada/hotel Compared the effects of three kinds of complaint-
handling strategies (voice, compensation, and apology)
on respondents' justice perceptions and
post-complaint behaviors. Voice had a stronger effect
on Chinese than on Canadian respondents, while
compensation had a stronger effect on Canadian
respondents than on Chinese respondents.
Patterson and Smith
(2003) JR
Used Hofstede's individualism/
collectivism as pre-hoc justification,
not measured.
Australia vs. Thailand/travel
agency, medical and hairdressers
Examined 6 switching barriers: search costs; loss of
social bonds; setup costs; functional risk; attractiveness
of alternatives; and loss of special treatment benefits.
These costs explained substantial amounts of variancein propensity to stay and appeared universal across
westeast cultures, while variations were found across
industries.
Warden et al.
(2003) IJSIM
Used Hofstede's dimensions as pre-hoc
justification, not measured.
Taiwan vs. outside Taiwan/airline Extended Stauss and Mang (1999) model. Found
reduction in inter-cultural failure seriousness can be
attributed not to the error itself, but to increased
acceptance of the recovery strategy.
Mattila and Patterson
(2004a) JSR;
(2004b) JR
Used Hofstede's individualism/
collectivism and uncertainty avoidance
as pre-hoc justification, not measured.
U.S., Malaysia, Thailand/restaurant Compensation (discount and apology) was more effective
in restoring a sense of justice to U.S. respondents than
to East Asian (Thai and Malaysian) respondents.
Poon et al. (2004)
EJM
Used Hofstede's long-term vs. short-
term orientation as pre-hoc justification,
not measured.
Canada vs. China/unspecified Compared to Chinese consumers, Canadian consumers
experienced less perceived control in dissatisfying
service encounters, blamed themselves less, perceived
the provider to have more control over a negative
event, and believed the event to be less likely to reoccur.
216 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
7/14
assessed additional aspects beyond the five SERVQUAL
dimensions (Lee and Ulgado, 1997; Malhotra et al., 2005).
Laroche et al.'s (2005) study was unique in that it examined how
customers use information sources to form expectations, as well
as the nature of these expectations across cultures.
There are both consistent and inconsistent findings that can be
drawn from these studies. One consistentfinding is that compared
to U.S. consumers, consumers from other cultures/countries tend
to have lower overall service quality expectations. Some
researchers attribute this to differences in national service
environments (Witkowski and Wolfinbarger, 2002) or socioeco-
nomic factors (Malhotra et al., 2005). For example, Witkowski
and Wolfinbarger (2002) argue that the lower service expectationsfound in their sample of German respondents (compared to U.S.
respondents) were due to the general unfriendly service
environment in Germany (which they call service desert) and
the tendency of Germans to compartmentalize their public and
privateselves. Other researchersattribute it to culturaldifferences,
most often using Hofstede's dimensions. The positive link
between individualism and higher levels of service expectations
was often found (Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000;
Laroche et al., 2005). The argument is that individualists, due to
their drive and self-responsibility ethic, will demand that others
also be efficient and will, therefore, be more demanding than
individuals from more collectivist cultures (Furrer et al., 2000).When comparing the dimensional structure of SERVQUAL
measures across different cultural settings, many studies found
structures that were consistent with the original U.S. conceptu-
alization (Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Espinoza, 1999; Furrer et al.,
2000). However, when it comes to therelative importanceof these
dimensions, findings were less consistent. For example, Sultan
and Simpson (2000) found no difference in the order of
importance of SERVQUAL dimensions for U.S. vs. European
airline passengers, with reliability being the most important and
tangibles the least important. Witkowski and Wolfinbarger (2002)
also found reliability to be the most important for both U.S. and
German samples. However, Espinoza (1999) reported that while
reliability was equally important in individualist and collectivist
cultures (Quebec and Peru), responsiveness was the most
important for the Quebecois due to their monochromic time
orientation. Lee and Ulgado (1997) found that, in regard to fast-
food service, low price and assurance were more important to
individualistic U.S. consumers due to their focus on the notion of
time is money, while reliability and empathy were more
important to collectivist Korean consumers who consider eating
in a restaurant as more of a social experience. Donthu and Yoo
(1998), measuring cultural values at the individual level, found
that individuals high on power distance had lower expectations
about the responsiveness and reliability of service quality and
were more willing to tolerate poor service due to their tolerance
for inequities. On the other hand, individuals high on individu-alism expected more empathy and assurance from the service
provider and tended to focus more on meeting their own needs
and were thus, less tolerant of poor service.
While the SERVQUAL remains the dominant framework
applied in this area of cross-cultural research, some researchers
have begun to challenge the SERVQUAL dimensions by both
conceptualizing a framework for measuring service quality
internationally (e.g., Smith and Reynolds, 2001) and by
empirically developing a culture-specific service quality
measure suitable in non-Western cultures (Raajpoot, 2004).
This resulted in the addition of several dimensionspersonal-
ization, formality, and sincerity. Raajpoot's PAKSERV measureused not only Hofstede's dimensions, but also the national
cultural orientation (Dorfman and Howell, 1988) and
Schwartz's (1992) personal values.
