Revised May, 1997
The author wishes to acknowledge Linda Price and Jakki Mohr for their invaluable input to this research and the reviewers of the manuscript and special editor of this issue for their excellent suggestions. The author also wishes to thank Richard Ide at Sapporo Gakuen University in Japan and colleagues at the University of Colorado, Boulder and Bentley College in the U.S. for assistance with data collection. THE SERVICE EXPERIENCE IN TWO CULTURES: A BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVE This research examines how consumers in the U.S. and Japan evaluate service encounters. It broadens traditional thinking about components of service transactions and develops behaviorally based service encounter dimensions, each with multiple measures, for the two countries. The study reveals a conversation factor not presently identified in the services literature and significant cross-cultural differences in both the dimensions and behaviors identified in the two countries. It also examines the relationship of dimensions to encounter satisfaction in both countries. While much research has been done to better understand the components of service quality and the service encounter, little research has systematically explored what these components really mean to the consumer in terms of actual behaviors of service delivery personnel (Boulding et al. 1993). Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) tell us through SERVQUAL that a waiter or doctor should be courteous, empathetic, and helpful (among other things). However, they do not offer any insight into what this means to consumers, that is, what consumers want waiters, doctors, tellers and other service providers actually to do. Understanding these critical behaviors is the focus of this research and is key to the ability of service providers to build effective relationships with their customers. Additionally, while service exporting is becoming an increasingly important part of the international trade package for most developed countries (Plock 1990), little comparative research has been done to understand how consumers evaluate service encounters in different countries. The objectives of this research are: first, to identify behaviors that consumers in two countries use to evaluate service encounters (i.e., the personal interaction component of service transactions), and second, to explore differences in the relevant dimensions and the behavioral measures related to these dimensions in differing cultures. To accomplish these objectives, the research was conducted in three stages. In stage one, through focus groups and literature reviews, we identified dimensions and likely differences between cultures. Stage two used an open-ended exploratory survey to identify relevant behaviors in both cultures. Stage three employed a detailed transaction-specific survey to examine groupings of consumer-perceived behaviors and factors in actual service encounters in the U. S. and Japan. The research followed a systematic procedure to identify a large pool of behaviors that could serve as measures for service encounter components, and to develop from this pool multiple behavioral measures for service encounter dimensions. NEED FOR CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH With increasing competition at home, a growing number of service firms are expanding globally. Thus, a solid understanding of the foreign target market is crucial to business success. Because "service encounters are first and foremost social encounters" (McCallum and Harrison 1985, p. 35; see also Czepiel 1990), rules and expectations related to service encounters are likely to vary considerably from culture to culture, since culture provides the framework for social interaction in a society. Many authors have noted the influence of external variables on expectations (cf. Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1993), and recognition of cultural values as principal determinants of consumer behavior is widespread (cf. Alden, Hoyer, and Lee 1993; Clark 1990; Tse, Belk, and Zhou 1989). However, little has been done to examine the effects of culture on buyer perceptions and behavior cross-nationally (Zaichowsky and Sood 1989), and few authors have examined the influence of culture on perceptions of service provision (Malhotra et al. 1994). Much has been written conceptually about whether goods and services need to be modified for different cultures (cf. Levitt 1983; Samiee and Roth 1992; Yip 1989), yet there have been few empirical studies to help provide answers. While many comparative studies have examined marketing and consumption patterns (cf. Arnould 1989; Takada and Jain 1991; Hoover, Green, and Saegert 1978; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988), very little research has examined the international marketing of services. The few comparative studies done have generally studied very similar (e.g., all Western) cultures (cf. Seringhaus and Botschen 1991). A recent exception to this limitation is a study by Malhotra et al. (1994) which explores differences in service quality perceptions between developed and developing countries. The authors say that "there is a need to understand the environmental differences between countries ... and to emphasize the various dimensions of service quality accordingly" (Malhotra et al. 1994, p. 13). Not only can comparative research help business managers to better understand their foreign target markets, where consumers may expect significantly different treatment than their domestic counterparts, but it also can enhance our understanding of our own culture and how it influences our perceptions and expectations. JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES For this research, we selected two highly dissimilar cultures, the U. S. and Japan, where a high incidence of service exporting exists between the countries. Japan is a major trading partner of the United States, with over 20 percent of each country's exports going to the other (Nester 1993). Japan also is a developed, high consumption society. It has the highest per capita income in the world (Japan Economic Newswire 1995) and can be described as an "immense industrial power" (Takada and Jain 1991; p. 49), yet its culture is very different from that of most developed countries. Furthermore, despite abundant and growing trade in services, very little scholarly research has been done regarding the marketing and provision of services in Japan and other Pacific Rim countries. The cultures of the United States and Japan represent "polar extremes" in personal interaction and communication (Barnlund 1975, p. 55). The distance that divides these two cultures is so enormous along the same interpersonal dimensions that it is difficult to avoid concluding that they are nearly exact opposites. The qualities that one society nurtures - reserve, formality, and silence in one case - and self assertion, informality and talkativeness in the other - are the same qualities the other society discourages (Barnlund 1975, p. 57). The United States stems from an Occidental cultural heritage, while Japan has an Oriental cultural heritage (Takada and Jain 1991). Furthermore, Hall (1981) would classify the U. S. as a low context culture while Japan is a very high context culture. "The difference in the worlds is sharp and difficult to penetrate" (Goldstein and Tamura 1975, p. 8; see also Buck, Newton and Muramatsu 1984; Hall and Hall 1987; Smith 1983). Moreover, there seems to be little real change in these values and differences over time. Longitudinal studies in both countries examined this issue and have found surprising stability of values (Fukutake 1981; Pollay 1984; Schmidt 1986). Jeremy and Robinson (1989) report that "between Japan and the West, there remain fundamental cultural differences. The traditional models not only continue to survive; they continue to be valued and they continue to work as a basis for the organization of Japanese society" (p. 8). NEED FOR BETTER MEASURES Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988) have provided very helpful insight regarding the dimensions of service quality. However, service literature since the time of their studies indicates that much confusion still exists about the meanings and relatedness of some of the constructs identified. Many studies have discussed problems with the dimensionality of SERVQUAL (cf. Carman 1990; Cronin and Taylor 1992; Finn and Lamb 1991) and other issues. Bowers, Swan, and Koehler (1994) state that, because previous studies primarily use SERVQUAL determinants, "there is no evidence to determine if customers use additional or different dimensions of service quality" (p. 50). This research seeks such evidence for one component of service quality, the service encounter. Measures are needed that will fully explore the domain of the service encounter and that will yield highly reliable responses. To achieve content validity of constructs, researchers must develop multiple-item measures drawn from a large pool of possible measures and purified to achieve reliability (Churchill 1979; Jacoby 1978). Also, to effectively manage service encounters, managers need to develop operational definitions of constructs based on the behaviors of service delivery personnel, and to specify levels of appropriate performance (Bowers, Swan, and Koehler 1994). Measure development issues present especially vital problems in comparative research (Davis, Douglas, and Silk 1981; Malhotra 1993). Direct, single-item measures of constructs could mean very different things to people in different cultures and provide little information regarding specific ways in which service encounters need to be provided differently. Despite many calls for such development of measurable behaviors to better define the meaning of good service (cf. Bowers, Swan, and Koehler 1994; Knutson et al. 1990), operationalization of service dimensions to date has been primarily through experimental manipulation or use of direct measures (e.g., "the waiter was courteous"). Domestically, as well as internationally, there has been little effort to fully conceptualize and measure the behavioral components of encounters (Malhotra et al. 1994). Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988) made no attempt to develop behavioral-based measures for the individual dimensions of SERVQUAL. Similarly, Bolton and Drew (1991) measured courtesy by asking respondents simply to "rate the courtesy of telephone personnel" (p. 382). Where measures have been developed, very little attention has been paid to careful development of items to be included. For example, Crosby, Evans, and Cowles (1990), in a study of services quality, provide extensive discussion of measure validation procedures, but no discussion at all of how indicators were developed for their measures. Boulding et al. (1993) make strides forward in domestic measure development by using multiple behavioral measures for service dimensions. However, the measures are informally derived by "top managers and the research team" to fit the SERVQUAL scales to an educational setting. There is no formal process used to develop the measures and no attempt is made to question the grouping of the behaviors into the preconceived SERVQUAL dimensions. Bitner, Booms and Tetreault (1990) also made great contributions by identifying behaviors that serve as critical incidents leading to very satisfactory or very unsatisfactory service encounters. This research extends their work by examining behaviors associated with everyday evaluation of service encounters, and extending analysis to two countries. STAGE ONE: INITIAL EXPLORATION OF SERVICE ENCOUNTER DIMENSIONS The first stage of this research developed a framework for identifying relevant behavioral measures. Objectives of this stage were to identify factors important in evaluating the service encounter in each culture studied, and to explore how these dimensions might differ in the two countries. The first step involved a thorough review of the services, anthropology and cross- cultural literatures, combined with interview research. These were used to develop a practical and theoretical framework for identifying behaviors relevant to service evaluation in each country, as well as differences between the countries. A U.S. perspective dominates most of the services marketing and management literature. Therefore, we held three focus group discussions with Japanese students studying in the United States to be sure that a Japanese perspective was included in factor identification. Two focus groups were held in English with Japanese students studying at an American university, most of whom were fluent in English. A Japanese facilitator was present at these sessions and translated key concepts to help minimize any language problems. We conducted a third focus group in Japanese with newly arrived students at a Japanese university in the U. S. who had not yet been exposed to American service encounters. We asked the focus groups open-ended questions to identify any factors important to them in evaluating services, to identify differences between service delivery in the U. S. and in Japan (the two groups with American experience) and to discuss why they thought these differences existed. There was no prompting to suggest any specific dimensions or differences. In addition to the focus groups, we conducted interviews with four Japan experts to help assure that we had identified all relevant dimensions. We again reviewed literature to explore further factors suggested in the focus groups that we had not originally detected from the literature. From this iterative process, we identified a set of eight dimensions to provide a framework for identifying behaviors. The dimensions were: authenticity, caring, control, courtesy, formality, friendliness, personalization, and promptness (see Table One for a listing of the dimensions with relevant literature sources and comments from the focus groups). INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE Authenticity was identified for examination when Japanese focus group participants identified genuineness of behavior as a key difference between Japanese and American service encounters. Respondents said that American waiters and other service personnel behave more genuinely than Japanese service people. Focus group participants saw this as a positive aspect of American service encounters. The role of authenticity or "natural feeling" (Hochschild 1983, p. 3) of service providers' behavior is underresearched in the services marketing and management literature, but its importance to the service encounter is addressed by several authors (cf. Deighton 1992; Grove and Fisk 1983; Hochschild 1983; Lockwood and Jones 1989; Romm 1989). Others have examined the related concepts of sincerity and trust (cf. Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Goodwin and Frame 1989; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Caring is part of the empathy dimension of SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988) and also has been addressed by numerous other authors in the service encounter literature (cf. Bitran and Hoech 1990; Bowers, Swan, and Koehler 1994; Brown and Swartz 1989; Goodwin and Frame 1989; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Caring is described primarily as the service provider showing an interest in the customer (Brown and Swartz 1989; Schneider 1980), paying attention to the customer (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990), and as a component of respect (Bitran and Hoech 1990). Japanese focus group participants stated that a caring attitude and behaviors are the most important component of service encounter evaluation in Japan. Perceived control is another dimension discussed in the service encounter literature as important to satisfaction with an encounter (cf. Bateson 1985; Bateson and Hui 1992; Bitran and Hoech 1990; Klaus 1984; Silpakit and Fisk 1985). Bateson (1985) discusses three types of control important to a service encounter: behavioral control (ability to control a threatening situation, flexibility), cognitive control (ability to reduce stress), and decisional control (a choice in the solution of outcomes or goals). Bateson and Hui (1992) discuss control as customer dominance versus helplessness. Control is not included in SERVQUAL and was not mentioned in the Japanese focus group discussions. However, since it received substantial attention in the services literature, it was included in this framework for identifying behaviors to help ensure that behaviors important to service encounter evaluation were not missed. Courtesy is discussed in virtually every study of the service encounter either by itself or as contributing to another construct (cf. Bateson and Langeard 1982; Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Bolton and Drew 1991; Goodwin and Smith 1990). In their 1989 study, Brown and Swartz found courtesy to be the dimension most often mentioned first as an important criteria for evaluating personal services. It also was raised as an important dimension in all focus group discussions held for this study. Courtesy is included as part of the assurance dimension of SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988), but a study by Carman (1990) found courtesy to be a separate dimension. Formality of the server was raised by Japanese focus group participants as a very important dimension for service encounters in Japan, and as a major difference between American and Japanese encounters (Americans are much less formal). Formality incorporates the concepts of social distance (Goodwin and Frame 1989; Houston and Gassenheimer 1987), role deference (Stewart 1972), form of address (Goodwin and Smith 1990) and ritual (Stewart 1972). It is underresearched in the services marketing literature, but it is found by Goodwin and Frame (1989) to be a significant factor in evaluation of the service encounter. Friendliness usually comes up in the discussion of other variables (cf. Goodwin and Frame 1989; Goodwin and Smith 1990) and sometimes as a separate variable in evaluation of an encounter (cf. Fiebelkorn 1985; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Ostrom and Iacobucci (1995) used friendliness as one of the elements of service that they manipulated, calling it one of the key attributes distinguishing services from goods. Surprenant and Solomon (1987) found friendliness to be one of two major factors (with competence) influencing satisfaction with bank tellers. Japanese focus group participants identified friendliness as an important component of an American service encounter that is not prevalent in a Japanese service encounter. Personalization of service has been found to have a positive impact on encounter evaluation (Brown and Swartz 1989; Schneider 1980; Surprenant and Solomon 1987). Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault (1990) discuss a similar construct they call customization, and individualized attention is included as part of the empathy dimension in SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). Personalization is discussed as including "recognition of a customer's uniqueness" (Surprenant and Solomon 1987, p. 87), use of a customer's name (Goodwin and Smith 1990; Schneider 1980), and responding to customer needs (Brown and Swartz 1989). Japanese focus group participants found personalization of service to be one of the most notable components of U.S. service encounters, although present to a much smaller degree in Japanese encounters. Promptness, the speed and efficiency of a transaction, is addressed by many authors as an important element in evaluating a service encounter (cf. Bateson and Langeard 1982; Solomon et al. 1985; Taylor 1994). It is often presented as a dimension that consumers perceive as traded off with personalization (Lovelock 1983; Mars and Nicod 1984; Surprenant and Solomon 1987; Sutton and Rafaeli 1988). Promptness or timeliness is a key component of the responsiveness dimension in SERVQUAL. Japanese focus group participants said promptness was very important in Japan, while they say Americans as preferring personalization. STAGE TWO: BEHAVIORAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT The second stage of this research sought to identify a large pool of behaviors related to consumers' perceptions of service transactions with the ultimate goal of creating multiple behavioral measures for dimensions of service encounters. The eight dimensions identified in stage one were not assumed to be the definitive dimensions used by consumers to evaluate encounters in both cultures. Instead, they were used to help elicit from consumers important behaviors related to service encounter evaluation. There was not enough time to collect detailed information regarding specific behaviors in each two-hour focus group session with Japanese students. The literature also provided very little information regarding behaviors associated with service encounters. Therefore, we designed an indicator development questionnaire (Q1) to generate behavioral measures related to various aspects of a service encounter. Pretesting of the instrument, asking questions about general service encounters (e.g., what would a service provider do if he or she were being courteous or polite?) showed that respondents were uncomfortable responding to questions about behaviors without reference to a specific industry. Many respondents said their answers would depend on the type of service provider. Some listed different sets of indicators, specifying different types of services. This has important implications about potential problems operationalizing generic scales like SERVQUAL. Because of these responses, we chose two industries, medical and restaurant, for development of indicators. These industries are used commonly by students (the sample used for this study), involve high degrees of interaction, and differ on many dimensions typically used to classify services (cf. Lovelock 1983). Q1 sought to generate a wide variety of indicators through open-ended questions like: "what things would a waiter do if he or she were being courteous or polite?". For each of the eight dimensions identified in stage one, questions were asked with both positive and negative valence (e.g., "how would a rude waiter behave?" is also included). The Japanese questions were first written in English, then translated into Japanese and backtranslated and retranslated until all meanings were consistent with the English version. The questionnaire was administered to 156 students. Ninety-three were studying at an American university and 63 were studying at a Japanese university in the United States. We received four thousand total answers (identifying behaviors) in response to the open- ended questions. These were coded to achieve some parsimony and grouping of like answers but to retain enough variety to ensure the richness suggested by Churchill (1979). A student assistant assigned codes to the responses. These were then reviewed and modified by the author, resulting in a total of 448 codes. For each construct, responses were then sorted by frequency of times a behavior was mentioned. Every indicator that was mentioned by three or more people for a single dimension on Q1 was considered a potential measure and included in the next phase of the study. When indicators were direct opposites (e.g., smiled and did not smile), we generally retained only one (either positive or negative) to keep the number of indicators manageable. We took care to retain some positive and some negative indicators and to retain some opposites (four) as a test for internal consistency. One hundred and thirty-seven behaviors met the criteria and were selected for the next stage of analysis. Churchill (1979) and others stress the importance of starting with a large pool of potential indicators, retaining items with "slightly different nuances of meaning" (p. 68), and later refining these measures using purification techniques. Over 60 percent of the behaviors identified were suggested as indicators for more than one of the eight dimensions. For example, smile was suggested as an indicator of authenticity, caring, courtesy, formality, friendliness, and personalization. Although frequently discussed as distinct dimensions in the services literature, the eight dimensions identified (including many from SERVQUAL) are clearly not separate and distinct in the minds of consumers responding to this survey. While consumers identified subtle differences in the constructs, there was substantial overlap in meaning. Between 25 and 60 indicators were generated for each of the originally defined dimensions, but only three to 12 of these indicators for each (depending on the dimension) were mentioned uniquely for just one dimension. (See Table Two for a sample listing of indicators mentioned and Table Three for a listing of unique items). INSERT TABLES 2 AND 3 ABOUT HERE Interestingly, while pretesters of the original indicator development questionnaire said they couldn't answer the questions without an industry being specified, 87 percent of behaviors were identified for both the medical and restaurant industries. Twelve of the 137 behaviors were mentioned only for waiters and six were mentioned only for doctors. The others were all mentioned for both. STAGE THREE: FACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH SATISFACTION The next research objective was to determine how these behaviors grouped to form factors influencing evaluation, and to learn more about how these behaviors and factors differed in the countries being studied. With this aim, we designed a factor development questionnaire (Q2) to measure perceived levels of each of the 137 behaviors and encounter satisfaction in specific service transactions. To generate a big enough sample to perform factor analysis on the large number of measures, we singled out the restaurant industry for further analysis. Q2 asked respondents to recall a recent visit to a restaurant and to report level of agreement (using a 7-point Likert scale) with statements regarding the 137 different behaviors of the waitress or waiter (e.g., the server made a lot of eye contact with me). The questionnaire also asked respondents to rate their levels of satisfaction with the encounter. We used six questions to measure satisfaction, including semantic differential scales addressing feelings, pleasure and satisfaction (Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990), a need-disconfirmation item (Westbrook and Oliver 1991), a decision-regret item (Westbrook and Oliver 1991), and a global faces scale showing different facial expressions (Churchill and Surprenant 1982). Like Q1, Q2 was translated, then backtranslated a number of times. Students in the U. S. (200 qualified respondents, mean age of 22) and in Japan (176 qualified respondents, mean age of 20) completed the questionnaires. Factor Analysis in Each Culture We then used factor analysis to examine behaviors measured in Q2. Because there were so many items (137) included in the questionnaire, the factor analyses were performed on subgroups of items. Behaviors were grouped based on pairs of the dimensions on which they were expected to load, and all possible sets of items were compared through 56 factor analyses (28 for each country). Every behavior was at some point paired with every other behavior for analysis. Items not loading consistently with other items were removed. All items retained were then entered into a principal components factor analysis using a varimax rotation. Varimax rotation was used with a goal of narrowing down the still large pool of behaviors using the method that would allow the simplest interpretation and the most distinct set of indicators. We deleted all items not loading .50 or above on any factor from further analysis, together with confounding items. We then analyzed each remaining factor individually to check for unidimensionality, removed problematic items again, and examined remaining factors for reliability using item-total correlations and Cronbach's coefficient alpha (Churchill 1979; Nunnally 1978). This purification process was run through many iterations until all items loaded above .50, all factors were unidimensional, and all items in each factor improved reliability of the factor. This analysis left 43 behaviors in the United States restaurant sample, loading on seven factors (see Table Four). All factors are unidimensional and have Cronbach's alpha coefficients of greater than .80 (see Table Five). The Japan principal components analysis identified 33 behaviors loading on six different factors (see Table Four). All resulting factors are unidimensional and have Cronbach alpha coefficients of greater than .75 (see Table Five). After the global faces satisfaction measure was removed due to low item-total correlation, the remaining 5-measure encounter satisfaction construct is unidimensional and has reliability of .96 and item-total correlations for each measure ranging from .83 to .92. INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE Links to Encounter Satisfaction Factor scores were computed for each factor identified (using the regression method) and were then regressed on the composite encounter satisfaction score. Regression analyses showed that the factors extracted from principal components analysis predicted satisfaction with a U.S. restaurant service encounter quite well (R2 = .80, significant at p < .000) and also explained a significant, though lower, portion of the variance in Japan (R2 = .43, significant at p < .000) (see Table Five). Though factor analysis shows simply what items group together in the minds of consumers, the regression analyses suggest that the resulting dimensions are, in fact, highly related to consumers' satisfaction with the encounter, explaining more than three-quarters of the variance in encounter satisfaction in the United States. In Japan, while the R2 is significant, less than one-half of the variance is explained. This difference suggests that, while the dimensions developed here are significantly related to encounter satisfaction in Japan, there may still be important indicators and dimensions not yet identified for Japanese encounters (see further discussion in the limitations section of this article). Beta weights for individual factor scores show that, when all factors are regressed together on satisfaction, all factors in the U.S. are significantly related to satisfaction, while concern, formality and civility have significant beta weights in the Japan regression (see Table Five). Independent examination of correlations of individual sum scales for each factor with encounter satisfaction shows that all of the individual factors except basics in Japan are significantly correlated with satisfaction in both the U.S. and Japanese restaurant samples (see Table Five). INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE Identification of New Dimensions Probably the most interesting finding from the analysis is the emergence in both countries of an unanticipated factor that we have called 'conversation'. The behaviors that grouped to form this factor were generated by consumers when asked about indicators for other service encounter dimensions (e.g., friendliness and courtesy), then formed a unique dimension of their own in the factor analysis. While the indicators for this dimension differ somewhat in the two countries, the behaviors in both countries center on conversation, talking, and use of humor. There is little written about the role of conversation in the service encounter. Communication is mentioned as a component of perceived service quality by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), and John (1991) discusses a dimension called "communicativeness" as influencing patient satisfaction with a doctor. However, these focus on information exchange related to the business transaction, not small talk and conversation unrelated to business. This construct could be related to relationship-seeking by customers as described by Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1991). They discuss the importance of building trust as a way of strengthening relationships and say that "open, regular, two-way communication paves the way for trust" (p. 40). It also could be related to what Mohr and Bitner (1991) call "mutual understanding" that most customers seek. A concept that Graham and Sano (1989) call "non- task sounding" also is similar to the conversation construct identified in this research. It is a common and recognized practice in Japan, and in many middle-Eastern and Latin countries that parties in a business transaction engage in lengthy conversation unrelated to the business at hand before and as part of conducting business. While some of this non-business conversation goes on in the United States, it typically is not given as much attention or time in business encounters as it is in Japan and many other countries (Graham and Sano 1989; Harris and Moran 1990). It seems from this research that the salience of non-business conversation extends to consumer encounters in both the Japanese and U.S. cultures, yet this construct is not directly addressed in any current models of service quality or in studies examining the service encounter. The conversation factor sum scale correlates at .55 (significant at p < .01) with encounter satisfaction in the U.S. and at .21 (significant at p < .01) in Japan (though the factor score beta weight for conversation in Japan is not significant in a multiple regression). Clearly, this is a construct that warrants further exploration. Another unanticipated dimension that surfaced is one we have called 'civility'. The civility dimension focuses on "not negative" behavior, i.e., basic minimally acceptable or civil behavior. While method variance has been shown to sometimes be a cause of reverse-scored items loading together, because this factor works well conceptually and because not all negative items loaded with other negative items, method variance is not felt to be the driving force behind the civility factor. Like the conversation dimension, the civility dimension highlights somewhat different behaviors in the two countries, but many of the behaviors are the same for the two countries. In both countries the dimension focuses on the behaviors that a waiter or waitress must avoid to provide "adequate" service (Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml 1991) and to protect against customer dissatisfaction. The construct is very highly and significantly correlated with encounter satisfaction at .68 (p < .01) in the U.S. and at .34 (p < .01) in Japan. In Japan, some of the behaviors related to civility form a separate factor that we have called 'basics'. This factor is not significantly related to encounter satisfaction in Japan. The very positive behaviors that indicate going above and beyond what is expected are grouped into a 'congeniality' variable in the U.S. and into a 'concern' dimension in Japan. These are the behaviors that help service providers to surpass expectations and build customer franchises (Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml 1991). In the U.S., they include items suggesting primarily a positive attitude, sunny temperament, and warm personality. Correlation with encounter satisfaction is very high at .77 (p < .01). In Japan, the positive behaviors focus more on concern for the customer, with behaviors related to attentiveness, caring, and kindness. The behaviors associated with the concern dimension are closely related to the concept of caring reviewed in the literature. This dimension is highly related to encounter satisfaction in Japan (.55 at p < .01). Some factors formed as expected from the literature and focus group discussions. Personalization shows up in factor results for both countries. It splits into two different components in the U.S. sample, a name usage factor that we have called 'personalization' and a 'remembering' factor. The personalization/name usage factor correlates at .24 (p < .01) with encounter satisfaction, while the remembering factor correlates at .35 (p < .01). A 'personalization' factor also emerges from the Japanese factor analysis. It is somewhat broader than the U.S. name usage and remembering factors, incorporating items related also to greeting and introduction. This factor's sum scale is significantly correlated with encounter satisfaction at .20 (p < .05), but the beta weight for the factor score in the Japanese multiple regression is not significant. In the U.S., promptness behaviors show up in a 'delivery ' factor that combines promptness behaviors with those indicating appropriate delivery of service and attentiveness to the customer. This factor correlates more highly than any other U.S. dimension with encounter satisfaction (.79, p < .001), and has the highest beta weight in the U.S. multiple regression. In Japan, a separate promptness or delivery factor was not identified, but some items related to promptness appeared in other factors. For example, quick greeting and quick response group with caring related items in the concern dimension. 'Authenticity', or genuineness of behavior, also stands out as a separate factor in the U.S. sample, as expected from the literature and the focus group discussions. This construct has received significant attention in the social psychology literature as important to consumers (cf., Hochschild 1983), but very little attention in the marketing services literature. It is clear from focus group discussions describing value added to American service encounters due to genuineness of behavior, and the high correlation of this factor with encounter satisfaction in the U.S. (.55, significant at p < .01), that this construct warrants more attention in the service encounter literature. As expected from the literature and the focus group discussions, 'formality' appears as a factor in the Japanese restaurant sample, though it includes with the items expected to indicate formality (e.g., dress nicely and proper language) some behaviors expected to relate more to other dimensions (e.g., understanding). More work is needed to fully understand the nuances of this factor. The formality factor correlates highly with satisfaction in Japan, at .55 (p < .01). None of the behaviors suggested for formality remained in the U.S. factor result. DISCUSSION It is clear from focusing on behaviors that the eight dimensions identified in stage one of this study overlap significantly in the minds of consumers. When we examine the relevant behaviors to see how consumers group them, we identify a set of constructs in each country that is distinct from any set of dimensions identified in the existing literature. Most notably, conversation and civility factors are identified in both countries. Neither is included in current service encounter or service quality models. In addition to providing a new model of the dimensions that consumers perceive to be components of the service encounter, this research provides multiple measures for each dimension that are behavioral in nature and specific rather than abstract. This is crucial for a better understanding of what service providers need to do to influence perceptions and evaluation of encounters. These dimensions and measures are generated in each of two cultures, providing a better understanding of behaviors that need to be stressed in a given culture. While many of the same factors appear in the Japanese analysis as in the U.S. analysis, there are differences in the behaviors associated with these constructs, and numerous constructs that appear in only one of the two countries. Themes of friendliness, being personal, authenticity, and promptness seem prevalent in the dimensions and behaviors that emerge from the U.S. factor analysis. These themes can be expected based on the country s emphasis on individualism, its focus on individuals more than roles in interaction, and the openness and egalitarian nature of the society. By contrast, the overriding theme of the dimensions in Japan seems to be one of caring for the customer. This can be expected due to the heavy emphasis placed on empathy in the Japanese culture. Civility dimensions related to negative behaviors to avoid are mostly similar in the two countries with many of the same behaviors included. The U.S. factor, though, includes behaviors related to paying attention and providing good service that are not included in the Japan factors, while the Japanese factor includes some behaviors related to being patient and fair not included in the U.S. factor. Dimensions related to positive behaviors also appear in each country. In the U.S. the positive behaviors focus on individual demeanor (congeniality) through indicators like pleasant, friendly, and happy. In Japan the positive behaviors focus more on treatment of the customer (concern) through indicators like attentive, caring, and kind. These differences are also consistent with the focus in the U.S. on individualism and individual interaction and the focus in Japan on empathy and role-based interaction. Personalization dimensions also emerge in both Japan and the U.S., but the Japanese factor broadens the focus on name usage and remembering in the U.S. factors to include items that could be considered to relate more to courtesy. Authenticity also appears as a relevant dimension in the U.S., and many authenticity-related items also appear in other dimensions (e.g., insincere expression in civility, personal experiences in conversation). On the other hand, no authenticity factor is evident in Japan and few of the behaviors most closely related to authenticity appear in the Japanese dimensions. This suggests that perhaps authenticity is not considered as relevant to a Japanese person evaluating a service encounter. This was expected based on the orientation to groups in Japan and the emphasis on playing a role as more important than expressing individual feelings. Similarly, formality-related behaviors (e.g., dress nicely, proper language) form a separate dimension in Japan, while they do not show up at all in the U.S. factors. This also was expected from an analysis of the two cultures, due to increased status consciousness in Japan, and focus in the Japanese culture on privacy, predictability and harmony. Like authenticity, a delivery factor focusing mostly on behaviors related to promptness appears in the U.S., but not in Japan. However, behaviors related to promptness show up in the concern dimension in Japan (quick greeting and quick response) and in the formality factor (quick attention). It seems that, while the Japanese do not view promptness/delivery as a separate factor, they do consider promptness as an important element of demonstrating concern for a customer. One of the most interesting findings in this analysis is that many behaviors that were important to determining dimensions in the U.S. sample were not instrumental in identifying dimensions of service encounters in the Japanese sample and vice versa. Just 38 percent of the indicators for U.S. dimensions (16 of 42) also served as measures of dimensions in Japan, while 48 percent of the Japanese indicators (16 of 33) overlapped with U.S. indicators. There are many similar dimensions that appear in the U.S. and Japanese restaurant samples, but they include somewhat different behavioral elements. The differences in indicators between cultures emphasize the importance of using multiple-item measures in comparative research. Similar concepts can be perceived quite differently in terms of actual behaviors. Having multiple measures with which to measure the dimensions of service encounters in two cultures should add much to the richness and rigor of research related to service encounters and service quality domestically, as well as in other cultures. LIMITATIONS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Cultural analysis is by its nature incomplete. However, "it is not necessary to know everything in order to know something" (Geertz 1973, p. 20). Given the differences in the countries being studied, the complexities of culture, personal interaction and service evaluation, and the underdeveloped state of the literature, it is clear that this research needs to be highly exploratory. It is also clear that many of the findings from this study will not fit neatly into a generalizable model. The findings can, nevertheless, contribute important additional information to a field of study that is yet quite young. Probably the most important limitation of this study is also perhaps the most important finding: good service is indicated by different behaviors in different countries. Because of this, it is difficult to find a generalizable set of measures that will apply across both cultures and also provide the level of specificity that will make it managerially useful. This generalizability must be sacrificed to gain the level of concreteness and applicability desired in this research. Other comparative studies also have found it necessary to develop different scales for different countries. Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) recommended that established scales developed to measure materialism "be treated as appropriate only to the culture in which they were developed" (p. 543). They recommend that new scales be developed in each culture based on a thorough understanding of the construct in other cultures, even though this precludes generalizability. It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to discover that scales developed in one culture cannot be applied effectively in another. A problem of potential differences in interpretation also occurs in any comparative research done in two different languages. Although Japanese focus group participants were mostly fluent in English and a Japanese translator was present at all focus group discussions, some misunderstandings still could have occurred due to language nuances. Likewise, though the questionnaires were translated and backtranslated numerous times, inconsistencies in interpretation could still exist across the two languages. Similarly, there clearly are differences between U.S. restaurants and Japanese restaurants and in the amount of variance in various server behaviors at these restaurants. These differences increase overall measurement error. This is a problem endemic to most comparative research. Another issue that raises concern is that we obtained fewer responses to open-ended questions from Japanese students than American students on Q1. U.S. students provided an average of 32 indicators per respondent while the Japanese students provided an average of 15 per student. Work needs to be done to better understand the reason for this difference and to explore ways to achieve similar numbers of responses. Also, for Q2, there were many more missing responses (selecting "not applicable") in Japan than in the U.S. This, together with the lower percentage of variance in satisfaction explained by the model in Japan vs. the model in the U.S. (43 percent in Japan vs. 80 percent for the U.S.), suggests that there may be dimensions or indicators missing in the Japanese model. More exploration is needed in this area. As indicated by the pretesting of Q1, there also are likely to be significant between- industry differences in encounter dimensions, and in behaviors which indicate these dimensions. Though this study analyzes only the restaurant industry, due to sample size limitations, this same set of indicators can be used at a future date to analyze the medical industry as well, and to do a cross-industry as well as cross-cultural comparison based on a common set of indicators. A new, independent sample also should be examined to validate the model within the restaurant industry. In addition, convergent validity checks are needed to see if the items do in fact measure the concept that we assume they measure. Single-item questions regarding the original model dimensions were asked in Q2 to serve as convergent validity checks for measures developed. However, the new constructs were so different from the original dimensions that these checks were not useful. The use of a student sample for this study is both a strength and a limitation of the research. An advantage of using student samples is that there is a reasonable degree of homogeneity among all respondents, reducing the number of variables outside the model which could contaminate comparative differences (Hofstede 1981). Clearly the use of a student sample limits the generalizability of the findings, however, as students represent only a subset of consumers for the two cultures. Finally, further research should be done to explore links between specific cultural values and both the dimensions important to consumers in a culture and to the behaviors that indicate those dimensions. CONCLUSION It is clear from the findings of this research that studies examining service encounters need to be sensitive to differences in culture and, perhaps, to industry differences. This research presents a framework and measurement scales for examining and measuring service encounter components within the restaurant industry in the U. S. and Japan. Clearly this research is highly exploratory in nature and needs further inquiry and validation. However, the findings from this research provide a foundation and a measurement base for future research regarding services and the service encounter. They also provide a better understanding of how other cultures might evaluate services differently, and operational detail, through the behavioral measures, with substantial managerial relevance to both the domestic and international services marketer. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research examines the way consumers evaluate service encounters in two different cultures. Literature reviews, focus groups, and two different surveys are used to examine similarities and differences in the ways consumers perceive restaurant encounters with a waiter or waitress in both the U. S. and Japan. In the first phase of the research, we identified eight characteristics of a service encounter. These were: authenticity, caring, control, courtesy, formality, friendliness, personalization, and promptness. Japanese and American students were then asked open-ended questions about what behaviors related to each of the eight encounter characteristics outlined above (e.g., how would a courteous waiter behave?). Another survey then asked students to rate their waiter's performance in a recent transaction on each of 137 different behaviors identified through the open-ended questions. Responses to the questions on this survey were used to group the behavior ratings to identify specific factors or dimensions of the restaurant service encounters in the U.S. and in Japan. The research identified new encounter dimensions, both in the U. S. and in Japan. In the U.S., these were authenticity, civility, congeniality, conversation, delivery, personalization, and remembering. In Japan, they were basics, civility, concern, control, conversation, disposition, formality, and personalization. For each of these dimensions, we identified a set of behaviors associated with it (e.g., conversation in the U.S. involves using humor, sharing personal experiences and opinions, and making small talk). A major issue facing American multinational companies today is to what extent they need to adapt to the cultural needs of the countries in which they are operating. While there is a reasonable amount of research regarding the need for adaptation of consumer products, and some that studies business-to-business services, there has been virtually no information regarding the need to adapt consumer services. With services growing more rapidly than any other sector, both in the United States' export package, and as a portion of world trade, information and guidance are critically needed in this area. This is especially true because international expansion is still new to many services firms. In addition to a conceptual framework and some general guidance regarding the need to adapt service encounters, this study provides services managers with information regarding specific dimensions of the service encounter in two different cultures, together with specific behavioral indicators of these dimensions. It also provides a process for examining evaluation of service encounters in different countries and developing a relevant set of behavioral indicators. This ability to translate abstract concepts into specific behaviors is very important to an international manager. Using this increased detail, training programs can be designed to specifically incorporate the dimensions and behaviors that need to be stressed in a given culture. This study found many differences in the ways consumers view service encounters in the U. S. and Japan. Both cultures have some dimensions which involve meeting minimum requirements, and others that involve exceeding expectations, but behaviors essential to meeting minimum requirements vary considerably between the two countries, and behaviors needed to exceed expectations vary even more. In the U. S., the key to exceeding expectations seems to center on personal attitude and congeniality, while in Japan, it focuses on concern for the customer. We also discovered many similarities between the countries, and identified a conversation element (i.e., making small talk with the customer) as important to consumers in both cultures. This conversation element has not been identified as such in previous service marketing literature and clearly is important for services managers to understand. Many of the dimensions identified in this study are quite different from the transaction components of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry 1988) used by most services managers today to evaluate service encounters and service quality. In undertaking international expansion, it is crucial for managers to be aware of cultural differences to avoid expensive blunders. It is also critical for managers, both domestically and internationally, to better understand what encounter dimensions used in evaluating service actually mean, as well as how these meanings vary in different cultures. Managers need to understand what dimensions are important and how customers interpret the different dimensions. This research helps provide answers to both these needs in two countries. REFERENCES Alden, Dana L., Wayne D. Hoyer, and Chol Lee (1993), "Identifying Global and Culture-Specific Dimensions of Humor in Advertising: A Multinational Analysis," Journal of Marketing, 57 (April), 64-75. Anonymous (1995), "Postwar Japanese Life Improved but Unsatisfactory: Report," Japan Economic Newswire, November 14. Arnould, Eric J. (1989), "Toward a Broadened Theory of Preference Formation and the Diffusion of Innovations: Cases from Zinder Province, Niger Republic," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 239-67. Barnlund, Dean C. (1975), Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States: Communicative Styles of Two Cultures: Tokyo: Simul Press. Bateson, John E.G. (1985), "Perceived Control and the Service Encounter," in The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses, John A Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 67-82. _____________ and Michael K. Hui (1992), "The Ecological Validity of Photographic Slides and Videotapes in Simulating the Service Setting," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 271-81. _____________ and Eric Langeard (1982), "Consumer Uses of Common Dimensions in the Appraisal of Services," in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 9, Andrew A. Mitchell, ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 173-6. Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990), "The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents," Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 71-84. Bitran, Gabriel R. and Johannes Hoech (1990), "The Humanization of Service: Respect at the Moment of Truth," Sloan Management Review, (Winter), 89-97. Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991), "A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 375-397. Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), "A Dynamic Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions," Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 7-27. Bowers, Michael R., John E. Swan and William F. Koehler (1994), "What Attributes Determine Quality and Satisfaction with Health Care Delivery," Health Care Management Review, 19 (Sept.) Brown, Stephen W. and Teresa A. Swartz (1989), "A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 92-8. Buck, Elizabeth B., Barbara J. Newton, and Yasuko Muramatsu (1984), "Independence and Obedience in the United States and Japan," International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 279-300. Carman, James M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions," Journal of Retailing, 66 (Spring), 33-55. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73. _____________ and Carol F. Surprenant (1982), "An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 491-504. Clark, Terry (1990), "International Marketing and National Character: A Review and Proposal for an Integrative Theory," Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 66-79. Copeland, Lennie and Lewis Griggs (1995), Going International: How to Make Friends and Deal Effectively in the Global Marketplace, NY: Random House. Cronin, J. Joseph, Jr. and Steven A. Taylor (1992), "Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension," Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 55-68. Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles (1990), "Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective," Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 68-81. Czepiel, John A.(1990), "Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research," Journal of Business Research, 20, 13-21. Davis, Harry L., Susan P. Douglas and Alvin J. Silk (1981), "Measure Unreliability: A Hidden Threat to Cross-National Marketing Research?," Journal of Marketing, 45(Spring), 98-109. Deighton, John (1992), "The Consumption of Performance," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 362-72. Fiebelkorn, Sandra L. (1985), "Retail Service Encounter Satisfaction: Model and Measurement," in The Service Encounter, John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 181-93. Finn, David W. and Charles W. Lamb, Jr. (1991), "An Evaluation of the SERVQUAL Scales in a Retailing Setting," Advances in Consumer Research, Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon (eds.), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 18, 483-90. Fukutake, Tadashi (1981), Japanese Society Today, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Geertz, Clifford (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books. Goldstein, Bernice Z. and Kyoko Tamura (1975), Japan and America: A Comparative Study in Language and Culture, Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company. Goodwin, Cathy and Charles D. Frame (1989), "Social Distance Within the Service Encounter: Does the Consumer Want to be your Friend?," Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 64-71. _____________ and Kelly L. Smith (1990), "Courtesy and Friendliness: Conflicting Goals for the Service Provider?" Journal of Services Marketing, 4 (Winter), 5-20. Graham, John L. and Yoshihiro Sano (1989), Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese, New York: Ballinger. Grove, Stephen J. and Raymond P. Fisk (1983), "The Dramaturgy of Services Exchange: An Analytical Framework for Services Marketing," in Emerging Perspectives in Services Marketing, Leonard L. Berry, G. Lynn Shostack, and Gregory D. Upah, eds. Chicago, American Marketing Association, 45-9. Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, William C. Black (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Hall, Edward T. (1981), Beyond Culture, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press-Doubleday. _____________ and Mildred R. Hall (1987), Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press-Doubleday. Harris, Philip R. and Robert T. Moran (1990), Managing Cultural Differences, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. Hochschild, Arlie R. (1983), The Managed Heart, Berkeley: University of California Press. Hofstede, Geert (1981), "Japanese Work-related Values in a Global Perspective," in The Challenge of Japan's Internationalization: Organization and Culture, Hiroshi Mannari and Harumi Befu, eds. 1981 Seminar Proceedings, Tokyo, Kodansha International, 148-69. Hoover, Robert J., Robert T. Green, and Joel Saegert (1978), "A Cross- national Study of Perceived Risks," Journal of Marketing, 42 (July), 102-8. Houston, Franklin S. and Jule B. Gassenheimer (1987), "Marketing Exchange," Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 3-18. Jacoby, Jacob (1978), "Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review," Journal of Marketing, 42 (April), 87-96. Jeremy, Michael and M.E. Robinson (1989), Ceremony and Symbolism in the Japanese Home, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. John, Joby (1991), "Improving Quality through Patient-Provider Communication," Journal of Health Care Marketing, 11(4), 51-61. Klaus, Peter B. (1984), "Better Service Encounters: Strengthening Retail and Services Marketing," Review of Business, 6(Summer), 16-21,30. Knutson, Bonnie, Pete Steven, Colleen Wullaert, Mark Patton, and Fumito Yokoyama (1990), "LODGSERV: A Service Quality Index for the Lodging Industry," Hospitality Research Journal, 14 (2), 277-84. Levitt, Theodore (1983), "The Globalization of Markets," Harvard Business Review, May-June, 92-102. Lockwood, Andrew and Peter Jones (1989), "Creating Positive Service Encounters," The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Association Quarterly, (February), 44-50. Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983), "Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer), 9-20. Malhotra, Naresh K. (1993), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. _____________, Francis M. Ugaldo, James Agarwal, and Imad B. Baalbaki (1994), "International Services Marketing: A Comparative Evaluation of the Dimensions of Service Quality between Developed and Developing Countries," International Marketing Review, 11 (2), 5-15. Mars, Gerald and Michael Nicod (1984), The World of Waiters, London: George Allen and Unwin. McCallum, Richard and Wayne Harrison (1985), "Interdependence in the Service Encounter," in The Service Encounter, John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 35-48. Mohr, Lois A. and Mary Jo Bitner (1991), "Mutual Understanding Between Customers and Employees in Service Encounters," in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 18, Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds., Provo, UT, Association for Consumer Research, 611-17. Nester, William (1993), "Japan's Two-step on 'Free' Trade," Chicago Tribune, May 4. Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Ostrom, Amy and Dawn Iacobucci (1995), "Consumer Trade-Offs and the Evaluation of Services," Journal of Marketing, 5 (January), 17-28. Parasuraman, A., Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1991), "Understanding Customer Expectations of Services," Sloan Management Review, 32 (Spring), 39-48. _____________, Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry (1985), "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research," Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall), 41-50. _____________, _____________, and _____________ (1988), "SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality," Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12-40. Plock, Ernest D. (1990), "Services: Their Importance in the Domestic Economy Grows as Competition Stiffens," U.S. Industrial Outlook, U.S. Department of Commerce, 12-15. Pollay, Richard W. (1984), "The Identification and Distribution of Values Manifest in Print Advertising 1900- 1980," in Personal Values and Consumer Psychology, Robert E. Pitts, Jr. and Arch G. Woodside, eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C., Heath and Company, 111-35. Romm, David (1989), "Restauration Theater: Giving Direction to Service," The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Association Quarterly, (February), 31-9. Samiee, Saeed and Kendall Roth (1992), "The Influence of Global Marketing Standardization on Performance," Journal of Marketing, 56(April), 1-17. Schmidt, Helmut (1986), "Japan has Joined the West Economically, but Culturally it Remains Uniquely Japanese," The Nihon Keizai Shimbun Japan Economic Journal, (February), 7. Schneider, Benjamin J. (1980), "The Service Organization: Climate is Crucial," Organizational Dynamics, 9(Autumn), 52-65. Seringhaus, F.H. Rolf and Guenther Botschen (1991), "Crossnational Comparison of Export Promotion Services in the Views of Canadian and Austrian Companies," Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1), 115-27. Silpakit, Patriya and Raymond P. Fisk (1985), "'Participatizing' the Service Encounter: A Theoretical Framework," in Services Marketing in a Changing Environment, T.M. Bloch, Gregory D. Upah, and Valarie A. Zeithaml, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 117-21. Smith, Robert J. (1983), Japanese Society: Tradition, Self and the Social Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, Edward C. (1972), American Culture Patterns, Yarmouth, ME, Intercultural Press. Solomon, Michael R., Carol Surprenant, John A. Czepiel, and Evelyn G. Gutman (1985), "A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service Encounter," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Winter), 99-111. Surprenant, Carol F. and Michael R. Solomon (1987), "Predictability and Personalization in the Service Encounter," Journal of Marketing, 51(April), 86-96. Sutton, Robert I. and Anat Rafaeli (1988), "Untangling the Relationship between Displayed Emotions and Organizational Sales: The Case of Convenience Stores," Academy of Management Journal. Takada, Hirokazu and Dipak Jain (1991), "Cross-National Analysis of Diffusion of Consumer Durable Goods in Pacific Rim Countries," Journal of Marketing, 55 (April), 48-54. Taylor, Shirley (1994), "Waiting for Service: The Relationship Between Delays and Evaluation of Service," Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 56-69. Tse, David K., Russell W. Belk and Nan Zhou (1989), "Becoming a Consumer Society: A Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Content Analysis of Print Ads from Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan," Journal of Consumer Research, 15:4, 457-472. Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988), "My Favorite Things: A Cross-cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkages," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 531-47. Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1991), "The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 84-91. Yip, George S. (1989), "Global Strategy ... In a World of Nations?," Sloan Management Review, 31 (Fall), 29-41. Zaichkowsky, Judith L. and James H. Sood (1989), "A Global Look at Consumer Involvement and Use of Products," International Marketing Review, 6:1, 20-34. Zeithaml, Valarie A., Berry, Leonard L., and A. Parasuraman (1993), "The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (Winter), 1-12. ENDNOTES Table 1 Dimensions Chosen for Initial Exploration Dimensions Literature Sources (examples) Japanese focus group comments Authenticity Deighton (1992) Grove and Fisk (1983) Hochschild (1983) Lockwood and Jones (1989) Romm (1989) In Japan, "every clerk has the same type of smile...the smile is not natural," and "everything is done according to the manual". In the U.S., clerks "act independently" and "there is more variation in treatment". This is very refreshing. Caring Bitran and Hoech (1990) Bowers, Swan and Koehler (1994) Brown and Swartz (1989) Goodwin and Frame (1989) Surprenant and Solomon (1987) Caring or concern is the most important dimension in Japan. The "customer is God". In the U.S., sales clerks are always answering "I don't know" and "they don't seem to care". Control Bateson (1985) Bateson and Hui (1992) Bateson and Langeard (1982) Bitran and Hoech (1990) Klaus (1984) Silpakit and Fisk (1985) Control seems very important to Americans. In Japan, on the other hand, customers are "kind of timid or nervous. They tend to give the controlling interest to the clerk." Control is not important in Japan. Courtesy Bitner Booms and Tetreault (1990) Bolton and Drew (1991) Brown and Swartz (1989) Carman (1990) Goodwin and Smith (1990) Parasuraman Zeithaml and Berry (1988) In Japan, "if we find something bad about the service like, for example, they didn't apologize for spilling water, we never go back there again." Courtesy is very important in Japan. Formality Goodwin and Frame (1989) Goodwin and Smith (1990) Houston and Gassenheimer (1987) Surprenant and Solomon 1987) In Japan, formal treatment is a requirement for all service. Treatment in the U.S. is much more informal. Friendliness Fiebelkorn (1985) Goodwin and Frame (1989) Ostrom and Iacobucci (1995) Surprenant and Solomon (1987) "In the U.S. I feel like I'm supposed to treat serving people as equals. In Japan, that is not so." In Japan, friendliness can be disrespectful and formality is usually preferred. In the U.S., friendliness is expected. Personalization Bitner, Booms and Tetreault (1990) Brown and Swartz (1989) Goodwin and Smith (1990) Parasuraman Zeithaml and Berry (1988) Schneider (1980) Surprenant and Solomon (1987) "In Japan, you are treated the same." The waiters "are almost faceless, too business-like and whoever comes, they treat them like the same person." In the U.S., service is much more personalized and names are used more frequently. Promptness Copeland and Griggs (1985) Lovelock (1983) Mars and Nicod (1984) Solomon et al. (1985) Sutton and Rafaeli (1988) Taylor (1994) "In the U.S., the sales clerk and the customer expect to have a nice little chat... in Japan, many people would prefer a sales clerk who is quick but unfriendly." Table 2 Indicators for Several of the Original Service Encounter Dimensions AUTHENTICITY agreeable aloof* bad attitude* body language caring clich‚s courteous distracted* emotion explain eye contact fake smile* friendly genuine honest insincere face interest language signals listen nervous* no eye contact* no smile* personal experience personal opinion personal questions phony/fake* programmed* relaxed rush* send someone else* sincere sincere body sincere face smile suggestions take time talkative tone of voice touching understanding FORMALITY aloof* arrogant* attentive bad attitude* body language business only* casual casual dress conversation courteous dress nicely explain first name formal foul language friendly* greeting humor incorrect service* interest kind/nice last name manners no humor* no smile* on time personal personal questions polite language posture straight professional programmed* proper language quick service relaxed rough* rude* seat customer sir/ma'am slang language* sloppy small talk smile stiff* talkative uniform use name PERSONALIZATION ask questions attentive business only careful check back drinks full extras first name genuine greeting helpful how are you interest introduction know previous no eye contact no questions* not know* options personal personal questions programmed* remember respect rough* rush* send someone else* sincere small talk smile special requests suggestions take time talkative treat as number* use name * = responses to questions asking opposites of indicators bold = mentioned in both the U.S. and Japan regular = mentioned only by U.S. respondents italics = mentioned only by Japanese respondents NOTE: This table includes the indicators mentioned for just three of the eight dimensions studied. A full table of indicators is available from the author on request. Table 3 Items Associated Uniquely with Original Dimensions Authenticity Caring Courtesy agreeable* clich‚s* emotion fake smile* honest facial expression language signals* nervous* offers opinion phony/fake* personal experiences body language touching ask if satisfied indifferent* interruptions* problem resolution ask name complain* glare* make comfortable patronizing* please/thank you quick greeting Customer Control Formality Friendliness ask permission competent* conversation lead insecure interrupt* knowledgeable* obedient* order customer* casual dress* dress nicely formal foul language* last name no humor* posture straight proper language slang language* sloppy* stiff uniform clear language enthusiasm intelligent personable pleasant Personalization Promptness know previous history remember treat as number* anticipate needs incomplete service* information re: delays move slowly* move quickly quick attention serve others first* standing around* * = answered for the negatively worded version of the construct Table 4 Principal Components Analysis Factors UNITED STATES JAPAN FACTOR INDICATORS FACTOR LOADING FACTOR INDICATORS FACTOR LOADING CIVILITY annoyed* arrogant* bad attitude* glare* ignore* incomplete service*1 incorrect service* insincere expression* order customer* rude* rush* standing around* .64 .68 .63 .81 .56 .68 .76 .60 .75 .65 .68 .67 CIVILITY abrupt* arrogant* bad attitude* business only* impatient* insincere expression* no smile* rough* rude* .71 .82 .78 .60 .65 .66 .70 .65 .73 BASICS order customer* rush* serve others first* .83 .80 .75 PERSONALIZATION ask name first name use name .92 .89 .95 PERSONALIZATION ask name how are you introduction remember use name .85 .66 .66 .62 .89 REMEMBERING know previous remember .90 .84 CONVERSATION conversation humor personal experiences personal opinion small talk .70 .68 .67 .78 .72 CONVERSATION conversation humor talkative .61 .73 .78 CONGENIALITY enthusiasm friendly happy personal pleasant sincere expression smile no smile* warmth .69 .70 .76 .60 .60 .75 .78 .66 .74 CONCERN attentive caring/empathy enthusiasm kind/nice manners quick greeting quick response sincere .74 .75 .73 .81 .81 .87 .67 .71 DELIVERY anticipate needs attentive available check back incomplete service*1 quick attention quick response quick service customer timing .70 .65 .73 .68 .53 .75 .78 .76 .68 FORMALITY body language dress nicely proper language quick attention understanding .61 .75 .75 .69 .63 AUTHENTICITY fake smile* insincere language* phony/fake* .80 .71 .72 1 = loads on more than one factor * = reverse coded NOTE: The indicators are listed in alphabetical order rather than in the more conventional listing according to factor loading to facilitate comparison between countries. Table 5 Analysis of Factors UNITED STATES JAPAN FACTOR EIGEN- VALUE (% of variance) ALPHA* BETA SCORESb from regression CORR WITH SATIS.c FACTOR EIGEN- VALUE (% of variance) ALPHA* BETA SCORESb (from regression) CORR. WITH SATIS.c CIVILITY 19.72 (47.0) .95 .37** .68** CIVILITY 5.74 (17.4) .89 .23** .34** BASICS 1.28 (3.2) .77 .03 .04 PERSONAL- IZATION 1.29 (3.1) .94 .24** .24** PERSONAL- IZATION 2.49 (7.5) .84 .08 .20** REMEM- BERING 1.06 (2.5) .82 .16* .35** CONVER- SATION 1.88 (4.5) .85 .22** .55** CONVERS- ATION 1.17 (3.6) .77 .06 .21** CONGEN- IALITY 4.51 (10.7) .96 .45** .77** CONCERN 9.61 (29.1) .93 .50** .55** DELIVERY 1.95 (4.6) .95 .54** .79** FORMALITY 1.77 (5.4) .85 .33** .55** AUTHEN- TICITY 1.51 (3.6) .85 .20** .55** ALL U.S. FACTORS R2 = .80 (p < .000) d ALL JAPAN FACTORS R2 = .43 (p < .000) d a scores listed are the Cronbach's alpha coefficient test for reliability b Beta scores are for factor scores for each factor regressed together on satisfaction c Correlation statistics are for sum scales for each factor correlated with satisfaction d R2 refers to variance explained in a regression analysis of all of the factors listed on encounter satisfaction * significant at p < .05 ** significant at p < .01