See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/243459837

The effect of servicescapes on customers’ behavioral intentions in leisure

service settings

Article in Journal of Services Marketing · December 1996

DOI: 10.1108/08876049610148594

CITATIONS READS

957 27,933

2 authors:

Kirk L. Wakefield Jeffrey Blodgett

Baylor University University of Houston – Victoria
62 PUBLICATIONS 8,906 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 6,752 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kirk L. Wakefield on 01 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An executive summary
for managers and The effect of the servicescape on
executives can be found
at the end of this article customers’ behavioral intentions
in leisure service settings
Kirk L. Wakefield and Jeffrey G. Blodgett

Service encounters of Services research to date has focussed mainly on service encounters of
short duration relatively short duration, such as those in travel agencies, banking,
insurance, dry cleaning, pest control, fast-food restaurants, and public
utilities (see Bitner, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al.,
1991). In these types of service encounter customers typically spend only a
brief period of time inside the service facility (if at all, as in the case of pest
control or utilities). In these cases, service quality is apt to be perceived by
customers primarily on the basis of intangible factors such as reliability,
responsiveness, assurance and empathy (see Parasuraman et al., 1988), and
less on the tangible aspects, such as the physical facilities of the service
provider (i.e., the servicescape; see Bitner, 1992). For example, customers of
dry cleaners are likely to place greater emphasis on how long it takes to have
the clothes cleaned (i.e., reliability and responsiveness) and how courteous
the personnel are (i.e., assurance) than on the aesthetics of the dry cleaning
facility.

Importance of quality Leisure services (such as amusement parks, water slide parks, concert halls,
of servicescape in theaters, recreation or health clubs, hotels, resorts, cruises, and sporting
leisure services events, etc.), on the other hand, generally require customers to spend
extended periods of time in the physical surroundings of the service provider
(see Turley and Fugate, 1992). In such cases, the perceived quality of the
servicescape may play an important role in determining whether or not
consumers are satisfied, which in turn influences how long they desire to
stay in the facility (and hence how much money they will spend) and
whether or not they intend to repatronize the leisure service provider. For
example, while it may be obvious that customers at an upscale restaurant
will evaluate the quality of the food and the service personnel, other factors,
such as the quality of the architecture, layout and interior design of the
facility, may strongly influence how long customers will stay in the
restaurant and how often they will return to it. Likewise, the layout and
design of a stadium or arena may partly determine whether sports fans will
stay for the entire game or exit early to avoid congestion at crowded games.
The servicescape is especially salient when one considers other leisure
services such as Six Flags, Disney World, Carnival Cruise Lines, and Club
Med.

Servicescape framework This paper builds on selected aspects of Bitner’s (1992) servicescape
framework (see Figure 1), which illustrates the effects of the servicescape on
customers’ behavioral responses such as approach/avoidance, spending
money, and repatronage intentions, etc. In this paper we examine the effects
of layout accessibility, facility aesthetics, electronic equipment, seating
comfort, and cleanliness on the perceived quality of the servicescape. We
hypothesize that perceived quality will have a positive effect on customer
satisfaction with the servicescape, which in turn will affect how long

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996, pp. 45-61  MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0887-6045 45
 Environmental Holistic Internal Behavior
dimensions environment responses

Ambient conditions
• Temperature
• Air quality
• Noise
• Music
• Odor
• Etc.

Space/function Perceived Customer Approach/

• Layout servicescape responses avoidance
• Equipment (perceived
• Furnishings (satisfaction) (stay, return)
quality)
• Etc.

Signs, symbols
and artefacts
• Signage
• Personal artefacts
• Style of decor
• Etc.

Source: Adapted from Bitner’s (1992) Framework for Understanding

Environment-user Relationships in Service Organizations
Figure 1. Servicescape framework

customers desire to stay in the leisure service setting and whether they
intend to repatronize the service provider. The hypothesized model is shown
in Figure 2.

Theoretical importance This paper is of both theoretical and managerial importance. First, although
theory related to service environments has been well developed, little
consumer research has been conducted to test some of the basic relationships
in Bitner’s (1992) servicescape framework. Wakefield and Blodgett (1994)
examined the overall effect of perceived quality and satisfaction with the
servicescape on repatronage intentions; however, in their model they did not

Environmental Holistic Internal Behavioral

dimensions environment response intentions

Layout
accessibility
H1

Facility Repatronage
aesthetics H2 intentions
H7

Perceived H6 Satisfaction
Seating H3
quality of with
comfort servicescape servicescape
H4
H8
Electronic
equipment/ Desire to
H5
displays stay

Facility
cleanliness

Figure 2. Hypothesized model

46 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 explicitly identify the key elements that determine servicescape quality.
Second, little consumer research has been conducted in the area of leisure
services (Taylor et al., 1993). Researchers have spent considerable effort on
exchanges which primarily provide utilitarian satisfaction, but have
expended much less effort on products or services which are consumed for
more hedonistic purposes (see Babin et al., 1994) for extended periods of
time (e.g. Arnould and Price 1993; Price et al., 1995). It is important to
study these types of services, considering that Americans spend tens of
billions of dollars annually on spectator amusements (movies, theaters,
sporting events) and commercial participant amusements (video arcades,
water slide parks, amusement parks, casinos, golf courses, etc.). Finally, by
providing more insight into the various elements of the servicescape leisure
service managers may have a better idea as how to enhance the perceived
quality of their facilities.

