See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241409053

Waiting time influence on the

satisfaction-loyalty relationship in
services

Article in Journal of Service Theory and Practice March 2007

Impact Factor: 0.98 DOI: 10.1108/09604520710735182

CITATIONS READS

52 753

2 authors, including:

Nathalie T. M. Demoulin
IESEG School of Management
19 PUBLICATIONS 195 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Nathalie T. M. Demoulin
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 08 May 2016
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

MSQ
17,2 Waiting time influence on the
satisfaction-loyalty relationship
in services
174
Frederic Bielen
HEC Ecole de Gestion, Universite de Lie`ge, Lie`ge,
Belgium and Ecole de Sante Publique, Universite Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain, Belgium, and
Nathalie Demoulin
IESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France

Abstract
Purpose Delay is an important issue for service providers. Indeed, previous studies have widely
shown the negative effect of waiting time on consumer service satisfaction. However, being satisfied
with the service seems to be insufficient for customers to remain loyal. Creating customer loyalty is
even more crucial than just satisfying them. The paper aims to investigate how customers weigh up
their service satisfaction and waiting time satisfaction in order to determine whether they will remain
loyal or not.
Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted in the Belgian health care industry.
The final sample includes 946 respondents. Regression analyses were performed and the Baron and
Kenny method used to test moderator and mediator impacts of variables.
Findings The results confirm that waiting time satisfaction is not only a service satisfaction
determinant, but it also moderates the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. Moreover, determinants of
customer waiting time satisfaction include the perceived waiting time, the satisfaction with
information provided in case of delays, and the satisfaction with the waiting environment. In addition,
it is shown that waiting time satisfaction is a complete mediating variable in the perceived waiting
time and service satisfaction link.
Originality/value The paper suggests several implications about the waiting time impacts on
service satisfaction and customer loyalty. They show the importance of this variable in the service
process and explain how to improve it.
Keywords Customer loyalty, Customer satisfaction, Service levels
Paper type Research paper

Managing Service Quality
Vol. 17 No. 2, 2007
pp. 174-193
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-4529
DOI 10.1108/09604520710735182
Introduction
Many service companies worry about the length of their queues because customer
waiting time is considered as having a negative influence on consumer service
perception. Time is valued by both partners. On the one hand, service companies may
lose transactions if waiting time is too long; and on the other, consumers consider
waiting time as a sacrifice to get the service. It is one of the reasons that more and more
service customer-oriented companies position their offer on time advantage for
consumers. Lovelock and Gummesson (2004) insist on the central role played by time
in most services and recommend paying more attention to improving the
understanding of how customers perceive, budget, consume and value time.
Several research studies focus on the relationship between waiting time and
satisfaction (Hui and Tse, 1996; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). Many other studies
emphasize the link between customer satisfaction and their loyalty (e.g., Anderson, Waiting time
1994; Dick and Basu, 1994; Fornell et al., 1996; Selnes, 2001; Mittal and Kamakura,
2001; Olsen, 2002). Very few studies focus on the influence of waiting time satisfaction
influence
on loyalty and that is confined to the fast food industry (Law et al., 2004). To the best of
our knowledge, no study has yet evaluated the influence of waiting time or waiting
time satisfaction on the satisfaction-loyalty relationship.
The objective of this research is threefold. We look into the determinants of waiting 175
time satisfaction and examine the mediating role of the latter variable between these
determinants and the service satisfaction. We also investigate the influence of
customer waiting time satisfaction on the existing relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty. A major contribution to this research is the consideration of
waiting time satisfaction as a factor that, in addition to being a determinant of
customer satisfaction, may also moderate the satisfaction-loyalty relationship.

Conceptual background
Waiting time
Service perishability gives rise to many problems for service providers and these
intensify when service demand fluctuates. To tackle this major problem, firms adopt
strategies to match capacity and demand (Bateson and Hoffman, 1999; Lovelock and
Lapert, 1999; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2002). One of the first strategies adopted is to flex
capacity to meet demand. During periods of peak demand, the organization expands its
capacity by adding new resources such as people, facilities and equipment. Second,
companies may try to smooth demand. Companies can motivate consumers by making
their offer more attractive during low demand periods. Companies may also choose to
use reservation in order to spread the demand evenly. However, even with booking,
service providers experience difficulties in minimizing delay in service delivery. When
demand and capacity cannot be aligned, waiting line strategies can still be found.
Among waiting line strategies, we find making wait more fun or tolerable,
differentiating waiting customers and choosing an appropriate waiting line
configuration (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2002). Despite the implementation of all these
strategies, when customer waiting time is too long, companies may indeed make
consumers dissatisfied. Service providers may even miss one or several sale occasions;
and even worse lose a loyal customer, despite an effective service recovery strategy.
But what characterizes a long waiting time?
The waiting time has four aspects: objective, subjective, cognitive and affective:
(1) The objective waiting time is the elapsed time as measured by a stopwatch by
customers before being served (Davis and Vollman, 1990; Katz et al., 1991;
Taylor, 1994).
(2) The subjective waiting time is the customers estimation of time waited. In
previous research studies, the subjective aspect is measured by means of the
perceived waiting time (Hui and Tse, 1996; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998).
Unsurprisingly, the estimated time depends on objectively measured elapsed
time (Hornick, 1984; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998; Antonides et al., 2002).
(3) The cognitive aspect of the wait is the consumers evaluation of the wait as
being (or not being) acceptable, reasonable, tolerable (Durrande-Moreau, 1999)
as well as considered to be short versus long (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998).
MSQ (4) The affective aspect of the wait consists of emotional responses to waiting such
as irritation, boredom, frustration, stress, pleasure, happiness, etc . . . (Taylor,
17,2 1994; Hui and Tse, 1996; Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). According to Pruyn and
Smidts (1998), these affective and cognitive aspects form the appraisal of the wait.
In this study, we use waiting time satisfaction as being the main variable measuring
176 customer evaluation of the wait. According to Maister (1985), the gap between the
perception and expectation for waiting experience determines the customer
satisfaction with waiting. Davis and Heineke (1994) specify Maisters definition,
replacing perception by performance interpretation, noting that perception
depends on both the customers interpretation of the service encounter and the actual
service performance. During the last decade, many definitions of overall satisfaction
have been proposed, underlining the cognitive and/or affective constituents of the
concept (Oliver, 1993). Regarding waiting time, both aspects seem to be appropriate
(Durrande-Moreau, 1999). Consequently, we consider waiting time satisfaction as a
post-experience, judgmental evaluation including both cognitive and affective aspects
of waiting; and measuring the extent to which the perceived waiting period matches
the customers expectations for a specific transaction.

