IntroductionHow important are smiling, friendly salesassociates, and pleasant surroundings to retailapparel customers? While retailerstraditionally think of customer service interms of store hours, gift wrapping, and creditoptions, consumers typically view customerservice in relative terms based on theirexpectations and experiences. Customerservice satisfaction depends on how well theservice customers receive match theirexpectations (Austin, 1992). Factors such asage, gender, ethnicity, and income shapemany of these expectations (Webster, 1989).

Recent surveys have confirmed thatconsumers think retail customer service isinadequate. A 1987 Washington Post surveyfound that nearly half of all shoppers in theWashington area thought that store servicewas mediocre and declining (Mayer andMorin, 1987). These shoppers, as well asthose who were surveyed in a national poll,had similar thoughts about the causes of poor

service. Among these were long waits forservice, impolite sales clerks, unavailabilityof advertised goods, and sales clerks who hadlittle or no product knowledge (Mayer andMorin, 1987).

Realizing the escalating importance ofcustomer service, an increasing number ofretailers have attempted to improve theirservice strategy. Many articles and bookshave stressed the importance of servicequality, but defining it is difficult.Parasuraman et al., p. 42 (1985) definedservice quality as “perceptions result(ing)from a comparison of consumer expectationswith actual service performance”.

Customer satisfaction is important becausethere are significant short- and long-termcosts associated with poor customer service.Short-term dissatisfaction could result in awalkout, whereas a long-term dissatisfactionresponse might lead to customer defection.When studying service companies, Reichheldand Sasser (1990) measured the economicimpact of profit loss due to defectingcustomers and found that these companiesincreased profits by almost 100 percent by

JOURNAL OFSERVICE MARKETING

60

Customer Expectations andPerceptions of Service Quality

in Retail Apparel SpecialtyStores

Kathryn Bishop Gagliano and Jan Hathcote

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1994, pp. 60-69© MCB University Press, 0887-6045

retaining just 5 percent more of theircustomers. Not only did losing a customerrepresent the lost value of the long-term salespotential of that customer, but it alsorepresented the additional costs of replacingthat customer.

Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study was to obtaininformation regarding retail apparelcustomers’ expectations and perceptions ofthe level of service quality offered in apparelspecialty stores. In addition, this studyexamines the importance of service as apatronage criterion and provides managerialimplications.

Specialty StoresThe opportunity for the development ofpersonal relationships, and therefore personalattention, was one of the factors leading to theemergence of the specialty store in the earlynineteenth century (Gist, 1968). As thespecialty store has evolved, this characteristicof personal association between buyer andseller has led to the popularity of the specialtystore retailer. Many of today’s specialtyretailers have become successful bycombining this element of personalizedservice with a merchandise assortment gearedtoward a particular market segment (SpecialtyRetailing, 1986).

Between 1982 and 1992, specialty storesales grew at a faster rate than total retailsales. During this period specialty store salesincreased at an average rate of 9.7 percentannually while the sales growth for total retailwas only 8 percent (Survey, 1983, 1993). Ithas been suggested that much of the specialtyretailer’s successes have been at the expenseof the department stores.

Very little research has taken placeregarding service quality expectations in

apparel specialty store retailing. Only onestudy was found pertaining to the apparelretail industry. Finn and Lamb (1991)examined apparel retailers by categorizing thestores into four generalized groups includingthose similar to: Kmart; J.C. Penny; Dillards;and Saks. Finn and Lamb’s purpose was notto differentiate among these store types but toevaluate the SERVQUAL scale in a retailsetting. However, since the missions of thesestores were different it was likely that theservice quality expectations would varyamong the store types.

Webster (1989) examined expectations ofprofessional services (such as lawyers anddoctors) and nonprofessional services (otherservices) using the SERVQUAL scale.Findings revealed that demographiccharacteristics were important whendetermining the expected service quality fornon-professional services, but not forprofessional services. This indicated a need toexamine demographic characteristics whenevaluating service quality in nonprofessionalservice settings such as retailing.