Servicescape dimensions
Three primary Bitner (1992) identifies three primary dimensions of the servicescape (see
dimensions of the Figure 1) that influence customers’ holistic perceptions of the servicescape
servicescape (i.e. perceived quality) and their subsequent internal (i.e. satisfaction with
the servicescape) and external responses (i.e. approach/avoidance, staying,
repatronage). These dimensions are:
(1) ambient conditions (i.e. weather, temperature, air quality, noise, music,
odors),
(2) spatial layout and functionality (i.e. the way in which equipment and
furnishings are arranged, and the ability of those items to facilitate
consumers’ enjoyment), and
(3) signs, symbols and artefacts (i.e. signage and décor used to
communicate and enhance a certain image or mood, or to direct
customers to desired destinations).
From a facility planning and management standpoint the second and third
dimensions are more commonly referred to as “interior layout and design”
(Brauer, 1992), or what Bitner (1992) succinctly labels as the “built
environment.” We focus on the built environment since it can be controlled,
to a large extent, by management. Conversely, we do not focus on ambient
conditions in this study since they can be more difficult to control,
particularly in some leisure field settings, such as open-air stadiums or
theaters, amusement parks, and other outdoor settings.

The servicescape model: hypotheses

Interior layout and Five servicescape factors that parallel the primary elements of interior layout
design and design as suggested by Baker et al. (1994), Bitner (1992) and Brauer
(1992) are layout accessibility, facility aesthetics, seating comfort, facility
cleanliness, and electronic equipment and displays. In this section we will
define and discuss these five servicescape factors in more detail, and present
our hypotheses.

Layout accessibility
Within the leisure service context, layout accessibility refers to the way in
which furnishings and equipment, service areas, and passageways are
arranged, and the spatial relationships among these elements (Bitner, 1992).
An effective layout will provide for ease of entry and exit, and will make
ancillary service areas such as concessions, restrooms, and souvenir stands
more accessible. Just as the layout in discount stores and banks facilitates the

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 47

 fulfillment of functional needs (Baker et al., 1994; Rinne and Swinyard,
1992), an interesting and effective servicescape layout may also facilitate
fulfillment of hedonic or pleasure needs. That is, by making ancillary service
areas more accessible customers are able to spend more time enjoying the
primary service offering. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:
H1: Layout accessibility will have a positive effect on the perceived
quality of the servicescape.

Facility aesthetics
Attractiveness of Facility aesthetics are a function of architectural design, as well as interior
the exterior design and décor, both of which contribute to the attractiveness of the
servicescape. From an external viewpoint, as customers approach or drive by
restaurants, casinos, stadiums and other leisure services they are likely to
evaluate the attractiveness of the exterior of the facility. Once inside the
service facility, customers of leisure services often spend hours observing
(consciously and subconsciously) the interior of the facility. These
evaluations are apt to influence their attitudes toward the place (Baker et al.,
1988; Kerin et al., 1992). In addition to the appeal of the facility’s
architectural design, customers may be affected by the color schemes of the
facility walls, façades, floor coverings, and seats. Unpainted or dull colored
façades, seats, and steps may be relatively unattractive compared with
brightly colored walls, seats, and steps (see Tom et al., 1987). Other aspects
of interior design, such as ornamental signs, banners, pictures, and other
fixtures, may also serve to enhance the perceived quality of the servicescape.
We hypothesize that:
H2: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on the perceived quality
of the servicescape.

Seating comfort
Customers of leisure Seating comfort is likely to be a particularly salient issue for customers of
services must sit for a leisure service settings who must sit for a number of hours observing or
number of hours participating in some form of entertainment. Seating comfort is affected by
both the physical seat itself and by the space between the seats. Some seats
may be comfortable/uncomfortable because of their design or condition
(new vs deteriorating, padded vs nonpadded, bench seats vs seats with
backs). Seats may also be comfortable/uncomfortable because of their
proximity to other seats; customers may be physically and psychologically
uncomfortable (see Barker and Pearce, 1990) if they are forced to sit too
close to the customers next to them. Indeed, previous research related to
perceived crowding (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990; Hui and Bateson, 1991)
suggests that cramped seating quarters are likely to be perceived as
displeasing and of poor quality. The amount of space between rows of seats
is also an important dimension, in that it affects the ease with which
customers may exit their seats to use ancillary service areas (i.e. restrooms,
concession areas, etc.). Furthermore, when rows are too narrow other
customers are frequently forced to stand or shift in their seats to let other
customers pass by. Based on previous research the following hypothesis is
offered:
H3: Seating comfort will have a positive effect on the perceived quality
of the servicescape.

Electronic equipment and displays

Electronic equipment and displays are signs/symbols/artefacts that can be
used to enhance the leisure experience. Some electronic equipment is used to

48 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 deliver and enhance the primary service offering. For example, high quality
projection and sound systems at some movie theaters and concert halls, and
the type and quality of video or slot machines at arcades or casinos, can have
a positive impact on customers’ overall perceptions of the servicescape.
Other electronic equipment is ancillary, in that it is used to display
information and entertain customers during gaps in the primary service
offering (e.g. in between plays or periods at sporting events). This type of
electronic display can play an important part in the servicescape because it
makes waiting times more pleasurable. For example, in sports settings
modern graphic scoreboards can be used to generate excitement in between
innings or periods. Besides providing game scores and player information,
some scoreboards allow for sports trivia quizzes, instant replays, and
highlight videos that keep customers entertained throughout the event.
Accordingly, we hypothesize that:
H4: Electronic equipment and displays will have a positive effect on the
perceived quality of the servicescape.

