IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i4p463-484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Quality Double Whammy

Author

Listed:
  • William Boulding

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Ajay Kalra

    (Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Richard Staelin

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

This research focuses on how consumers perceive the quality level of a complex stimulus (in our case, a service encounter) and how this perception affects consumers' overall assessment of the quality level of the firm. As such, it should be of interest to consumer behavior theorists as well as to those involved in marketing management issues. We start our presentation by developing a normative Bayesian data integration and updating model somewhat similar to that put forth by Rust et al. (1999). The major constructs of interest in this model are the person's belief about the overall service quality level of a firm and what will happen on the next service encounter. Two major results following from this baseline normative model are that the updated means of these two beliefs are identical to the dynamic updating equations put forth by Boulding et al. (1993), and that an underlying assumption of this model is that consumers form unbiased perceptions of the complex stimulus. Next, based on substantial empirical evidence from the behavioral literature, we incorporate into this baseline model a process by which consumers form nonrandom perceptions. Specifically, we postulate that a person's perception of a complex service encounter is a blend of the objective dimensions of the service encounter and the person's prior overall belief about the quality level of the firm. The relative weights placed on these two factors are determined at least in part by the experience level of the customer and the complexity of the service encounter. We then use this expanded model to compare and test different models of service quality and provide deeper insights into the process by which consumers form perceptions of both the service transaction and the overall service quality level of a firm. We test this model using data from two different experiments. In each experiment we manipulate the service provided and the person's initial and . Using both obtrusive and unobtrusive measures of the underlying constructs of our model, we employ multiple tests to determine the veracity of our expanded model relative to the baseline model. These tests support the expanded model specification. As found previously, and as predicted by a Bayesian updating process, consumers' prior beliefs influence their cumulative overall opinion of service quality (e.g., Anderson and Sullivan 1993, Bolton and Drew 1991, Boulding et al. 1993, Rust et al. 1999). Perhaps more importantly, these prior beliefs also influence their perceptions of the data themselves, which in turn affect their new (updated) overall opinion. These two different influences of prior beliefs on cumulative evaluations of quality constitute the “double whammy” referred to in the title. This double whammy effect has major managerial significance. Specifically, we see from our model development that all activities of a firm will be perceived in light of a person's prior beliefs and that these priors will be double counted relative to our baseline model. Thus, any marketing action taken by a firm will be perceived more positively or negatively depending on the person's prior belief about the quality level of the firm. As such, our model provides a formal explanation for the notion of brand equity as “differential leverage” in marketing activities as proposed by Keller (1993).