Determinants of waiting time satisfaction

Several factors are considered as leading to evaluation of wait (Maister, 1985). Past
results show evidence that the objective and subjective waiting time have negative
effects on affective and cognitive responses to waiting. Indeed, Taylor (1994) shows that
delay (measured by a combination of objective and subjective aspects) significantly
influences the feelings of anger. Moreover, Pruyn and Smidts (1998) find that the
perceived waiting time affects the cognitive dimension of the wait appraisal.
Consequently, we do consider perceived waiting time as a determinant of waiting
time satisfaction. On the other hand, we do not take into account the objective waiting
time for two reasons. First, previous research studies in the psychophysics and
marketing literature show a significant correlation between perceived and objective
measures of time. Second, customer reactions to waiting are more strongly influenced by
the subjective component of waiting time than by the objective one (Hornick, 1984; Pruyn
and Smidts, 1998). Indeed, real waiting time is an antecedent of perceived waiting time
rather than an antecedent of waiting time satisfaction (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998).
Therefore as presented in our conceptual model shown in Figure 1, we expect that:
H1. The perceived waiting time will negatively affect the customer waiting time
satisfaction.
Others variables determine waiting time satisfaction. These factors are the information
provided in case of delay (Hui and Tse, 1996; Antonides et al., 2002) and the
characteristics of the waiting environment (Pruyn and Smidts, 1998). In addition to
being considered as an economic cost, waiting has an adverse psychological effect;
consumers facing uncertainty about the wait length, experience significant stress.
Studies have suggested that any information on the waiting duration can reduce the
uncertainty of the wait and lower the overall level of stress experienced by consumers
(Maister, 1985). Previous research highlights the impact of queuing information and
waiting duration information on the cognitive and affective aspect of the wait when the
wait is long (Hui and Tse, 1996) and during busy periods (Clemmer and Schneider,
 Waiting time
influence

177

Figure 1.
Waiting time satisfaction:
its hypothetical
determinants and effects
on the satisfaction-loyalty
relationship

1989). Moreover, the uncertainty influences service evaluation through consumers

affective responses to the wait (Taylor, 1994). Consequently, we suggest that reducing
the uncertainty by providing satisfying information about the delay will positively
influence customer waiting time satisfaction:
H2. Customer satisfaction with information provided in case of delay will
positively influence their waiting time satisfaction.
The attractiveness of the waiting environment is related to its physical design in terms
of comfort, space and decor. Service environment influences the affective aspects of
waiting time (Baker and Cameron, 1996). A pleasant environment promotes positive
feelings within consumers. Pruyn and Smidts (1998) show that perceived
attractiveness positively influences the affective response to the wait, a known
component of waiting time satisfaction. So, we anticipate that satisfaction with the
environment will positively affect the customer satisfaction with waiting time:
H3. The greater the satisfaction with the environment, the more waiting time
satisfaction.
In our conceptual framework, we consider the waiting time satisfaction as a key
variable. No other studies explicitly used this specific construct. Pruyn and Smidts
(1998) used the appraisal of the wait as a central concept in their theoretical framework.
The appraisal of the wait included two components: the cognitive and the affective
aspects of wait. In their operationalization of the construct, they used these two
components separately. To our knowledge, no other research has included the three
determinants in the same model.