Cleanliness
Cleanliness associated Cleanliness is an important part of the servicescape, especially in those
with quality situations in which customers must spend several hours in the leisure service
setting. Many consumers implicitly associate cleanliness with the quality of
the servicescape. For example, whether or not floors and carpets are clean,
whether restrooms are polished and disinfected, whether or not concession
areas are kept clean, and whether garbage cans are overflowing or if they are
continually emptied, etc., will affect the perceived quality of the service
facility. Indeed, cleanliness has been found to exert a strong influence on
consumers’ perceptions of retail stores and services (Garry and Sansolo,
1993; Martin, 1986; Miller, 1993).

From a management standpoint there are two aspects to cleanliness; pre-

event preparation and ongoing cleanup. Ideally, a leisure service provider
should not only work to prepare the servicescape prior to customers’ arrival,
but should also monitor the servicescape and maintain cleanliness
throughout the leisure service event. However, some leisure service
providers do little or no monitoring of the servicescape beyond the pre-event
preparation by janitorial personnel. Restrooms and concession areas may
become overflowing with trash and spilled drinks by the middle and latter
parts of the event (i.e. the concert, the game, etc.). In these types of situation
customers are likely to become dissatisfied. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H5: Cleanliness will have a positive effect on the perceived quality of the
servicescape.

Perceived quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions

Positive responses Bitner’s (1992) framework suggests that positive responses (e.g.
will result in approach satisfaction) to overall perceptions of servicescapes (e.g. perceived quality)
behavior will result in approach behavior (attraction, stay/explore, spend money and
return). Two crucial concerns for leisure services managers are, first, how
long consumers will desire to stay in the establishment once they enter, and
second, whether they will want to repatronize the establishment in the future.
Customers may initially patronize the establishment because of their interest
in the primary service offering, but may not return if they are not satisfied
with the physical surroundings of the leisure setting.

While repatronage is obviously vital to the ongoing success of the leisure

service provider, the length of time customers stay in the servicescape

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 49

 should also be a fundamental consideration for management, because in
most leisure servicescape settings, the longer one stays in the facility the
more money one is likely to spend. Indeed, research in retail shopping has
found a positive relationship between time spent in the facility and money
spent (O’Neill, 1992). Similarly, an important goal for leisure service
management is to create and maintain a satisfying environment to influence
customers to want to stay as long as possible.

Satisfaction influences Prior research suggests that the length of time that customers will desire to
both length of stay and stay in the leisure service setting, and whether they will repatronize the
repatronage service provider, is in part a function of their satisfaction with the
servicescape (Bateson and Hui, 1992; Hui and Bateson, 1991). Based on
Bitner’s framework and on previous service quality research (see Cronin and
Taylor, 1994; Parasuraman et al., 1994), we expect the same
quality→satisfaction→behavioral intentions relationship to hold in regard to
servicescapes. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H6: The perceived quality of the servicescape will have a positive effect
on customers’ satisfaction with the servicescape.
H7: Consumers’ satisfaction with the servicescape will have a positive
effect on the length of time they desire to stay in the servicescape.
H8: Customers’ satisfaction with the servicescape will have a positive
effect on their repatronage intentions.

Research methodology and findings

Procedure
Three leisure The model was tested in three leisure service settings in which customers
service settings spend moderate amounts of time, and which are increasingly familiar to the
majority of American consumers: major college football, minor league
baseball, and casinos. With the recent influx of new casinos (as riverboat and
reservation gambling has been approved in many states) and new or
renovated sports facilities in professional and college sports, these types of
service encounter are dominant outlets for Americans’ leisure expenditures.
Americans have been spending approximately $13 billion a year in casinos
and $3 billion a year on professional and collegiate sporting events, and
there are expectations of continued growth in both markets (Waddell, 1993;
Waddell and Muret, 1994). Furthermore, the ticket purchase to a sporting
event is typically accompanied by nearly equal or greater expenditures on
complementary purchases (i.e. food, beverages, souvenirs) within the
servicescape itself (see Helyar, 1994) and results in significant economic
effects on the local community (i.e. money spent on parking, lodging,
restaurants, gasoline, gifts, etc.).

Field study approach A field study approach was chosen because subjects are in a position to
observe and experience the servicescape directly and to offer more valid
responses than if surveyed outside the service encounter. Therefore, data
were collected via a self-report questionnaire at five different major college
football stadiums, two minor league (AA) baseball games in a large southern
city, and at three different casinos in Reno, Nevada. Appropriate minor
changes were made in the wording of survey items (as noted in Table AI in
the Appendix) across the three different settings. In the football setting, a
systematic random sample of 3,600 consumers resulted in a 39.4 percent
response rate, while in the baseball setting a systematic random sample of
600 consumers resulted in a 54.6 percent usable response rate. A stratified

50 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 quota sampling of the three casinos (100 at each casino across weekday and
weekend patrons) resulted in a 90.67 percent usable response rate.

Research findings
LISREL VII (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1990) was used to test the servicescape
model. The model fitted the data reasonably well across all three settings, as
evidenced by the GFI, Tucker-Lewis, and CFI fit indices (see Table I).
Overall, these results provide strong support for the servicescape model.
(See the Appendix for a more complete discussion of how the model was
tested.)

Layout accessibility and H1 and H2 were fully supported, with layout accessibility (H1) and facility
facility aesthetics aesthetics (H2) having positive effects on perceived quality across each of
the three leisure settings (see Table AI). H3 and H4 were partially supported.
In the football and baseball samples seating comfort (H3) had a positive
effect on perceived quality. However, the effect of seating on perceived
quality was nonsignificant in the casino sample. Electronic equipment and
displays (H4) had a positive effect on perceived quality in both the football
and casino samples. However, in the baseball sample, the effect of electronic
equipment and displays on perceived quality was nonsignificant. H5 was
fully supported; cleanliness had a positive impact on perceived quality in
each of the three samples, particularly in the casino sample. Together, these
five variables (layout accessibility, facility aesthetics, seating comfort,

Football Baseball Casino

Standardized coefficients
H1 Layout → PQ 0.188 0.262 0.188
H2 Aesthetics → PQ 0.395 0.332 0.286
H3 Seating → PQ 0.139 0.137 0.017*
H4 Electronics → PQ 0.144 0.046* 0.158
H5 Cleanliness → PQ 0.103 0.183 0.389
H6 PQ → satisfaction 0.938 0.804 0.899
H7 Satisfaction → repatronage 0.321 0.342 0.330
H8 Satisfaction → staying 0.549 0.557 0.837
Fit indices
n 715a 273 275
χ2115 321.49 182.98 251.02
ρ 0.000 0.000 0.000
GFI 0.95 0.93 0.91
Tucker-Lewis 0.97 0.97 0.95
CFI 0.98 0.98 0.96
SMC (quality) (%) 54.4 58.6 69.3
SMC (satisfaction) (%) 88.1 64.6 80.8
SMC (repatronage) (%) 11.1 11.9 8.7
SMC (staying) (%) 13.2 22.4 47.3
Notes:
All coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level, unless otherwise noted
a
For modeling purposes, a subsample (approximately 50 percent) of the larger data set was
selected
* Not significant

Table I. The servicescape structural model: standardized coefficients and fit

indices

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 51

 electronic displays and equipment, and cleanliness) explained between 54-69
percent of the variance of perceived quality.

H6, H7 and H8 were all fully supported. As hypothesized, perceived quality

(H6) had a positive effect on satisfaction across all three leisure settings,
explaining between 65-88 percent of its variance. Satisfaction, in turn, had a
positive effect on the length of time customers desired to stay in at the
leisure service (H8) and on their repatronage intentions (H7). Across the
three samples, satisfaction explained between 9-12 percent of the variance of
respondents’ repatronage intentions, and 13-47 percent of the variance of
desire to stay.

Discussion and implications

This study illustrates that the servicescape has a relatively consistent and
strong effect on the length of time customers desire to stay in the leisure
service setting and on their repatronage intentions. These findings provide
support for the central premiss of this paper, that the servicescape is an
important determinant of customers’ behavioral intentions when the service
is consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and customers spend moderate
to long periods of time in the servicescape. In the next section we will
discuss these findings in more detail, and will elaborate on the managerial
implications of the five servicescape factors.

The effect of satisfaction on repatronage intentions and desire to stay

Satisfaction with Satisfaction with the servicescape was found to have a positive effect on
servicescape customers’ repatronage intentions. This finding illustrates the importance of
the servicescape in keeping customers coming back to the leisure service
provider. Managers who focus entirely on the service event itself may be
failing to satisfy customers completely. In order to maximize customer
satisfaction, leisure service managers should constantly evaluate the quality
of their servicescape through visual inspection, customer comments, and by
comparison with competitors. It might also be beneficial to hire an outside
consultant to evaluate the quality of the servicescape and make
recommendations. Some leisure service managers may, over time, become
so accustomed to the servicescape that they do not recognize deficiencies,
and hence may be losing customers because of the servicescape when the
primary service offering is otherwise of satisfactory quality.

Keeping customers Satisfaction with the servicescape also had a positive impact on the length of
within the facility time customers desired to stay in the servicescape. Keeping customers in the
facility as long as possible is a critical concern for leisure service operators,
because customers are likely to spend additional monies on concessions and
souvenirs, etc. Sales of these high margin items often generate as much
profit as admission revenues, or more. Customers who leave “early” owing
to dissatisfaction with the servicescape are going to spend less money on
concessions and souvenirs (at ballgames or themeparks), video games and
slot machines (at arcades and casinos), or on drinks and desserts (at
restaurants). In order to motivate customers to stay for longer periods of
time, and hence increase profits, leisure service operators need to create and
maintain an interesting and high quality servicescape.

Interestingly, satisfaction with the servicescape consistently had a stronger

effect on customers’ desire to stay than on their repatronage intentions,
particularly in the casino sample (see Table AI). This finding indicates that

52 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 although customers may be attracted to leisure services for a variety of
reasons, it is their satisfaction with the servicescape (in large part) that keeps
them there. Some customers may be attracted to the leisure service provider
because they are highly involved with that particular type of leisure service,
while others are variety seekers who patronize the leisure service provider
occasionally for “a change of pace.” However, once inside the leisure
service setting, the length of time these customers stay is largely dependent
on their satisfaction with the servicescape. Thus, service operators who
provide a good primary service may not be maximizing profits if they do not
also provide it in an enjoyable, high quality environment.

The effects of the servicescape on perceived quality

Issues of aesthetic Facility aesthetics. The primary determinant of perceived servicescape
quality quality in this study was the aesthetic appeal of the facility architecture and
decor. Often customers form a first impression about a service provider
based on the appearance of the facilities. In the case of many leisure
services, the servicescape is the object of constant observation and
evaluation, thus intensifying the effect. While the issue of changing
architectural design would be a major decision, managers should not
overlook some other basic issues of aesthetic quality. Simple tasks such as
repainting the facility, adding new carpeting, adding decorative fixtures such
as pictures or other interesting props, or completely changing the interior
decor may be necessary to enhance the attractiveness of the servicescape.
Managers whose principal focus is on delivering the primary service may be
losing ancillary sales, and may be losing customers who are reluctant to
repatronize the service provider owing to the poor aesthetic quality of the
servicescape.

Layout accessibility. Another servicescape element that consistently

influenced perceived quality is layout accessibility. Layout accessibility is
critical in leisure services of the type studied because ease of entry and exit
may dictate the extent to which customers are able to experience and enjoy
the primary service offering. Furthermore, customers who have difficulty
reaching ancillary service areas, or who have to stand in lines for long
periods of time, may do so at the expense of missing some of the primary
service offering.

Remedies for Problems with layout accessibility may be remedied by reallocating some
accessibility problems space (perhaps by reducing the number of seats) to enlarge service areas and
thoroughfares, or by improving the signage to distribute the flow of
customers to available service areas. In some servicescapes the majority of
customers tend to crowd into a few service areas on the main concourse of
the facility, while other service areas in the facility go relatively unused. If
this is the case, appropriate signage or helpful service attendants may better
direct the flow of customers to less crowded service areas. Similarly, larger
aisles and walkways and additional entrances/exits will better facilitate the
flow of customers before, during, and after the leisure service event.

Cleanliness. Another element that was found to be an important determinant

of perceived servicescape quality in all three leisure service settings (i.e.
baseball, football, and casinos) was cleanliness. Cleanliness may be
particularly important for females and for customers with young children,
who especially do not appreciate unclean restrooms and concession areas.
From a leisure management viewpoint, cleanliness is probably the most

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 53

 controllable element of quality. Tile floors, carpets, seating areas,
concourses, restrooms, and concession areas, etc. can (and should) be
thoroughly cleaned prior to the service event. These areas also need to be
maintained throughout the event. This task may present special challenges
for managers of some leisure services where huge crowds congregate in a
short period of time (e.g. at football games), and where alcohol is served;
however, management should make a concerted effort to monitor and clean
these areas constantly.

Cleanliness had greatest Interestingly, cleanliness had fairly modest effects on perceived quality in
effect in casino sample both the baseball and football samples, but had a major effect on perceived
quality in the casino sample. This finding is probably a function of the
amount of time spent in the different leisure service facilities. Whereas
baseball and football fans typically spend only a few hours in the facility,
casino patrons may spend the better part of several days in the facility. This
finding implies that managers of leisure services which require to customers
to spend several days in the servicescape should place an even greater
emphasis on cleanliness.

Seating comfort. Seating comfort had a significant effect on perceived

servicescape quality in the two sports settings, but had no effect on quality in
the casino setting. These findings may be due to the fact that sports
spectators sit for hours in the same seat, whereas casino patrons are apt to be
more mobile. Based on these findings, one would expect seating comfort to
be important for other leisure services wherein customers remain in the same
seat for extended time periods of time (e.g. concert and opera halls, movie
theaters, etc.). Given that seating comfort was important in the two sports
settings, it might be expected that leisure service providers that provide only
rudimentary seating in some sections of the facility (e.g. bench seats with no
clear individual space allocation, folding chairs, or deteriorating seats) may
have difficulty reaching capacity except when customers’ desire to see the
primary service offering (e.g. a “big” game) outweighs their need to be
comfortable.

From a facility construction or facility management viewpoint, a potential

trade-off may exist between maximizing seating capacity and providing
more comfortable seating. While more seats allow for greater revenues
during occasional sell-outs, more comfortable seats may induce people to
stay longer and visit more often. More comfortable seating may consistently
attract a larger crowd, which may more than make up for the opportunity
cost of any lost ticket revenues during the occasional sell-outs. In calculating
this trade-off, one would also want to take into consideration the additional
concessions revenue generated from the increased number of fans who end
up staying for the entire game because of the more comfortable seating
arrangements.

Electronic equipment Electronic equipment and displays. Electronic equipment and displays had a
and displays significant effect on perceived servicescape quality in the football and casino
samples, but had no effect on quality in the minor league baseball sample.
Again, one of the reasons why electronic displays and equipment can play an
important part in the servicescape is that they make the waiting time more
enjoyable. In many spectator settings there are frequent gaps in the primary
service offering (e.g. between innings or timeouts, or between
performances). Effective use of electronic displays and equipment may help

54 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 to maintain interest and excitement during these gaps. The implication from
this study is that if a service provision involves a substantial amount of
passive waiting time, investments in high quality electronic display
equipment should improve the perceived quality of the servicescape. (We
should point out that the minor league baseball team had a mascot that
entertained fans between innings; therefore, electronic displays and
equipment in this setting were not as critical.)

