Advertisement

Service quality delivery through web sites: A critical review of extant knowledge

  • Valarie A. Zeithaml
  • A. Parasuraman
  • Arvind Malhotra
Article

Abstract

Evidence exists that service quality delivery through Web sites is an essential strategy to success, possibly more important than low price and Web presence. To deliver superior service quality, managers of companies with Web presences must first understand how customers perceive and evaluate online customer service. Information on this topic is beginning to emerge from both academic and practitioner sources, but this information has not yet been examined as a whole. The goals of this article are to review and synthesize the literature about service quality delivery through Web sites, describe what is known about the topic, and develop an agenda for needed research.

Keywords

Service Quality Customer Service Recovery Service Technology Readiness Market Science Fall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, Dennis A., R. Ryan Nelson, and Peter A. Todd. 1992. “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication.”MIS Quarterly, June, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer, and Stacy Wood. 1997. “Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces.”Journal of Marketing 61 (3): 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, Dan. 2000. “Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers’ Decision Making and Preferences.”Journal of Consumer Research 27 (2): 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakos, Yannis. 1997. “Reducing Buyer Search Costs: Implications for Electronic Marketplaces.”Management Science 43 (12): 1676–1692.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, Qimei and William D. Wells. 1999. “Attitude Toward the Site.”Journal of Advertising Research 39 (September/October): 27–37.Google Scholar
  6. Cowles, Deborah. 1989. “Consumer Perceptions of Interactive Media.”Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 33 (Winter): 83–89.Google Scholar
  7. — and Lawrence A. Crosby. 1990. “Consumer Acceptance of Interactive Media in Service Marketing Encounters.”The Service Industries Journal 10 (July): 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Culnan, Mary J. 1999.Georgetown Internet Privacy Policy Study. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov.opa/1999/9905/culnan.htmGoogle Scholar
  9. — and Pamela K. Armstrong. 1999. “Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation.”Organization Science 10 (1): 104–115.Google Scholar
  10. Dabholkar, Pratibha A. 1996. “Consumer Evaluations of New Technology-Based Self-Service Options: An Investigation of Alternative Models of SQ.”International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (1): 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.”MIS Quarterly, September, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models.”Management Science 35 (8): 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastlick, Mary Ann. 1996. “Consumer Intention to Adopt Interactive Teleshopping.” MSI Working Paper, Report No. 96-113, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn Jr., and Daniel C. Howe. 2000. “Frust Online.”Communications of the ACM 43 (December): 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffith, D. A. and R. A. Krampf. 1998. “An Examination of the Web-Based Strategies of the Top 100 U.S. Retailers.”Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 6 (3): 12–23.Google Scholar
  16. Hanrahan, Timothy. 1999. “Pride Isn’t Everything: Companies Scramble to Make Sure Customer Service Doesn’t Get Lost in Cyberspace.”Wall Street Journal, July 12, p. R20.Google Scholar
  17. Hendrickson, Anthony R., Patti D. Massey, and Timothy Paul Cronan. 1993. “On the Test-Retest Reliability of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Scales.”MIS Quarterly, June, 227–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak. 1996. “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations.”Journal of Marketing 60 (July): 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ——, and M. A. Peralta. 1999. “Building Consumer Trust Online.”Communications of the ACM 42 (4): 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoque, Abeer Y. and Gerald L. Lohse. 1999. “An Information Search Cost Perspective for Designing Interfaces for Electronic Commerce.”Journal of Marketing Research 36 (August): 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L. and P. A. Todd. 1997. “Consumer Reactions to Electronic Shopping on the World Wide Web.”International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 (2): 59–88.Google Scholar
  22. Keil, Mark, Peggy M. Beranek, and Benn R. Konsynski. 1995. “Usefulness and Ease of Use: Field Study Evidence Regarding Task Considerations.”Decision Support Systems 13: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li, Hairong, Cheng Kuo, and Martha G. Russell. 1999. “The Impact of Perceived Channel Utilities, Shopping Orientations and Demographics on the Consumer’s Online Buying Behavior.”Journal of Computer Medicated Communication. Retrieved from www.ascusc.or. cmc/vol5/issue2/hairon.htmlGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu, Chang and Kirk P. Arnett. 2000. “Exploring the Factors Associated With Web Site Success in the Context of Electronic Commerce.”Information and Management 38 (1): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lociacono, Eleanor, Richard T. Watson, and Dale Goodhue. 2000. “WebQualTM: A Web Site Quality Instrument.” Working Paper. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Lohse, Gerald L. and Peter Spiler. 1998. “Electronic Shopping.”Communications of the ACM 41 (July): 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch, John G. and Dan Ariely. 2000. “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality and Distribution.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mick, David Glenn and Susan Fournier. 1995. “Technological Consumer Products in Everyday Life: Ownership, Meaning, and Satisfaction.” Working Paper, Report No. 95-104. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. — and —. 1998. “Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies.”Journal of Consumer Research 25 (September): 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi, Glenn B. Voss, and Dhruv Grewal. 2000. “Bricks to Clicks: What Drives Customer Use of the Internet in a Multi-Channel Environment.” Working Paper. Caroline State University.Google Scholar
