Browsing by Author "Boulding, William"

Marketing researchers have long relied on customer perceptions of service encounters to represent the "true" underlying quality. Researchers and practitioners in healthcare, on the other hand, have long dismissed customer perceptions as a credible measure of service quality. We built a quality framework designed to address this fundamental question: are customer perceptions of service encounters unique, redundant, or wholly flawed measures of actual service quality?

We consistently show customer perspectives reflect a measure of service quality that is both unique from, and complimentary to, the competence with which a service is provided. In fact, we found the explanatory power of either single dimension of process care is completely dependent on the state of the other as they relate to service encounter outcomes. This latter finding may require both management and policy makers to rethink how they approach managing and incenting a balanced approach to investments in improving process care dimensions.

Our research also provides evidence of factors both within, and indirectly outside, the control of management in improving healthcare service quality. In addition, government administrators face a particularly challenging roll in the system; their own policies - whether too punitive or too generous - have the potential to institutionalize lower quality healthcare for the very populations they are most trying to protect.

This dissertation focuses on managerial decision making, and specifically explores conditions wherein managers may increase their propensity to escalate commitment towards a failing project. Escalation researchers (e.g. Schmidt and Calantone, 2002) have listed four classes of factors that may impact a manager's propensity to escalate commitment towards a failing project, and have called for research into how exactly these factors impact escalation. In this dissertation, we explore two such factors. The first factor relates to the characteristics of the decision process used by firms to evaluate the project. Here, for example, researchers have looked at whether the manager was also involved in making decisions about the project in a prior period, and Boulding, Morgan and Staelin (1997) have shown that such manager's positive beliefs about the project (formed in a prior period) make a manager more likely to escalate commitment. The second factor relates to project characteristics. Here, for example, researchers have looked at whether or not the project relates to a product that is perceived as new, and Schmidt and Calantone (2002) have shown that managers are more likely to escalate commitment towards a failing project relating to a new product.

The first dissertation essay uses three experiments to examine how a hitherto unexplored characteristic of the decision process might lead to increasing escalation of commitment. Specifically, building off research into the illusion of control, we examine whether the opportunity to use managerial skill during the decision process makes a manager more willing to escalate commitment towards a failing project. We find that whenever managers act on cues that cause them to think they can use their managerial skill to control some outside factor (even though in reality they cannot), managers overestimate their ability to "control the odds" related to this outside factor. Such beliefs feed forward and lead managers to make suboptimal decisions about the overall project.

The second dissertation essay looks at how project characteristics might make a manager more (or less) likely to escalate commitment towards a failing project. We explore this issue in the hitherto unexplored real options setting. Real options have emerged as an important part of marketing strategy, and have been used to structure new product alliances, value customers etc. We run a controlled experiment and we examine whether differences in option-structure (which is a project characteristic) impact the propensity to make suboptimal option-exercise decisions. We find that managers are more likely to make suboptimal option-exercise decisions in the case of put options (vis. call options), and - as predicted by the endowment effect literature - this increased propensity to make a suboptimal decision is mediated by/ explained by the psychological ownership construct.

This dissertation explores how consumers learn from repeated experiences with a product offering. It develops a new Bayesian consumer learning model, the unstable learning model. This model expands on existing models that explore learning when quality is stable, by considering when quality is changing. Further, the dissertation examines situations in which consumers may act as if quality is changing when it is stable or vice versa. This examination proceeds in two essays.

The first essay uses two experiments to examine how consumers learn when product quality is stable or changing. By collecting repeated measures of expectation data and experiences, more information enables estimation to discriminate between stable and unstable learning. The key conclusions are that (1) most consumers act as if quality is unstable, even when it is stable, and (2) consumers respond to the environment they face, adjusting their learning in the correct direction. These conclusions have important implications for the formation and value of brand equity.

Based on the conclusions of this first essay, the second essay develops a choice model of consumer learning when consumers believe quality is changing, even though it is not. A Monte Carlo experiment tests the efficacy of this model versus the standard model. The key conclusion is that both models perform similarly well when the model assumptions match the way consumers actually learn, but with a mismatch the existing model is biased, while the new model continues to perform well. These biases could lead to suboptimal branding decisions.