Limitations and future research

Tangible factors must In summation, a key theoretical implication of this study is that service
be looked at as well as quality research, particularly in the case of leisure services, should not only
intangible look at intangible factors (e.g. reliability, responsiveness, empathy and
assurances), but should also more thoroughly investigate the tangible aspects
of the service; namely, the servicescape. Future research could build on
SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) by also measuring those tangible
servicescape factors that have been shown to affect customers’ overall, or
global, service quality perceptions (e.g. Baker et al., 1994; Parasuraman et
al., 1994). An opportunity also exists to investigate and compare the effects
both of the servicescape and SERVQUAL on global satisfaction and
customers’ behavioral intentions within a variety of utilitarian and hedonic
service settings. Such research might offer a better understanding of the
relative importance of the primary service offering (as may be reflected by
the intangible SERVQUAL factors) versus the built environment, for
different types of service providers. From a practical standpoint, this
information would help different service providers to estimate the impact of
investments designed to improve service quality processes versus those
designed to improve the service facility.

Effects of ambient Since this study did not address ambient conditions, an opportunity exists to
conditions should be study more closely the effects of ambient conditions in leisure service
studied settings. In addition to music, weather, and temperature factors in leisure
servicescapes, another interesting element that has received little research
attention is the effect of aromas in leisure service settings (i.e. the smell of
popcorn at the theater, the aroma of hotdogs at the stadium, etc.). An
interesting research question is: to what extent do aromas, and other ambient
conditions, influence the perceived quality of the servicescape? A carefully
controlled investigation of these ambient elements could help leisure service
managers to provide more pleasant and enjoyable servicescapes.

In summary, this study has shown that the servicescape does have a
significant impact on leisure service customers’ repatronage intentions and
on the length of time they desire to stay in the leisure service. Managers who
focus on the servicescape, in addition to the primary service offering, have
the greatest chance of maximizing current and long-term profits.

References and further reading

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Arnould, E. and Price, L.L. (1993), “River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended
service encounter”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, June, pp. 24-44.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, March, pp. 644-56.
Baker, J., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1988). “The marketing impact of branch facility
design”, Journal of Retail Banking, Vol. 10, Summer, pp. 33-42.

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 55

 Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A (1994), “The influence of the store environment on
quality inferences and store image”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22,
Fall, pp. 328-39.
Barker, R.T. and Pearce, C.G. (1990), “The importance of proxemics at work (space and
human comfort in the work environment)”, Supervisory Management, Vol. 35, July,
pp. 10-12.
Bateson, J.E.G. and Hui, M.K. (1992), “The ecological validity of photographic slides and
videotapes in simulating the service setting”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19,
September, pp. 271-80.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 238-46.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
Brauer, R.L. (1992), Facilities Planning: The User Requirements Method, AMACOM, New
York, NY.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 125-31.
Eroglu, S. and Machleit, K.A. (1990), “An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, Summer, pp. 201-21.
Fornell, C. (1992), “A national consumer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experiment”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Garry, M. and Sansolo, M. (1993), “60th annual report of the grocery industry: consumers
show cautious optimism”, Progressive Grocer, Vol. 72, April, pp. 88-94.
Helyar, J. (1994), “Watching football in person costs even more”, Wall Street Journal,
September 8, p. B1.
Hui, M.K. and Bateson, J.E. (1991), “Perceived control and consumer choice on the service
experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, September, pp. 174-85.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1990), LISREL VII: Analysis of Linear Structural
Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood: User’s Guide, Scientific Software,
Mooresville, IN.
Kerin, R.A., Jain, A. and Howard, D.J. (1992), “Store shopping experience and consumer
price-quality-value perceptions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, Winter, pp. 376-97.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), “Goodness-of-fit indexes in
confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103
No. 3, pp. 391-410.
Martin, C.L. (1986), “A preliminary investigation of consumer commitment and enduring
involvement life cycles”, doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Miller, C. (1993), “US European shoppers seem pleased with their supermarkets”, Marketing
News, Vol. 27, June 21, p. 3.
O’Neill, R.E. (1992), “How consumers shop”, Progressive Grocer, Vol. 71, December,
pp. 62-4.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale
for measuring customer perceptions of service quality and its implications for future
research”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, Winter, pp. 420-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 111-24.

56 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. and Tierney, P. (1995), “Going to extremes: managing service
encounters and assessing provider performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, April,
pp. 83-97.
Rinne, H. and Swinyard, B. (1992), “Discounters: a competitive study”, Stores, Vol. 74,
December, pp. 54-8.
Taylor, S.A., Sharland, A., Cronin, J.J. Jr. and Bullard, W. (1993), “Recreational service
quality in the international setting”, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 68-86.
Tom, G., Barnett, T., Lew, W. and Selmants, J. (1987), “Cueing the customer: the role of
salient cues in consumer perception”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4, Spring,
pp. 23-8.
Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), “A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis”, Psychometrika, Vol. 38, pp. 1-10.
Turley, L.W. and Fugate, D.L. (1992), “The multidimensional nature of services facilities:
viewpoints and recommendations”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 6, Summer,
pp. 37-45.
Waddell, R. (1993), “Sports GNP: fans still attending & spending”, Amusement Business,
Vol. 105, January 4-10, pp. 13-14.
Waddell, R. and Muret, D. (1994), “Nation taking plunge into riverboat gambling”,
Amusement Business, Vol. 106, July 4, pp. 20-21.
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1994), “The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 66-76.