Waiting time satisfaction and services satisfaction

Along with income and price, time can be considered as a constraint in consumer
purchasing choice (Becker, 1965; Umesh et al., 1989). In choosing a service provider,
MSQ consumers weigh up a number of benefits against the money, effort, and psychic costs
of buying and using the service; time spent in obtaining the service is just such a cost.
17,2 The authors consider waiting time satisfaction and service satisfaction as being two
constructs related to a specific transaction. Service satisfaction is the overall evaluation
of the service transaction and waiting time satisfaction is a determinant of the latter.
Several studies show that delays have negative effects on the overall service
178 evaluation (Katz et al., 1991; Taylor, 1994; Hui and Tse, 1996; Kumar et al., 1997;
Dube-Rioux et al., 1989); and, more precisely, on satisfaction with the service (Pruyn and
Smidts, 1998). Furthermore, customers anger and their evaluation of punctuality affect
the overall service performance (Taylor, 1994). Similarly, Hui and Tse (1996) find that the
affective response to the wait influences the service evaluation. Moreover, Pruyn and
Smidts (1998) demonstrate that the appraisal of wait, i.e. both cognitive and affective
dimensions, positively influence the service satisfaction. Therefore we hypothesize that:
H4. Waiting time satisfaction will positively influence the satisfaction with the
service.
Authors do not agree on the role of the perceived waiting time whether it directly or
indirectly influences (through the cognitive and/or the affective component of waiting
time satisfaction) the service evaluation. Hui and Tses (1996) results indicate that the
perceived waiting duration and the affective response to the wait separately have an
impact on the service evaluation. On the other hand, Pruyn and Smidts (1998)
demonstrate that perceived waiting time influences the service satisfaction through the
appraisal of wait (i.e. both cognitive and affective dimensions). Consistent with Pruyn and
Smidts (1998), we expect that waiting time satisfaction will have a complete mediating
role in the relationship between the perceived waiting time and the service satisfaction.
Indeed, once waiting time satisfaction is considered as being a determinant of the service
satisfaction, the perceived waiting time effect on the service satisfaction will disappear:
H5. The perceived waiting time will have no direct impact on the service
satisfaction but will have an indirect impact through its influence on waiting
time satisfaction.
Information provided in case of delay is not expected to have a direct effect on the
service satisfaction. Indeed, according to Hui and Tses (1996) information about delay
influences the service evaluation through the effect on the acceptability of the wait and
on the affective response to delays. Therefore, we expect that:
H6. The satisfaction with the information provided in case of delay will have no
direct impact on the service satisfaction but will have an impact through its
influence on waiting time satisfaction.
On the other hand, the environment is expected to have a direct effect on service
satisfaction in addition to its indirect effect mentioned in H3. In service literature,
tangibility is considered to be a dimension of perceived service quality (Parasuraman
et al., 1988). This tangible dimension refers, inter alia, to the service facilities, decors,
brochures, signage and employees appearance. Rust and Oliver (1993) treat the service
environment as a particular component of quality. They focus on the structure of the
internal and external environments to provide quality service. Pruyn and Smidts (1998)
show that the perceived attractiveness of the environment influences the service
satisfaction in addition to the appraisal of the wait. Thus, we propose that:
 H7. The satisfaction with the waiting environment will have a direct impact on Waiting time
service satisfaction.
influence
From service satisfaction to service loyalty
The weight of evidence from previous studies suggests that customers evaluation of
waiting time negatively affects the customer satisfaction. Law et al. (2004) focus on the
effect of waiting time and service dimensions on repurchasing behavior and customer 179
satisfaction. Their results indicate that difference in waiting time and wait satisfaction
respectively influences customer satisfaction and repurchasing frequency, dependently
on the timing of the visit. They demonstrate the interest of evaluating the effect waiting
time satisfaction has on the behavioral dimension of loyalty. However, no author has
investigated how waiting time impacts on the customers satisfaction-loyalty relationship
with the service provider. Building the link between customers satisfaction and loyalty is
a priority for companies who have allocated many resources to evaluate their customers
satisfaction. Indeed, customer retention is of prime importance. The cost of retaining an
existing customer is less than the cost of acquiring a new one, or maintaining a newly
acquired customer (Reichheld, 1996). Several studies show evidence that there is a direct
and strongly positive link between customer satisfaction and loyalty (Fornell, 1992;
Anderson, 1994). Customer satisfaction is recognized as being an antecedent of customer
loyalty (Anderson, 1994; Dick and Basu, 1994; Fornell et al., 1996; Bolton, 1998; Mittal and
Kamakura, 2001). Moreover, prior research questioned the linear relationship between
satisfaction and customer loyalty (Anderson and Mittal, 2000; Bowman and Narayandas,
2001). The form of the relationship varies according to the industry, the competitiveness
and the customers willingness/constraint to pursue the relationship (Jones and Sasser,
1995; Mittal and Baldasare, 1996).
Nevertheless, customer satisfaction is not the only predictor of customer loyalty
(Reichheld, 1996). Other factors such as switching barriers (Patterson and Smith, 2003)
and customer characteristics (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001) affect customer loyalty. The
complexity of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty has lead several
authors (Bloemer and De Ruyter, 1999; Homburg and Giering, 2001) to study
moderator effects. Among moderating variables, we find personal characteristics such
as demographic and psychological variables (e.g. variety seeking, age and income)
(Homburg and Giering, 2001).
In this research, we investigate the effect of waiting time satisfaction on the
relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Waiting time
satisfaction can also be considered as a personal variable resulting from an evaluation
of the interaction between the service provider and the client. This interaction concerns
not only the wait, but also the waiting condition (see H1-H3). We expect that waiting
time satisfaction will have a moderating effect on the link between service satisfaction
and loyalty. A moderator effect implies that the moderator variable (the waiting time
satisfaction) modifies the form of the relationship (i.e. the slope of the regression line)
between the independent variable (the service satisfaction) and the dependent variable
(the loyalty). In other words, the effect of the service satisfaction on loyalty varies
according to the satisfaction with the waiting time. Indeed, the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty will be stronger when customers are dissatisfied with waiting
time than the contrary. More precisely, when customers are not satisfied with waiting
time, the service satisfaction should be higher to ensure customer loyalty. Customers
are prepared to wait longer when the service satisfaction is high than when it is low.
MSQ They may consider the waiting time as a sacrifice required to obtain a high level of
service quality. If customer satisfaction with the service is low, they may not accept to
17,2 put up with a long wait. Therefore, they may be disloyal with the service provider on
the next purchasing occasion. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H8. Waiting time satisfaction will moderate the effect of service satisfaction on
loyalty.
180
Method
Survey procedure
The data collected concern the waiting experiences of radiological outpatients in six
hospitals in Belgium. Each of these hospital sites are different in size and are situated
in various regions, all of an urban or semi-urban character. The Belgian health care
industry, and particularly this type of service, is characterized as being competitive.
Patients have the freedom to choose their hospital. Services studied include all types of
radiological examination such as X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, scan, Doppler,
mammography and similar services . . . The study was conducted from Monday to
Friday over three consecutive weeks. In spring 2003, each adult patient having an
appointment in one of the radiological units received a self-administrated satisfaction
questionnaire completed by patients before leaving the hospital. The final sample was
composed of 946 adults. A total of 64 percent of the respondents were female and their
ages covered the whole range from 18 to 92 (mean 54).

Measures
To measure the perceived waiting time, respondents were invited to classify the delay
of their scheduled appointment into one of predefined categories: less than 30 minutes
(79 percent of respondents), between 30 minutes and one hour (18 percent), and more
than one hour (3 percent). Consistent with Pruyn and Smidts (1998), who find that the
maximum acceptable waiting time for the majority of patients does not exceed 30
minutes, we consider two principal categories: more or less than 30 minutes. Waiting
time satisfaction, the satisfaction with information provided in case of delay and the
satisfaction with the waiting environment were measured on five-point scales (ranging
from highly unsatisfactory to highly satisfactory). One item was used for each concept
except for the satisfaction with the waiting environment for which three items were
used. These three items were:
(1) comfort in the waiting room;
(2) seating availability in the waiting room; and
(3) the appearance and decor of the premises.
These items reveal to be one-dimensional (a factor analysis indicates that the three
items load on the same factor and explain 80 percent of the total variance) with a good
reliability (Cronbach alpha 0:87). A composite scale representing satisfaction with
the waiting environment was formed by averaging these items. Then, the overall
satisfaction of the patients visit to the radiological unit was measured by asking
subjects to give their global evaluation of the service experience (on five-point semantic
scale ranging from highly dissatisfied to highly satisfied). Outpatients loyalty was
assessed by asking respondents if they intended to recommend this service unit to
relatives and their intention to choose the same hospital in case of necessity to undergo
another radiological examination (on five-point semantic scale from certainly not to Waiting time
certainly). These variables represent the behavioral-intention dimension of loyalty
(Zeithaml et al., 1996; Chauduri and Holbrook, 2001). This scale appears to be
influence
one-dimensional (a factor analysis reveals that the two items load on the same factor
and explain 89.75 percent of the total variance) with a high reliability (Cronbach
alpha 0:88). A composite scaled was formed with these two items. Finally, two
questions enabled to distinguish patients in terms of their age and sex. 181

Results
Determinants of waiting time satisfaction
In order to study the determinants of waiting time satisfaction, we performed a
regression analysis. The results are presented in Table I. The dependent variable is
waiting time satisfaction and the independent variables[1] are the perceived waiting
time, the satisfaction with the information provided in case of delay and the
satisfaction with the waiting environment. Our results support H1, H2 and H3, that is,
the significant role of perceived waiting time (t 27:13, p , 0:0001), the satisfaction
with information provided in case of delay (t 13:87, p , 0:0001) and the satisfaction
with the waiting environment (t 6:44, p , 0:0001).

Relationship between service satisfaction and waiting time satisfaction

In line with Pruyn and Smidts (1998), we evaluated the significance of the link with
waiting time satisfaction and service satisfaction. We tested the relationship between
customer satisfaction with the service and waiting time satisfaction by means of a
regression analysis. Unsurprisingly, results presented in Table II support H4
(t 13:12; p , 0:0001).
In order to test H5, i.e., whether waiting time satisfaction is, as expected, a
mediating variable in the relationship between the perceived waiting time and the
satisfaction with the service, we checked four conditions suggested by Baron and
Kenny (1986). We tested a complete mediating effect of the variable M (the waiting
time satisfaction) on the relationship between X (the perceived waiting time) and Y (the
service satisfaction). First, we performed two regressions (1) and (2): in each case X is
the independent variable, whereas the dependent variable is Y for the first regression,
and M for the second one:

