TANGIBILITY

Parasuraman (1988) used the term “tangible‟‟ in their SERVQUAL model as one of the „solid‟
dimensions used to assess service quality.

Tangibility can be defined as palpability or materiality of a thing that can be seen, tasted, and
touched; it also can be used to define the quality of service (Hellén & Gummerus, 2012).

Tangibility involves equipment, personnel and appearance of physical facilities that can influence
consumer perceptions differently because the degree of consumer satisfaction is based on the
tangibility evidence rather than the core service (Santos, 2002).

From the study, it resulted that the tangibility has significant influence on the consumer behavioural
purchase intension based on the equipment condition and the appealing installation of the
equipment (P rez, Abad, Carrillo, & Fern ndez, 2007).

Also, the study resulted that tangibility has significant influence on customer satisfaction which will
then lead to behavioural purchase intention (Liu et al., 2014).

However, according to the study of Ojo, Amoako-Sakyi and Agyeman (2015), it resulted that there is
no significant relationship between tangibility and customer satisfaction which will lead to
behavioural purchase intention.

Tangibility is defined as physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel are used to
provide the service.

Parasurman et al. (1988) suggested using physical appearance o measure service quality in public
transportation.

Sureshchandar et al. (2002) stated that the appearance of the employee, and the man-made
physical environment surrounding the service, which is commonly known as the service scape can be
known as the tangibility of the service.

Physical quality refers to make a good consumption during the delivering the service to the
customer. Therefore, the tangibility is important to satisfy consumers with the service that have
been provided to them.

Physical facilities, equipment and apperance of personnel (Mai & Ngo, 2016)
ASSURANCE
Zeithaml‟s study (1990) (as cited in Donnelly et al., 2006) defined assurance as the knowledge and
courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence.

Buttle‟s study (1996) (as cited in Liu et al., 2014) claimed that the employees can be regarded as a
driver of corporate marketing and financial performance.

Therefore, if employees fail to inspire confidence and trust or to deliver good service, it will result an
adverse effect on the company (Liu et al., 2014).

It is stated that assurance dimension has a significant influence on customers‟ behavioural purchase
intention (Pérez et al., 2007).

In addition, assurance dimension proved to have moderately influence on customer satisfaction

which is related to customers‟ behavioural purchase intention (Horsu & Yeboah, 2015).

However, However, Ojo et al.‟s study (2015) found that assurance dimension has no significant
relationship with the customer satisfaction which will lead to behavioural purchase intention.

tangibility

authors Main findings Main statistical

method

(Abdullah, Manaf, & Tangibility has Cronbach’s alpha

Noor, 2007) positively associated
with customer
perception: 0.8824
(Wang, Shu-Li, Hsu, Tangibility has Cronbach’s alpha
Lin, & Tseng, 2011) positively associated
with customer
perception: 0.82
(FEN, ZHE, KESHIN, tangibility has the pearson
LEE, & CHENG, 2016) coefficient correlation
value of 0.476 (p <
0.001) moderate
positive relationship
(FEN et al., 2016) p-value of tangibility
0.479 variables are
not significantly affect
the behavioural
purchase intention.
(Zakaria et al., 2010) Tangibles Dimension
and Service Quality
where p< 0.01 (p=
0.000 ervice Quality of
Malaysian Public
 Transports: A Case
Study in Malaysia

(Techarattanased, Tangibility
2015) .817 Service Quality
and Consumer
Behavior on Metered
Taxi Services
Nattapong in bangkok
(Suliman & Al, 2017) Tangibles 0.913
Cronbach’s Customer
perception on service
quality in retail
banking in Middle
East: the case of Qatar

Likewise, Al-Tamimi and Al-Amiri (2003) investigated the service quality in banking and found that
empathy and tangibles were the most important dimensions.

5.2.1 Tangibility

H1: Tangibility as perceived by customers has significant influence on behavioural purchase

intention.

H0: Tangibility as perceived by customers has insignificant influence on behavioural purchase

intention.

The result shows that the p-value is greater than 0.05. Therefore, the study accepts the null
hypothesis and rejects the H1 hypothesis. This indicates that tangibility does not have significant
influence the behavioural purchase intention.

The result was in conflict with previous studies that concluded that tangibility has significantly
influence the behavioural purchase intention (Ahjad et al., 2013; P rez et al., 2007). However,
according to Ojo et al.‟s study (2015), there is no significant relationship between tangible and
behavioural purchase intention which is in consistent in this study.

