CROSS-CULTURAL SERVICES RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF THE

LITERATURE AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Jingyun Zhang, Bowling Green State University

Sharon E. Beatty, University of Alabama
Gianfranco Walsh, Strathclyde Business School

Abstract

A number of studies in the services marketing literature have focused on the identification and
discussion of differences in consumer service experiences across nations and cultures. However,
there is a lack of structure to these approaches and an over-reliance on a small number of
frameworks. In this paper we review the relevant literature, address conceptual and
methodological issues associated with extant cross-cultural services research and suggest ways in
which researchers can conduct future studies in this area.

Introduction

Services have become increasingly important worldwide. In the U.S., the service sector
accounted for more than 79 percent of the GDP in 2004 (The World Factbook 2005) and 80
percent of its workforce came from the service sector (Czinkota and Ronkainen 2002). As the
economic significance of the service industry grows, so does the interest in service research, as
demonstrated by the fast-growing body of services marketing literature in the past decade. In
fact, Vargo and Lusch (2004) recently suggested that the marketing discipline as a whole has
gone through a paradigmatic change, shifting its focus from exchanges of “goods” to service-
centered exchanges.

Today, the world is also facing an ever-increasing global expansion of businesses. An increasing
number of service providers are crossing national borders. It was estimated that more than half of
the world’s multinational corporations would engage in service provision (Lovelock and Yip
1996). American firms have also experienced dramatic growth in service exports over the past
decade, generating a $65 billion balance of payments surplus in services in 2003, helping to
offset the country’s $483 billion deficit in goods (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005). This
development creates opportunities for business as well as challenges, especially when firms
attempt to globally standardize their service delivery (Lovelock 1996). One reason for such
challenges is that consumers’ perceptions of what constitutes a good service inevitably is
culturally bound (Zeithaml, Bitner and Gremler 2002). De Ruyter et al. (1998, p. 189) argue that
“[i]n order to market services effectively to international consumers, service providers must have
a thorough knowledge of their target group(s)”. A solid understanding of the role of culture in
the service delivery process has therefore become more crucial than ever to service firms with a
goal of global expansion, and, indeed, can be a competitive advantage (Riddle 1986).

In the special issue of Journal of Consumer Psychology on global consumer psychology,

Maheswaran and Shavitt (2000) claimed that although there is a growing interest in cultural
differences in consumer behavior, systematic consumer research on the topic is still in its
infancy. Similarly, although the literature on services marketing, especially in consumer services,
has been growing in recent years, relatively little research in this area has examined the role of
culture. Further, the existing cross-cultural service research suffers in several ways, including
both concerns raised by Maheswaran and Shavitt (2000) in the consumer research domain as
well as in regards to some specific problems in services research (see also Steenkamp 2001).

We agree with Maheswaran and Shavitt (2000) that to advance our understanding of services-
related consumer behavior in a global context, we need to address the conceptual and
methodological issues associated with cross-cultural services research. In this article, we attempt
to provide a review of the past and current research on cross-cultural services from a consumer
perspective. First, we introduce the framework we used to select studies to review. Second, we
discuss the role of national culture in regards to consumers’ service experiences. Third, we
discuss existing studies using our framework and conclude with suggestions for future research
directions relevant to this topic.

Selection Method

We limited our review to fifteen leading and influential academic journals. We first browsed and
searched within both journals with a broader scope of research subjects/areas and journals that
have a focus on service and/or international marketing research. We had three criteria for
inclusion of a study: 1) it included empirical cross-cultural or cross-national studies for two or
more cultures/countries, 2) it addressed issues related to customer service experience –
expectations, evaluations, or reactions to services, and 3) it investigated the topic from a
consumer perspective (not employee or management/company’s perspective).

We located 32 relevant articles, covering works published from 1997 to 2005, from the following
journals: Journal of Service Research (JSR) (8 articles), Journal of Services Marketing (JSM) (6
articles), International Journal of Service Industry Management (IJSIM) (5 articles), Journal of
Business Research (JBR) (5 articles), International Marketing Review (IMR) (4 articles),
Journal of Retailing (JR) (2 articles), Journal of International Marketing (JIM) (2 articles), and
European Journal of Marketing (EJM) (1 article). Other journals in which we searched but could
find no articles on the topic include: Journal of Consumer Research (JCR), Journal of Consumer
Psychology (JCP), Journal of Marketing (JM), Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS), Psychology and Marketing (P&M) and
Marketing Science (MS).

We then summarized each article, categorized the subjects/key variables of each article, and
constructed a chronological review table of the articles, which appears in Table 1. Figure 1
shows the theoretical framework we worked from in reviewing the literature. This framework
highlights the role of culture in the service delivery process from the consumer’s point of view.

TABLE 1
Brief Summary of Cross-Cultural Services Literature

Source Cultural dimensions Countries Service Context

Service Expectations
Donthu and Yoo (1998) Hofstede’s dimensions U.S., Canada, and Banking
JSR India
Espinoza (1999) IJSIM Hofstede’s individualism, collectivism, Quebec (Canada) and Supermarket
monochronic time, and polychronic Peru
time dimensions

Furrer, Liu and Hofstede’s dimensions U.S., Switzerland, Banking

Sudharshan (2000) JSR China, Singapore,
South Korea
Sultan and Simpson N/A U.S. and European Airline
(2000) JSM passengers
Witkowski and N/A U.S. and Germany Banks, medical care,
Wolfinbarger (2002) retail clothing stores,
JBR postal facilities, and
restaurants
Raajpoot (2004) JSR Hofstede’s dimensions and National Pakistan Banks, hospitals,
cultural direction: measure developed retail, and insurance
by Dorfman and Howell (1988); industries
Personal values: Schwartz 1992
Laroche, Kalamas and Individualism/collectivism English speaking and Airline
Cleveland (2005) IMR French speaking
Canadians
Malhotra et al. (2005) Hofstede’s power distance, and U.S., India, and the Banking
IMR individualism/ collectivism; Economic Philippines
and social-cultural factors: developed
vs. developing countries
Laroche et al. (2004) Hall’s communication context and U.S., Canada, and Dentist’s office
JIM* Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Japan
Evaluations of Service

Lee and Ulgado (1997) N/A U.S. and Korea Fast food
JSM
Winsted (1997) JR; Occidental cultural heritage vs. U.S. and Japan Restaurant
(2000) IJSIM Oriental cultural heritage; Hall’s
communication context

Mattila (1999a) JSR Hall’s communication context and Western vs. Asian Hotel
Mattila (1999b) JSM Hofstede’s power distance and consumers
individualism/collectivism
Stauss and Mang Hofstede’s, Hall’s, and Riddle’s Japanese, U.S., and Airline
(1999) JSM German passengers
Brady and Robertson N/A U.S. and Ecuadorian Fast food
(2001) JBR samples
Source Cultural dimensions Countries Service Context
Keillor, Hult and Hofstede's dimensions Australia, China, Fast food and grocery
Kandemir (2004) JIM Germany, India,
Morocco, the
Netherlands, Sweden,
and the U.S.
Voss et al. (2004) JSR Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance UK and U.S. Financial service,
dimension retail, restaurant, hotel
Gilbert et al. (2004) N/A Four English Speaking Fast food
JSM countries: Jamaica,
Scotland, U.S., and
Wales
Laroche et al. (2004) Hall’s communication context and U.S., Canada, and Dentist’s office
JIM* Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Japan
Ueltschy et al. (2004) N/A U.S., English and Dentist’s office
JBR French–Canadian
Imrie (2005) IMR Confucianism Taiwanese and U.S. Multiple

Veloutsou et al. (2005) N/A Greece, Jamaica, the Fast food

IMR UK and the U.S.
Source Cultural dimensions Countries Service Context

Reactions to Service

Liu, Furrer, and Hofstede’s dimensions U.S., Switzerland, Banking

Sudharshan (2001) JSR China, Singapore,
South Korea
Patterson and Smith Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance, U.S. vs. Thailand Medical, hairdressing,
(2001a) IJISM; (2001b) collectivism/individualism, auto mechanics, travel
JSM femininity/masculinity agencies, and retail
financial
Hui and Au (2001) JBR Individualism/collectivism China and Canada Hotel
Wong (2004) JBR Hofstede’s dimensions U.S., Australia, and Restaurant
Singapore
Patterson and Smith Hofstede’s Australia and Thailand Travel agency,
(2003) JR collectivism/individualism medical and
hairdressing
Warden et al. (2003) Hofstede’s power distance, Taiwan and outside Airline
IJSIM individualism, and uncertainty Taiwan
avoidance
Mattila and Patterson Hofstede’s U.S., Malaysia, and Restaurant
(2004a) JSR; (2004b) JR individualism/collectivism Thailand
Poon, Hui and Au (2004) Hofstede’s long term vs. short term Canada and China Unspecified
EJM orientation dimension
*studied both expectations and evaluations

TABLE 2
Categorizations of National Culture/Cultural Dimensions

Source Cultural Dimensions # of studies incorporated the

Kluckhohn and Strodbeck (1973)
Hall (1976)
Hofstede (1980, 1984)
Hofstede and Bond (1988)
Riddle (1986)
dimension
Human nature orientation
Man-nature orientation
Time orientation 0
Activity orientation
Relational orientation
High context/low context 4
Power distance
Individualism/ collectivism
Masculinity 25
Uncertainty avoidance
Long-Term orientation
Achievement orientation
Time orientation 1
Activity orientation
Relationship orientation
Source Cultural Dimensions # of studies incorporated the
dimension
Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) Direct vs. indirect
Elaborative vs. succinct 0
Personal vs. contextual
Instrumental vs. affective
Schwartz (1992, 1994) Power
Achievement
Hedonism
Stimulation
Self-direction 1
Universalism
Benevolence
Tradition
Conformity
Security
Keillor et al. (1996) National Identity: National Heritage, 0
Cultural Homogeneity, Belief
System, Consumer Ethnocentrism
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner Universalism vs. particularism
Communitarianism vs. individualism
(1997)
Neutral vs. emotional 0
Defuse vs. specific cultures
Achievement vs. ascription
Human-Time relationship
Human-Nature relationship
Triandis and Gelfand (1998) Horizontal/vertical 0
Steenkamp (2001) Autonomy 0
Egalitarianism
Mastery
Uncertainty avoidance

The Role of National Culture/Cultural Dimensions in Consumers’ Service

Experiences

National Culture/Cultural Dimensions

It is generally accepted that culture shapes consumer behavior. National culture has been defined
as patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that are rooted in common values and societal
conventions (Nakata and Sivakumar 2001). Hofstede (1991, p. 5) defined culture as the
“collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category
of people from those of another”. According to Usunier (1993, p. 38-40) culture can be
understood “as the sum of all behavioral norms and patterns collectively shared by a social
group.”

Many categorizations of national culture or cultural dimensions exist (see Table 2), such as
Hall’s (1976) context paradigm, Hofstede’s (1980; 1984) and Hofstede and Bond’s (1988)
cultural dimensions, Schwartz’s value systems (1994) and others identified in the table. Table 2
indicates the overwhelming preference for Hofstede’s five dimensions (namely, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and long term
orientation). This preeminence of Hofstede’s work is consistent in all cultural work in all of
marketing and international business (see Sivakumar and Nakata 1999; Sødergaard 1994).

FIGURE 1

Theoretical Framework of the Role of Culture in Consumers’ Service Experiences

Consumer Service
Experience Dimensions

Service Expectations
National Culture
(Cultural Dimensions)

Evaluations of Service
● Hofstede’s ● Confirmation/Disconfirmation
● Hall’s ● Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
● Hofstede and Bond’s
● Schwartz’s
● Others

Reactions to Service
● Word of Mouth/Complaint
behavior
● Loyalty/Switching behavior

Further, the constructs of individualism and collectivism appear to play a particularly prominent
role in cross-cultural research in marketing (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey 1988).
While Hofstede’s dimensions have proven useful and reliable over time, alternative
categorizations of culture or less explored dimensions may allow for a broadening of
perspectives and outcomes (Maheswaran and Shavitt 2000).

Scholars in recent years have also raised several concerns related to the use of Hofstede’s
framework. Some question the constraints of the population (IBM employees) and time frame
(1968-1973) of the data collected (Smith et al. 1996; Søndergaard 1994). Others argue that since
Hofstede’s classification was originally related to work values rather than consumer behavior
and other micro phenomena, it might be less relevant in more culture specific studies on more
micro phenomena in consumer behaviors (Yau et al. 1999). However, his work appears to be
heavily relied upon because of its extensiveness across cultures and its intuitive appeal.

The application of cultural dimensions in services research also reflects the emic versus etic
approach of conducting cross-cultural research, which has been a major debate among cultural
psychologists. While the emic approach is based on the premise that theorizing is culture specific
and favors within-culture investigation, the etic approach advocates generalization and focuses
on issues that are universal and common to all cultures (Berry 1989; Maheswarn and Shavitt
2000). Faced with this research orientation dilemma, services marketing researchers in the past
have used both approaches when investigating cross-cultural issues. From our review of the
literature, we found that research in the area seems to be evolving from an imposed etic approach
to a more emically oriented approach, which we view as a positive step.

Another important issue is related to the methods used in assessing culture. Nakata and Huang
(2004) found that in the global marketing literature in general, some studies loosely or briefly
discuss the culture construct, while others present a culture construct in more detail, but use it
post-hoc to explain unpredicted results or pre-hoc to provide only context and background. The
same trend is present in the cross-cultural services literature. The majority of the studies used the
cultural dimensions pre-hoc or post-hoc without actually measuring the construct. Very few
studies have actually measured the dimensions, with the exception of Donthu and Yoo (1998)
and Laroche et al. (2005), where cultural dimensions were measured and examined at the
individual level. Unfortunately, there are only a few scales that currently attempt to measure
these constructs, which exacerbates the problem (see Soares, Farhangmehr, and Shoham 2005
for a review of these).

Another issue of concern centers on how culture is assessed in regards to its level of
operationalization. Most often it appears to be treated as synonymous with country or nation,
perhaps for expediency; however, it is clear that cultures are not homogenous and such an
operationalization may shortchange the richness of the cultural concept. Another approach is
when researchers lump large sections of the world into homogenous chunks such as Western
versus Eastern cultures. Then one or two countries are chosen to represent these chunks. This
approach also overlooks the vast dissimilarities that exist within these global groupings. Both of
these approaches thus have their shortcomings. Next, we review the articles from Table 2 using
our framework.

Cross-Cultural Services: What We Know Now

The framework shown in Figure 1 represents our view of the stages of the process of the service
experience, from expectations to evaluation of the performance to behavioral reactions to this
performance. According to Markus and Kitayama (1991) culture influences consumers’
perceptions, dispositions, and behavior. It is consistent with previous service literature and with
the major services paradigm such as the SERVQUAL paradigm (Lovelock and Wirtz 2004;
Parasuraman et al. 1993; Zeithaml et al. 1993). Given the underlying impact of culture, we show
culture as potentially impacting on each stage of the service experience. In this section we review
the extant literature using the above framework to aid us in our discussion. Our goal is to
summarize the findings, highlighting what we know about this topic in regards to both universals
and differences that we found.

Culture and Service Expectations

In a services marketing context, expectations are commonly defined as “[p]retrial beliefs about a
product that serve as standards or reference points against which product [or service]
performance is judged” (Zeithaml et al. 1993, p. 1). Expectations have been shown to be
important in shaping consumer behavior (Parasuraman et al. 1991b, p. 39). Cultural norms
influence individuals’ expectations of the goods and services they purchase (Stauss and Mang
1999). For example, store opening hours vary greatly between northern and southern Europe
(Usunier 2000), which is likely to influence consumer expectations in terms of service
availability in the respective areas.

In regards to service expectations, the most frequently applied framework in the cross-cultural
context is the SERVQUAL framework developed by Parasuraman and his colleagues
(Parasuraman et al. 1988, 1991a; Zeithaml et al. 1993), which builds on the
expectation/performance disconfirmation paradigm. The SERVQUAL dimensions were
originally established in North America (which falls in the category of emic research from a
cross-cultural perspective). Many researchers since then have attempted to test its robustness
across cultures using mostly an imposed etic (Berry 1989) approach. That is, they have attempted
to transport the SERVQUAL dimensions developed in North America to examine the same issue
in a similar manner in other cultures (e.g., Lam 1997; Zhao et al. 2002). In doing so, researchers
approached national cultures/cultural dimensions differently – some applied existing cultural
dimensions such as Hofstede’s five dimensions (e.g., Donothu and Yoo 1998; Espinoza 1999;
Furrer et al.2000), while others compared another culture against the U.S. without utilizing
specific cultural dimensions (e.g., Sultan and Simpson 2000; Witkowski and Wolfinbarger
2002).

Donthu and Yoo (1998) examined the relationship of the SERVQUAL dimensions (i.e.,
reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance, and tangibles) with Hofstede’s classification of
culture in the banking industry across four countries – U.S., Canada, UK, and India (while
analyzing cultural dimensions at individual levels). They found that the structure of the
SERVQUAL dimensions varied considerably across cultures and related highly with Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions. Specifically, they found that consumers high on uncertainty orientation and
short-term oriented consumers had higher overall service quality expectations than those who are
low on uncertainty orientation and long-term oriented. Moreover, they found that consumers low
on power distance had high service quality expectations, expecting more responsive and reliable
service, whereas those in individualistic countries also had high expectations, but focused more
on empathy and assurance.

Espinoza (1999) assessed the psychometric properties of the SERVQUAL measure differences
between North American (Quebec) and Latin American (Peru) consumers. Similar dimensional
structure of SERVQUAL was found in both samples suggesting that service quality may be
measured in the two cultural units with a common scale. Based on selected dimensions of
culture, namely, individualism/collectivism and monochromic/polychromic orientation of time,
he made several predictions as to the difference of relative importance of the SERVQUAL
dimensions in these two cultures. Contrary to his prediction, the results show that reliability was
equally important in both cultures. He also found that responsiveness appeared to be the most
important dimension for Quebecois (predicted), while tangibles were more important for the
Peruvians (not predicted). He attributed the importance of responsiveness in the North America
context to the monochromic time orientation and the importance of tangibles in Peru to the
development of new firms, new technology following international standards in recent years.

Furrer et al. (2000) attempted to link Hofstede’s cultural dimensions with the importance of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. They found that in cultures with a large power distance (e.g.,
Singapore, China and Korea versus U.S. and Switzerland), weaker respondents (in terms of
social class, education level and occupation; e.g., students) were more likely to tolerate failure
from more powerful service providers. In cultures with a high degree of individualism,
respondents reported wanting a higher level of service quality, while in cultures with a high
degree of masculinity, respondents expected a female service provider to be more feminine than
professional.

While the above mentioned studies all incorporated some cultural dimensions in explaining the
structure and relative importance of the dimensions of service quality expectations, many studies
investigated cultural differences based more on nationality and national service environment than
culture per se. For example, Sultan and Simpson (2000) found that in the airline context, U.S.
passenger respondents had higher expectations of service quality than European passengers, and
that European passengers found the service quality of U.S. airlines to be lower than their own
international carriers. They attributed these differences to the different marketing strategies and
efforts of U.S. versus European firms.

Similarly, Witkowski and Wolfinbarger (2002) compared German and American consumer
ratings of the five dimensions of service quality in five service settings – banks, medical care,
retail clothing stores, postal facilities, and restaurants. They found that German respondents had
lower service expectations, and generally perceived lower service outcomes, than did American
subjects. They attributed this difference to the general unfriendly service environment in
Germany and the tendency of Germans to compartmentalize their public and private selves. They
also found that the five dimensions of service explained a lower percentage of overall service
quality in the German sample (56%) than in the American sample (69%). Most likely
expectations are driven by past performance and U.S. service levels are most likely higher than
in many other countries of the world.

Recently, Laroche et al. (2005) applied the SERVQUAL dimensions and cultural dimensions by
examining how individualists and collectivists (measured at an individual level and examined
across several sub-cultures) use internal and external sources of information to formulate their
service expectations. They found that both individualists and collectivists relied more on external
rather than internal information sources in formulating service expectations, gave variable weight
to the functional and technical components, and used “will” expectations rather than “should”
expectations to judge service offerings. They found that for collectivists internal information
sources were relatively more important in forming expectations, while “will” expectations were
more diagnostic for individualists.

Due to some of the past findings pointing to cross-cultural differences related to customers’
expectations of service quality, researchers in recent years have begun to challenge the
SERVQUAL dimensions by conceptualizing a framework of international service quality
measures (e.g., Smith and Reynolds 2001) and empirically developing a culture-specific service
encounter quality measurement suitable for use in a non-Western culture (Rajpoot 2004). This
has led to the development of additional cultural dimensions, such as Rajpoot’s (2004) service
quality measure suitable for Asian cultures (PAKSERV) using Hostede’s dimensions, the
national cultural orientation measure (Dorfman and Howell 1988) and Schwartz’s (1992)
personal value measures.

From our review, it appears that in regards to cross-cultural differences in service expectations,
SERVQUAL remains the major framework applied in this area. It is also apparent that
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions seem to be the dominant framework for comparisons of customer
expectations of services across cultures. A major conclusion that we saw here was that cultures
with greater power distance and more individualism have higher service quality expectations.
However, there seems to be a general lack of more specific understanding as to how culture
would or could impact on what people expect in services. More emically-oriented research
derived from qualitative research is needed in order to develop more theory in the area. Perhaps
development of lists of expectations and how they might be related to cultural values and
dimensions could be helpful in advancing the area. Also alternatives to SERQUAL should be
pursued.

Culture and Service Evaluations

Individuals form expectations of services and once they encounter the service, they evaluate the
service performance, oftentimes against their expectations (e.g., Patterson and Johnson 1993).
An individual will confirm or disconfirm the performance based on expectations, which
influences their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service performance. For example,
Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) report that in many Muslim cultures, smiling can be a sign of
sexual interest and therefore women are socialized not to smile at males. This suggests that an
American-type service (i.e., ‘service with a smile’) may be inappropriate in some cultures. A
number of studies, using mostly emic approaches, have looked at how individuals in different
cultures evaluate service and form satisfaction (e.g., de Ruyter et al. 1997). The general
consensus is that individuals in different cultures utilize somewhat different mechanisms for
evaluating services.

However, Winsted (1997, 2000) went beyond SERVQUAL, by developing behavioral-based

measures of service quality. Through a series of stages involving literature reviews, focus groups
and factor analysis, Winsted (1997) compared individuals’ evaluation processes in the U.S. and
Japan. She found that while U.S. and Japanese respondents used some overlapping
dimensions/factors in evaluating services, there were differences in the behaviors associated with
these dimensions. For example, while themes of friendliness, being personal, authenticity, and
promptness appeared prevalent in the dimensions and behaviors that emerged from the U.S.
analysis, the overriding theme of the dimensions in Japan was one of caring for the customer.
She also found these results were consistent in another context – health care (Winsted 2000).
These results are consistent with previous research that suggests that Japanese customers in
Japan are used to being treated like “gods” (Kamamoto 1984).

Also going beyond SERVQUAL, Imrie (2005) examined how individuals evaluate service
quality within a cultural environment. Using focus groups, he examined how generosity
performed a filtering role of individuals’ evaluations of service experiences in a Taiwanese
context. This is possibly due to the hierarchical nature of Taiwanese society, where service
providers must adhere to strict roles and appear content in doing so. The generosity notion,
reflecting the Confucian relational ethic, is a notable departure from the earlier modeling of the
service quality construct. The important role of the generosity concept for the Taiwanese sample
confirmed his assertion that culture influences service quality evaluation.

Mattila (1999a) found that individuals of different cultures focus on different types of cues to
help them evaluate the experience. She compared Western and Asian travelers’ evaluations of
services in a luxury hotel context and found that respondents from Western cultures were more
likely than their Asian counterparts to rely on tangible cues versus intangible cues from the
environment. She argued that Western customers, who prefer low-context communication,
would attempt to simplify the service evaluation process by turning to the service provider’s
(hotel) physical environment for directly observable cues of service quality. She also found that
the hedonic dimension of the consumption experience appeared to be more important for
Western respondents, whose core values included fun and enjoyment, than for Asians, whose
value structures tended to reflect duty of life.

Further, based on airline passenger respondents from Japan, U.S. and Germany, Stauss and Mang
(1999) found that customers were dissatisfied when service providers did not meet their
culturally-determined expectations of foreign customers (e.g., a Japanese customer’s role
expectations, such as avoidance of eye contact, were not fulfilled by Germans or Americans).

Individuals’ evaluations of services are often reflected in their satisfaction ratings of the service
experiences. The dominant perspective is that satisfaction is a result of high service quality
(Cronin and Taylor 1992). Based on U.S. and Ecuadorian samples in a fast food context, Brady
and Robertson (2001) found that the service quality-satisfaction causal order held up well across
these two cultures. Veloutsou et al. (2005) found that the similarities in the measurement of
satisfaction across four culturally diverse samples were greater than the differences, suggesting
the feasibility of cross-cultural measurement of satisfaction of services. In contrast, Ueltschy et
al. (2004) found that some measures of satisfaction and service quality may not be equivalent
across cultures due to a response bias introduced by translation, interpretation and meaning of
particular items across cultures, which all cross-cultural researchers should be careful about.

