Attitude Toward the Service Provider (Relative) (ATTS)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Service Provider (Relative) (ATTS) scale is a four-item psychometric instrument designed to measure a consumer’s comparative affective and evaluative disposition toward an individual service provider relative to competing marketplace alternatives. Developed by Tim Jones, Shirley F. Taylor, and Harvir S. Bansal (2008), the scale addresses a critical theoretical distinction in relationship marketing and service psychology: the difference between an absolute evaluation of a target entity and a comparative judgment formed within the context of an evoked choice set. Operationalized on a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), the ATTS conceptualizes relative attitude as a key cognitive-affective precursor to customer loyalty, repeat patronage, and interpersonal commitment. Extensive empirical validation demonstrates that the scale possesses exceptional psychometric properties, including high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s $\alpha > .90$; Composite Reliability > .90), strong factor determinacy, robust convergent validity, and well-established discriminant validity against related constructs such as commitment to the service firm, commitment to a friend, and overall customer satisfaction. By capturing the magnitude of preference and comparative favorability, the ATTS provides researchers and service practitioners with an efficient, diagnostically powerful tool for modeling relational exchange, churn risk, and the psychological mechanisms governing customer-employee relationships.

2. Keywords

relative attitude, service provider evaluation, relationship marketing, customer loyalty, psychometrics, scale validation, interpersonal commitment, comparative evaluation, service psychology, structural equation modeling

3. Authors

The Attitude Toward the Service Provider (Relative) scale was developed and empirically validated by a team of prominent scholars in the fields of service marketing, consumer behavior, and organizational psychology:

• Tim Jones, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business, MacEwan University (formerly associated with the University of Alberta and Queen’s University, Canada). Dr. Jones’s research interests center on services marketing, relational dynamics between frontline service employees and consumers, customer loyalty, and the operationalization of social exchange constructs in service settings.
• Shirley F. Taylor, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Marketing, Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Taylor is internationally recognized for her foundational contributions to service psychology, consumer waiting experiences, customer satisfaction, and relational commitment.
• Harvir S. Bansal, Ph.D. — Scholar and marketing researcher, previously affiliated with the Department of Management Sciences at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Dr. Bansal’s research spans customer switching behavior, service failure and recovery, word-of-mouth communications, and multivariate psychometric assessment in commercial environments.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward the Service Provider (Relative) scale is to assess the degree to which a consumer holds a preferential, positively valenced psychological orientation toward an individual frontline service professional when explicitly contrasted against known competitive alternatives. In traditional consumer research and applied psychometrics, customer evaluations have predominantly been captured using absolute or non-comparative scales (e.g., standard semantic differential items assessing whether a provider is “good/bad” or “favorable/unfavorable”). However, theoretical advances pioneered by scholars such as Dick and Basu (1994) established that absolute favorable attitudes alone are frequently insufficient to predict actual behavioral loyalty, resistance to competitive counter-persuasion, or sustained patronage.

Consumers routinely rate multiple service providers favorably when evaluated in isolation; yet, purchasing decisions and relational investments inherently require trade-offs among available choices. A consumer may express satisfaction with a hair stylist, medical practitioner, financial planner, or automotive technician, but their likelihood of remaining loyal depends fundamentally on whether that professional is perceived as superior to other providers within their consideration set. The ATTS was engineered to resolve this empirical and theoretical gap by providing a psychometrically rigorously validated measure of relative attitude focused squarely on the individual service employee rather than the umbrella organization.