Service ClassificationsOutstanding service is considered one of themost important attributes of specialty storeretailing. For the service industry, Gronroos(1984) categorized service quality into twocategories: technical quality, primarilyfocussed on what consumers actuallyreceived from the service; and functionalquality, focussed on the process of servicedelivery.

These types of service quality divisionstranslate well with apparel specialty stores.This study will retitle technical and functionalservice quality to “Store Service” and “SalesService” respectively, in order to customizethe terms for the retailing sector. Conceptualdefinitions are:

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 11994

61

(1) Store service:

● in-store credit;

● returns/exchanges/adjustments;

● variety, quality, and dependability ofsevice;

● price of after-sale service.

(2) Sales service:

● attitude, courteous, knowledgeable,helpful clerks;

● prompt attention, prompt processingof transactions;

● individual attention/service.

By classifying these services into the twodivisions, retailers can concentrate theirservice strategies on both “store service” and“sales service”. Store operation managersmight be more involved with front-lineemployees in improving store servicepolicies; whereas, personnel managers mightwork with the sales service aspects.

Service: Its Influence on PatronageWhile store image is an important factorinfluencing store patronage (Berry, 1969), theemergence of above average service as aspecialty store strategy indicates theimportance of service in determining storepatronage. Specialty store shoppers judgedstore personnel (the major determinant of“Sales Service”) as a more importantdeterminant of patronage than the departmentstore or discount store shopper (Lumpkin andMcConkey, 1984). For example, men whopatronized high fashion men’s apparelspecialty stores cited knowledgeable, helpfulsales associates as the most important factorinfluencing store patronage (King and Ring,1980). These findings provide insight aboutthe importance of service as a criterion forpatronage.

While studies have shown that service is animportant criterion for store patronage inspecialty stores, there are also other important

factors. Five of the most common factorssummarized by Berman and Evans (1992)include: merchandise, price, service, location,and advertising.

Research QuestionsTwo primary research questions weredeveloped to aid managers in understandingconsumer expectations and perceptions ofservice quality in apparel specialty stores (seeappendix for operational definitions ofexpectations and perceptions). According toWebster (1989) demographic characteristicswere a factor in consumers’ expectations ofnon-professional services. Therefore, the firstquestion asked was: Does consumer age,gender, ethnicity, marital status, or incomehave an effect on expected and perceivedservice quality in retail apparel specialtystores? If there was a substantial effect,marketers need to identify which factors areimportant to better define their target markets.Second, how important is service quality inthe overall context of store patronage in retailapparel specialty stores?

Measuring Service QualityIt is difficult to measure service quality,especially in apparel specialty retailing.Apparel specialty retailing combines theselling of goods and services to the consumer,and consumers expect knowledgeable, helpfulstaff to assist in the sales procedures.

The ultimate goal was to measure servicequality of apparel specialty stores using therefined SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman, etal. 1991) which indicated five determinantsof service quality:

(1) Tangibles.

(2) Reliability.

(3) Responsiveness.

(4) Assurance.

(5) Empathy.

JOURNAL OFSERVICES MARKETING

62

Therefore it was expected that the 22-itemSERVQUAL scale would develop a five-dimensional structure (for methodology ofstudy see Appendix). Once determined,managers can utilize these findings toincrease or improve the services perceived asmost important and build consumersatisfaction.

Findings and DiscussionThe anticipated five-factor principle-axisfactor analysis followed by oblique rotationwas conducted according to the methodologyset by Parasuraman et al. (1991). However,due to the overlapping of two ofParasuraman’s factors and the low ranking ofthe fifth factor, the data was reanalyzed usinga four-dimensional factor analysis. This four-dimensional factor analysis reduced thevariance level by only 3 percent, and each

factor had greater eigenvalues; therefore, itwas used for this study.

Categorical names were developed todescribe the new groupings with theexception of reliability and tangibles whichcorresponded fairly well with the originalParasuraman study (1991). The fourcategorical titles used were (see Table I):

(1) Personal attention.

(2) Reliability.

(3) Tangibles.

(4) Convenience.