Further, the appropriateness of some unique elements within
cultures is harder to explain. For example, Ashforth and
Humphrey (1993) report that in many Muslim cultures, smiling
can be a sign of sexual interest and therefore women are
socialized not to smile at males. Similarly, Rafaeli and Robert
(1987) report in Israel, smiling at customers is viewed as a sign
of inexperience, suggesting that an American-type service (that
is, service with a smile) may be inappropriate in some cultures.
In regards to future research in this area, more within culture,
emically-oriented research (i.e., culturally bound) is needed to
Source Treatment of culture Countries/service context Findings
Reactions to service
Wong (2004) JBR Used Hofstede's dimensions as pre-hoc
justification, not measured.
U.S., Australia, Singapore/restaurant Compensation improved respondents' assessments of
the service encounter in all three countries but only
affected repurchase intentions and word of mouth
in U.S. sample, not in Singaporean or Australian
samples. An apology improved satisfaction for
Singaporean and Australian samples but not for U.S.
respondents.
Patterson et al.
(2006)
Used Hofstede's individualism/
collectivism, power distance, and
uncertainty avoidance to develop
hypotheses, measured at individual
level.
Australia vs. Thailand/hotel Customers with a higher collectivist value orientation
perceived more interactional justice when there was an
organization-initiated recovery. An apology from a
service provider with more status had a greater effect
on perceptions of distributive justice for customers with
a higher power distance value orientation. Customers
with a higher uncertainty avoidance orientation
perceived higher levels of procedural justice when
given cognitive control over the recovery process.
a Studied both expectations and evaluations.b Studied both evaluations and reactions.
Table 3 (continued )
217J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
8/14
systematically develop more theory in the area. A few steps may
be taken to achieve this. For example, researchers could start by
using qualitative research methods to develop a list of
expectations focusing on a specific culture. From there, a
means-end (or similar) approach to tie these expectations to
cultural values and orientations could be used. This then could
be expanded to other cultural contexts using a more eticapproach (not culture bound) to assess the impact of cultural
orientations along with other related factors such as national
service environment on service expectations.
3.3. Culture and service evaluations
As mentioned previously, the SERVQUAL framework is
conceptualized based on the gap between consumers' expecta-
tions and evaluations of the service performance. A number of
studies reviewed in the previous section that used SERVQUAL
measures (Lee and Ulgado, 1997; Sultan and Simpson, 2000;
Witkowski and Wolfinbarger, 2002) also examined the evaluationof services. Findings from these studies indicate that consumers
in different cultures evaluate and perceive service quality
differently. For example, across service categories, Mexican
respondents rated service quality higher than U.S. respondents
(Herbig and Genestre, 1996) possibly due to their lower
expectations, while German respondents reported poorer service
performance than U.S. respondents (Witkowski and Wolfinbar-
ger, 2002) due to the poor service environment in Germany.
A number of studies also found differences in customers'
evaluations of service under low and high service performance
conditions. For example, Voss et al. (2004) found that due to the
conservatism and the stiff upper lip model in the U.K., U.K.
customers were more tolerant of poor service quality than U.S.customers. Laroche et al. (2004) found that Japanese respon-
dents expressed lower ratings of quality perceptions under a
superior service condition than North Americans. They argue
that this is because Asian cultures are traditional service cultures
and in such high-context/collectivist and long-term oriented
cultures, trust and commitment are considered necessary for any
good customerprovider relationship.
A number of studies also looked at the factors consumers use
in evaluating services. Many researchers used emic approaches
and went beyond the SERVQUAL framework (e.g., Imrie,
2005; Winsted, 1997, 1999, 2000). They consistently found that
individuals in different cultures focus on different factors whenevaluating services. Further, some of these factors are culture-
specific and not included in the SERVQUAL dimensions. For
example, Japanese respondents emphasized caring for the
customer due to the unique oriental cultural heritage (Winsted,
1997), while Taiwanese respondents, who are heavily influ-
enced by the Confucianism in Chinese culture, stressed the
importance of generosity (Imrie, 2005). Individuals in
different cultures also seem to rely on different cues when
evaluating their service experience. Using Hall's communica-
tion context framework, Mattila (1999a) found thatrespondents
from Western cultures (low context) were more likely than their
Asian counterparts (high context) to rely on tangible rather
than intangible cues from the environment.
Individuals' evaluations of services are often reflected in their
satisfaction ratings of the service experiences. The dominant
perspective is that satisfaction is a result of high service quality
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992). While Veloutsou et al. (2005) found
similarities in the measurement of satisfaction across four
culturally diverse samples, Ueltschy et al. (2004) found that
some measures of satisfaction and service quality were notequivalent across cultures due to response biases based on
translation, interpretation and meaning of particular items across
cultures. Brady and Robertson (2001) and Brady et al. (2005)
attempted to test the service quality-satisfaction relationship in a
multi-country context and found that the relationship does
generally hold across cultures, with some differences across
countries noted due to differing national and temporal settings.