In both applied and academic settings, the ATTS fulfills several vital diagnostic functions:

• Disentangling Relational Targets: In relational services, customers frequently develop dual bonds: one with the focal frontline employee (the service provider) and one with the corporate entity (the service firm). The ATTS isolates the comparative evaluative strength directed specifically toward the person delivering the service, allowing researchers to evaluate when personal loyalty eclipses or reinforces institutional loyalty.
• Predicting Relational Vulnerability and Churn: By measuring relative preference, the instrument identifies situations where absolute satisfaction is high but relative attitude is weak, signaling high susceptibility to customer switching if an attractive alternative emerges.
• Evaluating Frontline Human Capital: For service organizations relying on personal interactions (e.g., healthcare, wealth management, professional consulting, personal care), the scale quantifies the unique competitive advantage generated by specific human agents beyond standardized brand equity.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the ATTS is Relative Attitude toward an interpersonal service agent. Within social and cognitive psychology, an attitude is defined as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The ATTS expands upon classical attitude theory by grounding the construct within comparative judgment paradigms and choice-set evaluation theories.

Unidimensional Structure and Facets

The ATTS operationalizes relative attitude as a unidimensional, high-order cognitive-affective evaluation. Although psychometrically parsimonious (consisting of four items), the construct integrates three key cognitive and affective facets that operate synergistically:

• Comparative Affective Liking (Item 1): Captures the affective component of the attitude, assessing the emotional resonance and interpersonal fondness the consumer experiences toward the service provider relative to alternative market actors.
• Evaluative Favorability Differential (Item 2): Reflects the cognitive-evaluative appraisal, capturing the consumer’s subjective assessment of favorable attributes and personal alignment compared to competing service providers.
• Comparative Superiority Appraisal (Item 3): Measures the cognitive judgment of excellence, benchmarking the focal provider as “the best” within the individual’s subjective comparative hierarchy.
• Strength of Global Preference (Item 4): Assesses behavioral intention precursors and priority of selection, encapsulating the overarching motivational pull toward the focal provider over substitutes.

Distinction from Related Relational Constructs

To fully understand the construct of relative attitude toward the service provider, it must be delineated from adjacent relational and cognitive concepts:

• Relative Attitude vs. Absolute Satisfaction: Satisfaction represents an evaluative judgment of transactional or cumulative performance against prior expectations. In contrast, relative attitude is an enduring summary evaluation structured explicitly around inter-target comparisons. A consumer can be fully satisfied with Provider A, yet hold an even higher relative attitude toward Provider B.
• Relative Attitude vs. Interpersonal Commitment: Commitment involves a psychological pledge, affective attachment, and motivational intent to maintain a valued relationship over time, often enduring through adversity or personal sacrifice. Relative attitude represents the evaluative and preferential foundation upon which interpersonal commitment is established, serving as an antecedent rather than an identical psychological state.
• Provider Target vs. Firm Target: The ATTS explicitly benchmarks the individual human agent. While a consumer may exhibit indifference toward a banking conglomerate, their relative attitude toward their dedicated personal banker may be extraordinarily high, driving personal retention even across institutional migrations.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture supporting the ATTS integrates several foundational models from social psychology, judgment and decision-making, and relationship marketing.

Dick and Basu’s (1994) Framework of Customer Loyalty

The most direct theoretical foundation for the ATTS stems from the seminal framework of customer loyalty formulated by Dick and Basu (1994). They posited that customer loyalty is determined by the intersection of two distinct dimensions: relative attitude and repeat patronage. Crucially, Dick and Basu argued that an attitude measured without reference to alternatives has weak predictive validity regarding actual consumer choice behavior. They conceptualized relative attitude as a function of two components: (a) attitude strength (centrality, accessibility, and confidence of the evaluation), and (b) attitudinal differentiation (the magnitude of difference between the evaluation of the target entity and the evaluations of competing alternatives). The ATTS directly operationalizes this attitudinal differentiation parameter at the individual interpersonal level.

Social Comparison and Comparison Level for Alternatives ($CL_{alt}$)

The psychological mechanism of relative attitude is deeply anchored in Social Exchange Theory, specifically Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959) construct of the Comparison Level for Alternatives ($CL_{alt}$). According to this theory, individuals evaluate relational satisfaction against an internal standard ($CL$), but evaluate relational stability and dependence against the perceived outcomes available from the best alternative relationship ($CL_{alt}$). If an individual perceives that their focal service relationship yields outcomes superior to the available alternatives, their relative attitude is strongly positive, producing psychological lock-in and high barriers to switching. Conversely, if $CL_{alt}$ matches or exceeds the current provider, relative attitude declines, rendering the relationship volatile regardless of nominal satisfaction scores.