Waiting time satisfaction

Unstandardized Standard Standardized
Variables beta error beta t-stat Hypothesis

Intercept 0.94 * 0.17 5.58

Perceived waiting time 20.67 * 0.09 20.24 27.13 H1
Satisfaction with the
information 0.47 * 0.03 0.54 13.87 H2
Satisfaction with the waiting
environment 0.31 * 0.05 0.25 6.44 H3
Adjusted R-square 0.632 Table I.
Determinants of waiting
Notes: * p , 0:01; n 355 time satisfaction
MSQ Y b01 b11 X 1
17,2
M b02 b12 X 2
The two first conditions are: X must significantly determine Y and M (b11 and b12
must be significantly higher than zero). To check the third and fourth ones, we must
182 perform a third regression analysis (3) in which the dependent variable is Y and the
independent variables are X and M. To have a complete mediating effect, the
regression coefficient of M (b23) must be significant (third condition) whereas that of X
must not be (fourth condition):
Y b03 b13 X b23 M : 3
Our results presented in Table III confirm H5. Indeed, the four conditions are fulfilled.
Perceived waiting time influences the satisfaction with the service (t 24:36,
p , 0:0001) and waiting time satisfaction (t 211:38, p , 0:0001). As expected, the
perceived waiting time effect is not significant (t 0:28, p 0:78) when we consider
waiting time satisfaction as a determinant of the service satisfaction (t 11:34, ,0.0001).
In order to test H6 and H7, we conducted similar analyses with, the satisfaction
with the information provided in case of delay, and the satisfaction with the waiting
environment, respectively instead of the perceived waiting time. Our results presented
in Tables IV and V show that in addition to the indirect effect demonstrated in H2 and
H3, both the satisfaction with the information provided in case of delay and the
satisfaction with the waiting environment have a direct impact on service satisfaction
(t 4:52, p , 0:0001 and t 5:89, p , 0:0001). Therefore, H6 is not confirmed
because we do not expect that satisfaction with information provided in case of delay
will influence the service satisfaction. On the other hand, H7, according to which the
satisfaction with the waiting environment directly has an impact on the service
satisfaction, is supported by the results.

Moderating effect of the satisfaction with waiting time on the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty
Before testing H8, we first of all questioned the linearity of the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty. As suggested by previous research, we tested four types of
shape: linear (LIN), exponential (EXP), logarithmic (LOG) and S-curve (Jones and
Sasser, 1995; Anderson and Mittal, 2000). The results in Table VI show that the linear
regression has the highest R-square among the four tested. Consequently, linear
regression will be used to test the moderating effect.

Service satisfaction
Unstandardized Standard Standardized
Variables beta error beta t-stat Hypothesis

Intercept 3.08 0.10 29.90

Waiting time satisfaction 0.34 * 0.03 0.44 * 13.12 H4
Table II. Adjusted R-square 0.19
Waiting time satisfaction Sample size 723
as a determinant of
service satisfaction Note: * p , 0:01
 Condition 1 Condition 2 Conditions 3 and 4
Service satisfaction Waiting time satisfaction Service satisfaction
Unstd Std Std Unsted Std Std Unstd Std Std
Variables beta error beta t-stat beta error beta t-stat beta error beta t-stat Hypothesis

Intercept 4.45 * 0.04 113.49 4.07 * 0.05 85.63 3.08 * 0.13 23.81
Perceived waiting
time 20.39 * 0.09 2 0.16 * 24.36 2 1.21 * 0.11 20.42 * 211.38 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.28 H5
Waiting time
satisfaction 0.35 * 0.03 0.45 * 11.34
Adjusted R-square 0.025 0.17 0.20
Sample size 693 616 607
Note: * p , 0:01

satisfaction
waiting time satisfaction
in the relationship
between perceived
influence
Waiting time

waiting time and service

The mediating role of
Table III.
183
 17,2

184
MSQ

Table IV.

in the relationship
The mediating role of

and service satisfaction

between the satisfaction
waiting time satisfaction

provided in case of delay

Condition 1 Condition 2 Conditions 3 and 4
Service satisfaction Waiting time satisfaction Service satisfaction
Variables Unstd beta Std error t-stat Unstd beta Std error t-stat Unstd beta Std error t-stat Hypothesis

Intercept 3.33 * 0.10 33.53 1.32 * 0.11 12.31 3.05 * 0.11 26.52
Satisfaction with the information 0.28 * 0.03 10.80 0.64 * 0.03 22.60 0.17 * 0.04 4.52 H6
Waiting time satisfaction 0.19 * 0.04 4.40
Adjusted R-square 0.21 0.53 0.24
Sample size 450 452 436
Note: * p , 0:01
 Condition 1 Condition 2 Conditions 3 and 4
Service satisfaction Waiting time satisfaction Service satisfaction
Variables Unstd beta Std error t-stat Unstd beta Std error t-stat Unstd beta Std error t-stat Hypothesis

Intercept 3.00 * 0.13 23.49 1.21 * 0.16 7.80 2.66 * 0.14 19.62
Satisfaction with the waiting environment 0.36 * 0.03 11.27 0.65 * 0.04 17.03 0.22 * 0.04 5.89 H7
Waiting time satisfaction 0.22 * 0.03 7.08
Adjusted R-square 0.15 0.29 0.21
Sample size 742 694 694
Note: * p , 0:01

service satisfaction
waiting time satisfaction
in the relationship
influence

waiting environment and

Waiting time

The mediating role of

Table V.

between satisfaction with

185
MSQ H8 proposes that the moderating effect of waiting time satisfaction on the service
satisfaction-loyalty relationship. A moderating effect of waiting time satisfaction on
17,2 the relationship between service satisfaction and loyalty must be characterized by
significant interaction between service and waiting time satisfaction. When
dependent and independent variables are at least interval, a multiple regression
analysis must be conducted. Even if we are concerned by the interaction effect, we
186 must include both service and waiting time satisfaction, the main effects in the
regression (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Irwin and McClelland, 2001). In order to test
H8, we performed a regression analysis with customer loyalty as a dependent
variable; satisfaction with service, waiting time satisfaction and their interaction as
independent variables.
Our results, presented in Table VII, support H8 which confirm the moderating
role of waiting time satisfaction (t 8:43, p , 0:0001) in the satisfaction-loyalty
relationship. The coefficient of the interaction between service satisfaction and
waiting time satisfaction is negative. In order to better grasp waiting time
satisfaction impact on the service satisfaction-loyalty relationship, in Figure 2 we
show the result of the regression shown in Table VII for each potential level of
waiting time satisfaction. This figure indicates that the more satisfied customers are
with waiting time, then the less steep the slope of the relationship between service
satisfaction and loyalty is. Consequently, when the customer is dissatisfied with the
waiting time, the service satisfaction strongly influences customer loyalty. In other
words, the customer must get a higher level of satisfaction from the service to reach
the same level of loyalty.
Furthermore, our results show that waiting time satisfaction (t 10:36, p , 0:0001)
is almost as much determinant[2] of customer loyalty as the satisfaction with the
service (t 13:09, p , 0:0001). These results strengthen the importance of waiting
time satisfaction in marketing.

Dependent variables Shapes R-square df F Sig. b0 b1

Table VI. Loyalty LIN 0.274 855 322.45 0.0000 2.9404 0.3747
The shape of the Loyalty LOG 0.191 855 202.35 0.0000 3.2487 0.9242
relationship between Loyalty EXP 0.262 855 303.56 0.0000 2.8251 0.107
satisfaction and loyalty Loyalty S-curve 0.13 855 127.63 0.0000 1.6336 2 0.5004

Loyalty
Variables Unstandardized beta Standard error t-stat

Intercept 0.52 * 0.26 2.05

Service satisfaction 0.82 * 0.06 13.10
Waiting time satisfaction 0.75 * 0.07 10.37
Service satisfaction *waiting time satisfaction 20.14 * 0.02 2 8.43
Table VII. Adjusted R-square 0.43
The moderating role of Sample size 717
the satisfaction with
waiting time Note: * p , 0:01
Discussion Waiting time
Nowadays, the loyalty concept has probably become at least as important as that of
satisfaction both for marketing academics and managers. Knowledge of the variables
influence
influencing customer loyalty is vital for services providers, who recognize that the
service satisfaction variable alone is insufficient to explain customer loyalty. Our main
contribution is twofold:
(1) the relationship between service satisfaction and loyalty is influenced by 187
waiting time satisfaction; and
(2) the waiting time satisfaction is a key variable which depends on the perceived
waiting time, the satisfaction with the information provided in case of delay and
the satisfaction with the waiting environment.
Our results are summarized in Figure 3.
On the one hand, Hui and Tse (1996) showed the negative influence of perceived
waiting time on customers service satisfaction. On the other hand, Pruyn and Smidts

Figure 2.
Waiting time satisfaction
influence on service
satisfaction-loyalty
relationship

Figure 3.
Waiting time satisfaction
its determinants and its
moderating role in the
service satisfaction and
loyalty relationship:
validation of our
conceptual model
MSQ (1998) demonstrated the positive impact of the appraisal of the wait on customers
satisfaction. However, our results reveal that the perceived waiting time is one of the
17,2 determinants of waiting time satisfaction, but does not directly influence the service
satisfaction. Therefore, further studies about delay in service industries should
consider waiting time satisfaction as a main concept rather than perceived waiting
time. Indeed, the former is a broader concept that takes into account many more factors
188 than the concept of perceived waiting time.
Indeed, in addition to perceived waiting time, we find two other determinants of
waiting time satisfaction: the information provided in case of delay and the satisfaction
with the waiting environment. For the first time, these determinants are
simultaneously integrated in the same model which enables us to discuss their
relative effect.
According to Pruyn and Smidts (1998), the perceived attractiveness of the
environment has an impact on the affective response to the wait and the service
satisfaction. We find that the satisfaction with the waiting environment influences not
only waiting time satisfaction, but also service satisfaction. Tangibles in the
environment influence the service perception and help customers to better tolerate
their wait.
Waiting time duration information influences the affective aspect and the
acceptability of the wait, when it is an average or long wait (Hui and Tse, 1996).
Similarly, our results reveal a positive influence of received information in case of delay
on waiting time satisfaction. However, it is important to point out that its influence is
definitely higher than the waiting environment satisfaction[3].
Information provided in case of delay, in addition to affecting waiting time
satisfaction, also determines service satisfaction. We believe that if customers received
information in case of delay, it means that people in charge of greeting customers are
sensitive to customer needs and take care of their customers welfare. Johnston (1995)
presents sources of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the service industry.
Attentiveness, helpfulness and responsiveness appear to be the most prevalent
satisfying determinants. Information provided in case of delay may reflect the
company/employee attentiveness and empathy towards customers. These results
demonstrate the importance of both physical and social aspects of waiting
environments as key determinants of a customer service evaluation.
Furthermore, we find that, with respect to customer loyalty, waiting time
satisfaction is almost as important as the service satisfaction. Waiting time satisfaction
not only has a direct influence on the service satisfaction, but also has a moderating
effect on the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. The effect of service satisfaction on
loyalty varies according to satisfaction with waiting time. Service satisfaction has a
lower impact on loyalty when customers are satisfied with the waiting time than when
they are not. Indeed, on the one hand, a customer rather dissatisfied with their waiting
time must be highly satisfied with the service to remain loyal. On the other hand, a
customer highly satisfied with the waiting time has a high level of loyalty whatever the
service satisfaction. Consequently, the moderating variable modifies the form of the
relationship between service satisfaction and loyalty.
This result may vary according to the existing exit barriers which prevent
customers changing service providers, the competition, and customers sensitivity to
waiting time. For example, the waiting time satisfaction effect may help us to better
understand the loyalty of so many customers to fast-food restaurants. A critical
question in the customer loyalty debate concerns the relative importance of satisfaction Waiting time
with the catering service as compared with the promptness perception. Which has the
greatest influence on the customer loyalty? Customers come to a compromise between
influence
food quality and speed of service. Moreover, we can speculate that the waiting time
satisfaction may dramatically reduce the amount of effort to make consumers loyal.
According to our results, waiting time management becomes critical in building
customer loyalty; it can no longer be neglected by service providers. 189

Managerial implications
Managers should be aware of the importance of waiting time satisfaction. The latter
not only influences the service satisfaction but also plays a moderating role on the
service satisfaction-loyalty relationship. Therefore, service providers expecting to
establish customer loyalty must enhance the waiting time satisfaction in addition to
service satisfaction. To improve the former, service providers may work on customer
satisfaction with the information provided in case of delays and with the waiting
environment in addition to decreasing the perceived waiting time.
The waiting environment influences not only waiting time satisfaction, but also the
overall evaluation of the service. Unfortunately, many waiting areas are both
inappropriate and uncomfortable places in which to wait. Managers need to distinguish
between waiting areas and other places that customers use in the service process; they
need to pay more attention to the design, layout and fittings in designated waiting areas.
Satisfaction with the information provided in the case of delays influence waiting
time satisfaction more than waiting environment satisfaction. Therefore, investment in
improving services might be better spent on information and communication rather
than on physical facilities. For instance in airports, it might be valuable for travelers to
know how long they will have to wait before picking up their luggage by looking at
information boards that indicate waiting time. Developing waiting time guarantees can
also be considered as a means of informing customers of their expected waiting time.
Such guarantees can increase customer satisfaction or decrease the likelihood of
premature termination of waiting experiences by customers (Kumar et al., 1997).
Our results suggest that if companies have difficulties in reducing their customer
waiting time, they could manage the other elements that make waiting time more
pleasant. The waiting time evaluation is associated with environmental variables
which minimize subjective waste of time. These obviously include distractions such as
television and newspapers; and information such as documentation about services.
Such distractions while waiting intend to minimize this subjective waste of time and
make the wait more enjoyable (Katz et al., 1991). Not enough research has been devoted
to other time valorization devices in service situations such as learning or
entertainment. For instance, we suggested converting a standard waiting room,
which accommodated outpatients after a radiological examination before being taken
back to their rooms into a Rest room. This modification has transformed customers
perceptions of time while they were waiting for staff to take them back to their room.
Furthermore, this question of time valorization has to be considered in a different way
according to the specific characteristics of the customers. Time valorization strategies
should be conditioned by the customers activity, their enthusiasm and motivation, their
time sensitivity and socio-cultural variables as much as emotional variables such as
anxiety level with the service or their impatience of benefiting from it.
MSQ Limits and directions for further research
This research study has some limitations, which can be opportunities for future
17,2 research:
.
A key limitation of this study is the choice of the health care sector where customers
have high level of involvement and retention. The loss of special treatment benefits
and the loss of friendly relationships are the most important exit barriers in this
190 industry (Patterson and Smith, 2003). The extent to which the results of this study
can be generalized to other service sectors is an interesting and important question.
The health care sector provides services for which the presence of the patient is
required. Our results can namely be generalized to services for which the customer
is the subject of the service (e.g. health and beauty care).
.
A limited number of waiting time satisfaction determinants has been considered.
Other determinants (cognitive or affective) or moderating variables could
influence this waiting time satisfaction (e.g. type of information provided in case
of delay, time of the day, service use and knowledge, reception process, etc.).
Moreover, the satisfaction with waiting environment measure may also include
other aspects than those considered in this research.
.
Attitudinal dimension (behavioral intention) indicators of loyalty have been
taken into account in this study. Further research should integrate behavioral
dimension of loyalty.
.
Perceived waiting time has been classified into three different categories. In
future research studies, we recommend using continuous measure of time
perception to improve the knowledge of the moderating effect.
. We suggest testing relationships between waiting time satisfaction and service
failures or crisis, in order to recommend better recovery strategies in a loyalty
perspective.
.
Finally, we consider that consumers characteristics should be considered to
better understand their temporal orientation and the degree to which they value
waiting time. Particular attention should be devoted to customer segments
identified by means of criteria which enable to identify perceived waiting time
tolerance and sensitivity. Undoubtedly, the necessary patience to stand waiting
may change with personal time orientations. Consumer tolerance will vary both
within and between individuals (Mazursky and Ganzach, 1998). Services
managers need to be aware of this and to manage their services accordingly.

Notes
1. Each of them is measured on a five-point satisfaction scale.
2. The hypothesis H0 according to which the b of the service satisfaction is equal to the b of
the waiting time satisfaction is not rejected (p 0:49).
3. The hypothesis H1 according to which the satisfaction with the informations b is higher
than b of the satisfaction with the waiting environment is not rejected (p 0:0034).

References
Anderson, E.W. (1994), Cross-category variation in customer satisfaction and retention,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 185-204.
Anderson, E.W. and Mittal, V. (2000), Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain, Journal of Waiting time
Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 107-20.
Antonides, G., Verhoef, P.C. and Van Aalst, M. (2002), Consumer perception and evaluation of
influence
waiting time: a field experiment, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 193-202.
Baker, J. and Cameron, M. (1996), The effects of the service environment on affect and consumer
perception of waiting time: an integrative review and research propositions, Journal of the 191
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 338-49.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bateson, J.E.G. and Hoffman, K.D. (1999), Managing Services Marketing, The Dryden Press, Fort
Worth, TX.
Becker, G.S. (1965), A theory of the allocation of time, The Economic Journal, Vol. 75 No. 299,
pp. 493-517.
Bloemer, J. and De Ruyter, K. (1999), Customer loyalty in high and low involvement service
settings: the moderating impact of positive emotions, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-31.
Bolton, R. (1998), A dynamic model of the duration of the customers relationship with a
continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction, Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 45-65.
Bowman, D. and Narayandas, D. (2001), Managing customer-initiated contacts with
manufacturers: the impact on share of category requirements and word of mouth
behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 281-97.
Chauduri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 81-93.
Clemmer, E. and Schneider, B. (1989), Toward understanding and controlling customer
dissatisfaction with waiting, working paper No. 89-115, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
Davis, M.M. and Heineke, J. (1994), Understanding the roles of the customer and the operation
for better queue management, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 21-34.
Davis, M.M. and Vollman, T.E. (1990), A framework for relating waiting time and customer
satisfaction in a service operation, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 61-9.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 3-16.
Dube-Rioux, L., Schmitt, B.H. and Leclerc, F. (1989), Consumers reaction to waiting: when
delays affect the perception of service quality, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16,
pp. 112-25.
Durrande-Moreau, A. (1999), Waiting for service: ten years of empirical research, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 171-78.
Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60,
October, pp. 7-18.
MSQ Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship
between customer satisfaction and loyalty an empirical analysis, Psychology and
17,2 Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Hornick, J. (1984), Subjective vs objective time measures: a note on the perception of time in
consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 614-18.
Hui, M.K. and Tse, D.K. (1996), What to tell consumers in waits of different lengths:
192 an integrative model of service evaluation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Irwin, J.R. and McClelland, G.H. (2001), Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple
regression models, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 100-9.
Johnston, R. (1995), The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 53-71.
Jones, T.O. and Sasser, E.W. (1995), Why satisfied customers defect, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 88-99.
Katz, K.L., Larson, B.M. and Larons, R.C. (1991), Prescription for the waiting-in-line blues:
entertain, enlighten and engage, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 44-53.
Kumar, P., Kalwani, M.U. and Dada, M. (1997), The impact of waiting time guarantees on
customers waiting experiences, Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 295-314.
Law, A.K.Y., Hui, Y.V. and Zhao, X. (2004), Modeling repurchase frequency and customer
satisfaction for fast food outlets, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 545-63.
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004), Whiter services marketing? In search of a new
paradigm and fresh perspectives, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 20-41.
Lovelock, C. and Lapert, D. (1999), Marketing des Services: Strategie, Outils, Management, Publi
Union Editions, Paris.
Maister, D.H. (1985), The psychology of waiting lines, in Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R. and
Surprenant, C.F. (Eds), The Service Encounter, Lexington Books/DC Heath, London.
Mazursky, D. and Ganzach, Y. (1998), Does involvement moderate time-dependent biases in
consumer multiattribute judgment?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 95-104.
Mittal, V. and Baldasare, P.M. (1996), Eliminate the negative, Journal of Health Care Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 24-31.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 131-42.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-30.
Olsen, S.A. (2002), Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction,
and repurchase loyalty, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 240-9.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T. (2003), A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and propensity
to stay with service providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 107-20.
Pruyn, A. and Smidts, A. (1998), Effects of waiting on the satisfaction with the service: beyond Waiting time
objective time measures, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 321-34. influence
Reichheld, F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting
Value, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), Service quality: insights and managerial implications from
the frontier, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory 193
and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Selnes, F. (2001), An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation,
satisfaction and loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 19-35.
Taylor, S. (1994), Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and evaluations of
service, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 56-69.
Umesh, U.N., Pettit, K.L. and Bozman, C.S. (1989), Shopping model of the time-sensitive
consumer, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 715-30.
Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, J. (2002), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the
Firm, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York, NY.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of service
quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.

Further reading
Hornick, J. (1993), The role of affect in consumers temporal judgments, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 81-90.

About the authors

Frederic Bielen is a Visiting Professor at HEC Management School of the University of Liege and
at the School of Public Health of Catholic University of Louvain, in Belgium. He is the co-founder
and owner of BSM Management, a consulting firm, also working in the field of in-company
training, dedicated to services profit and not-profit organizations. Specialized in market
orientation and service quality, he is currently involved in several projects investigating and
helping the implementation process of the patient orientation in the health sector and client
orientation in services companies.
Nathalie Demoulin is Assistant Professor in Marketing at Ieseg School of Management
Catholic University of Lille in France. Her PhD deals with the marketing managers
decision-making process and the impact of marketing decision support systems (MDSS) on
managers. Her recent research interests are related to customers loyalty in services and retailing
industries. She examines waiting time perception as well as the effect of loyalty cards. Nathalie
Demoulin is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: N.Demoulin@ieseg.fr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints