英语论文网

t he/she can update his/her satisfaction and repatronage intent. Transaction-specific satisfaction (e.g., Oliver 1981; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry 1994) is usually considered to be a post-choice evaluative verdict of a specific purchase and consumption experience (e.g., Anderson and Fornell 1994).

In a two-stage field study, consumers' intentions to contribute in a flu vaccination campaign depended on their satisfaction and attitudes towards a prior federal flu program (Oliver 1980). Similarly, Bearden and Teel (1983) showed that customers' intentions regarding automobile repair and service outlets depended on their approach, which were prejudiced by their satisfaction judgments. This notion is supported by many studies that show a positive correlation between cumulative satisfaction and repatronage intentions across individuals within the same firm (Churchill and Suprenant 1982; Oliver and DeSarbo 1988; Spreng, Harrell and Mackoy 1995).

In discussing the connection between customer satisfaction and repatronage intentions, managers and scholars have begun to distinguish between customer satisfaction and customer delight (e.g., Rust, Zahorik and Keiningham 1995).

This distinction is used to underline the notion that customers' repatronage intentions may become increasingly favorable at superior levels of satisfaction or unfavorable at inferior levels of satisfaction. For example, Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1993) have proposed the existence of a “zone of tolerance” beyond which customers respond more favorably to service.

Oliver, Rust and Varki (1997) squabble that delight is a combination of pleasure and arousal (whereas satisfaction is a mixture of pleasure and disconfirmation), and show that both satisfaction and delight can manipulate repatronage intentions.

In other words, it is not easy to observe the positive effects of service recovery when revival are “controlled” to be excellent, it will be tremendously challenging for firms to achieve these effects given the heterogeneity inherent to service employee behavior and the unpredictability in service failures that occur. Therefore, it may be risky and even somewhat dangerous for organizations to welcome service failures as opportunities to delight customers. Rather, organizations may be better served by spotlight on the importance of doing it right the very first time.

Most quantitative measures of service quality have used linear measures of performance, despite a suggestion that consumers' response to quality improvement may be non linear (Cronin 2003; Galloway 1999). One non-linear approach, empirically undeveloped, is the concept of “customer delight', defined as an unexpectedly high level of service quality which surpasses expectations (Cronin 2003). However, like experience, delight may be a transient concept, because today's delights form the basis of tomorrow's basic expectations.

First, we need to define what is meant by “Customer Experience” which the new generation of managers is set to manage. Unfortunately, there is no consistent understanding of the concept. Discussion of customers' experiences has along tradition in economic analysis, for example, Abbott (1955), cited in Holbrook (2006), noted that 'What people actually desire are not products, but satisfying occurrence. People desire products because they want the experience which they expect the products