Subjective Time Perception and Customer Satisfaction

1 |

Subjective Time Perception and

Customer Satisfaction

How does visual cue comparison affect customers’ perception of waiting time and thus

engage in customer satisfaction ?

2 |

AGENDA

3 |

INTRODUCTION

Customers are more impatient than ever:

- New technologies (e.g. self-checkouts in retail stores) - Same-day deliveries (e.g. Amazon)

- Immediate access to information via smartphones

à Increased expectations of instant gratification leads to less patience: ’Any wait is too long a wait’

BUT especially in service situation waiting time is still a obligatory experience which can have negative influences on

o Customer satisfaction o Customer loyalty

o Customers’ evaluation of the entire firm

If the actual waiting time for a service cannot be changed, is there any other way to influence customers’ waiting time? à Yes, customers’ perception of waiting time.

4 |

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

How does visual cue comparison affect customer's perception of waiting time and thus

engage in customer satisfaction?

Customers’ Impatience

§ Caused by peoples’ strong desire for immediate rewards (O’Donoghue & Rabin, 1999)

§ Value of future benefits is perceived smaller than value of immediate benefits (Soman et al., 2005)

§ Waiting time influences customer satisfaction with an entire service experience (Davis & Heineke, 1998)

Perceptual Cues

§ Are used to judge quantities like ‘how much’ or ‘how long’ (Raghubir & Krishna, 1999)

§ Anchoring effect: Contextual cues are used as anchors to compare them with a quantity in order to reach an evaluation (Madzharov & Block, 2010)

§ Are also used to judge time because people are not able to judge

time/durations independently

(Zauberman et al., 2009)

Subjective Time

§ Different from objective time

(Durrande-Moreau & Usunier, 1999)

§ Malleable construct that can be influenced by external factors (May, 2017)

§ External factors (like cues) can make a duration perceived shorter by making an event feel closer in time (Zauberman et al., 2009)

§ Perceived waiting time has a greater influence on customer satisfaction than the objective waiting time

5 |

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

HYPOTHESIS 1:

Customers will be more satisfied with waiting for a Wi-Fi installation when comparing the waiting time to a more distal time than when comparing it to a more proximal time.

HYPOTHESIS 2:

The effect of a visual cue on customer

satisfaction will be mediated by

6 |

METHODOLOGY

§ One-factor between-subjects experimental design with 153 participants

§ Manipulation of time perception by using visual cue comparison (2 conditions: 5 days vs. 2 weeks):

'On a timeline from now to 5 days (2 weeks) from now where do you see 3 days?'

Condition 1

7 |

§ Scenarios description in which the customer has to wait 3 days for a Wi-Fi installation § Customer satisfaction measurements (5-point Likert Scale)

§ Perceived length of the waiting time:

'How long do you consider the time between now and 3 days from now?

8 |

Visual Cue Comparison and Customer Satisfaction

§ No significant effect of visual cue comparison (IV) on customer satisfaction (DV)

Visual Cue Comparison and Perceived Waiting Time

§ Significant difference of perceived waiting time between conditions

RESULTS

9 |

RESULTS

1. Mediation Analysis of Perceived Waiting Time

§ Significant effect of visual cue comparison on perceived waiting time (a path) § Significant effect of perceived waiting time on customer satisfaction (b path) § BUT no significant total effect (c path) neither significant direct effect (c’ path)

2. Mediation Analysis with Customer Satisfaction with waiting time as DV

§ Significant effect of visual cue comparison on perceived waiting time (a path)

§ Significant effect of perceived waiting time on customer satisfaction with the waiting time (b path)

§ Significant DIRECT effect of visual cue comparison on customer satisfaction with the waiting time (c’ path) § BUT no significant total effect (c path)

3. Mediation Analysis with Customer Satisfaction with overall service as DV

§ Significant effect of visual cue comparison on perceived waiting time (a path)

10 |

DISCUSSION

o Visual Cue Comparison and Customer Satisfaction show no significant relationship

o BUT Visual Cue Comparison shows a significant direct effect on Customer Satisfaction with the waiting time but NOT on Customer Satisfaction with the overall service (bootstrap method)

à Hypothesis 1 is partly supported

o Mediation analyses show no significant total effect

o BUT Visual Cue Comparison has a significant effect on Perceived Waiting Time and Perceived Waiting Time has a significant effect on customer satisfaction, customer satisfaction with the waiting time and customer satisfaction with the overall service (bootstrap method)

11 |

IMPLICATIONS

IN LINE WITH PREDICTIONS

1. Anchoring effect of visual cue: Comparison with a time further away from now makes customers feel the service is closer in time and waiting time is perceived shorter

2. Contraction effect: The same objective time is

perceived differently à Objective and subjective time are not the same

3. Shorter perceived waiting time leads to a greater customer satisfaction

4. Direct effect between visual cue comparison and customer satisfaction with waiting time

NOT IN LINE WITH PREDICTIONS

1. No significant effect between Visual Cue Comparison and Customer Satisfaction

2. No significant effect between Visual Cue Comparison and Customer Satisfaction with the overall service 3. Mediation effect of perceived waiting time is only

partly significant

Managerial Implications: Managers can use visual cues to make waiting time perceived shorter and a service perceived closer in time to make

12 |

LIMITATIONS & FURURE RESEARCH

LIMITATIONS

o Age of participants (from 18 to 30)

o Service situation not part of customers’ daily life o Not a real waiting situation but only imagination

FUTURE RESEARCH

o More diversity in participants age

13 |

REFERENCES

Davis, M. M., & Heineke, J. (1998). How disconfirmation, perception and actual waiting times impact customer satisfaction. international Journal of Service industry Management, 9(1), 64-73.

De Vries, J., Roy, D., & De Koster, R. (2018). Worth the wait? How restaurant waiting time influences customer behavior and revenue. Journal of Operations Management, 63, 59-78. Durrande-Moreau, A., & Usunier, J. C. (1999). Time styles and the waiting experience: an exploratory study. Journal of Service Research, 2(2), 173-186.

Madzharov, A. V., & Block, L. G. (2010). Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 398-409.

Maister, D., 1985. The psychology of waiting lines. In: Czepiel, J., Solomon, M., Surprenant, C. (Eds.), The Service Encounter. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 113–123.

May, F. (2017). The effect of future event markers on intertemporal choice is moderated by the reliance on emotions versus reason to make decisions. Journal of Consumer

Research, 44(2), 313-331.

O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103-124.

Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the stomach?. Journal of Marketing research, 36(3), 313-326.

Soman, D., Ainslie, G., Frederick, S., Li, X., Lynch, J., Moreau, P., Wertenbroch, K. (2005). The psychology of intertemporal discounting: Why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones?. Marketing Letters, 16(3-4), 347-360.

Taylor, S. (1994). Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and evaluations of service. Journal of marketing, 58(2), 56-69.

Tom, G., Burns, M., & Zeng, Y. (1997). Your life on hold: The effect of telephone waiting time on customer perception. Journal of Direct Marketing, 11(3), 25-31.

14 |