In regards to future research in this area, the universality of
causal relationships as examined by Brady and his colleagues
appears to be a useful direction to pursue. If relationships and
relationship causality do not hold up across cultures our task of
understanding cross-cultural differences and similarities will bemuch harder. Further, an overall framework to aid in examining
this area more carefully would be useful. Perhaps this could begin
by fully listing potential behaviors and norms, then relating these
to values and cultural dimensions, and suggesting differential
effects on satisfaction/dissatisfaction based on theory. Finally,
althoughthere is some evidence that individuals evaluate physical
surroundings in service settings differently across cultures (e.g.,
Mattila, 1999a), servicescape research (e.g., Bitner, 1992) has yet
to be extended in a cross-cultural context. Thus, experimental
research aimed at how individuals in different cultures evaluate
different elements of the servicescape would be quite useful.
3.4. Culture and reactions to service
A number of studies reviewed here examine how people
across cultures react differently to service failures and service
recovery actions taken by the service providers. Findings in this
topic are fairly consistent. For example, many studies found that
when receiving poor service, consumers from individualistic
cultures such as the U.S. are more likely to complain than
individuals from collectivist cultures such as China, Singapore
and Korea (Liu et al., 2001; Liu and McClure, 2001).
Further, researchers have found that recovery strategies may
have different effects on consumers in different cultures. For
example, Mattila and Patterson (2004a,b) found that compen-sation (e.g., discount and apology) was more effective in
restoring a sense of justice to American respondents who focus
more on equity given their highly independent self view, than to
East Asian (Thai and Malaysian) respondents who focus more
on the interdependent self and equal treatment than equity.
Wong (2004) found that compensation improved their respon-
dents' assessments of the service encounter in the three
countries investigated (U.S., Australia, Singapore), but it only
affected repurchase intentions and word of mouth for the U.S.
sample. On the other hand, an apology improved satisfaction for
the Singaporean and Australian samples but not for the U.S.
sample. She argued that Australians and Singaporeans are
sensitive to the informational cues that are embedded in the
218 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
9/14
compensation offered but this information is only incorporated
and interpreted within the service delivery contexts indepen-
dently of the consumption experience. Hui and Au (2001) found
that voice (i.e., allowing customers a chance to express
dissatisfaction) had a stronger effect on collectivist Chinese
respondents who value respect, status and face in their social
behaviors, while compensation had a stronger effect onCanadian respondents due to the fact that receiving physical
and financial compensation is uncommon in China and Chinese
consumers may have much lower expectations because of its
underdeveloped service industry. These findings suggest that
Northern Americans may be more result-focused and pragmatic
in their reactions to service experiences.
Individuals' reactions to poor service may be a reflection of
their attributions of the failure. Poon et al. (2004) found that when
compared to Chinese consumers, Canadian consumers experi-
enced a lower level of perceived control in dissatisfying service
encounters, blamed themselves less, perceived the provider to
have more control over the negative event, and believed the eventto be less likely to reoccur due to the considerable difference in the
stage of economic development and the likelihood of service
failures between Canada and China.
As a reaction to service, consumers may choose to stay with
the same service provider and develop a relationship.But why and
how customers develop a relationship may differ across cultures.
Patterson and Smith (2001a,b, 2003) found that while the same set
of benefits motivated both U.S. and Thai respondents' propen-
sities to maintain relationships with a range of service providers,
the importance of the benefits differed for the respondents by
country. Special treatment benefits, reflecting social bonds, were
more important for Thai respondents, who tend to rate high on
uncertainty avoidance and collectivism, while confidence benefitswere more important for U.S. respondents, who tend to rate low
on uncertainty avoidance and highon individualism. Further, they
found that switching costs provided a strong explanation for
propensity to stay with a service provider in both cultures, sug-
gesting their universality. However, none of the studies we
reviewed examined the possible differences in customerservice
provider relationship formation across cultures.
Obviously, there needs to be more cross-cultural research on
service failure and recovery, customer complaining behaviors,
service relationships and antecedents to and nature of service
provider loyalty. There is a surprising lack of research on these
important topics. Further, theories revolving around attribution,appraisal and equity may be useful in this work but have not
been systematically applied. These topics should be fully
enumerated and explored in future cross-cultural studies. Next
we address various conceptual issues raised by our review.
4. Conceptual issues: critique and future directions
Cultural research can help validate existing theoretical
paradigms, enrich our current theorizing, and may even lead to
new theories (Bagozzi, 1994). Although the field of cross-cultural
consumer services is relatively new, it has tremendous potential
for developing insights into the services marketing literature. In
this section, we discuss some overall conceptual issues and some
future directions with a focus on going beyond Hofstede.
Finally, we present a potentially new theoretical perspective in the
areathe concept ofcultural service personality.
4.1. Going beyond Hofstede
Although there are many useful categorizations of culture orcultural dimensions (see examples in Table 2), only a few, other
than Hofstede, have been applied in cross-cultural services
research. While Hofstede's extensive framework has been
applied and appears to be useful across a number of different
areas (cf. Sivakuma and Nakata, 2001), scholars in recent years
have raised concerns related to the over-reliance on this
framework. Some question the constraints of the population
(IBM employees) and time frame (19681973) of much of the
data collected (Smith et al., 1996). Others argue that since
Hofstede's classification was originally related to work values
rather than consumer behavior and other micro-phenomena, it
might be less relevant in more culture-specific studies on moremicro-phenomena in consumer behavior (Yau et al., 1999).