Social Judgment Theory and Reference Dependence

From a cognitive perspective, the scale aligns with Social Judgment Theory (Sherif & Hovland, 1961) and Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) Reference-Dependent Preference models. Human perception operates through contrast and assimilation against context-dependent reference points. When individuals make judgments about complex social stimuli—such as a personal service encounter—they rarely calculate absolute utility in a vacuum. Instead, they position the target provider relative to subjective anchors (e.g., past providers, known competitors, or prototypical ideals). The ATTS formalizes this cognitive frame by explicitly instructing the respondent to use known competitive alternatives as the comparative benchmark.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the ATTS was established through a series of empirical investigations conducted by Jones, Taylor, and Bansal (2008). Their research examined the structure of customer commitment across multiple focal targets (a personal friend, an individual service provider, and a service firm) within consumer service contexts, utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity reflects the degree to which scale items effectively converge onto their intended latent construct. In the validation studies conducted by Jones et al. (2008), the ATTS demonstrated exemplary convergent validity:

• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) for all four items systematically exceeded the stringent threshold of .70, with individual loadings ranging between .84 and .94 ($p < .001$). This confirms that the observed indicators share substantial variance with the latent relative attitude construct.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The Average Variance Extracted for the relative attitude construct exceeded .75, substantially higher than the recognized psychometric benchmark of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This indicates that over 75% of the variance captured by the indicators is due to the underlying construct rather than measurement error.
• Composite Reliability: The composite reliability (CR) was calculated at > .92, reinforcing the high internal convergence among the four scale items.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity ensures that the scale measures a unique psychological phenomenon distinct from other related latent variables. Jones et al. (2008) rigorously evaluated discriminant validity against multiple comparative constructs:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for the relative attitude construct was significantly greater than the inter-construct correlations ($r$) between relative attitude and all other latent dimensions in the structural model, including:
• Affective Commitment to the Service Provider ($r \approx .50 – .62$)
• Affective Commitment to the Service Company ($r \approx .40 – .55$)
• Commitment to a Friend ($r < .25$)
• Attitude toward the Service Company (Relative)
• Nested Chi-Square Difference Tests: Chi-square difference tests ($\Delta \chi^2$) conducted between unconstrained measurement models and constrained models (where the correlation between relative attitude and related constructs was fixed to 1.0) yielded statistically significant differences ($p < .001$) across all comparisons, establishing that relative attitude toward the provider is empirically unique.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The scale exhibits robust nomological validity through its theoretical alignment within structural networks. In structural equation models, relative attitude toward the service provider demonstrated:

• A strong, positive, direct relationship with Affective Commitment to the Service Provider (standardized path coefficient $\beta > .50, p < .001$).
• Significant indirect effects on positive word-of-mouth (WOM) generation, willingness to pay a price premium, and repurchase intentions through provider-level relational commitment.
• Superior predictive power for consumer retention compared to absolute, non-comparative satisfaction measures, especially in settings characterized by high interpersonal contact (e.g., hair styling, dental care, personal fitness coaching).

8. Reliability

The reliability of the ATTS has been substantiated across diverse service industries and empirical testing phases. The instrument demonstrates world-class internal consistency reliability, minimizing unsystematic measurement error.

Internal Consistency Metrics

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($\alpha$): In the initial validation datasets across varied consumer samples, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the four-item scale consistently surpassed the .90 benchmark, typically reported at $\alpha = .93$ to $.95$. This level of internal consistency indicates exceptional item covariance and structural cohesion without exhibiting excessive item redundancy.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling evaluations produced composite reliability coefficients consistently exceeding $\rho_c = .93$, verifying that the unweighted linear combination of indicators accurately represents the true score variance of the latent variable.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for each of the four individual items reliably exceed $.80$, well above the conventional $.50$ psychometric threshold, demonstrating that each item contributes heavily to the discrimination of the core construct.

Measurement Invariance and Stability

The ATTS has shown cross-sample structural stability across different service categories, ranging from high-contact personal services (e.g., hairstylists, personal trainers) to moderate-contact professional services (e.g., financial advisors, accountants). Multi-group invariance testing confirms metric and scalar invariance across diverse consumer demographic segments, ensuring that variations in scale scores reflect true differences in consumer attitude rather than differential item functioning.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the ATTS was validated using rigorous exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) protocols.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary exploratory stages, maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation (e.g., Promax) was conducted on candidate evaluative items. The results yielded an unambiguous, single-factor solution:

• Eigenvalue Criterion: A single dominant factor emerged with an eigenvalue exceeding $3.20$, accounting for over $80%$ of the total variance across the item pool.
• Scree Plot Inspection: Catell’s scree test revealed a sharp elbow after the first factor, with secondary eigenvalues falling well below unity ($< 0.40$), confirming the absence of secondary dimensions or sub-facets.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In subsequent validation samples, the four items were modeled as congeneric reflective indicators of a single latent variable within a full structural CFA framework:

Global Model Fit Indices

The single-factor CFA measurement model demonstrated outstanding goodness-of-fit to the observed covariance matrices across diverse empirical replications:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: $\chi^2 / df < 2.50$, indicating excellent absolute fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.98$ to $.99$, substantially higher than the $.95$ target criterion.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.97$ to $.99$, indicating superior comparative incremental fit.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.035$ to $.052$ (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .000 to .075), meeting the standard for close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.015$ to $.025$, reflecting negligible residual covariance among indicators.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Psychometric rating scale / Self-report questionnaire
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-administered survey
• Item Count: 4 items
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Target Population: Adult consumers, clients, or patients evaluating a focal service provider with whom they have had interaction history
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree)
• Scoring Protocol: All four items are positively worded and keyed in the same direction. There are no reverse-scored items.
  • Mean Scoring (Standard): Calculate the arithmetic mean across the four items by summing individual item scores and dividing by 4. Mean scores range from 1.00 to 7.00.
  • Summed Scoring: Alternatively, sum the raw values across all 4 items to yield a composite score ranging from 4 to 28.
• Interpretation:
  • Low Relative Attitude (1.00 – 3.49): Indicates negative or weak comparative preference. The consumer perceives alternative service providers as equal or superior to the focal provider, representing acute switching vulnerability.
  • Neutral / Moderate Relative Attitude (3.50 – 4.99): Indicates parity. The focal provider is not clearly differentiated from other known market options.
  • High Relative Attitude (5.00 – 7.00): Indicates strong comparative preference and high attitudinal differentiation. The consumer actively favors the focal provider over substitutes, fostering strong resilience against competitive marketing and solidifying interpersonal loyalty.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2008
• Original Publication Venue: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 36, Issue 4, pages 473–487.
• Copyright Holder: Academy of Marketing Science / Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
• Permissions and Academic Use: The scale was published for academic inquiry within an empirical research article. Researchers and educators are generally permitted to use the scale items without payment of royalties for non-commercial, scholarly research and educational purposes, provided that formal academic attribution is given to the original authors (Jones, Taylor, & Bansal, 2008).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial organizations, proprietary consultancies, or commercial survey vendors seeking to embed the scale within commercial diagnostic platforms should verify copyright conditions with the publisher (Springer Nature / Academy of Marketing Science).

12. References

• Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Jones, T., Taylor, S. F., & Bansal, H. S. (2008). Commitment to a friend, a service provider, or a service company—are they distinctions worth making? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0107-1
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
• Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press.
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.

13. Items of the Scale