Overall, in regards to evaluations, there appears to be less reliance on Hofstede (1980) and more
on Hall (1976). Additionally, we see less reliance on SERVQUAL and there are more attempts at
creating unique service quality measures within cultures. Our literature review suggests that
individuals from different cultures evaluate services quite differently. That is, due to their
cultural differences, individuals appear to use different dimensions to evaluate the service
experience or they put different weights on the same dimensions. However, there seems to be
little theory development as to why these differences exist. An overall framework to aid in
examining this area more carefully would be useful. Perhaps we could start by listing potential
behaviors and norms, then relating these to values and cultural dimensions, and suggesting
effects on satisfaction/dissatisfaction based on theory. The universality of causal relationships as
examined by Brady and Robertson (2001) seems like a useful direction to pursue as well.

Culture and Reactions to Service

Following satisfying or dissatisfying service experiences, individuals show different reactions to

the service. Service often (but not always) involves social interaction (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al.
2002). Since culture provides the framework for social interactions in a society, the rules and
expectations related to service encounters and service relationships are likely to vary
considerably from culture to culture (Winsted 1997). For example, Usunier (2000, p. 295)
reported that in the U.S. service employee respondents were task centered, while their French
counterparts were more relationship centered, suggesting that French service employees are less
enthusiastic when they serve unknown people.

A number of studies have examined how people across cultures react differently when they
receive poor service. Using Hofstede’s framework, Liu et al. (2001) found that when receiving
superior service, individuals from lower individualism or higher uncertainty avoidance cultures
tended to plan to praise more than individuals from higher individualism or lower uncertainty
avoidance cultures. Further, when receiving poor service, individuals from higher individualism
or lower uncertainty avoidance cultures more often stated they would switch, give negative word
of mouth, or complain than individuals from cultures with lower individualism or higher
uncertainty avoidance. This was explained to be due to the lower relationship orientation in the
individualistic or lower uncertainty avoidance cultures.

Individuals from different cultures also seem to react to service providers’ recovery strategies
differently. Applying justice theory in a service failure context and Hofstede’s
individualism/collectivism cultural dimension, Mattila and Patterson (2004a, 2004b) found that
offering compensation (e.g., discount and apology) was more effective in restoring a sense of
justice to American respondents than to East Asian (Thai and Malaysian) respondents in a
restaurant setting. Wong (2004) found that compensation improved their respondents’
assessments of the service encounter in all three countries investigated (i.e., U.S., Australia,
Singapore), but it only affected repurchase intentions and word of mouth for the American
sample, not for the Singaporean or Australian samples. On the other hand, an apology improved
satisfaction for the Singaporian and Australian samples but not for the U.S. respondents. These
findings suggest that Americans may be more result-focused and pragmatic in their reactions to
service experiences.

Hui and Au (2001) compared the effects of three kinds of complaint-handling strategies, voice,
compensation, and apology, on their respondents’ justice perceptions and post-complaint
behaviors cross-culturally. Their experimental results revealed that voice (i.e., allowing
customers a chance to express dissatisfaction and listen to them) had a stronger effect on Chinese
respondents than on Canadian respondents, while compensation had a stronger effect on
Canadian respondents than on Chinese respondents. They suggested that these effects could be
due to differences in face, harmony, social status, and conflict avoidance, which are associated
with individualism versus collectivism, as well as other values.

Patterson and Smith (2001a, 2001b, and 2003) found that while the same set of benefits
motivated both U.S. and Thai respondents’ propensity to maintain relationships with a range of
service providers, the perceived importance of the benefits differed across respondents in the two
countries. Special treatment benefits, reflecting social bonds, were more important for Thai
respondents, while confidence benefits were more important for U.S. respondents. Further, they
found that switching costs provided a strong explanation for propensity to stay with a service
provider in both cultures, suggesting their universality.

Individuals’ reactions to poor service may be a reflection of their attributions of the failure. Poon
et al. (2004) found that compared to Chinese consumers, Canadian consumers experienced a
lower level of perceived control in dissatisfying service encounters, blamed themselves less,
perceived the provider to have more control over the negative event, and believed the event to be
less likely to reoccur.

Thus, in summary here, it appears that Westerners prefer compensation to apology or voice and
are more willing to complain or switch. We also see that a number of concepts seem universal,
such as attributions, switching costs, and relationship benefits. Although these studies are totally
reliant on Hofstede’s dimensions, they seem to be the most theory driven and focus mostly on
studying differences between Westerners vs. Asians. With this focus, it seems to us that clearer
conclusions were derived than in the other sections of this paper. Thus, these stronger
conclusions may be due to the limited cultural dimensions studied and limited regional
selections, which clearly has some advantages in regards to generalizability while perhaps
sacrificing other considerations. Obviously, there needs to be much more cross-cultural research
on service failure and customer complaining behaviors, service relationships and what makes a
consumer loyal to service providers. These are important topics, which require further attention.

Future Research

Cultural research can help validate the existing theoretical paradigms, enrich our current
theorizing, and may even lead to new theories (Bagozzi 1994). Although the field of cross-
cultural services is relatively new, it has great potential for developing interesting new insights in
the services marketing literature. Based on our review of the literature, next we discuss the issues
related to cross-cultural services research and point out some research directions for the future.

Emic versus Etic Oriented Research

Despite the ongoing debate among cultural psychologists about emic versus etic approaches to
conducting research, we believe that both emic and etic approaches contribute to our
understanding of service related issues in the global context. Emic and etic perspectives should
not be viewed as rigid extremes, but as two points of view (Pike 1954) that can converge to
enrich cultural research (Maheswaran and Shavitt 2000). The critical issue is the relevance to the
problem being studied. For example, if a manager wants to know whether a domestic service
process could be standardized in different countries, then an etic orientation would be
appropriate. On the other hand, if a manager is interested in developing a specific service
strategy in a specific country, then an emic approach should be favored.

Moreover, cross-cultural services research as a whole needs a more systematic approach to

perhaps blend the two approaches. In order to provide a basis for integrated approach to study
cultural differences, the five-step process suggested by Berry (1989, p. 730) may be a useful
framework to consider: 1) start with initial research on a question in one’s own culture (emic A),
2) next attempt to use the same concept or instrument to study a behavior in another culture
(imposed etic), 3) then move to a discovery strategy in another culture (emic B), 4) then compare
emic A and emic B, and 5) when there is no communality, then comparison is not possible, but
with some communality (derived etic) comparison is possible. Although the literature seems to
be moving in this direction, the imposed etic approach is still dominant.