Thus, we believe it is important to go beyond Hofstede. We
address this on several fronts. First, we argue that it is important to
consider alternative cultural value dimensions in cross-cultural
research. Many of the dimensions in Table 2 have been
extensively used elsewhere. For example, the cultural work of
Schwartz, Triandis (and Gelfand), and Hall have each been cited
hundreds and some even thousands of times, according to Google
Scholar. Thus, itis surprisingwe donot see more of these works in
the consumer services area. Moreover, some of the inconclusive or
conflicting findingswe currently see in the literature may be partly
due to the fact that Hofstede's dimensions may not capture some
of the rich differences across cultures and ignore some of the otherimportant differences, such as the degree to which a culture is
horizontal or vertical (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998). For example,
in a recent issue of the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Shavitt
et al. (2006) expand on Triandis and Gelfand's work, highlighting
its relevance to cross-cultural research in moving beyond
individualism/collectivism. Other articles in this issue also
highlight cultural concepts that go beyond individualism/
collectivism in advancing cross-cultural research in consumer
psychology (cf. Aaker, 2006; Oyserman, 2006).
Future research should attempt to adopt alternative cultural
dimensions, when relevant, to expand our understanding of
culture and its impact on service experiences. For example, whenexamining customer complaint and word-of-mouth behaviors,
Schwartz's (1992, 1994) value dimensions may be relevant and
yet have not been applied to how individuals might react to
service experiences in different cultures. Further, since almost
every service delivery process involves communication between
customers and employees, it could be fruitful to use frameworks
that focus on communication differences between cultures. For
instance, by drawing on the communication dimensions of direct
vs. indirect, elaborative vs. succinct, personal vs. contextual,
and instrumental vs. affective communication, identified by
Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988), researchers could examine
the extent and type of communication customers from different
cultures expect and desire during service delivery.
219J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
10/14
Secondly, in going beyond or moving forward,we argue that
it is important to go beyond cultural value orientations or belief
systems such as Hofstede's work. Recently, in an excellent article,
Craig and Douglas (2006) pointed out that culture is no longer a
phenomenon defined by or isolated to a particular locale since the
world is becoming increasingly de-territorialized and penetrated
by elements from other cultures, resulting in cultural contamina-tion, cultural pluralism and hybridization. Indeed, researchers
must carefully specify the role of culture and define the
appropriate unit of analysis. They also suggest that in order to
develop deeper understanding of culture and its various
manifestations, it is time to move beyond national culture and
incorporate three important components of culture. These include
a) abstracts of intangible elements of culture such as values and
belief systems (represented by Hofstede or Schwartz's work),
b) the communication links which bind and perpetuate a cultural
system (which would be represented by Hall's (1976) work) and
c) material aspects of culture, such as artifacts, symbols and rites
(represented by McCracken's (1986) framework on the culturalmeaning of consumer goods). This would also include economic
aspects of the culture. We have categorized these cultural
components in Table 2, noting that the first two are represented
but not the material aspects. We believe that cross-cultural
consumer services research could benefit greatly by more fully
incorporating the components of culture as suggested by these
scholars. Next, based on our understanding of culture, our review
of the cross-cultural consumer services literature and the
broadened perspective of cultural components, we present a
new conceptualization that addresses the role of culture on
consumer service experiences.
4.2. Cultural service personality
From our review of the literature on cross-cultural consumer
services, we observed a number of consistent findings which
underlie the impact of culture on the various stages of consumers'
service experiences. This led us to the conclusion that different
cultures may exhibit various cultural service personalities,which we define as the overall characteristics, tendencies, or
desires related to consumer service experiences within a specific
culture. While different researchers in the past have focused on
different elements of culturesome focused more on value and
belief systems (e.g., Hofstede's dimensions) while others on
communication systems (Hall's framework), the perspective we
propose incorporates all three components of culture as
recommended by Craig and Douglas (2006). We believe that by
incorporating these different components of culture (value and
belief systems, communication systems, and material culture), we
can capture the richness of culture and its impact on consumer
service experiences. It also expands upon ourFig. 1 in regards tothe role of culture in consumer service experiences in a specific
cultural context (e.g., Western vs. Eastern perspective).
We suggest that consistent cultural service personality patterns
may be a product of the impact of various components of culture
on consumer service experiences. This perspective not only
provides a brief summary of what we currently know about the
literature, it also has the potential to help us gain deeper
understanding of the role of culture in consumer service
experiences in future research. In Table 4, we outline this
framework by presenting two consistent cultural service person-
alities which emerged from our reviewthe Western/
Table 4Cultural service personalityWestern/individualistic vs. Eastern/collectivist
220 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
11/14
Individualistic vs. the Eastern/Collectivist. Note that the compo-
nents of culture we are using are the ones derived from our review.