Thirteen items clustered to form the personalattention factor:

(1) never too busy to respond;

(2) best interests at heart;

(3) always willing to help;

(4) understands specific needs;

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 11994

63

Table I.Four Dimensions of Service Quality (Factor Loadings Multiplied by 100, n = 181)

PersonalItems attention Reliability Tangibles Convenience

Q13 Never too busy to respond 86Q21 Best interests at heart 85Q12 Always willing to help 79Q22 Understands specific needs 77Q14 Behavior instills confidence 75Q16 Courteous employees 73Q17 Knowledgeable employees 70Q6 Interest in solving problems 69Q7 Dependable service 66Q18 Offer individual attention 65Q5 Prompt service 65Q8 Service delivered when promised 56Q20 Offer customization 51Q9 Error-free records 65Q10 When service will be performed 61Q15 Customers feel secure in

transactions 53Q2 Appealing store appearance 67Q3 Well dressed, neat employees 60Q4 Appealing promotional materials 52Q1 Up-to-date equipment 57Q19 Convenient operating hours 52

(5) behavior instills confidence;

(6) courteous employees;

(7) knowledgeable employees;

(8) interest in solving problems;

(9) dependable service;

(10) offers individual attention;

(11) prompt service;

(12) service delivered when promised; and

(13) offers customization.

While these items represented a myriad ofreliability, responsiveness, assurance, andempathy characteristics, they had anunderlying common feature. All the itemswere distinctive of the specialty retailer andwere apparent to customers each time theywere in the store. For example, in a retailsetting, courteous, knowledgeable employeeswere very obvious to each customer, but howsecure customers felt about their transactionwere more intangible. These personalattention characteristics reflected the “salesservice” component of service quality.

The tangibles factor comprised three items:appealing store appearance; well-dressed,neat employees; and appealing promotionalmaterials. These were all tangible influencesthat customers notice before or upon enteringa store. These characteristics help establishthe image of the store and influence customerexpectations (Shostack, 1981). In the wordsof a survey respondent, “A store’sappearance, employees, atmosphere, andequipment speak loudest to a customerbecause that is what we notice first. It is ourfirst impression of the store”.

Three items formed the reliability factor:error-free records; reliable serviceperformance; and reliability in transactions.Each of these items represented thetrustworthiness of a specialty store. Error-freerecords, assurance of timely service, andtransaction security were all pledges ofreliability to customers. These items

determined how secure a customer felt aboutshopping a particular store. If performed well,they assured the customer and increasedconfidence in the store. Thus, the reliabilityfactor represented a component.

Another “store service” characteristicinvolved convenience, the fourth factor, thatincluded: up-to-date equipment; andconvenient operating hours. Consumersexpected modern equipment such as quickelectronic “scanner” registers and convenienthours for their shopping.

Demographic CharacteristicsFollowing Webster’s (1989) methodology ofdetermining the differences among thedemographic characteristics whendetermining expectations, analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was used to determine ifthe gap factor score means varied amongdifferent demographic characteristics.Findings indicated that only three of thecharacteristics, race, marital status, andincome, yielded significant differences at the0.10 level in disparity of service quality.

(1) Race: Caucasian respondents indicated ahigher gap mean between expectationsand perceptions for Factor 4, convenience,more so than non-white respondents (p = 0.0303).

(2) Marital status: Married respondents notedthe greatest disparity betweenexpectations and perceptions for Factor 2,reliability, than single respondents (p = 0.0008).

(3) Income: Higher income households(earning $35,000 and more) had greaterdiscrepancies with respect to expectationsand perceptions than lower incomerespondents (p = 0.0751) for thereliability factor. Age and gender were notsignificant at the 0.10 level.

