Proposed Measurement Model

In deriving the measurement model, a number of theoretical conceptualisations were brought together. Previous research by Bitner (1992), Baker (2002) and Wakefield and Blodgett (1994; 1996; 1998; 1999) formed the backbone of this model. In terms of both the number and content of their dimensions these authors vary widely. For instance, Bitner’s (1992) servicescape representation consists of three dimensions; ‘ambient conditions’, ‘space and function’, and ‘signs, symbols and artifacts’. Within the ‘space and function’ dimension there exist a number of sub-categories which include layout, furnishings and equipment. For the ‘signs, symbols and artifacts’ dimension the sub-categories consist of signage and style of décor. Baker (1987; 1994; 2002) also proposes a three factor structure however its content is quite dissimilar to Bitner’s (1992; 2002).

Firstly, in terms of similarity, both Baker (1987) and Bitner (1992) agree that ambient cues form their own unique construct. However, the remaining two of Baker’s constructs consist of a general ‘design’ dimension and a ‘social factors’ dimension. Baker’s design construct is an all encompassing dimension that includes stimuli that are ‘at the forefront

114

of our awareness’ (Baker, 1987, p. 79). Design elements are then further sub-divided into functional and comfort dimensions. Functional elements are described as including items relating to layout whereas comfort dimensions relate to the style in which the store is presented. Baker’s (1987) third dimension is the people component which consists of both the customers in the service environment and the personnel. According to Baker (1987) issues that can impact on behaviour are the number of customers and personnel and also their appearance and behaviour.

Wakefield and Blodgett (1994; 1996; 1999) have also strongly influenced the proposed servicescape schema as they have extensively researched the impact of the servicescape in a variety of service contexts. Two of Wakefield and Blodgett’s (1994; 1999) studies combine aspects of the servicescape to form one unidimensional construct. However in their 1996 study, the servicescape was described as comprising of five dimensions namely, Layout, Aesthetics, Seating, Electronic Equipment and Displays, and Cleanliness. Conceptually it seems reasonable to divide the servicescape into such discrete dimensions. However, by including dimensions relating to seating and electronic displays makes their study highly context specific.

In terms of how the servicescape should be depicted, each of the above models were scrutinised and evaluated to determine whether they could be used in the current research project. Firstly, as second order factor modelling is to be used, it is necessary to describe the servicescape in terms of a number of discrete dimensions. This is in keeping with previous empirical work in this area, however, what dimensions should be included

needed to be asked. Rather than taking one author’s conceptualisation and trying to replicate it, it was decided that theoretically it is more logical to amalgamate all of the store environment models to form one more comprehensive model. This is particularly useful since to date, each of the previous conceptualisations have been limited in some way.

While it was Bitner (1992) who introduced the term the ‘servicescape’, her model is not without its faults. Upon finer scrutiny, it becomes evident that some of her dimensions are conceptually unclear. For instance, Bitner (1992) subsumes layout, equipment and furnishings under the ‘Space and Function’ dimension, servicescape issues which seem to be conceptually quite distinct. Servicescape researchers such as Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) also seem to have realised this and tend to model each of these constructs as separate dimensions. A second ambiguity exists within the ‘Signs, Symbols and Artifacts’ dimension. This dimension regards signage and communications materials as ways in which businesses communicate with customers about the place. The primary stimuli under this dimension are any signage or communication materials that either describe the name of the company or communicate different rules of behaviour such as no-smoking signs or directions to toilets. Also included in this dimension are more subtle cues such as the quality of the materials and the style of the décor. Conceptually there appears to be little difference between style of décor, which is classified under the ‘Signs, Symbols and Artifacts’ and furnishings which are placed under the ‘Space and Function’.

However, there is a difference, albeit quite small; it seems that furnishings under the

‘Space and Function’ dimension relates to the space between furnishings and where the

116

furnishings are placed in the environment. Conversely, style of décor under ‘Signs Symbols and Artifacts’ also encompasses furnishings, but instead of relating to where they are placed in the environment it seems to relate to the aesthetics.

Figure 4.1: Proposed Second Order Factor Model of the Servicescape

From the initial conceptualisation presented in Chapter One it was hypothesised that the Design construct would contain items that reflected both the décor of the interior and signage and communication materials present in the environment. This hypothesis reflected Bitner’s (1992) servicescape model as she proposes that these two aspects of the

Ambience

Servicescape Servicescape

Space/Layout

Design

Equipment

Hygiene

Employees

service environment would fall together. Unfortunately this cannot be tested here as all items relating to signage and communications were removed at the scale development stage. Upon reflection, this is not surprising as others who have included items relating to this dimension have found it to be unreliable and also removed it from their analysis (Hightower et al, 2002). Bitner’s (1992) remaining two constructs, ‘ambient conditions’

and ‘space and layout’ were also hypothesised to exist here. As per Baker’s (1987) models both a design and social element was also proposed. Design elements encapsulate aesthetic cues relating to the interior design and décor. For this study the social element relates only to the role of the employee since all items relating to other customers were also removed at the scale development stage. The final two hypothesised constructs relate to the cleanliness of the environment and the electronic equipment.

These two constructs are taken from the work of Wakefield and Blodgett (1994; 1996;

1999) who have included these in their studies. From this literature the following hypothesis was drawn:

H1: The servicescape is a multi-faceted construct which is aptly described as a

second-order factor structure. In particular, constructs which will be subsumed within the servicescape construct are ambient conditions, space/layout, design, employees, hygiene and equipment.

So that this hypothesis could be tested a consumer survey was conducted. The service chosen for this research was service stations and the following section provides a

118

rationale for this choice. Following this, a description of the various decisions that were made in relation to the questionnaire itself and its administration will be discussed.