  31. Mulvenna, Maurice D., Sarabjot S. Anand, and Alex G. Buchner. 2000. “Personalization on the Net Using Web Mining.”Communications of the ACM 43 (August): 123–125.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen, Jakob. 2000.Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publisher.Google Scholar
  33. Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Y. F. Yung. 2000. “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quelch, John and Lisa Klein. 1996. “The Internet and International Marketing.”Sloan Management Review 15 (Spring): 60–75.Google Scholar
  35. Palmer, Jonathon W., Joseph P. Bailey, and Samer Faraj. 1999. “The Role of Intermediaries in the Development of Trust on the www: The Use and Prominence of Trusted Third Parties and Privacy Statements.”Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Retrieved from www. ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue3/palmer.htmlGoogle Scholar
  36. Parasuraman, A. 2000. “Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A Multiple Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies.”Journal of Services Research 2 (4): 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parasuraman, A. and Charles Colby. 1997. “Correlates and Consequences of Consumer Attitudes Toward New Technologies: Implications for Marketing Technology-Based Services.” Paper presented at the 1997 Frontiers in Services Conference, October, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  38. — and —. 2001.Techno-Ready Marketing: How and Why Your Customers Adopt Technology. New York. Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. —, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. 1985. “A Conceptual Model of SQ and Its Implications for Future Research.”Journal of Marketing 49 (Fall): 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ——, and —. 1988. “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.”Journal of Retailing 64 (Spring): 12–37.Google Scholar
  41. Rice, M. 1997. “What Makes Users Revisit a Web Site?.”Marketing News 31 (6): 12–13.Google Scholar
  42. Rust, Roland, Anthony J. Zahorik, and Timothy L. Keiningham. 1994.Return on Quality. Chicago: Probus.Google Scholar
  43. Schlosser, Ann E. and Alaina Kanfer. 1999. “Interactivity in Commercial Web Sites: Implications for Web Site Effectiveness.” Working Paper. Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  44. Segars, Albert H., and Varun Grover. 1993. “Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis.”MIS Quarterly, December, 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spiller, Peter and Gerald L. Lohse. 1997–1998. “A Classification of Internet Retail Stores.”International Journal of Electronic Commerce 2 (Winter): 29–36.Google Scholar
  46. Subramanian, Girish H. 1994. “A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measurement.”Decision Sciences 25 (5–6: 863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swaminathan, Vanitha, Elzbieta Lepkowska-White, and Bharat Rao. 1999. “Browsers or Buyers in Cyberspace? An Investigation of Factors Influencing Electronic Exchange.”Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 5 (2). Available from http://www.ascusc.og/ jcmc/vol5/issue2/swaminathan.htmGoogle Scholar
  48. Szymanski, David M. and Richard T. Hise. 2000. “e-Satisfaction: An Initial Examination.”Journal of Retailing 76 (3): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van den Poel, Dirk and Joseph Leunis. 1999. “Consumer Acceptance of the Internet as a Channel of Distribution.”Journal of Business Research 45: 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Venkatesh, Alladi. 1998. “Cybermarkets and Consumer Freedoms and Identities.”European Journal of Marketing 32 (7–8): 664–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolfinbarger, Mary F. and Mary C. Gilly. 2001. “Shopping Online for Freedom, Control and Fun.”California Management Review 43 (2): 34–55.Google Scholar
  52. ——. 2002. “comQ: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting Quality of the E-tail Experience.” Working Paper No. 02-100. Marketing Science Institute. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  53. Yang, Z., R. T. Peterson, and L. Huang. 2001. “Taking the Pulse of Internet Pharmacies.”Marketing Health Services, Summer, 5–10.Google Scholar
  54. Zeithaml, Valarie A. 1988. “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.”Journal of Marketing 52: 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. —, Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1988. “Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of SQ.”Journal of Marketing 52 (April): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. —, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry. 1990.Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. ——, and Arvind Malhotra. 2000. “e-service Quality: Definition, Dimensions and Conceptual Model.” Working Paper. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  58. Zeithaml, Valarie A., A. Parasuraman, and Arvind Malhotra. 2002. “An Empirical Examination of the Service Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain in an Electronic Channel.” Working Paper. University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  59. Zellweger, Paul. 1997. “Web-Based Sales: Defining the Cognitive Buyer.”Electronic Markets 7 (3): 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valarie A. Zeithaml
    • 1
  • A. Parasuraman
    • 2
  • Arvind Malhotra
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.University of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations