Empirical Studies on the Servicescape

The remainder of the research on servicescapes has tended not to develop new theories or conceptualisations, but have instead sought to test both Bitner (1992) and Baker’s (1987) models. These studies can broadly be categorised as those who have taken a single dimensional view or those who have taken a multi-dimensional view. For those who have taken the multi-dimensional perspective, these can be further classified into those who have used either multiple regression or structural equation modelling as their analytical tool.

Two of Wakefield and Blodgett’s (1994; 1999) studies took a unidimensional view of the servicescape whereby the mediating role of excitement was examined in relation to approach behaviours and in both it was found that the servicescape was a potent predictor of behaviour. Hightower et al (2002) extended this line of work through the development of a conceptual model which incorporated a number of constructs not previously

modelled as both determinants and consequences of the servicescape. These included service quality evaluations, perceived waiting time, involvement and perceived value.

Multiple items were used to measure the servicescape, however since regression analysis was the method of analysis here, these items were averaged and a single indicator was used. Findings indicated that the servicescape has a positive effect on service quality and customer satisfaction. Reimer and Kuehn (2005) took both a hedonic service (restaurant) and a utilitarian service (banking) and used these services to determine whether tangible services dimensions (the servicescape) indirectly effected service quality evaluations through intangible aspects of the service. Given that structural equation modelling produced a poor model fit, path analysis, using one servicescape indicator, was used as an alternative form of analysis to test the hypotheses. Interestingly, it was found that in the restaurant (hedonic service) sample the servicescape had a greater influence on service quality than in the bank (utilitarian service).

All of the above studies used either an overall servicescape evaluation (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994) or aggregated servicescape items to form a single indicator (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999; Hightower et al, 2002; Reimer and Kuehn, 2005). In line with both Baker and Bitner’s models, each of the authors demonstrated how the servicescape serves as an antecedent to cognitive and behavioural responses. However, what these authors have failed to show, is whether the servicescape is perceived by consumers as a multi-dimensional structure. In recent years there has been a move towards multi-multi-dimensional modelling of the servicescape structure whereby various aspects of the servicescape are described as discrete dimensions. These studies can be broadly classified into those who

40

have used regression-based analyses (Lucas, 2003; Johnson et al, 2004; Harris and Ezeh, 2008) and those who have used structural equation modelling (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Ryu and Jang, 2007; Lee et al, 2008). Both Lucas (2003) and Johnson et al (2004) examined the impact of the servicescape in Las Vegas casinos. These authors did not explore whether emotions mediated service evaluations, but instead investigated whether a series of servicescape dimensions impacted satisfaction with the service. In both studies it was found that the servicescape is a significant determinant of customer satisfaction. Also taking a hedonic service, Ezeh and Harris (2008) chose six servicescape dimensions (music, aroma, cleanliness, implicit communications, furnishings, and physical attractiveness). All of the servicescape dimensions, apart from music were found to significantly affect loyalty intentions.

Of those who have employed structural equation modelling, the first to appear in the literature was Wakefield and Blodgett’s (1996) study which was conducted in sports stadiums and a casino. The servicescape was divided into a five dimensional structure which consisted of, layout accessibility, facility aesthetics, seating comfort, electronic equipment displays and facility cleanliness which were modelled as antecedents to an overall servicescape measure which subsequently impacted upon satisfaction with the servicescape and repatronage intentions. El Sayed et al (2004) also took a dimensional approach to conceptualising the servicescape where an experimental design was employed in which various different manipulations of the mall environment were presented. Dimensions used here were: music, interior design, crowding, location and lighting. The results were analysed using ANOVA and it was found that all constructs,

apart from interior design, had a significant effect on behavioural intentions. More recently, Ryu and Jang (2007) deconstructed the servicescape into six dimensions (facility aesthetics, lighting, ambience, layout, dining equipment and employees) and examined each constructs’ effect on emotional responses and behavioural intentions in a restaurant setting. Many of the structural paths between the environmental constructs and emotional responses were insignificant or achieved path coefficients that were less than the standard cut-off of .41. Why this occurred is unclear, however it may be due to the measures used. The authors do not present how their servicescape measures were devised and it is possible that they were inappropriate for the situation. Lee et al (2008) conducted an analogous study in a festival environment using a seven-dimensional structure. As with Ryu and Jang (2007), many of the paths hypothesised in the structural model were not supported. Upon examination of the constructs used to represent the servicescape, it becomes clear that perhaps Lee et al’s (2008) servicescape dimensions do not represent service environments. For instance, consumers’ perceptions of souvenirs, program content, food, information and convenience seem to be more in line with consumers’ service evaluations than servicescape evaluations.

The first problem with these studies is that there has been a heavy emphasis on hedonic service contexts such as casinos, (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999; Lucas, 2003; Johnson et al, 2004) sports stadiums (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999), recreation centres (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999) and restaurants (Reimer and Kuehn, 2005; Ryu and Jang, 2007; Harris and Ezeh, 2008). The second problem that

42

becomes evident is that each of the servicescape studies that have appeared in the literature have been highly inconsistent with each new paper conceptualising the servicescape in a different way. While there is no uniformity in the literature, the overall conclusion that can be taken from these studies is highly encouraging as each study could statistically support the potential power of the servicescape on postconsumption processes. The analytical tools employed by authors have varied greatly from regression analysis (Hightower et al, 2002; Lucas, 2003; Johnson et al, 2004), ANOVA (El Sayed et al, 2004) to the use of more sophisticated techniques such as structural equation modelling (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Tang et al, 2001). More recently, further developments have been made through the conceptualisation of the servicescape as a multi-dimensional structure. For these studies there seems to be quite an arbitrary approach in deciding what elements should be included as part of the servicescape structure. As mentioned above, Lee et al (2008) included items that were clearly non-environmental variables in their conceptualisation of the servicescape. The items used in other studies are less problematic in that they quite definitely represent the service environment (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Lucas, 2003; Johnson et al, 2004; Ryu and Jang, 2007). However these studies seem to tailor their environmental items according to the service under scrutiny (e.g. casinos, sports stadiums, restaurants) thus making the findings more difficult to generalise. In addition, this context specific approach to the development of items also makes replication of these studies into different industries more problematic (e.g. Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Ryu and Jang, 2007). In the next section, the dimensional ambiguities in the literature are examined. From this a new

servicescape conceptualisation is presented which will be tested in a utilitarian retail setting.