Alternative Conceptualisations of the Servicescape: Testing their Applicability Applicability

It became evident in Chapter One that there is very little consistency in the servicescapes literature. Each new paper in this area seems to herald a new alternative perspective on the servicescape which has led to a disjointed body of knowledge. The reason why this has occurred is not very easy to discern, particularly since both Bitner (1992; 2000) and Baker (1987; 2002) are clear as to what constitutes the servicescape. However, these two

160

authors differ greatly in terms of what they include under the servicescape umbrella which may have led to some of the confusion in the literature. Both authors describe the servicescape in terms of three dimensions, however the content of these sub-constructs are quite different (See Table 4.13 and Table 4.14). In terms of similarity, both authors describe ambient cues as a discrete dimension which encompasses all atmospheric stimuli that impact on any of the five senses. However, a point of difference does exist; Baker (1987) includes cleanliness under Ambient Conditions, a stimulus that is wholly excluded by Bitner (1992). The appropriateness of placing cleanliness under this dimension is unclear as it seems incongruent with what one would imagine would encompass ambient cues. Baker’s (1987) second dimension is referred to as ‘Design Factors’ and includes both aesthetic and functional factors. This dimension is somewhat similar to Bitner’s (1992) Space and Function dimension as it relates to the way in which furniture is positioned. The major point of difference is that Bitner (1992) does not regard the style of the furniture under her Space and Function dimension, merely she refers to the way in which the furniture is placed.

Table 4.13: Baker’s Servicescape Dimensions

Table 4.14: Bitner’s (1992) Servicescape Dimensions Ambient Conditions

Temperature Air Quality Noise Odour

Space/Function Layout

Equipment Furnishings

Signs, Symbols &

Artifacts Signage

Personal Activities Style of Décor

While Baker (1987) places the aesthetics of the décor under her Design dimension Bitner (1992) treats the style of the environment as a separate dimension which she refers to as Signs, Symbols and Artifacts. Along with the style of décor, this dimension refers to the signals that the environment communicates to customers about the place. The third of Baker’s (1987) dimensions refers to the social factors and how they can motivate behaviour. This is possibly the largest point of difference between the two authors as Bitner (1992) excludes the impact of social cues entirely.

In order to resolve whether either of these two representations is a more accurate depiction of the servicescape construct structural equation modelling was used to analyse them both. The data that was used to meet this end is the same dataset that was used in the earlier analyses in this chapter. What differs here is that the conceptualisations tested reflect the models proposed by both Bitner (1992) and Baker (1987; 2002). This section begins by testing Baker’s (1987) model which is followed by an analysis of Bitner’s (1992) competing model.

162 Baker’s (1987) Model

As per Baker’s (1987) conceptualisation, a three factor model was run. This three factor model reflects Baker’s (1987) original theoretical viewpoint in which the three dimensions are: Ambient Conditions, Design and Social Factors. Table 4.15 shows the indicators that were used to represent each of these dimensions. The fit for this model was particularly poor with a Chi Square (χ²) of 597.94 with 149 degrees of freedom and a significant p value. The RMSEA was also well outside acceptable limits (RMSEA = 0.092) as were all other fit statistics, thus indicating that major misspecifications had been made (CFI = .81, IFI = 0.81, NFI = .76, SRMR = .073). Given that some of the items in the above conceptualisation were not used in the final servicescape representation, the model was re-run eliminating those items that had previously been found to be unreliable. This involved deleting three ambience items (The atmosphere was comfortable, The store had a pleasant smell, The lighting was comfortable), and three design items (The interior layout was pleasing, I found the physical facilities comfortable, The materials used were of high quality). Rather than improving the fit, it was found that when these items were deleted the fit worsened (χ² = = 344.24, df = 62, P-value = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.113, CFI = .81, IFI = 0.81, NFI = .78, SRMR = .081). In addition to this, the ambience construct had a standardised loading greater than 1, both in the initial specification and in the second model. Standardised loadings greater than 1 generally indicate that multicollinearity exists which suggests a strong misspecification within the model.

Table 4.15: Items Used to Test the Applicability of Baker’s Model Ambient Conditions

The background music was pleasant The lighting was comfortable The atmosphere was comfortable The store had a pleasant smell

The background music was appropriate The store was very clean

The service station appeared to be hygienic Design

I found the interior design visually appealing The interior design was attractive

The colour schemes were pleasant The materials used were of high quality The architecture was attractive

I found the physical facilities comfortable The flooring was appropriate

I found my way around quite easily The interior layout was pleasing Social Factors

The employees were neat and tidy in appearance I found the staff friendly

The employees were helpful

Bitner’s Model

While Baker’s (1987; 2002) model has received some empirical testing, Bitner herself has never directly tested the applicability of her model. In later years, others have tested elements it, however, to date, no direct empirical testing of her model has been conducted. As with Baker’s (1987) model in the above section, the data used to test the

164

fit of Bitner’s (1992) model is the same as that used for the conceptualisation in this thesis. So as to reflect Bitner’s model as best as possible the following items were used:

Table 4.16: Items Used to Test the Applicability of Bitner’s Model Ambient Conditions

The background music was pleasant The lighting was comfortable The atmosphere was comfortable The store had a pleasant smell

The background music was appropriate Space and Function

The flooring was appropriate I found my way around quite easily The interior layout was pleasing Signs, Symbols and Artifacts

I found the interior design visually appealing The interior design was attractive

The colour schemes were pleasant The materials used were of high quality The architecture was attractive

I found the physical facilities comfortable

As with Baker’s model, the fit for Bitner’s conceptualisation was particularly poor (χ² = 597.94 df = 61, P-value = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.104, CFI = .85, IFI = .85, SRMR = .099, NFI = .82). It was also found that the Standardised Loading between the Servicescape and Design was greater than 1 also indicating that there was a major misspecification in the data. As some of the items in this model were found to be relatively unreliable the model was re-run excluding these items (The lighting was comfortable, The atmosphere

was comfortable, The store had a pleasant smell, The interior layout was pleasing, The materials used were of high quality, I found the physical facilities comfortable).

Interestingly, this model produced an excellent fit (χ² = 21.86, df = 17, P-value = 0.19022, RMSEA = 0.028, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.0, NFI = .98, GFI = .98, SRMR = .024).

Although the fit for this model is exceptionally good and has the advantage of being parsimonious it is seriously lacking in terms of its comprehensiveness. The items within this model relate only to the style of décor, the ease of navigating through the environment and consumers’ perceptions of the music. Important servicescape stimuli such as the cleanliness of the environment and the equipment have been excluded. While statistically Bitner’s (1992) model is superior to the servicescape representation outlined earlier in the chapter, it is limited in terms of its usefulness to practitioners as many key stimuli are omitted. In the servicescape model advocated by this research it was found that the Space and Hygiene dimension and the Equipment dimension contributed more of the variance in the servicescape than the other constructs in the model. This indicates that two important dimensions are entirely omitted from the Bitner (1992) model. Future researchers who choose to use Bitner’s (1992) model over the model proposed and extended here will choose statistical power to the detriment of gaining a more complete overview of consumers’ perceptions of the servicescape. In essence, choosing Bitner’s model may obfuscate what truly lies beneath the servicescape construct.