However, there is certainly a need to adopt alternative ones, such
as some of the other ones found in Table 2.
Cultural service personality is reflected in the service
experience dimensions (e.g., consumer service expectations,
and their evaluations and reactions to the service received) and isinfluenced by the different components of culture. Take
consumer satisfaction as one of the characteristics of cultural
service personality for an example. A number of studies from our
review consistently reported lower satisfaction ratings from
Western respondents than their Eastern counterparts especially
under low performance situations. This difference can be
explained by a number of factors related to cultural components.
First, Western consumers are more difficult to satisfy due to
their higher expectations of service quality as a result of a) their
higher individualism (value and belief systems) which leads to
higher expectations and demands in terms of efficiency and
individual attention, and b) to their generally higher economicdevelopment levels (material culture) where service industries or
service environments are more established in general and
consumers are more accustomed to higher levels of service
performance. Second, Western consumers evaluate service
differently than their Eastern counterparts. In terms of
communication systems, Western consumers, characterized by
low communication context, are more likely to focus on
tangible/physical elements of the service. On the other hand,
Eastern consumers, characterized by a high communication
context, are more likely to focus on the intangible elements of
service or give a more holistic evaluation of their service
experience thus often times resulting in higher satisfaction
ratings especially when the service performance level is lower.Thus, this theory offers a view of how culture and service
experiences combine to form a view of a country or cultural area.
Next we turn to the methodological issues raised in this review.
5. Methodological issues: critique and future directions
In this section, we discuss three methodological issues that
evolved from our review and suggest some future research
directions. Specifically we focus on a) the emicetic debate,
b) operationalization and measurement of culture, and c) the
selection of country and context.
5.1. Emic vs. etic oriented research
How to study cross-cultural services is closely related to the
debate over emic vs. etic research approaches. While the emic
approach is based on the premise that theorizing is culture-
specific and favors within-culture investigation, the etic
approach advocates generalization and focuses on issues that
are universal and common to all cultures (Berry, 1989). We
believe that both approaches contribute to our understanding of
service related issues in the global context. They are simply two
points of view that can converge to enrich cultural research
(Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000). The critical question is which
approach best addresses the issue at hand.
Moreover, Berry's (1989) five-step systematic process is
useful: 1) start with initial research on a question in one's own
culture (emic A), 2) next attempt to use the same concept or
instrument to study a behavior in another culture (imposed etic),
3) then move to a discovery strategy in another culture (emic B),
4) then compare emic A and emic B, and 5) when there is no
communality, comparison is not possible, but with somecommunality (derived etic) comparison is possible. Although
the literature is moving in this direction, the imposed etic
approach is still the dominant approach. However, when
studying service expectations and evaluations, frameworks
with an emic approach (e.g., studied first in the U.S.) such as
SERVQUAL and servicescape research may be developed
further by following this direction.
Additionally, it is important in cross-cultural research to
involve the locals. Collaborative research across countries
should utilize local researchers in all steps of the process (Craig
and Douglas, 2002; Cavusgil and Das, 1997). Research teams
should be drawn from the countries involved in the research toreduce chances of incorrect interpretations and to increase
emic understanding.
5.2. Operationalization and measurement of culture
The major issue here is how culture or cultural dimensions
are assessed. As seen in Table 3 and also from our review, we
found trends which are similar to what Nakata and Pokay
(2004) found in the global marketing literature. That is, the
majority of the studies explicated culture implicitly. That is they
loosely or briefly discuss what is meant by the culture construct
in the context of the study, while others present a culture
construct in more detail, but used it post-hoc to explainunpredicted results or pre-hoc to provide only context and
background. In contrast it is important to draw cultural concepts
and develop hypotheses based on strong theory and logic.
How culture is operationalized and whether cultural values
are measured is another issue of concern. Most often it is treated
as synonymous with country or nation, perhaps for expediency;
however, it is clear that cultures are not homogenousbut that,
in fact, layers of culture exist (Hofstede, 1991, p. 10), and such
an operationalization often shortchanges the richness of the
cultural concept. Observed effects may be due to many effects
other than culture, leading to erroneous conclusions (Nakata and
Pokay, 2004). Although the nation-as-surrogate assumption hasbeen called into question (Nakata and Pokay, 2004), most
researchers tend not to acknowledge the potential problem.
It is important for researchers to measure values and cultural
orientations rather than assume differences based on where the
data are collected. Very few studies reviewed here actually
measured the culture construct. While few studies used cultural
constructs in forming hypotheses, even fewer measured the
dimensions at the individual level, with a few exceptions
(Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000; Laroche et al.,
2005; Patterson et al., 2006). In regards to measurement issues,
although there are many scales to choose from, there are also a
number of issues to tackle. Taras (2006) identified and reviewed
113 instruments that have been used to measure culture
221J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
12/14
quantitatively, while Triandis et al. (1995) empirically assessed
seven scales that measure allocentrism and idiocentrism
(i.e., the individual-level constructs of collectivism and
individualism). Finally, Rowney and Taras (2006) identified a
number of measurement issues to address, such as response
styles, low reliabilities, wording comparability, as we move
forward in this area.