Analysis of variance provided evidence thatmean differences occurred betweenexpectations and perceptions among

JOURNAL OFSERVICES MARKETING

64

demographic characteristics regarding twofactors, reliability and convenience. Higherincome households (earning $35,000 andmore) and married respondents held greaterdisparity with the reliability factor than theirlower income, single counterparts. Inaddition, Caucasians had greater dissentionwith convenience than other respondents.Since apparel specialty stores typically targethigher income consumers (SpecialtyRetailing, 1986) this finding indicated storeswere either not getting the service messageout to these consumers, or else they were notmeeting these demanded consumers’expectations. Further study needs to explore

the cause of these relationships and themagnitude of these differences (see Table II).

Patronage Criteria ImportanceTo determine the importance customersplaced on store service, respondents wereasked to allocate 100 points among thefollowing store patronage criteria:merchandise; price; service; location; andadvertising. The instructions indicated thatthe largest number of points were to be givento the most important factor in determiningstore patronage. It was found that, serviceranked third in importance for specialty storecustomers in determining where they shop

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 11994

65

Table II.Effects of Demographic Variables on Differences between Service Quality Expectations and PerceptionsUsing Analysis of Variance

15(n) F1 F2 F3 F4

SexFemale 96 –0.0630 0.0365 0.0317 –0.0221Male 85 0.0932 –0.0654 –0.0468 0.0327(F) 0.7289 0.3021 0.2401 0.1207

Race:Caucasian 152 –0.0654 –0.0270 –0.0390 0.0744Other 29 0.3269 0.1352 0.1949 –0.3720(F) 2.7015 0.5618 1.2391 4.8128**

Martial status:Single 61 –0.1327 –0.3566 0.0897 0.0518Married 120 0.0869 0.2009 –0.0440 –0.0425(F) 1.3574 11.810*** 0.6455 0.3354

Age:Under 44 112 –0.1099 0.0170 –0.0110 –0.081745-64 33 0.2043 0.0039 0.0322 0.165965 and over 36 –0.0453 –0.0866 –0.0356 –0.0711(F) 1.2809 0.0823 0.0448 1.1161

Income< $25,000 42 0.1538 –0.4018 0.1522 –0.2081$25-$34,999 48 –0.2620 –0.0472 0.0903 0.2143$35-$49,999 31 –0.0923 0.2921 –0.1082 0.0444>$50,000 60 0.1913 0.00690 –0.1020 –0.0805(F) 1.5680 2.3640* 0.6369 1.2677

*** p < 0.01** p < 0.05* p < 0.10Note: Means are represented in terms of factor scores

(see Table III). Merchandise was mostimportant, followed closely by price.Location and advertising were of leatimportance.

LimitationsWhile the SERVQUAL scale has proven areliable scale for several studies assessingpure service firms, the scale does not performas well as expected with the service functionsof apparel specialty retailing. The fivedeterminants did not factor out as expected(see Appendix). Finn and Lamb (1991) hadsimilar difficulties with the SERVQUALscale in a retail setting.

The sample was selected from householdsacross the Southeastern United States andtherefore does not represent the United Statesas a whole. Those who responded to themailed questionnaire were representative ofthe Southeastern population with respect tosex (Southeast female population 52 percent,sample female 53 percent) and age(Southeastern population over 45 years old,59 percent, sample over 45 years old, 57percent); however, the sample did not reflectthe Southeastern marital status (Southeastpopulation 56 percent married, sample 43percent married), race (Southeasternpopulation 78 percent Caucasian, sample 84percent Caucasian) or income (Southeasternpopulation median income $31,345 Sample

less than $35,000) (1990 Census, 1991). Thesample therefore represents a higher income,single, predominately Caucasian population.While apparel specialty stores target the moreaffluent consumer (Specialty Retailing, 1986)the sample is not representative of the generalSoutheastern population.

Future ResearchThe results of this study suggest thatrefinement of the SERVQUAL scale isneeded before it can be accepted as a validmeasurement scale in an apparel specialtystore setting. Magnitude and direction ofconsumer disparity also warrant futureresearch. In addition, it would be interestingto see if consumers in other areas of thecountry assess service quality of apparelspecialty stores similarly to consumers in theSoutheastern United States. Another projectwould involve the segmentation of retailapparel customers by store type based ontheir service quality expectations andperceptions.