Suggested Citation

  • William Boulding & Ajay Kalra & Richard Staelin, 1999. "The Quality Double Whammy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 463-484.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:463-484
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.4.463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.4.463
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.18.4.463?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Broniarczyk, Susan M & Alba, Joseph W, 1994. "The Role of Consumers' Intuitions in Inference Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 393-407, December.
    2. J. Jeffrey Inman & James S. Dyer & Jianmin Jia, 1997. "A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret Effects on Post-Choice Valuation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 97-111.
    3. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    4. Eugene W. Anderson & Mary W. Sullivan, 1993. "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143.
    5. Bettman, James R & John, Deborah Roedder & Scott, Carol A, 1986. "Covariation Assessment by Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(3), pages 316-326, December.
    6. Hoch, Stephen J & Ha, Young-Won, 1986. "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 221-233, September.
    7. Russo, J. Edward & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Meloy, Margaret G., 1996. "The Distortion of Information during Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 102-110, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paulson Gjerde, Kathy A. & Slotnick, Susan A., 2004. "Quality and reputation: The effects of external and internal factors over time," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Zheyin (Jane) Gu & Yunchuan Liu, 2018. "Why would a big retailer refuse to collaborate on manufacturer SPIFF programs?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 441-472, December.
    3. Bolton, Ruth N. & Gustafsson, Anders & Tarasi, Crina O. & Witell, Lars, 2022. "Managing a Global Retail Brand in Different Markets: Meta-Analyses of Customer Responses to Service Encounters," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 294-314.
    4. Ajay Kalra & Mengze Shi & Kannan Srinivasan, 2003. "Salesforce Compensation Scheme and Consumer Inferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 655-672, May.
    5. Carlson, Kurt A. & Pearo, Lisa Klein, 2004. "Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 48-59, May.
    6. Nuno Camacho & Bas Donkers & Stefan Stremersch, 2011. "Predictably Non-Bayesian: Quantifying Salience Effects in Physician Learning About Drug Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 305-320, 03-04.
    7. Russo, J.E. & Yong, Kevyn, 2011. "The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 132-139, May.
    8. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Chuan He & Eric Anderson & Lyle Brenner & Preyas Desai & Dmitri Kuksov & Paul Messinger & Sridhar Moorthy & Joseph Nunes & Yuval Rottenstreich & Richard Staelin & George Wu &, 2005. "Incorporating Behavioral Anomalies in Strategic Models," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 361-373, December.
    9. Tansev Geylani & J. Jeffrey Inman & Frenkel Ter Hofstede, 2008. "Image Reinforcement or Impairment: The Effects of Co-Branding on Attribute Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 730-744, 07-08.
    10. Debanjan Mitra & Peter N. Golder, 2006. "How Does Objective Quality Affect Perceived Quality? Short-Term Effects, Long-Term Effects, and Asymmetries," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 230-247, 05-06.
    11. Woong Park & Hyunchul Ahn, 2022. "Not All Churn Customers Are the Same: Investigating the Effect of Customer Churn Heterogeneity on Customer Value in the Financial Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Kopalle, Praveen K. & Lehmann, Donald R., 2015. "The Truth Hurts: How Customers May Lose From Honest Advertising," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 251-262.
    13. Sullivan, Ursula Y. & Thomas, Jacquelyn S., 2004. "Customer Migration: An Empirical Investigation across Multiple Channels," Working Papers 04-0112, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    14. Biswas, Dipayan & Pechmann, Cornelia, 2012. "What do these clinical trial results mean? How product efficacy judgments are affected by data partitioning, framing, and quantification," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 341-350.
    15. Bolton, R.N. & Lemo, K.N. & Verhoef, P.C., 2002. "The Theoretical Underpinnings of Customer Asset Management," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-80-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Duncan Simester & Juanjuan Zhang, 2010. "Why Are Bad Products So Hard to Kill?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1161-1179, July.
    17. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    18. Gupta, Shaphali & Leszkiewicz, Agata & Kumar, V. & Bijmolt, Tammo & Potapov, Dmitriy, 2020. "Digital Analytics: Modeling for Insights and New Methods," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 26-43.
    19. Vanhouche, Wouter & Alba, Joseph W., 2009. "Generalizing from negative experiences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 238-244.
    20. Praveen K. Kopalle & Donald R. Lehmann, 2006. "Setting Quality Expectations When Entering a Market: What Should the Promise Be?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 8-24, 01-02.
    21. Teck H. Ho & Xin Wang & Colin F. Camerer, 2008. "Individual Differences in EWA Learning with Partial Payoff Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 37-59, January.
    22. Rong Chen & Jianmin Jia, 2012. "Regret and performance uncertainty in consumer repeat choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 353-365, March.
    23. Azimian, Alireza & Kilgour, D. Marc & Noori, Hamid, 2016. "Mitigating contagion risk by investing in the safety of rivals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 935-945.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1998. ""Wow, I could've had a V8!" : The role of regret in consumer choice," Discussion Paper 1998-79, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. Martin Adam & Michael Wessel & Alexander Benlian, 2019. "Of early birds and phantoms: how sold-out discounts impact entrepreneurial success in reward-based crowdfunding," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 545-560, June.
    3. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    4. Drevs, Florian, 2013. "The Challenge of the Unknown – The Effect of Pay-What-You-Want on the Market Success of Publicly Subsidized Films," ZögU - Zeitschrift für öffentliche und gemeinwirtschaftliche Unternehmen, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 36(4), pages 255-270.
    5. Park, Chang Hee & Yoon, Tae Jung, 2022. "The dark side of up-selling promotions: Evidence from an analysis of cross-brand purchase behavior☆," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 647-666.
    6. Lei Huang, 2017. "Birds of a feather: a normative model of assessing consumers’ satisfaction in a generalized expectation–disconfirmation paradigm," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 5-13, March.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4260 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jeffrey D. Shulman & Marcus Cunha & Julian K. Saint Clair, 2015. "Consumer Uncertainty and Purchase Decision Reversals: Theory and Evidence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 590-605, July.
    9. Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber & Christian Seilheimer, 2003. "Die Qual der Wahl: Die Bedeutung des Regret bei Kaufentscheidungen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 224-249, May.
    10. Heribert Gierl & Armin Stich, 1999. "Sicherheitswert und Vorhersagewert von Qualitätssignalen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 5-32, January.
    11. Gürtler, Marc & Hartmann, Nora, 2003. "Behavioral dividend policy," Working Papers FW04V1, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Finance.
    12. Tatiana Dyachenko & Rebecca Walker Reczek & Greg M. Allenby, 2014. "Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-Worst Choice Tasks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 828-848, November.
    13. Jonathan D. Bohlmann & José Antonio Rosa & Ruth N. Bolton & William J. Qualls, 2006. "The Effect of Group Interactions on Satisfaction Judgments: Satisfaction Escalation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 301-321, July.
    14. Simonson, Itamar & Ofir, Chezy, 2000. "The Effect of Expecting to Evaluate on Quality and Satisfaction Evaluations," Research Papers 1608, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    15. Roland T. Rust & J. Jeffrey Inman & Jianmin Jia & Anthony Zahorik, 1999. "What You Know About Customer-Perceived Quality: The Role of Customer Expectation Distributions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 77-92.
    16. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1998. ""Wow, I could've had a V8!" : The role of regret in consumer choice," Other publications TiSEM 65a1916f-f531-420e-a78c-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    18. Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber & Martin Wricke, 1999. "Die Herausbildung von Zufriedenheits-urteilen bei Alternativenbetrachtung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 51(7), pages 677-692, July.
    19. Keaveney, Susan M. & Huber, Frank & Herrmann, Andreas, 2007. "A model of buyer regret: Selected prepurchase and postpurchase antecedents with consequences for the brand and the channel," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(12), pages 1207-1215, December.
    20. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    21. Gierl, Heribert & Stiegelmayr, Karin, 2012. "Erzeugt nicht-diagnostische Information einen Reihenfolge-Effekt im Fall der attributweisen Informationspräsentation?," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(2), pages 127-152.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:4:p:463-484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.