1Address correspondence to Prof. José M. Peiró, Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Av. Blasco Ibañez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain or e-mail ([email protected]).2The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Spanish Agency of Science and Tech-nology (BSO2002-04483-C03-01), the Spanish Agency of Education and Science (SEJ2005-05375/PSIC, within the CONSOLIDER Project SEJ2006-14086/PSIC), and the support of FEDER. Research work was also sponsored by the Generalidad Valenciana, Spain (I+D+I groups, 03/195).
LINKING FUNCTIONAL AND RELATIONAL SERVICE QUALITY TO CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY:
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN1, 2
ROSA M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ AND VICENTE MARTÍNEZ-TUR
Research Institute of Human Resources Psychology, Organizational Development and Quality of Working Life
University of Valencia
JOSÉ M. PEIRÓ
Research Institute of Human Resources Psychology, Organizational Development and Quality of Working Life
University of Valencia Valencian Economic Research Institute, Spain
CAROLINA MOLINER
Research Institute of Human Resources Psychology, Organizational Development and Quality of Working Life
University of Valencia
Summary.—This study assessed differences between men and women in the association of perceptions of service quality with customer evaluations. Functional (efficiency with which the service is delivered) and relational (customers’ emotional benefits, beyond the core performance, related to the social interaction of customers with employees) dimensions of service quality were measured as well as customer satisfaction and loyalty. The sample of 277 customers (191 men, 86 women), sur-veyed in 29 Mexican hotels, had a mean age of 38.1 yr. (SD = 9.7) for men and 34.5 yr. (SD = 11.0) for women. To be eligible for survey, customers had to have spent at least one night in the hotel in question. Analysis indicated that the women and men differed in the association of functional and relational dimensions of service quality with their satisfaction and loyalty. Functional service quality was higher for the men than the women, while relational service quality showed greater predic-tive power for women than for men, although these accounted for only 4% of the customers’ satisfaction variance and 6% of the loyalty variance.
Organizations are concerned about providing and maintaining qual-ity service as a competitive advantage in confronting a dynamic, de-manding, and competitive marketplace. The organization’s future partial-
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS 599
ly depends on customers’ intentions to consume. Undeniably, important benefits such as satisfaction and loyalty are obtained through delivery of quality service. In fact, Warren and Ostergren (1990) argued that it costs five or six times more to capture a new customer than to retain one. Cus-tomers’ satisfaction is considered a consequence of a mental evaluation of consumption experiences (Oliver, 1977, 1980; Pascoe, 1983), while custom-er loyalty is characterized in terms of intentions to repurchase and word-of-mouth communication (Swan & Oliver, 1989; Yi, 1990; Patterson, 1993; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996).
Positive links from service quality to customers’ satisfaction (e.g., Ham & Hayduk, 2003; Wang, Hsiao, & Shieh, 2005) and loyalty (e.g., Hong & Goo, 2004; Lewis & Soureli, 2006) are well-established in the lit-erature. As far as the customer perceives the service as being provided in a high quality manner, satisfaction will increase, along with intention to use the service again. Nevertheless, links from perceptions of service quality to customers’ evaluations and intentions can differ among custom-ers. More specifically, demographic characteristics can help to distinguish among different types of customers who respond differentially to facets of service quality. Unfortunately, the few studies in the service literature which have been focused on analysis of demographic characteristics (e.g., sex differences) of the customers have shown somewhat inconsistent re-sults (Huang, Ho, & Lee, 2003; Choi, Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2005; Mohsin, 2005). None of these studies differentiated between functional and relational as-pects of the services, although there are reasons to expect that men and women differ in the importance they attribute to functional and relational dimensions of service quality, describing differential relations with their satisfaction and loyalty. Thus, the differentiation between functional and relational service quality may help clarify differences between men and women. With this distinction in mind, the present study examined differ-ences between men and women in the associations between perceptions of functional and relational service quality and customers’ satisfaction and loyalty.Functional and Relational Service Quality
The predominant SERVQUAL model refers to service quality as a type of customer attitude which reflects the superiority of a service (Para-suraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). Some researchers have argued that the SERVQUAL scale mainly focuses attention on the functional aspects of the service encounter between employees and customers (Price, Arnould, & Tierney, 1995; Peiró, Martínez-Tur, & Ramos, 2005), reflecting the efficien-cy with which contacting employees deliver the service, e.g., reliability and responsiveness. Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) indicated that this predominance of the functional dimension of service quality illustrates
R. M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, ET AL.600
the hegemony of a traditional instrumental point of view in the study of customers’ behavior. From this perspective, customers are defined as ra-tional processors of information capable of evaluating the extent to which employees provide the expected service in a functional manner.