5.2.2

Study psl Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach Alphas were all above 0.70, indicating acceptable reliability. Nunally and Ira (1994)
suggested that a minimum of 0.70 would be an acceptable level. All of the items in perception were
collapsed in order to get the aggregate mean score for each factor. On a scale from 1 (for strongly
disagree) to 7 (for strongly agree), Empathy
Pearson cari relationship mcm mderate

multicollinearity problem exists

The framework for measuring service quality in public transportation ref figure 1, envisages the
generic dimensions tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy given by
(Parasuraman et al, 1988) model for measuring service quality. Population

assurance

authors Main findings Main statistical

method

(Luoh & Tsaur, 2011) assurance

(knowledge and
courtesy of
employees and their
abilities to convey
trust and confi-
dence).
Similarly, Oubre and
Brown (2009)
indicated that well-
trained, competent,
and experienced
employees were
ranked
asmostimportant in
the assurance
quality dimension
offinedining
restauran
(Randheer, AL-Motawa, & Vijay. P value 0.000 on
J, 2011) Measuring
Commuters’
Perception on
Service Quality Using
 SERVQUAL in Public
Transportation
india
(Khan et al., 2017) Assurance
Knowledge and
courtesy of
employees and their
ability to
inspire trust and
confidence
(Randheer et al., P value 0.000
2011)(“PZBSERVQUALJR88.pdf,” Measuring
n.d.) Commuters’
Perception on
Service Quality Using
SERVQUAL in Public
Transportation
(Abdullah et al., 2007) 0.7793 Cronbach’s
Alpha in Measuring
the service quality of
airline services in
Malaysia
During the past two years, continuous complaints about Rapid Kuantan were exposed in internet,
such as it takes too long to reach the final destination regardless of even offering buses in high
frequency, since many stopping points are covered on the way to the destination which spends 2
hours plus 15 or 20 minutes, comparing with 30 to 40 minutes by car. Other complaints are about
low availability of drivers, dangerous driving manner, poor punctuality, dirty bus stop without roof,
etc. Such negative perceptions dissatisfy consumer in using the public transportation (Thompson and
Schofield, 2002). And this situation causes bad images to the Rapid Kuantan, which may further ruin
their business. Czepiel (1990) defined service quality as customer’s perception of how well a service
meets or exceeds their expectation through the service that provided. In other words, customers
assume that they should get good service.

2.3.8 Assimilation Theory

Based on Festingers (1957) `dissonance theory. Dissonance theory posits that

consumers make some kind of cognitive comparison between expectation about

product and perceived product performance. This view of consumer post usage

evaluation was introduced into the satisfaction literature in the form of assimilation

theory. According to Anderson (1973), consumers seek to avoid dissonance by

adjusting perception about given product to bring it more line with expectation.

Consumer can also reduce tension resulting from difference between expectancy and

product performance either by distorting the expectations so that they coincide with perceived
product performance or by raising the level of satisfaction and minimizing the relative importance of
the disconfirmation experienced. Assimilation theory provides detail information on how customer
can avoid disagreement about the service quality by having good perception which can help

them to have high expectation on getting the quality service.

2.3.9 Equity theory

This theory build upon the argument a man reward in exchange with other should be

proportional to his investments. An early recognition of his theory first comes out of

research by Stouffer and his colleagues in military administration. They referred to

relative deprivation( equity)as the reaction to an imbalance or disparity between what

an individual perceives to be the actuality and what he believe a case, especially

where his own situation is concerned. In other words the equity concepts suggest that

the ratio of outcomes to inputs should be constant across participant in an exchange.

As an applied to customer satisfaction research satisfaction is thought to exist when

the customer believes that his outcomes to inputs ratio is equal to that of the

exchange person.
Effects of equity on customer satisfaction, equity appear to have a moderate effect on

consumer satisfaction and post purchase communication behavior. That theories

talking about what customer deserve to get according to what they invest. CRDB

customer they contribute a lot of capital to this financial institution on using its

services. So they deserve to get better service

2.3.10 Hypothesis testing theory

Deighton (1983) suggested that two step model for satisfaction generation. First

Deighton hypothesizes, pre purchase information largely advertising plays a

substantial role in creating expectations about the products customers will acquire

and uses. Customers use their experience with a product, service to test their

expectation. Second customer will tend to attempt to confirm rather than to

disconfirm their expectations. This theory suggests are biased to positivity confirm

their product service experience

Expectation confirmation theory

expectation-disconfirmation model and attribution theory to

Tangibility relates to infrastructures, uniforms or facilities of the company. These are the physical
surroundings when customers encounter with services

(Pride and Ferrell, 2014, 431 adopted from Parasuraman, 1985)

the physical facilities, equipment and employees appearance. According to Brink and Berndt (2005:
60), this dimension refers to the facilities, equipment and material which must reflect positively on
the organisation. Therefore the physical appearance thus the aesthetic look of Mmabatho Palms
hotel must be superb and be able to satisfy the perception a customer have before visiting the
facility. Presentation is fundamental to achievement. Everything about the hotel property will be
assessed through photos and reviews before a visitor even chooses to purchase a room. In the event
that your rooms are obsolete, your hall is filthy or your eatery looks cramped, visitors will make an
underlying judgment about your property that won't be to support you.

Assurance

Zeithaml‟s study (1990) (as cited in Donnelly et al., 2006) defined assurance as the
knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence.
Buttle‟s study (1996) (as cited in Liu et al., 2014) claimed that the employees can be
regarded as a driver of corporate marketing and financial performance. Therefore, if
employees fail to inspire confidence and trust or to deliver good service, it will result an
adverse effect on the company (Liu et al., 2014 )
It is stated that assurance dimension has a significant influence on customers‟ behavioural
purchase intention (Pérez et al., 2007). In addition, assurance dimension proved to have
moderately influence on customer satisfaction which is related to customers‟ behavioural
purchase intention (Horsu & Yeboah, 2015). However, However, Ojo et al.‟s study (2015)
found that assurance dimension has no significant relationship with the customer
satisfaction which will lead to behavioural purchase intention
 According to Parasuraman, service quality is the difference between expectation and performance
along the quality dimensions. The following table represents the service quality model developed on
the basis of gap analysis:

Gap

Difference between consumer’s expectations and management perception of those expectations i.e
not having enough information

about consumer expectations.

Gap2 Difference between management’s perception of consumer expectations and service quality
specifications i.e improper service quality standards.

Gap

Difference between service quality specifications and service actually delivered i.e the service quality
gap.

Gap

Difference between service delivery and communications to consumers about service delivery i.e the
match between actual delivery

and promises made.

Gap

Difference between consumers’ expectations and the perceived service. This depends on the size
and direction of the four earlier

mentioned gaps from the marketer’s side

Thus, to make it simple, CUSTOMER PERCEPTION is WHAT THE CUSTOMER THINKS
ABOUT A PRODUCT OR SERVICE. CUSTOMER EXPECTATION is the OUTCOME A
CUSTOMER EXPECTS OUT OF HIS PERCEPTION.
The Theory of Assimilation Festinger’s theory of dissonance (1957) forms the basis for the theory of
assimilation. The theory of dissonance states that the consumer makes a sort of cognitive
comparison between the expectations regarding the product and the product’s perceived
performance. If there is a discrepancy between expectations and the product’s perceived
performance, the dissonance will not fail to appear. This point of view on post-usage evaluation was
introduced in the literature discussing satisfaction under the form of the theory of assimilation.
(Anderson, 1973) According to Anderson, the consumers try to avoid dissonance by adjusting their
perceptions of a certain product, in order to bring it closer to their expectations. In a similar way, the
consumers can reduce the tension resulted from the discrepancy between expectations and the
product’s performance, both by distorting the expectations so that they could be in agreement with
the product’s perceived performance, and by increasing the level of satisfaction through minimizing
the relative importance of experimental disconfirmation (Olson and Dover, 1979). The theory
presumes the consumers are motivated enough to adjust both their expectations and their product
performance perceptions. If the consumers adjust their expectations or product performance
perceptions, dissatisfaction would not be a result of the post-usage process. Consumers can reduce
the tension resulting from a discrepancy between expectations and product/service performance
either by distorting expectations so that they coincide with perceived product performance or by
raising the level of satisfaction by minimizing the relative importance of the disconfirmation
experienced (Olson and Dover, 1979) Some researchers have discovered that the control on the
actual product performance can lead to a positive relationship between expectations and
satisfaction. (Anderson, 1973) Consequently, it is assumed that dissatisfaction could never appear
unless the evaluation process began with the customers’ negative expectations. Peyton et al (2003)
argues that Assimilation Theory has a number of shortcomings. First, the approach assumes that
there is a relationship between expectations and satisfaction, but it does not specify the way in
which the expectation disconfirmation can lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Second, the theory
also posits that consumers are motivated enough to adjust either their expectations or their
perceptions about the performance of the product. Some researchers have found that controlling
for actual product performance can lead to a positive relationship between expectation and
satisfaction. Therefore, it would appear that dissatisfaction could never occur unless the evaluative
processes were to begin with negative consumer expectations