5.3. Selection of country and context
A final issue of concern here relates to country selection in
cross-cultural service research and the need for a theoretical
foundation for the selection of countries (e.g., Cavusgil and Das,
1997; Sivakuma and Nakata, 2001). Often convenience and
achieving a large variation on the dimensions of interest are the
primary drivers of this issue (Livingstone, 2003). Our review
reveals that other than convenience, the rationale for selecting
countries was often not provided, and the inconsistent findings,
especially in service expectation and evaluation areas, may bedue to the strong variations in selection of country and within-
country or culture sample. Thus, countries or cultures should be
selected on the basis of generalizing and building on theory.
Further, some inconsistent findings may be due to variations of
service contexts. Many of the studies reviewed in the service
expectations area used a single industry, often in banking or retail
contexts. The lack of contextual richness of these studies may
reduce the generalizability of the findings. We believe there are
many other service contexts that could be used in cross-cultural
service research, ranging from services which involve low to high
amounts of interaction opportunities and include customer
service provider employee contact (Bowen, 1990). These include
services suchas hairdressers, telecommunication services, and carrepair shops. Further, since some studies found differences due to
contexts (Cunningham et al., 2005; Keillor et al., 2004; Winsted,
1999), industry selection is important.
6. Limitations and conclusions
In this article we attempted to review the literature on cross-
cultural services marketing research, to highlight and discuss
conceptual and methodological issues, and to make recommen-
dations for future research regarding the interplay of culture and
service delivery. Although we tried to include as many quality
studies as possible to provide a comprehensive overview of theliterature, we did not draw from all possible sources, leaving out
sources such as books and proceedings, where much additional
cross-cultural research resides. We believe, however, that the
research reviewed here provides a good overview of the topics.
Our framework in Fig. 1 outlines important areas in regard to
culture's impact on various aspects/stages of individuals'
service experiences, while our Table 4 expands this topic
based on specific findings and understanding from our literature
review. Although there have been studies looking at the role of
culture in each area (i.e., expectation, evaluation, and reaction to
service experiences), more is needed to enrich our current
understanding of variations, as well as commonalities of
consumers' service experiences across cultures.
Successful services marketing in the global market depends
on a solid understanding of the uniqueness of specific cultures
in which the firm competes. Future research efforts should focus
on discovering these insights through both emic and etic
research modes. Further, we recommend using the five-step
approach suggested by Berry, as well as Craig and Douglas's
(2006) perspective, utilizing all three components of cultureincluding value/belief systems, communication systems, and
material culture. The future of cross-cultural research in services
is bright and we encourage others to delve into these topics
further. We also hope our cultural service personality
perspective will serve as a potential new theoretical idea to
encourage future research in the area.
References3
Aaker JL. Delineating culture. J Consum Psychol 2006;16(4):3437.
Ashforth B, Humphrey R. Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of
identity. Acad Manage Rev 1993;18(1):88115.
Bagozzi RP. Association for consumer research proceedings fellow speech. In:Allen CT, John DR, editors. Association for consumer research proceedings.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research; 1994. p. 811.
Berry JW. Imposed eticsemics-derived etics: the operationalization of a
compelling idea. Int J Psychol 1989;24:72135.
Bitner MJ. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers
and employees. J Mark 1992;56(2):5771.
Bowen J. Development of a taxonomy of services to gain strategic marketing
insights. J Acad Mark Sci 1990;18(1):439.Brady MK, Robertson CJ. Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of
service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study. J Bus
Res 2001;51(1):5360.Brady MK, Knight GA, Cronin Jr JJ, Hult GTM, Keillor BD. Removing the
contextual lens: a multinational, multi-setting comparison of service
evaluation models. J Retail 2005;81(3):21530.
Cavusgil T, Das A. Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: asurvey of the management literature and a framework. Manag Int Rev
1997;37(1):7196.
Craig CS, Douglas SP. Conducting international marketing research in the
twenty-first century. Int Mark Rev 2002;18(1):8090.
Craig CS, Douglas SP. Beyond national culture: implications of cultural
dynamics for consumer research. Int Mark Rev 2006;23(3):32242.
Cronin Jr JJ, Taylor SA. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. J Mark 1992;56(3):5568.Cunningham LF, YoungCE, Lee M. Customer perceptionsof service dimensions:
American and Asian perspectives. Serv Ind J 2005;25(1):4359.
Czinkota MR, Ronkainen IA. International marketing. Cincinnati, OH: South-
Western College Publishing; 2002.
de Ruyter K, van Birgelen M, Wetzels M. Consumer ethnocentrism in
international service marketing. Int Bus Rev 1998;7:185202.
De Wulf K, Odekerken-Schrder G, Iacobucci D. Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. J Mark
2001;65:3350 [October].Donthu N, Yoo B. Cultural influences on service quality expectations. J Serv
Res 1998;1(2):17886.
Dorfman P, Howell J. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited. In: Farmer RN, McGoun EG, editors. Advances
in international comparative management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1988.
p. 12750.Espinoza MM. Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality
measure. Int J Serv Ind Manag 1999;10(5):44968.Furrer O, Liu SCB, Sudharshan D. The relationships between culture and
service quality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and
resource allocation. J Serv Res 2000;2(4):35571.
3 Note: Articles with an are theones includedin thereview (see also Table 2).
222 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
13/14
Gilbert GR, Veloutsou C, Goode MMH, Moutinho L. Measuring customer
satisfaction in the fast food industry: a cross-national approach. J Serv Mark
2004;18(5):37183.
Gudykunst WB, Ting-Toomey S. Culture and interpersonal communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988.
Hall ET. Beyond culture. New York NY: Doubleday; 1976.Herbig P, Genestre A. An examination of the cross-cultural differences in
service quality: an example of Mexico and the USA. J Consum Mark1996;13(3):4353.
Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1980.
Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: international differences in work-
related values (abridged edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications;
1984.
Hofstede G. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London, England:
McGraw-Hill; 1991.
Hofstede G, Bond MH. The Confucian connection: from cultural roots to
economic growth. Organ Dyn 1988;16(4):421.Hui MK, Au K. Justice perceptions of complaints-handling: a cross-cultural
comparison between PRC; 2001.Imrie BC. Beyond disconfirmation: the role of generosity and surprise. Int
Mark Rev 2005;22(3):36983.
Johns N, Avci T, Karatepe OM. Measuring service quality of travel agents:evidence from Northern Cyprus. Serv Ind J 2005;24(3):82100.
Keillor BD, Hult GTM, Erffmeyer RC, Babakus E. NATID: the development
and application of a national identity measure for use in international
marketing. J Int Mark 1996;4(2):5773.Keillor BD, Hult GTM, Kandemir D. A study of the service encounter in eight
countries. J Int Mark 2004;12(1):935.
Kluckhohn F, Strodtbeck F. Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson; 1973. c1961.
Knight G. International services marketing: review of research,19801998. J Serv
Mark 1999;13(4/5):34760.Laroche M, Ueltschy LC, Abe S, Cleveland M, Yannopoulos PP. Service
quality perceptions and customer satisfaction: evaluating the role of culture.
J Int Mark 2004;12(3):5885.Laroche M, Kalamas M, Cleveland M. I versus we: how individualists and
collectivists use information sources to formulate theft service expectations.Int Mark Rev 2005;22(3):279308.
Lee M, Ulgado FM. Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: a cross-
national comparison. J Serv Mark 1997;11(1):3952.Liu RR, McClure P. Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer
complaint behavior and intentions: an empirical examination. J Consum
Mark 2001;18(1):5474.Liu BS, Furrer O, Sudharshan D. The relationships between culture and
behavioral intentions toward services. J Serv Res 2001;4(2):11829.
Livingstone S. On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research.
Eur J Commun 2003;18(4):477500.
Lovelock CH, Wirtz J. Services marketing. 5th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice-Hall; 2004.
Lovelock CH, Wirtz J. Services marketing. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice-Hall; 2007.
McCracken G. Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structureand movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. J Consum Res
1986;13:7184.
Maheswaran D, Shavitt S. Issues and new directions in global consumer
psychology. J Consum Psychol 2000;9(2):5966.Malhotra NK, Ulgado FM, Agarwal J, Shainesh G, Wu L. Dimensions of
service quality in developed and developing economies: multi-country
cross-cultural comparisons. Int Mark Rev 2005;22(3):25678.Mattila AS. The role of culture in the service evaluation process. J Serv Res
1999a;1(3):25061.Mattila AS. The role of culture and purchase motivation in service encounter
evaluations. J Serv Mark 1999b;13(4/5):37689.Mattila AS, Patterson PG. Service recovery and fairness perceptions in
collectivist and individualist contexts. J Serv Res 2004a;6(4):33646.Mattila AS, Patterson PG. The impact of culture on consumers' perceptions of
service recovery efforts. J Retail 2004b;80(3):196206.
Nakata C, Pokay YH. Culture studies in the global marketing literature: current
state and future directions. J Int Mark Mark Res 2004;29(3):11130.
Nakata C, Sivakumar K. Instituting the marketing concept in a multinational
setting: the role of national culture. J Acad Mark Sci 2001;29(3):25575.
Oyserman D. High power, low power, and equality: Culture beyond
individualism and collectivism. J Consum Psychol 2006;16(4):3526.
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail1988;64(1):1240.Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Zeithaml VA. More on improving service quality
measurement. J Retail 1993;69(1):1407.Patterson PG, Cowley E, Prasongsukarn K. Service failure recovery: the
moderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on
perceptions of justice. Int J Res Mark 2006;23:26377.
Patterson PG, Johnson LW. Disconfirmation of expectations and the gap model
of service quality: an integrated paradigm. J Consum Satisf Dissatisf
Complain Behav 1993;6:909.Patterson PG, Smith T. Modeling relationship strength across service types in
an eastern culture. Int J Ser Ind Manag 2001a;12(2):90113.Patterson PG, Smith T. Relationship benefits in service industries: a replication
in a Southeast Asian context. J Serv Mark 2001b;15(6/7):42543.Patterson PG, Smith T. A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and
propensity to stay with service providers. J Retail 2003;79(2):10720.