Another issue relates to country selection in cross-cultural service research. Many studies do not
provide a rational for the selection of countries used in their research. It seems convenience and
achieving a large variation on the dimensions of interest are the primary drivers of country
selection. Use of a more theoretical framework would be helpful in directing research aimed at
better filling in the blanks. It is obvious countries need to be selected carefully based on
theoretical considerations.

Another problem related to country selection centers around dealing with translation and
comparability of the questionnaires/survey instruments in different languages. We have to be
reminded that perhaps some of the differences we find in cross-cultural studies may be due to
translation, interpretation and meaning of particular words in different cultures (Ueltschy et al.
2004). In order to achieve the goal of generalizing and building theory, careful and rigorous
cross-cultural research methodology should be in place and clearly demonstrated in future
research. Also replication of cross-cultural work needs to occur to insure that we have truly
generalizable findings (see Rosenthal and Rosnow 1984 for more discussion on this issue).

A final issue to address is the nature of the service context. Researchers in the area have not yet
suggested that there may in fact be differences across contexts (with the exception of Winsted
1999). Certainly some contextual effects have been found in services research, suggesting a need
to carefully select contexts as well as countries or cultures (Winsted 1999). Across the studies
reviewed here we see a variance of contexts but also some similarities—the major contexts
studied here include banks (9 studies), restaurants (6 studies), retailers, medical, and fast food
operators (5 studies each), and airlines and hotels (4 studies each). Future research should
address the potential variations across different service contexts in addition to cultural
differences.

Theory Building (Generalization) versus Unique Insight from Specific Cultures

One of the fundamental objectives of research is theory building. The most common objective
for cross-cultural research in the consumer research area, as well as in the services area appears
to be generalization (Maheswaran and Shavitt 2000). We hope that by reviewing the studies that
we have reviewed here in a structured way that this may promote movement to more structure.
There seems to be a lack of systematic approaches in the literature as can be observed in these
studies, while there also seems to be minimal theoretical development to move the field forward.

Theoretical frameworks should also capture unique cultural insights from other cultures. Culture-
specific insights may extend and even change our understanding of human behavior
(Maheswaran and Shavitt 2000). Successful services marketing in the global market to a large
extent depends on solid understanding of the uniqueness of specific cultures in which the firm
competes in. Future research effort should be geared at discovering these insights through both
emic and etic research modes. Using the five step approach suggested by Berry could be helpful.
Further, careful, precise use of qualitative methodologies has been called for in cross-cultural
research (see Javalgi, Young, and Scherer 2005). This is especially true, given the difficulty of
conducting error-free quantitative studies across cultures. The need for better measures of
cultural values to improve empirical studies is also imperative.

Adapting Alternative Cultural Dimensions

As mentioned earlier, although there exists many useful categorizations of culture or cultural
dimensions (see examples in Table 2), only a very limited number of them, with Hofstede’s
dimensions being the most dominant, have been applied in cross-cultural services research. This
can hinder our understanding of cultural differences and retard theory building in this area. We
have mentioned several concerns raised by cultural researchers in recent years about
conveniently applying the predominant Hofstede’s dimensions in cross-cultural research. It is
important to continue to build frameworks and to look for universals. It is also important to go
into a study with theory rather than to engage in post hoc assessments of findings.

Future research should attempt to adapt alternative cultural dimensions, when relevant, to expand
our current understanding of culture and its impact on specific service related issues. For
example, when examining customer complaint/word of mouth behaviors, Schwartz’s (1992,
1994) value dimensions may be relevant and yet has not been applied to how individuals might
react to service experiences in different cultures. Further, since almost every service delivery
process involves communication between customer and employee, it could be fruitful to use
frameworks that focus on communication differences between cultures. For instance, by drawing
on the communication dimensions of direct vs. indirect, elaborative vs. succinct, personal vs.
contextual, and instrumental vs. affective communication, identified by Gudykunst and Ting-
Toomey (1988), researchers could examine the extent and type of communication customers
from different cultures expect during the service delivery process.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to review the literature on cross-cultural services marketing
research, to highlight and discuss conceptual and methodological issues, and to make
recommendations for future research regarding the interplay of culture and the service delivery
process. Our framework in Figure 1 outlines the important areas in regard to culture’s impact on
various aspects/stages of individuals’ service experiences. As discussed in our literature review,
although there have been studies looking at the role of culture in each of the areas (i.e.,
expectation, evaluation, and reaction to service experiences), much more is needed to enrich our
current understanding of variations as well as commonalities of customers’ service experiences
across different cultures. Of the studies reviewed here, most dealt with cross-cultural service
evaluations (14), followed by reactions (10) and expectations (9), perhaps suggesting that more
work is needed on the latter two topics.

In conclusion, we offer the following suggestions. It is important to develop and review all
potential cultural theories to aid in making hypotheses rather than just using the most convenient
one. Cultures need to be understood etically as well as emically. Previous empirical work must
be carefully reviewed and the topic must be systematically studied across countries and contexts.
Further, it is important to ask at what level culture will be operationalized and to attempt to
measure differences in values rather than just assuming the differences exist across groups.
Hopefully, this article will encourage service scholars in these research endeavors.

References

Ashforth, Blake and Ronald Humphrey, (1993) “Emotional Labor in Service Roles: The Influence of
Identity,” Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88-115.
Bagozzi, Richard P., (1994) Association for Consumer Research Proceedings Fellow Speech. In C. T.
Allen & D. R. John (Eds.), Association for Consumer Research Proceedings (pp. 8-11), Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Berry, John. W., (1989) “Imposed Etics–Emics-Derived Etics: The Operationalization of a Compelling
Idea,” International Journal of Psychology, 24, 721-735.
* Brady, Michael K. and Christopher J. Robertson, (2001) “Searching for a Consensus on the Antecedent
Role of Service Quality and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Cross-National Study,” Journal of
Business Research, 51(1), 53-60.
Cronin Jr., J. Joseph and Steven A. Taylor, (1992) “Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and
Extension,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (3), 55-68.
Czinkota, Michael R. and Illka A. Ronkainen, (2002) International Marketing, Cincinnati, OH: South-
Western College Publishing.
de Ruyter, Ko, Marcel van Birgelen and Martin Wetzels, (1998) “Consumer Ethnocentrism in
International Service Marketing,” International Business Review, 7, 185-202.
----, Martin Wetzels, Jos Lemmink, and Jan Mattsson, (1997) “The Dynamics Of The Service Delivery
Process: A Value-Based,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 231-243.
* Donthu, Naveen and Boonghee Yoo, (1998) “Cultural Influences on Service Quality Expectations”,
Journal of Service Research, 1 (2), 178-186.
Dorfman, P. and J. Howell, (1988) “Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns:
Hofstede Revisited.” In R. N. Farmer and E. G. McGoun, (Eds.), Advances in International
Comparative Management (pp. 127-150), Greenwich, CT: JAI.
* Espinoza, Miguel Morales, (1999) “Assessing the Cross-Cultural Applicability of a Service Quality
Measure,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10 (5), 449-468.
* Furrer, Olivier, Ben Shaw-Ching Liu, and D. Sudharshan, (2000) “The Relationships between Culture
and Service Quality Perceptions: Basis for Cross-Cultural Market Segmentation and Resource
Allocation,” Journal of Service Research, 2 (4), 355-371.
* Gilbert, G. Ronald, Cleopatra Veloutsou, Mark M. H. Goode, and Luiz Moutinho, (2004) “Measuring
Customer Satisfaction in the Fast Food Industry: A Cross-National Approach,” Journal of Services
Marketing, 18 (5), 371-383.
Gudykunst, William B. and Stella Ting-Toomey, (1988) Culture and Interpersonal Communication,
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Hall, E. T., (1976) Beyond Culture, New York: Doubleday.
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne D. Gremler, (2002) “Understanding
Relationship Marketing Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship
Quality,” Journal of Service Research, 4 (3), 230-247.
Hofstede, Geert, (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
---- ,(1984) Culture’s Consequences: International differences in Work-Related Values (Abridged
Edition), Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
----, (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.
---- and Michael H. Bond, (1988) “The Confucian Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic
Growth,” Organizational Dynamics, 16 (4), 4-21.
* Hui, Michael K. and Kevin Au, (2001) “Justice Perceptions of Complaints-Handling: A Cross-Cultural
Comparison between PRC and Canadian Customers,” Journal of Business Research, 52 (2), 161-
173.
* Imrie, Brian C., (2005) “Beyond Disconfirmation: The Role of Generosity and Surprise,” International
Marketing Review, 22 (3), 369-383.
Javalgi, Rajshekhar, Robert B. Young, and Robert F. Scherer, (2005) “Qualitative Research and Global
Consumer Behavior: Cross-Cultural Issues, Directions, and Recommendations for Marketers.” In
Michel Laroche (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Royal Bank International Research Seminar,
Montreal: Concordia.
Kamamoto, Mitsuko, (1984) “Japanese Concept of Service,” Dentsu Japan Marketing/Advertising, Jan.,
26-29.
* Keillor, Bruce D., G. Tomas M. Hult, and Destan Kandemir, (2004) “A Study of the Service Encounter
in Eight Countries,” Journal of International Marketing, 12 (1), 9-35.
----, ----, Robert C. Erffmeyer and Emin Babakus, (1996) “NATID: The Development and Application of
a National Identity Measure for Use in International Marketing,” Journal of International
Marketing, 4 (2), 57-73.
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1973, c1961) Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Lam, Simon S. K., (1997) “SERVQUAL: A Tool For Measuring Patients’ Opinions of Hospital Service
Quality in Hong Kong,” Total Quality Management, 8 (4), 145-152.
* Laroche, Michel, Linda C. Ueltschy, Shuzo Abe, Mark Cleveland, and Peter P. Yannopoulos, (2004)
“Service Quality Perceptions and Customer Satisfaction: Evaluating the Role of Culture,” Journal
of International Marketing, 12 (3), 58-85.
* ----, Maria Kalamas, and Mark Cleveland, (2005) “‘I’ versus ‘We’:How Individualists and Collectivists
Use Information Sources to Formulate Theft Service Expectations,” International Marketing
Review, 22 (3), 279-308.
* Lee, Moonkyu and Francis M. Ulgado, (1997) “Consumer Evaluations of Fast-Food Services: A Cross-
National Comparison,” Journal of Services Marketing, 11 (1), 39-52.
* Liu, Ben Shaw-Ching, Olivier Furrer, and D. Sudharshan, (2001) “The Relationships between Culture
and Behavioral Intentions toward Services,” Journal of Service Research, 4 (2), 118-129.
Lovelock, Christopher H. and Jochen Wirtz, (2004) Services Marketing, 5th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice-Hall.
---- and George S. Yip, (1996) ‘Developing Global Strategies for Service Businesses,” California
Management Review, 38(2), 64-86
Maheswaran, Durairaj and Sharon Shavitt, (2000) “Issues and New Directions in Global Consumer
Psychology,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 59-66.
* Malhotra, Naresh K., Francis M. Ulgado, James Agarwal, G. Shainesh, and LanWu, (2005)
“Dimensions of Service Quality in Developed and Developing Economies: Multi-Country Cross-
Cultural Comparisons,” International Marketing Review, 22 (3), 256-278.
Markus, Hazel Rose and Shinobu Kitayama, (1991) “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion, and Motivation,” Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224-253.
* Mattila, Anna S., (1999a) “The Role of Culture in the Service Evaluation Process,” Journal of Service
Research, 1 (3), 250-61.
* ----, (1999b) “The Role of Culture and Purchase Motivation in Service Encounter Evaluations,” Journal
of Services Marketing, 13 (4/5), 376-89.
* ---- and Paul G. Patterson, (2004a) “Service Recovery and Fairness Perceptions in Collectivist and
Individualist Contexts,” Journal of Service Research, 6 (4), 336-346.
* ----and ----, (2004b) “The Impact of Culture on Consumers’ Perceptions of Service Recovery Efforts,”
Journal of Retailing, 80 (3), 196-206.
Nakata, Cheryl and K. Sivakuma, (2001) “Instituting the Marketing Concept in a Multinational Setting:
The Role of National Culture,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (3), 255-275.
---- and Yili Huang Pokay, (2004) “Cultural Studies in the Global Marketing Literature: Current State and
Future Directions,” Journal of International Marketing and Marketing Research, 29 (3), 111-130.
Parasuraman, A., Leonard L. Berry, and Valerie A. Zeithaml, (1991a) “Refinement and Reassessment of
the SERVQUAL Scale,” Journal of Retailing, 67 (1), 39-48.
----, ----, and ----, (1991b) “Understanding Customer Expectations of Service,” Sloan Management
Review, 32 (3), 39-48.
----, ---, and ---,(1993) “More on Improving Service Quality Measurement,” Journal of Retailing, 69 (1),
140-147.
----, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry,(1988) “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.
Patterson, Paul G. and Lester W. Johnson (1993), “Disconfirmation of Expectations and the Gap Model
of Service Quality: An Integrated Paradigm,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 6, 90-99.
* ---- and Tasman Smith, (2001a) “Modeling Relationship Strength Across Service Types in an Eastern
Culture,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (2), 90-113.
* ---- and ----, (2001b) “Relationship Benefits In Service Industries: A Replication in a Southeast Asian
Context,” Journal of Services Marketing, 15 (6/7), 425-443.
* ---- and ---- (2003), “A Cross-Cultural Study of Switching Barriers and Propensity to Stay With Service
Providers,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (2), 107-120.
Pike, Kenneth Lee, (1954) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior,
Glendale, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
* Poon, Patrick S., Michael K. Hui, and Kevin Au, (2004) “Attributions On Dissatisfying Service
Encounters,” European Journal of Marketing, 38 (11/12), 1527-1540.
* Raajpoot, Nusser, (2004) “Reconceptualizing Service Encounter Quality in Non-Western Context,”
Journal of Service Research, 7 (2), 181-201.
Riddle, Dorothy I., (1986) Service-led Growth. The Role of the Service Sector in World Development,
New York: Praeger.
Rosenthal, R. and R.L. Rosnow, (1984) Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis,
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schwartz, Shalom H., (1992) “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances
and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, (pp.1–65), New York: Academic Press.
----, (1994) “Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?” Journal of
Social Issues, 50 (4), 19–45.
Sivakuma, K and Cheryl Nakata, (2001) “The Stampede Toward Hofstede's Framework: Avoiding the
Sample Design Pit in Cross-Cultural Research,” Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3)
555-73.
Smith, Anne M. and Nina L. Reynolds, (2001) “Measuring Cross-Cultural Service Quality,” International
Marketing Review, 19 (5), 450-480.
Soares, Ana Maria, Minoo Farhangmehr, and Aviv Shoham, (2005) “Concepualizing and
Operationalizing Culture for International Marketing Studies—The Use of Hofstede’s
Dimensions.” In Michel Laroche (Ed.) Proceedings of the Third Royal Bank International Research
Seminar, Montreal: Concordia.
Søndergaard, Mikael, (1994) “Research Note: Hofstede’s Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations
and Replications,” Organization Studies, 15 (3), 447-456.
* Stauss, Bernd and Paul Mang, (1999) “Culture Shocks in Inter-cultural Service Encounters,” Journal of
Services Marketing, 13 (4/5), 329-346.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., (2001) “The Role of National Culture in International Marketing
Research,” International Marketing Review, 18 (1, March), 30-44.
* Sultan, Fareena and Jr. Simpson, Merlin C., (2000) “International Service Variants: Airline Passenger
Expectations and Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (2/3), 188-
216.
Triandis Harry C. and Michael J. Gelfand, (1998) "Converging Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical
Individualism and Collectivism," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner, (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, London, Nicholas Brearley.
* Ueltschy, Linda C., Michel Laroche, Robert D. Tamilia, and Peter Yannopoulos, (2004) “Cross-
Cultural Invariance of Measures of Satisfaction and Service Quality,” Journal of Business
Research, 57 (8), 901-912.
US Central Intelligence Agency (2005) “The World Factbook,” available at:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html.
US Department of Commerce, (2005) “Bureau of Economic Analysis: Commerce News”, available at:
www.bea.gov.
Usunier, Jean-Claude, (1993) International Marketing. New York: Prentice-Hall.
----, (2000) Marketing Across Cultures, 3rd Ed., Harlow: Prentice-Hall.
Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch, (2004) “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,”
Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17.
* Veloutsou, Cleopatra, G. Ronald Gilbert, Luiz A. Moutinho, and Mark M. H. Goode, (2005)
“Measuring Transaction-Specific Satisfaction in Services: Are the Measures Transferable Across
Cultures?” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (5/6), 606-628.
* Voss, Christopher A., Aleda V. Roth, Eve D. Rosenzweig, Kate Blackmon, and Richard B. Chase,
(2004) “A Tale of Two Countries’ Conservatism, Service Quality, and Feedback on Customer
Satisfaction,” Journal of Service Research, 6 (3), 212-230.
* Warden, Clyde A., Tsung-Chi Liu, and Chi-Tsun Huang, (2003) “Service Failures Away from Home:
Benefits in Intercultural Service Encounters,” International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 14(4), 436-457.
* Winsted, Kathryn Frazer, (1997) “The Service Experience in Two Cultures: A Behavioral Perspective,”
Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 337-360.
----, (1999) “Evaluating Service Encounters: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Industry Exploration,” Journal
of Marketing Theory & Practice, 7(2), 106-123.
* ----, (2000) “Patient Satisfaction with Medical Encounters: A Cross-Cultural Perspective,”
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11 (5), 399-421.
* Witkowski, Terrence H. and Mary F. Wolfinbarger, (2002) “Comparative Service Quality: German and
American Ratings across Service Settings,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (11), 875-881.
* Wong, Nancy Y., (2004) “The Role of Culture in the Perception of Service Recovery,” Journal of
Business Research, 57 (9), 957-963.
Yau, Oliver H. M., T. S. Chan, and K. F. Lau, (1999) “Influence of Chinese Cultural Values on Consumer
Behavior: A Proposed Model of Gift-Purchasing Behavior in Hong Kong,” Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 11 (1), 97-116.
Zeithaml, Valerie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman, (1993) “The Nature and Determinants of
Customer Expectations of Service,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (1), 1-12.
----, Mary Jo Bitner, and Dwayne D. Gremler, (2002) Services Marketing, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zhao, Xiande, Changhong Bai, and Y. V. Hui, (2002) “An Empirical Assessment and Application of
SERVQUAL in A Mainland Chinese Department Store,” Total Quality Management, 13 (2), 241-
254.

Note: Articles with a * are the ones included in the review (see also Table 1).