Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop and test an integrated conceptual framework using construal level theory (CLT) to explain the differences in the effects of process and outcome service attributes on overall service evaluation and customer satisfaction based on consumption context (social), evaluation context (temporal) and individual characteristics (expertise).

The authors use two lab experiments (hotel and restaurant settings) and a field study of online reviews posted by actual hotel customers to test all the hypotheses.

Process (outcome) attributes have a stronger influence on service evaluations under low-level (high-level) construal. Specifically, process attributes have a stronger influence when customers are accompanied by proximal (vs distal) social group, evaluate a service under near (vs distant) temporal frame or have high (vs low) level of customer expertise.

Service managers can use the findings about the differences in the influence of social, temporal and individual variables on customer evaluations under process and outcome attributes to improve customers’ service experiences and satisfaction.

This paper extends past research on the influence of construal levels on customer decision making by exploring the differences in the effects of process vs outcome service attributes on overall service evaluation and customer satisfaction, under the influence of low (vs high) construal levels triggered by social, temporal and individual variables.

Recognizing Gigerenzer’s (1991) dictum that scientists’ tools are not neutral (tools-in-use influence theory formulation as well as data interpretation), this chapter reports theory and examines data in ways that transcend the dominant logics for variable-based and case-based analyses. The theory and data analysis tests key propositions in complexity theory: (1) no single antecedent condition is a sufficient or necessary indicator of a high score in an outcome condition; (2) a few of many available complex configurations of antecedent conditions are sufficient indicators of high scores in an outcome condition; (3) contrarian cases occur, that is, low scores in a single antecedent condition associates with both high and low scores for an outcome condition for different cases; (4) causal asymmetry occurs, that is, accurate causal models for high scores for an outcome condition are not the mirror opposites of causal models for low scores for the same outcome condition. The study tests and supports these propositions in the context of customer assessments (n = 436) of service facets and service-outcome evaluations for assisted temporary-transformations of self via beauty salon and spa treatments. The findings contribute to advancing a nuanced theory of how customers’ service evaluations relate to their assessments of overall service quality and intentions to use the service. The findings support the need for service managers to be vigilant in fine-tuning service facets and service enactment to achieve the objective of high customer retention.

This study aims to examine how the degree of value co-creation affects Chinese customers’ evaluations of new tourism and hospitality services, and how the outcome quality moderates this relationship under different conditions.

The proposed hypotheses are tested using a self-reporting questionnaire-based survey and two experimental designs. Data analysis entailed hierarchical multiple regression analysis, a simple slope test and a two-way ANOVA.

Three component studies assessed boundary conditions for the positive effects of the degree of value co-creation on customers’ evaluations of new services. Studies 1 and 2 indicated that unequivocal high-quality outcomes amplified positive effects, which were reversed by unequivocal low-quality outcomes. Study 3 demonstrated that in Chinese contexts of ambiguous outcomes, the relationship between the degree of co-creation and new service evaluation was positively mediated by self-integration in private contexts and negatively mediated by loss of face in public contexts.

This study identifies critical factors influencing successful service innovation in China within different contexts. Its finding of context-dependent customer engagement in value co-creation has managerial implications for facilitating favorable new service evaluations.

This exploratory study addresses a research gap regarding service innovation, offering insights into positive and negative influences of customer value co-creation on new service evaluation, under different outcome quality conditions in the domestic Chinese hospitality and tourism sector.

The purpose of this study is to decompose common reputation measurement systems into behavioural organisation–public relationship outcomes, cognitive representations of an organisation in the minds of publics and evaluations of organisational performance. In the proposed model, propensity for active communication behaviour and familiarity are suggested as correlated precursors of organisation–public relationship outcomes (eg trust, satisfaction, commitment and control mutuality) and organisation–public relationship outcomes are hypothesised to have a direct effect on evaluations of organisational performance as well as an indirect effect via the mediation of cognitive representations of the organisation. The authors investigated different types of five Korean‐based organisations )two domestic corporations in different industries, a multinational corporation, a sports association and a non‐profit organisation) to validate the model across different types of organisations. The findings of this study suggest that relationship outcomes lead to favourable representations of an organisation and positive evaluations of performance of the organisation.

This paper synthesizes the extant research on the outcome effect in the accounting domain, focusing primarily on the context of performance evaluation. It reviews the current state of our knowledge about this phenomenon, including its underlying cognitive and motivational causes, the contexts in which the outcome effect is observed, the factors that influence its various manifestations, and ways in which undesirable outcome effects can be mitigated. It also considers various perspectives about the extent to which outcome effects represent undesirable judgmental bias, and whether this distinction is necessary to motivate research on this topic. The paper is intended to motivate and facilitate future research into the effects of outcome knowledge on judgment in the accounting context. Therefore, we also identify important unanswered questions and discuss opportunities for future research throughout the paper. These include additional consideration of instances in which the outcome effect is reflective of bias, how this bias can be effectively mitigated, ways in which outcome information influences judgment (regardless of whether this influence is considered normative), and how the underlying causes of the outcome effect operate singly and jointly to bring about the outcome effect. We also consider ways that future research can contribute to practice by determining how to encourage evaluators to retain and incorporate the relevant information conveyed by outcomes, while avoiding the inappropriate use of outcome information, and by enhancing external validity to increase the generalizability of experimental results to scenarios frequently encountered in practice.

Organizations regularly use budgets as benchmarks for performance, and budgets represent a key control feature for almost every organization (Brown and Solomon (1993)). Research has demonstrated that outcome effects are pervasive in performance evaluation processes, and that performance evaluators do not interpret situational information consistently. An experiment is conducted to examine the effects of situational information on managers’ performance and ability attributions under conditions of favorable and unfavorable financial outcomes. The findings indicate that when financial outcomes are unfavorable, outcome effects dominate the performance evaluation process, and situational information has little effect on performance evaluations. The results of cognitive load manipulations indicate that situational information is not ignored, but rather discounted when financial outcomes are favorable.

To examine precisely how service process and service outcome are related to service quality and customer satisfaction evaluations, and to look for consistent patterns in the relationships between these four concepts.

A theoretical framework is proposed to suggest links between the four concepts. The study is conducted in the real estate industry, and the focus is on home sellers' evaluations of the real estate agent's service. In‐depth interviews and a short survey are used to collect the data. A combination of content analysis and statistical tests is used to look for patterns in the data.

As proposed, process factors are closely linked with service quality, and outcome factors are closely linked with customer satisfaction. Also, as proposed, service quality evaluations precede customer satisfaction for normal service evaluations, but the opposite causal order is found for extreme service evaluations.

The study is conducted in the USA and is based on a relatively small sample, but sufficient for qualitative (and simple statistical) analysis. The differential links proposed and found between the four concepts advance researchers' understanding of the basis for service evaluations.

Managers can focus more on either service process or service outcome based on their specific objectives and/or resource constraints in different situations.

It is the first study to propose and empirically support the idea that service process is closely linked with service quality evaluations, whereas service outcome is closely linked with customer satisfaction evaluations.

This paper aims to develop a practical tool to evaluate the outcomes of innovative practices in the building and construction industry.

A practical tool was proposed. It is an online tool programmed in a JavaScript environment. A previously developed and tested framework was the basis for this tool. Six case projects were used to test and validate the reliability of the tool. The outcomes of the building projects were categorized into six categories of economic, quality, social, environmental, satisfaction and soft and organizational impacts.

The most important finding of this research was that the evaluation of innovation in building and construction would be possible only if the subjective assessment is tolerated to include the non-monetary outcomes in the evaluation, as well as the monetary outcomes.

The findings of this research are limited to the domestic and medium density building projects; thus, the outcomes might be generalized with appropriate care. The developed tool would assist practitioners in the field of building and construction to realize the impacts of innovation introduced into their projects. The project owners and developers could be the main audience of this tool.

The main contribution of the current study into the literature is the consideration of tangible and intangible outcomes of innovation together. In other words, this tool not only evaluates monetary outcomes but also takes into account non-monetary outcomes. It has been stated in the literature that 80 per cent of firms choose “non-numeric” project selection models (Meredith and Mantel, 2006). To provide a full representation of the reality, this model considers both numeric and non-numeric measures by applying both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. The project owners and developers could be the main audience of this tool. It is worth mentioning that this tool is the first attempt of its kind for building and construction projects, and it is applicable and fully practical.

This tool is the first attempt of its kind to evaluate practically the outcomes of innovation in the building and construction industry. The tool practicality and applicability in the real-world project is a privilege which gives more reliability and credibility to the proposed approach of innovation evaluation.

This chapter documents the evolution of the application of evaluation methods to public library services for children and teens in the United States. It describes the development of age-specific output measures and the subsequent requirement by funding agencies for outcome evaluations that measure changes in skills, attitudes, behavior, knowledge, or status as a result of an individual's participation in a service or program. Some early outcomes research studies are cited, and California initiative to implement statewide outcome evaluation of its Summer Reading Program is presented as a case study. Training and education are suggested as ways to counter the major challenges for wider implementation of outcome evaluation of youth services programs in public libraries.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether audit professionals exhibit greater performance evaluation bias compared to non‐accounting professionals.

Both audit and non‐accounting professional subjects read a case study and evaluated the performance of a hypothetical subordinate. Two factors were manipulated the subordinate's work performance history and the subordinate's current performance relative to a budget.

It was found that reputation bias and hindsight bias are prevalent in both professional groups. The groups exhibit no difference with respect to reputation bias; however, it was found that public accountants exhibit significantly greater hindsight bias relative to non‐accounting professionals.

The paper provides evidence that accountants are relatively harsh critics of subordinate performance. Importantly, the paper investigates accountant vs non‐accountant comparisons where subordinates' ex ante decisions are consistent with superiors' ex ante guidance (i.e. ex post performance being either favorable vs unfavorable is purely outcome‐effect driven). If the findings are robust, this study provides a fundamental reason why employee retention in public accounting is relatively low.

This paper is the first to make direct comparisons of performance evaluation bias effects between auditors and similarly experienced working professions.