Managerial ImplicationsFrom the factor analysis, personal attention(“sales service”) factors held the greatest gapscores, indicating disparity between whatspecialty store consumers expected and theirperceived service quality. Customers receivepersonal attention from store employeesevery day in specialty store settings. Some ofthe items that factored together formingpersonal attention may actually beantecedents of other items. For example, storeemployees should be responsive, courteous,and knowledgeable in order to offer prompt,individualized service. The importance ofpersonal attention highlights the service actprovided by store sales associates. Theunderlying implications suggest that front lineemployees represent the store and, as such,

JOURNAL OFSERVICES MARKETING

66

Table III.Store Patronage Criteria

MeanRank Variable score

1 Merchandise 262 Price 243 Service 174 Location 145 Advertising 10

are performing a marketing function. Thisfinding stresses the need for customer servicetraining programs to align service qualitywith consumer expectations.

The factor analysis revealed the tangiblesdimension (“store service”) as second indisparity for apparel specialty storeconsumers. The store appearance, itsemployees, and promotional materials offervisible cues to customers that they use toform perceptions of store image. Becausetangibles often form consumers’ firstimpressions, it is important for retailers tocreate an image for the store that they wish toproject and then survey customers as to theirperception of the store’s image. While theconvenience and reliability (“store services”)factors represent lower gap scores forcustomers in this study, it is important not todiminish their meaningfulness. For example,having up-to-date equipment often allows astore to facilitate activities such as registeringstock-keeping unit information. On thecontrary, too much automation reduces thepersonal attention factor that apparel specialtystores pride themselves for delivering. Behindthe scenes technology is important but notnecessarily visible to consumers. Accurateinventory information affects the merchandiseassortment in the store, a factor which wasrated as the most important consumerpatronage criterion. In addition, accuraterecords and convenient hours of operationform a supportive structure on which personalattention and tangibles rely.

The rankings for store patronage indicatedseveral reasons why specialty stores haveenjoyed widespread success in recent years.Specialists offer merchandise targeted tospecific customers. In addition, they oftentarget niche markets (high, middle, or lowend) that enable them to offer merchandise atattractive price points. Outstanding serviceofferings (both “store” and “sales”) combinedwith merchandise at competitive prices helpcreate an advantage.

Additional comments from surveyrespondents confirm the basis of the successfor specialty retailers. Several respondentsnoted, “Product, and then service determinewhere I shop”. Other responses of interestincluded: “Selection of merchandise iseverything when you don’t have time to shoparound”, and “I can deal with salespeoplewho are knowledgeable”.

The significant demographic characteristicsof this sample that possessed the greatestdisparity between expectations andperceptions were married Caucasians withhigher incomes. Many specialty stores targetthis market segment and are either notreaching their target market or are notdelivering the service their customers expect.Those who do target this market need toreassess their marketing strategy andconcentrate on diminishing this disparityamong this group of consumers.

A final implication of this studyunderscores the current success of specialtystore retailers. Store service, ranked third inpatronage criteria, has been cited as a majorfactor in specialty retailing success stories.True competitors (high end versus high end,or low end versus low end) can easilyduplicate merchandise mix and price, the firsttwo factors of store patronage. Therefore, byoffering the correct combination ofmerchandise, price, and service, a specialtystore retailer can gain an advantage overcompetitors.

n

ReferencesAustin, N.K. (1992), “The Service Edge”,

Working Woman, July, pp. 26-8.Berman, B. and Evans, J.R. (1992), Retail

Management: A Strategic Approach, 5thed., Macmillan, New York, NY.

Berry, L. (1969), “The Components ofDepartment Store Image: A Theoretical and

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 11994

67

Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 3-20.

Finn, D.W. and Lamb, C.R., Jr (1991), “AnEvaluation of the SERVQUAL Scales in aRetailing Setting”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 18, pp. 483-90.

Gist, R.R. (Ed.), (1968), Retailing: Concepts andDecisions, John Wiley & Sons, New York,NY.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A Service Quality Modeland its Marketing Implications”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

King, C.W. and Ring, L.J. (1980), “MarketPositioning Across Retail FashionInstitutions: A Comparative Analysis ofStore Types”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 56No. 1, pp. 37-55.