Appendix
Scale development
Multiple item scales were developed for each of the constructs, as recommended by Churchill
(1979). Prior to collecting the final sets of data a formal pretest of the questionnaire was
conducted at two major college football games. Based on statistical examination (inter-item
correlations, reliabilities, principle components, factor analysis, etc.) of the pretest data, some
of the items were modified. Once the final sets of data were collected statistical analyses were
performed again.

The five servicescape scales developed for this research were generated from observation of
each of the different servicescapes, interviews with customers, and consultation with facility
management and marketing research departments. Further consultation with stadium architects
revealed that the items used in this survey are very similar to scales used in their facility
assessment. As can be seen in Table AI, these scales were reliable across the different settings
(with alphas ranging from 0.75 to 0.95). Based on Fornell (1992), perceived quality was
measured with three items reflecting consumers’ perceptions of the servicescape relative to
performance, expectations, and normative standards. Similar to many service quality studies
(e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1994), satisfaction was measured with an overall satisfaction-
dissatisfaction item, as well as the affective response attributed to the servicescape (see
Bitner’s 1992 framework). Repatronage intentions was measured using a single item, similar
to that used by Cronin and Taylor (1994), wherein subjects were asked about the extent to
which they planned to patronize the leisure service provider in the future.

Analysis of results
Lisrel VII (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1990) was used to test the servicescape model across each of
the three leisure service settings. As recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we
followed a two-stage approach in which we first confirmed the measurement model and then
tested the structural model. The measurement model provides an assessment both of
convergent and discriminant validity. Given that the measurement model fits the data,
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) state that the structural model then provides an “assessment of
nomological validity” (p. 411).

Measures of fit. Several indices were used to evaluate the fit of the models. Since it is well
established that the chi-square statistic is adversely affected by sample size (Bentler and
Bonett, 1980) we relied on the widely used goodness-of-fit index (or, GFI; see Jöreskog and
Sörbom, 1990), the Tucker-Lewis index (Tucker and Lewis, 1973), and Bentler’s comparative
fit index (or, CFI; see Bentler, 1990). Marsh et al. (1988) found that of all the “stand alone”
indices (i.e. indices that are based solely on the hypothesized model, such as χ2, χ2/df, GFI,

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 57

 Alpha
(lowest of three samples)

Layout accessibility 0.90

The facility layout makes it easy to get to the kind of food service
you want
The facility layout makes it easy to get to your seat (the
gaming areas)
The facility layout makes it easy to get to the restrooms
Overall, this facility’s layout makes it easy to get where you want
to go

Facility aesthetics 0.91

This facility is painted in attractive colorsa
The interior wall and floor color schemes are attractiveb
This facility’s architecture gives it an attractive character
This facility is decorated in an attractive fashion
This is an attractive facility

Seating comfort 0.86

There is plenty of knee room in the seats
There is plenty of elbow room in the seats
The seat arrangements provide plenty of space
This facility provides comfortable seats

Electronic equipment and displays 0.77

The scoreboards (slot/video machines) are entertaining to watch
The scoreboards (slot/video machines) add excitement to the place
The scoreboards provide interesting statisticsa
The slot/video machines make this place interestingb
This facility has high quality scoreboards (slot /video machines)

Cleanliness 0.82
This facility maintains clean restrooms
This facility maintains clean food service areas
This facility maintains clean walkways and exits
Overall, this facility is kept clean

Desire to stay 0.75

I enjoy spending time at this facility
I like to stay at this facility as long as possible

Perceived quality (seven-point, bi-polar scales) 0.76

The overall quality of this facility is:
• terrible – great
• much worse than I expected – much better than I expected
• not at all what it should be – just what it should be

Satisfaction (seven-point, bi-polar scales) 0.89

The overall feeling I get from this facility:
• is dissatisfaction – is satisfaction
• puts me in a bad mood – puts me in a good mood

Notes:
a
These items were used only for the football and baseball samples
b
These items were used only for the casino sample

Table AI. Cronbach’s alpha and list of items for each construct

AGFI, AIC) GFI is least affected by sample size and performs “better than any other stand-
alone index” (p. 396). The Tucker-Lewis index and the CFI are “incremental” indices, in that
they compare the hypothesized model to the null model of complete independence. The
Tucker-Lewis index takes into account degrees of freedom, and reflects model fit very well at

58 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 all sample sizes (Marsh et al., 1988). The CFI also takes into account degrees of freedom, and
has been found to be a consistent and reliable indicator of the true population value (Bentler,
1990).

Measurement model: confirmatory factor analysis. Owing to the number of constructs

included in the model we created one measurement model for the independent constructs (i.e.
the five servicescape factors) and another for the dependent constructs (i.e. perceived quality,
satisfaction, repatronage intentions, and desire to stay), and tested these across each of the
three leisure service settings (resulting in a total of six separate models). The measurement
models fit very well across all three settings. All three “independent constructs” measurement
models resulted in Tucker-Lewis and CFI indexes over 0.98 and GFI indexes over 0.97, while
the “dependent constructs” measurement models resulted in Tucker-Lewis indexes over 0.95,
and CFI and GFI indexes over 0.97. By providing an acceptable fit to the data, the
measurement models provide strong evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity
among the independent and dependent constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

The structural model. The structural model fit the data reasonably well across all three settings
(see Table I). The football sample resulted in a GFI of 0.95, a Tucker-Lewis index of 0.97, and
a CFI of 0.98. In the baseball sample the model produced a GFI of 0.93, a Tucker-Lewis index
of 0.97, and a CFI of 0.98, while in the casino sample the model resulted in a GFI of 0.91, a
Tucker-Lewis index of 0.95, and a CFI of 0.96. Overall, these results provide strong support
for the servicescape model.