Poon PS, Hui MK, Au K. Attributions on dissatisfying service encounters. EurJ Mark 2004;38(11/12):152740.
Raajpoot N. Reconceptualizing service encounter quality in non-western
context. J Serv Res 2004;7(2):181201.
Rafaeli A, Robert S. Expression of emotion as Part of the work role. Acad
Manage Rev 1987;12(1):2337.
Riddle DI. Service-led Growth. The role of the service sector in world
development. New York, NY: Praeger; 1986.
Rowney J, Taras V. Half a century of measuring culture: review of approaches,
challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 65 instruments for
quantifying culture. In: von Glinow MA, Kiyak T, editors. Paper presented at
Academy of International Business 2006Meeting, Beijing, China, June 2326,
2006. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the AIB; 2006. p. 169.
Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
andempiricaltests in 20 countries.In: ZannaM, editor. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, vol. 25. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1992. p. 165.Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? J Soc Issues 1994;50(4):1945.
Shavitt S, Lalwani AK, Zhang J, Torelli CJ. The horizontal/vertical distinctionin
cross-cultural consumer research. J Consum Psychol 2006;16(4):32542.
Sivakuma K, Nakata C. The stampede toward Hofstede's framework: avoiding
the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. J Int Bus Stud 2001;32
(3):55573.
Smith AM, Reynolds NL. Measuring cross-cultural service quality. Int Mark
Rev 2001;19(5):45080.
Smith PB, Dugan S, Trompenaars F. National culture and the values of
organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations. J Cross-
Cult Psychol 1996;27(2):2314.Stauss B, Mang P. Culture shocks in inter-cultural service encounters. J Serv
Mark 1999;13(4/5):32946.
Steenkamp JEM. The role of national culture in international marketingresearch. Int Mark Rev 2001;18:3044 [March].
Sultan F, Simpson Jr MC. International service variants: airline passenger
expectations and perceptions of service quality. J Serv Mark 2000;14(2/3):
188216.
Taras V. Culture survey catalogue: original items, scoring keys and psychometric
properties of 113 instruments for measuring cultural values and behaviors;
2006. From http://ucalargy.ca/~taras_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf.
Triandis HC. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press; 1995.
Triandis HC, Gelfand MJ. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998;74(1):11828.
Triandis HC, Chan DKS, Bhawuk Iwao S, Sinha JBP. Multimethod probes of
allocentrism and idiocentrism. Int J Psychol 1995;30(4):46180.
Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner C. Riding the waves of culture: understand-
ing cultural diversity in business. London, England: Nicholas Brearley;
1997.
223J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
http://ucalargy.ca/~taras_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdfhttp://ucalargy.ca/~taras_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf7/30/2019 Cultura Si Serviciile-Articol
14/14
Ueltschy LC, Laroche M, Tamilia RD, Yannopoulos P. Cross-cultural
invariance of measures of satisfaction and service quality. J Bus Res
2004;57(8):90112.
US Central Intelligence Agency. The world factbook; 2007. available at: https://
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.
US Department of Commerce. Bureau of economic analysis: commerce news;
2005. available at: www.bea.gov.
Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark2004;68(1):117.
Veloutsou C, Gilbert GR, Moutinho LA, Goode MMH. Measuring transaction-
specific satisfaction in services: are the measures transferable across
cultures? Eur J Mark 2005;39(5/6):60628.Voss CA, Roth AV, Rosenzweig ED, Blackmon K, Chase RB. A tale of two
countries' conservatism, service quality, and feedback on customer
satisfaction. J Serv Res 2004;6(3):21230.Warden CA, Liu TC, Huang CT. Service failures away from home: benefits in
intercultural service encounters. Int J Serv Ind Manag 2003;14(4):43657.
Winsted KF. The service experience in two cultures: a behavioral perspective.
J Retail 1997;73(3):33760.Winsted KF. Evaluating service encounters: a cross-cultural and cross-industry
exploration. J Mark Theory Pract 1999;7(2):10623.Winsted KF. Patient satisfaction with medical encounters: a cross-cultural
perspective. Int J Serv Ind Manag 2000;11(5):399421.Witkowski TH, Wolfinbarger MF. Comparative service quality: German and
American ratings across service settings. J Bus Res 2002;55(11):87581.Wong NY. The role of culture in the perception of service recovery. J Bus Res
2004;57(9):95763.
Yau OHM, Chan TS, Lau KF. Influence of Chinese cultural values on consumer
behavior: a proposed model of gift-purchasing behavior in Hong Kong. J Int
Consum Mark 1999;11(1):97116.
Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A. The nature and determinants of
customer expectations of service. J Acad Mark Sci 1993;21(1):112.
Zeithaml VA, Bitner MJ, Gremler DD. Services marketing. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill; 2002.
224 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 211224
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.htmlhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.htmlhttp://www.bea.gov/http://www.bea.gov/http://www.bea.gov/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.htmlhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html