Lumpkin, J.R. and McConkey, C.W. (1984),“Identifying Determinants of Store Choice ofFashion Shoppers”, Akron Business andEconomic Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 30-5.

Mayer, C.E. and Morin, R. (1987), “RetailersReturn to Basics to Win, Keep Customers”,The Washington Post, 25 October, p. H-1a.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.(1985), “A Conceptual Model of ServiceQuality and its Implications for FutureResearch”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,Fall, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.(1991), “Refinement and Reassessment ofthe SERVQUAL Scale”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.

Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E., Jr (1990),“Zero Defections: Quality Comes toServices”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68,September-October, pp. 105-11.

Specialty Retailing: Markets and Strategies forthe 1990’s, (1986), Find/SVP, New York, NY.

Shostack, G.L. (1981), How to Design aService, Donnelly, J. and George, W.R. (Eds),AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 221-9.

Survey of Current Business (1983, 1993), USDepartment of Commerce Economics andStatistics Administration, Washington DC.

1990 Census of Population and Housing(1991), US Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.

Webster, C. (1989), “Can Consumers beSegmented on the Basis of Their ServiceQuality Expectations?”, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 3, Spring, pp. 35-53.

AppendixMethodA sample purchased from Survey SamplingInc. resulted in a random sample of 861deliverable questionnaires. The sample wasstratified to represent household populationsacross the Southeastern United Statesincluding Alabama, Georgia, Florida,Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,and Tennessee that responded to mailedquestionnaires. The Southeastern US wasselected to avoid bias of service perceptionsthat might vary by geographical location. Thefinal sample consisted of 181 usablequestionnaires.

Description of the InstrumentThe first section of the survey consisted ofSERVQUAL “expectation” statementsoperationally defined as what customerswould expect from an ideal specialty apparelstore offering excellent quality service.Following the expectations segment,instructions asked respondents to name aspecialty clothing store which they shopped.Then, based upon the store they indicated,respondents answered questions in the“perceptions” section of the SERVQUAL.This segment consisted of 22 items thatparalleled the expectations segment. For eachof the statements, respondents indicated on ascale from one (strongly disagree) to seven(strongly agree) the extent to which they

JOURNAL OFSERVICES MARKETING

68

believe the specialty store they shopped inhad the features described (see Table I).

In the next section of the survey,respondents allocated a total of 100 pointsamong five retail strategies used to increasestore patronage (Berman and Evans, 1992).Highest point ratings were distributed to thefeature deemed most important. This sectiondetermined the importance of service withrespect to other factors of store patronage (seeTable III).

The final section of the survey concernedpersonal demographics of the surveyrespondent. The demographics were used asindependent variables for the ANOVA’s (seeTable II).

Data AnalysisTo analyze the gap between customerexpectations and perceptions, theexpectations score of each SERVQUALstatement was subtracted from theperceptions score on the correspondingstatement, resulting in 22 measurement items.

Using the 22 gap scores, a five factorprinciple-axis analysis followed by obliquerotation was conducted to analyze the a priori

factors determined by Parasuraman et al.(1991). Due to low eigenvalues, a secondfactor analysis using four factors followed byoblique rotation was performed. This resultedin a greater eigenvalue for each variable anddiminished the variance by only 3 percent.

One way Analysis of Variance was used todetermine if there were significant differencesamong the various demographic categories inregard to the gap scores that measureddisparity between service quality expectationsand perceptions (question one). The meansfor each demographic characteristic withregard for each factor are reported in Table II.

The importance of store service in relationto other possible patronage criteria (questiontwo) was determined through additionalanalysis. By averaging the points allocated toeach variable, it was possible to obtainoverall scores for each variable. A visualinspection rank ordered the patronage criteria(see Table III).

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 11994

69

Kathryn Bishop Gagliano and Jan Hathcote arebased at the University of Georgia, Athens,Georgia, USA