The importance and formalization of service quality dimensions: a comparison of Chile and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Services account for a very large portion of the economic activity in most countries. While there is abundant academic research on service quality, which has focused mainly on determining service quality dimensions, understanding service quality antecedents, and relating service quality to key outcomes, such as customer satisfaction and performance, there is, however, limited research on an increasingly relevant issue, which is how service quality perceptions differ among cultures. The aim of this research is to address this question. Design/methodology/approach – The research used two identical surveys administered to managers in two different cultures. One survey was in English for the US sample and one was in Spanish for the Chilean sample. The surveys measured the importance of the five SERVQUAL service dimensions as well as relevant information about the respondent's experience, position and type of company at which he/she worked. Each country was examined for significant characteristics using Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Hypotheses were developed reflecting the differences expected by the characteristics of the cultures in which the respondents worked. Data was analyzed to extract meaning from the data using ANOVA. Findings – Of the five service quality dimensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy), reliability is the most important in both countries. Responsiveness is the second most important. Three of the hypotheses testing the difference in perceived importance among service quality dimensions between Chile and the USA, were supported. H1: no difference exists between the two countries in the importance of tangibles, is supported (p=0.000). H2: reliability is more important in Chile than in the USA, is also supported (p=0.039). H3: responsiveness is more important in the USA than in Chile, is supported as well (p=0.012). Research limitations/implications – Use of MBA students as survey respondents limits the generalizability of the results. Despite the fact that each subject was employed in a managerial position within a firm, each subject was also enrolled in an MBA program. Arguably, the subjects are all employed in business but differ from others who are not in degree programs. Practical implications – The research highlights the need to attend to perceptions of service quality globally. The Hofstede cultural dimensions provide a clear and easy to apply framework that allows companies to identify what is important in a host culture. That information will enable service quality adjustments that offer the potential of improving customer satisfaction and firm success. Originality/value – The current research is the first to use two tested conceptualizations to assess differences in service quality importance across cultures. It explores the relationship of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, with perceptions of service quality. It hypothesizes which service quality dimensions will be important based on the characteristics of the culture in which they are delivered. No other study has compared service quality perceptions between the USA and Chile. Each country has a vibrant, free market economy. The study provides a foundation for approaching other markets in Latin America and in countries with similar cultural dimensions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".