Kirk L. Wakefield and Jeffrey G. Blodgett are Assistant Professors of Marketing in

the Department of Management and Marketing, School of Business Administration,
University of Mississippi, USA.

■
This summary has been Executive summary and implications for managers and executives
provided to allow
managers and executives That was a smart place. We’ll go there again
a rapid appreciation of The surroundings in which we consume a service affect our perception of
the content of this that service. This statement is still more true when the service involves our
article. Those with a being present in the “servicescape” for a long period. Wakefield and
particular interest in the Blodgett use the examples of major college football, minor league baseball
topic covered may then and casinos to investigate how important the effect of surroundings is to our
read the article in toto to appreciation of a service.
take advantage of the
more comprehensive The authors focus on elements with the “servicescape” that can be most
description of the easily controlled by the management – aesthetics, layout, seating, electronic
research undertaken and equipment and cleanliness. Less controllable factors such as other
its results to get the full customers are not included in the study.
benefit of the material
presented Wakefield and Blodgett find that the factors they identify and assess do affect
customer behavior. Most importantly they affect the length of time the
customer spends at the particular venue and, as a result, the amount of
money spent. For events managers this is very important since an amenable
environment means people spending more time and this environment is
easily controlled.

A classic example of how addressing the “servicescape” works comes in the

English football leagues. Following the disaster at Hillsborough in Sheffield
a government enquiry (under Lord Taylor) set out new standards for the
design and layout of football stadia. These standards included a move
toward all-seater grounds and the improvement of cleanliness and ground
facilities. Coupled with growing action against violence and hooliganism
these changes have made football grounds more attractive places,

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 59

 encouraging people to return. The upshot has been an overall increase in
attendance which the quality of the football itself does not necessarily justify.
Wakefield and Blodgett’s assertion that focussing on the event itself is not
enough appears to be borne out.

Similar findings are seen in restaurants where improving décor, introducing

non-smoking areas and providing space for customers before and after their
meal all enable a restaurant to maintain its clientele.

Wakefield and Blodgett also find that the “servicescape” also affects
perceptions of service quality. In particular, interior décor, cleanliness and
accessibility affect this perception. Let’s face it, we do not like sitting in a
place with dirty carpets, nicotine-colored ceilings and tatty wallpaper. The
service business that keeps on top of these things encourages customers to
view it as an attractive place worth spending time at and worth revisiting.

Another observation made by the authors is that the most important factors
vary according to the type of service. For the sports venues the
attractiveness and cleanliness of the physical environment was less
important. They note the potential for using SERVQUAL in this context and
we might therefore suggest that variation in that scale’s applicability
industry by industry are reflected in the findings here. Visitors to a sports
venue perhaps expect less in terms of décor and cleanliness than punters in
a casino. In contrast such elements as seating comfort could be more
important – indeed the authors imply that those managing sports venues
should consider improving seating even at the cost of ground capacity if this
means more regular attendees. The example of UK football grounds would
appear to bear this out especially since the introduction of seating has meant
that higher prices can be charged as well.

Wakefield and Blodgett also consider the importance of the whole

experience. In this context the presence of electronic scoreboards and
displays at the sports grounds provides a useful illustration. Since both
American football and baseball involve a considerable number of breaks in
play, keeping the excitement levels up means that other images and
impressions are needed. Similarly the use of other entertainment –
cheerleaders, dancers, bands and mascots – adds to the experience.
Spectators are not left with long periods (or what feel like long periods)
waiting for the action to begin. There is always something to attract their
attention.

For some servicescapes this frenetic action may be inappropriate –

customers of a rural restaurant or country house hotel do not want the sort
of nonstop action that customers of themed hamburger houses seem to
require. But they still do not want to be kept waiting, desire attentive service
and appreciate the right décor and ambience.

This last factor – ambience – is not covered by the research and the authors
suggest that examination of ambient factors could also prove useful to
managers in service businesses. They note elements such as temperature,
music, aroma and the weather as factors. The importance of other customers
has already been mentioned and this links into the problem area of smoking.
All these factors are, to a greater or lesser extent, controllable (except,

60 THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996

 perhaps, for the weather) but they also directly impact on the interaction
with customers.

For those interested in these ambience issues some of the work looking at
supermarket and store ambience could be valuable. Herrington and
Capella’s study of music in service environments (JSM, Vol. 10 No. 2) is one
such study worth reading with this in mind as is Richardson et al.’s
examination of store aesthetics (JPBM, Vol. 5 No. 1).

Attention to the environment in which a service is consumed – whether or

not it is a hedonistic experience – is an area to which services marketers
need to pay greater attention. Many of us take such things as part of what we
are selling rather than seeing them as an important part of the business’s
marketing effort.

(Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press)

THE JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 10 NO. 6 1996 61

View publication stats