Despite its pervasiveness, this functional approach to service quality somewhat neglects the relational or emotional bonds between employees and customers (see Price, et al., 1995). In service encounters, customers can receive relational benefits beyond the functional service delivered by con-tacting employees (Gwinner, Gremler, & Bitner, 1998). To capture these emotional or relational facets of services, Price, et al. (1995) resorted to the concepts of authentic understanding (delivering service with sincerity and being genuine) and extras (offering little extras or benefits to custom-ers). Although the affective context is especially important when service encounters between employees and customers extend over time (Price, et al., 1995), emotional aspects are present even in brief service interac-tions (Dubé & Menon, 1998). Congruently, Peiró, et al. (2005) confirmed functional and relational service quality as two differentiated dimensions. Functional service quality is defined as the efficiency with which the core service is provided (e.g., when employees provide the service quickly), while relational service quality refers to the customers’ emotional bene-fits, beyond the core performance, associated with the social interaction between employees and customers (e.g., when there is a friendly rela-tionship between the employee and the customer). Sánchez-Hernández, Martínez-Tur, Peiró, and Ramos (2009) corroborated the existence of these two differentiated dimensions of service quality in a cross-cultural study. Price, et al. (1995) indicated that the importance of relational or emotional aspects of service quality increases in extended interactions (long-term) between employees and customers, in services in which there is a spatial proximity between them, and in service encounters with high emotion-al content. With this in mind, Martínez-Tur, Moliner, Carrasco, and Ra-mos (2009) compared two types of services: relationally oriented (centers devoted to the attention of mentally disabled persons) and functionally oriented (hotels). They observed that the association between relational service quality and customers’ satisfaction was greater for relationally ori-ented services than for functionally oriented services.
The present study differentiates between functional and relational aspects of service quality. This functional–relational distinction not only enriches the concept of service quality, it also makes it possible to pro-pose differential hypotheses for men and women about the relation be-tween service quality and customers’ evaluations and intentions. Men’s and women’s differential perceptions of service quality have been ex-plored (Stafford, 1996), but the results have been somewhat contradicto-
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS 601
ry. Two competing hypotheses were considered, disparity and equality (Garrett, Meyers, & West, 1997; Huang, et al., 2003). Disparity indicated that men and women are different in many aspects. For example, they dif-fered in their interactions with others and in their communication styles. In agreement with the disparity hypothesis, women preferred to engage in talk which builds rapport and gains sympathy while men preferred to engage in informational talk and focus the attention on problem-solving (Tannen, 1994). Congruently, previous studies have suggested that wom-en are more active than men in service consumption activities in which the customer has an important role (Graham, Stendardi, Myers, & Gra-ham, 2002). Also, Slama and Tashlian (1985) argued that women are more involved in aspects of personal interaction in services than men are. Fur-thermore, Paswan, Spears, Hasty, and Ganesh (2004) observed that wom-en attributed higher importance to aspects such as empathy and assur-ance than men did. In contrast, the equality hypothesis supports equal attributes for both men and women. For example, Ndhlovu and Senguder (2002) did not find significant differences in perceptions of service quality by men and women in the hospitality industry.
As we mentioned above, the differentiation between functional and relational service quality can help to understand differences between men and women and clarify previous results. Men’s and women’s normative beliefs differed with socialization (Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000). Men’s so-cialization has been characterized by instrumentality and as outcome-ori-ented, while women’s development has been discussed as more relation-ship-oriented (Gilligan, 1982; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Women showed higher empathy and prosocial behavior than men (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998), whereas men displayed more competitive concerns than women (Maltz & Borker, 1982; Butler & Shalit-Naggar, 2008). Congruently, men and women attributed differential importance to functional and relational facets of the reality they evaluated, for example, in terms of justice percep-tions (Tata & Bowes-Sperry, 1996; Martinez-Tur, Ramos, Peiró, & García-Buades, 2001; Moliner, Martínez-Tur, Peiró, & Ramos, 2005). Drawing on these previous research efforts, it is reasonable to expect that men will be more sensitive to functional service quality than women, while women will be more influenced by relational attributes than men. This proposi-tion is consistent with previous findings in other research areas. With this distinction in mind, the following hypotheses were proposed for:
1. Correlations of relational service quality with customers’ satisfaction and loyalty will be greater for women than for men.
2. Correlations of functional service quality with customers’ satisfaction and loyalty will be greater for men than for women.
R. M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, ET AL.602
MethodParticipants
The sample was extracted from 29 Mexican hotels located in Veracruz State. These hotels were selected to provide representation from the two main hospitality industry models in this geographic area, “sun and sand” (55%) and “conference” (45%). Participating hotels served customers who were seeking recreation or customers who were on business trips, respec-tively. The sample provided 290 questionnaires, but 13 of them were de-leted because one or more items or critical variables were not answered. The final sample consisted of 191 men and 86 women. Men’s average age was 38 yr. (SD = 9.7), with most married (69.6%) and university educat-ed (73.8%). Women’s mean age was 34.5 yr. (SD = 11), with most married (53.5%) and university educated (60.5%).Survey
A questionnaire was used to evaluate the variables of interest. Items were formulated as statements, which referred to the hotel in which the customers were staying. A group of researchers familiarized with service quality in hotels reviewed the items. In addition, a Mexican researcher re-viewed the wording to introduce modifications to adapt it to the Mexican culture. A real-time approach (Stewart & Hull, 1992) was used and an as-sessment which occurred on site (customers answered the questionnaire in the facilities with the support of the researchers) made it possible to achieve a response rate of 90%.Measures
To assess the quality of the service encounter between employees and customers, the functional–relational Service Quality scales (Peiró, et al., 2005; Sánchez-Hernández, et al., 2009), which were validated by Sánchez-Hernández, et al. (2009) in a cross-cultural study, were used. The mea-sure of Service Quality included a 12-item scale for the functional dimen-sion with concepts focusing on the more traditional functional aspects, including Reliability (e.g., “When you arrive at the hotel, all the services are available”), Responsiveness (e.g., “The employees attend to the clients quickly”), Assurance (e.g., “The employees have the necessary resourc-es to do their work well”), and Personalized Attention (e.g., “The service hours are adequate”). The 9-item scale for the assessment of the relational dimension included concepts traditionally considered in the more rela-tional aspects of services: Authentic Understanding (e.g., “The employees show a real interest in creating a good relationship with the clients”), Ex-tras (e.g., “The employees have done things to make me feel like an im-portant and special client”), and Empathy (e.g., “The employees are able to put themselves in the place of the customers”). Coefficients alpha were
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS 603
.94 and .93 for functional Service Quality and relational Service Quality, respectively (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Revelle’s beta coefficients (Rev-elle & Zinbarg, 2009) were .89 and .83. In addition, the Harman Test was computed (to compare the two-factor model with a model with a unique general factor of service quality) to examine possible effects of collinear-ity and common method variance (Podsakoff, McKenzie, Lee, & Podsa-koff, 2003). Results confirmed that indices corresponding to the two-factor model were better than those associated with the one-factor model, with significant differences between the two models (Δχ2 = 299.24, p < .001), in-dicating that collinearity and common method variance were not critical problems in this measure of service quality. To estimate further discrimi-nant validity, the squared correlation between these constructs (functional and relational Service Quality) and the values of the means of the varianc-es for each construct were computed. As the two constructs’ mean vari-ances (1.01 for functional Service Quality and .79 for relational Service Quality) were higher than the squared correlation between the constructs (r2 = .55), there was support for the discriminant validity of the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
To measure Customer Satisfaction, three items were used reflecting customers’ feelings about the choice of the hotels (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991; Martínez-Tur, et al., 2001). A sample item is “I have made a good choice with this hotel.” The scale’s coefficient for internal consistency re-liability, Cronbach’ alpha, was .96. Revelle’s beta was .93 (Revelle & Zin-barg, 2009). Loyalty was assessed using two items describing intentions to return to the hotel and intentions to make word-of-mouth recommenda-tions (Swan & Oliver, 1989; Martínez-Tur, et. al., 2001). A sample item is, “If I could, I would return to this hotel.” Cronbach alpha of this measure was .83. All items corresponding to satisfaction and loyalty were scored on a 7-point scale anchored by 1: Strongly disagree and 7: Strongly agree. Simi-larly, the Harman Test was computed to compare a two-factor model for differentiating Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty with a model with only one general factor that includes both constructs. Results confirmed the superiority of the two-factor model with significant differences between the two models (Δχ2 = 83.7, p < .001). Furthermore, because the values of the means and the variance for Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty were .59 and 4.03, respectively, higher than the squared correlation between these two constructs (r2 = .31), there was support for discriminant validity of these two measures (see Fornell & Larcker, 1981).Procedure
Data were collected at the service sites. The initial contact with each service organization occurred via telephone. Researchers made an ap-pointment with the manager and requested permission to interview a small group of customers. It was a verbal agreement with hotels through
R. M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, ET AL.604
which each participant agreed to answer the questionnaire voluntarily and anonymously. The cooperation of hotel customers was requested, tak-ing advantage of the moment they were using the reception service. To be eligible to be surveyed, the customer had to have spent at least one night in the hotel in question. The sampling was carried out at different times of day when customers were present at the hotels, excluding night.Statistical Analysis
To test the effects formulated in Hypotheses 1 and 2, hierarchical re-gression models were computed. In the first step of the regression models, the direct effects of functional and relational Service Quality were intro-duced, and the effects of age, sex, and type of industry (“sun and sand” vs “conference”) were controlled. In the second step, the interactions be-tween sex (men coded as 0 and women coded as 1) and functional–rela-tional Service Quality were incorporated. The F was used to assess the change in R2 resulting from the introduction of the interaction term, for sex × functional Service Quality and sex × relational Service Quality. The functional Service Quality and relational Service Quality variables were mean-centered to minimize the effects of multicollinearity (Taylor & Bak-er, 1994), but the dummy variable was not mean-centered for interpretive reasons (Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990).
ResultsMean ratings, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of the
measures included in the study are presented in Table 1. The means and standard deviations were calculated for men and women separately. Find-ings indicated that scores on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty tended to be higher for men than for women. Also, positive relations were observed between functional–relational Service Quality dimensions and Custom-ers’ Satisfaction and Loyalty.
The hierarchical regression models (see Table 2) showed differences in R2, indicating that the interactions were significant. The findings showed that men and women differed in their associations of functional and re-lational Service Quality with customers’ reactions; their interactions ex-plained an additional and significant 4% of the Customer Satisfaction vari-
TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, Pearson Correlations, and Cronbach alpha
Note.—Cronbach alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. All correlations p < .01, two-tailed.
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS 605
ance (F2,268 change = 7.30; p < .01) and an additional and significant 6% of the Loyalty variance (F2,269 change = 11.94; p < .001). More specifically, associa-tions of functional Service Quality with Customer Satisfaction (t268 = 3.80; p < .001) and Loyalty (t269 = 4.80; p < .001) were significantly greater for men than for women. Slopes corresponding to men were .56 and .70 for Cus-tomer Satisfaction and Loyalty, respectively. In contrast, slopes for wom-en were .01 and −.04. Associations of relational Service Quality with Cus-tomer Satisfaction (t268 = 3.063; p < .01) and Loyalty (t269 = 2.95; p < .01) were significantly greater for women than for men. Slopes corresponding to women were .43 and .42 for Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty, respec-tively. These slopes were .01 and −.01 for men. Graphic representations of interactions for functional (Figs. 1a and 1b) and relational Service Quality
TABLE 2Hierarchical Regression Analysis For Prediction of Customer Reactions
Predictors Satisfaction Loyalty
B R2Adj. ΔR2 B R2
Adj. ΔR2
Step 1Age .01 .01Location −.18* −.08Sex −.09 .04Functional Service Quality .56† .70†Relational Service Quality .01 −.01F 20.79 .26† 18.59 .24†
Step 2Functional Service Quality × Sex −.56† −.74†Relational Service Quality × Sex .43† .43†F 17.63 .30† .04 17.77 .30† .06
Note.—B are the unstandardized regression coefficients from the final stage of regression models. *p < .05. †p < .01.
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
Low High Functional
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
Low High Functional
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
Low High Functional
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Fig. 1a. Relation between functional Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: differ-ences between men () and women (®)
Fig. 1b. Relation between functional Service Quality and Customer Loyalty: differences between men () and women (®)
R. M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, ET AL.606
scores (Figs. 2a and 2b) showed that men were responsive to functional Service Quality, while women were responsive to relational Service Qual-ity. Specific regression equations for men and women follow.
Effect sizes were small to medium with f 2 values ranging from .05 to .08 (Cohen, 1988). However, the interaction terms should be considered possibly meaningful. Considering the difficulty of finding moderator ef-fects in psychology, McClelland and Judd (1993) indicated that even inter-actions accounting for 1% of variance should be considered relevant.
Fig. 2a. Relation between relational Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: differ-ences between men () and women (®)
Fig. 2b. Relation between relational Service Quality and Customer Loyalty: differences between men () and women (®)
DiscussionResults of previous studies are somewhat contradictory regarding sex
differences in service quality evaluations. Some authors observed signifi-cant differences between men’s and women’s perceptions of quality ser-
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS 607
vice (e.g., Stafford, 1996; Graham, et al., 2002). In contrast, other research-ers did not find significant relations for sex with perceptions of service quality (e.g., Ndhlovu & Senguder, 2002). Thus, there is a need to clari-fy the factors used to explain the potential differences between men and women. With this in mind, the present study contributes to the literature by differentiating between functional and relational service quality in as-sessing sex differences. The present results show that men’s satisfaction and loyalty are based on functional service quality, while women’s satis-faction and loyalty are linked to relational perceptions of service quality.
The present data support the idea that men and women differ in the way they evaluate service quality (e.g., Tata & Bowes-Sperry, 1996; Mar-tinez-Tur, et al., 2001; Moliner, et al., 2005). Congruent with previous ar-guments about differences in the socialization of men and women (Gil-ligan, 1982; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997), the present data are consistent with the idea that men place more importance on instrumental facets of the social environment than women do, while women attribute more im-portance to relational aspects of the social environment than men. The present findings extend this argument to sex differences in perceptions of service quality and customers’ satisfaction and loyalty.
In addition, this study reinforces the differentiation between function-al and relational service quality. Peiró, et al. (2005) confirmed that concep-tualization and measurement of service quality should not be restricted to the functionality and efficacy with which employees deliver the service. In service encounters, customers can obtain emotional or relational benefits that affect their evaluations of services. Because the distinction between functional and relational service quality helps to clarify sex differences, the present results extend the validity of this dual conceptualization of service encounters between providers and customers.
The present findings have implications for research based on the limi-tations of this study. First, data were obtained only by means of self-reports and, therefore, common methods variance artifacts could have inflated re-lations between variables. Although the computation of the Harman Test indicated that common method variance was not a generalized problem in present measures, complementary objective measures could enrich the as-sessment of service quality in further study. Second, this study was restrict-ed to Mexican hotels, so its generalizability could be limited. Accordingly, hypotheses formulated in this research should be tested in other service in-dustries and nations to assess whether sex differences in the effects of func-tional and relational service quality are generalizable. There is evidence indicating that Mexican families follow traditional roles, with mothers as-suming greater caregiving responsibility than fathers (Azmitia & Brown, 2002; Updegraff, Delgado, & Wheeler, 2009). In other cultures where tra-
R. M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, ET AL.608
ditional family roles have declined more quickly than in Mexican families, the moderator effects of differences between men’s and women’s percep-tions could be reduced. Finally, the effects of service quality might change over time. When the service is extended, the incorporation of the relation-al component may be critical (Price, et al., 1995), as its influence could in-crease. Thus, there is a need to conduct longitudinal studies to explore the dynamics of the relations of service quality and customer responses.
In spite of these limitations, this study contributes to the clarification of sex differences in the effect of service quality on customers’ satisfaction and loyalty. In addition, the present findings reinforce the usefulness of the differentiation between functional and relational Service Quality.
REFERENCES
Azmitia, A., & Brown, J. R. (2002) Latino immigrant parents’ beliefs about the “path of life” of their adolescent children. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States. Westport, CT: Prae-ger. Pp. 77-106.
Babin, B., Darden, W., & Griffin, M. (1994) Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Butler, R., & Shalit-Naggar, R. (2008) Gender and patterns of concerned respon-siveness in representations of the mother-daughter and mother-son relationships. Child Development, 79, 836-851.
Choi, K., Lee, H., Kim, C., & Lee, S. (2005) The service quality dimensions and patient satisfaction relationships in South Korea: comparisons across gender, age and types of service. The Journal of Services Marketing, 19, 140-149.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dubé, L., & Menon, K. (1998) Why would certain types of in-process negative emo-tions increase post-purchase consumer satisfaction with services? In T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen, & S. Brown (Eds.), Advances in service marketing and management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 131-158.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998) Prosocial development. In W. Damon & N. Ei-In W. Damon & N. Ei-senberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development. (5th ed.) New York: Wiley. Pp. 702-778.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Garrett, D. E., Meyers, R. A., & West, L. (1997) Sex differences and consumer com-plaints: do men and women communicate differently when they complain to cus-tomer service representatives? Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 10, 116-130.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.Graham, J. F., Stendardi, E. J., Jr., Myers, J. K., & Graham, M. J. (2002) Gender dif-
ferences in investment strategies: an information processing perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Bank Marketing, 20, 17-26.
Gwinner, K., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998) Relational benefits in service industries: the customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 101-114.
SERVICE QUALITY AND CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS 609
Ham, L., & Hayduk, S. (2003) Gaining competitive advantages in higher education: analyzing the gap between expectations and perceptions of service quality. Inter-national Journal of Value-Based Management, 16, 223-242.
Hong, S., & Goo, J. J. (2004) A causal model of customer loyalty in professional service firms: an empirical study. International Journal of Management, 21, 531-540.
Huang, J., Ho, S., & Lee, B. C. (2003) Who are the adorable customers—men or wom-en? Service quality improvement via customers’ positive responses. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,14, 789-800.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990) Interaction effects in multiple regression. London: Sage.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. (2000) Power-distance, gender, and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26, 645-704.
Lewis, B. R., & Soureli, M. (2006) The antecedents of consumer loyalty in retail bank-ing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 15-31.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982) A cultural approach to male-female miscom-munication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 195-216.
Martínez-Tur, V., Moliner, C., Carrasco, H., & Ramos, J. (2009) Relationships be-tween service quality and customer satisfaction: comparing two different service sectors. Paper presented at the XIVth European Congress of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Martínez-Tur, V., Ramos, J., Peiró, J. M., & García-Buades, E. (2001) Relationships among perceived justice, customers’ satisfaction and behavioural intentions: the moderating role of sex. Psychological Reports, 88, 805-811.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993) Statistical difficulties of detecting interac-tions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
Mohsin, A. (2005) Service quality perceptions: an assessment of restaurant and café visitors in Hamilton, New Zealand. The Business Review, Cambridge, 3, 51-57.
Moliner, C., Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J. M., & Ramos, J. (2005) Linking organiza-tional justice to burnout: are men and women different? Psychological Reports, 96, 805-816.
Ndhlovu, J., & Senguder, T. (2002) Gender and perception of service quality in the hotel industry. Journal of American Academy of Business, 1, 301-307.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994) Psychometric theory. (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1977) Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure prod-uct evaluations: an alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 480-486.
Oliver, R. L. (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satis-faction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985) A conceptual model of ser-vice quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 4-41.
Pascoe, G. C. (1983) Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 6, 299-314.
Paswan, A. K., Spears, N., Hasty, R., & Ganesh, G. (2004) Search quality in the finan-cial services industry: a contingency perspective. The Journal of Services Marketing, 18, 324-338.
Patterson, P. G. (1993) Expectations and product performance as determinants of sat-isfaction for a high-involvement purchase. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 449-465.
R. M. SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ, ET AL.610
Peiró, J. M., Martínez-Tur, V., & Ramos, J. (2005) Employees´ overestimation of func-tional and relational service quality: a gap analysis. The Service Industries Journal, 25, 1-17.
Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common meth-od bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommend-ed remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Tierney, P. (1995) Going to extremes: managing service encounters and assessing provider performance. Journal of Marketing, 59, 83-97.
Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009) Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145-154.
Sánchez-Hernández, R. M., Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J. M., & Ramos, J. (2009) Testing a hierarchical and integrated model of quality in the service sector. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20, 1173-1188.
Slama, M. E., & Tashlian, A. (1985) Selected socioeconomic and demographic char-acteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72-82.
Stafford, M. R. (1996) Demographic discriminators of service quality in banking. The Journal of Services Marketing, 10, 6-22.
Stewart, W. P., & Hull, R. B. (1992) Satisfaction of what? Post hoc versus real-time construct validity. Leisure Science, 14, 195-209.
Swan, J. E., & Oliver, R. L. (1989) Postpurchase communications by consumers. Jour-nal of Retailing, 65, 516-533.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997) Process and outcome: gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98.
Tannen, D. (1994) Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.Tata, J., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (1996) Emphasis on distributive, procedural and interac-
tional justice: differential perceptions of men and women. Psychological Reports, 79, 1327-1330.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994) An assessment of the relationships between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase inten-tions. Journal of Retailing, 70, 163-178.
Updegraff, K. A., Delgado, M. Y., & Wheeler, L. A. (2009) Exploring mothers’ and fathers’ relationships with sons versus daughters: links to adolescent adjustment in Mexican immigrant families. Sex Roles, 60, 559-574.
Wang, I., Hsiao, J., & Shieh, C. (2005) The relationship between service quality, cus-tomer satisfaction and customer loyalty: a study on the management consulting industry. Journal of Information & Optimization Sciences, 26, 371-384.
Warren, P., & Ostergren, N. W. (1990) Marketing your hotel: challenges of the 90s. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 31, 56-59.
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991) The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.
Yi, Y. (1990) A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Pp. 68-123.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996) The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.
