No abstract

Recent research suggests that inseparability is not a universal distinguishing characteristic of services and that the consumption of many services is or can be separated from their production. This research defines service separation as customers' absence from service production, which denotes the spatial separation between service production and consumption. In a series of qualitative and quantitative studies across different services, the authors examine customer reactions to service separation. The results indicate that service separation increases customers' perceptions of not only access convenience and benefit convenience but also performance risk and psychological risk. Furthermore, these effects differ across services. Specifically, relative to experience services, for credence services, the effects of separation on service convenience are mitigated, and the effects on perceived risk are magnified. Subsequently, the convenience and risk perceptions induced by service separation can influence customers' purchase decisions and postexperience evaluations. Customers prefer separation for experience services and when they have an established relationship with the service provider. Finally, the authors discuss the theoretical contributions and managerial implications and offer directions for further research.

Author contributions: The 1 st through 4 th and last authors developed the research questions, oversaw the project, and contributed equally. The 1 st through 3 rd authors oversaw the Main Studies and Replication Studies, and the 4 th , 6 th , 7 th , and 8 th authors oversaw the Forecasting Study. The 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 8 th , and 9 th authors conducted the primary analyses. The 10 th through 15 th authors conducted the Bayesian analyses. The first and 16 th authors conducted the multivariate meta-analysis.

Recent research suggests that inseparability is not a universal distinguishing characteristic of services and that the consumption of many services is or can be separated from their production. This research defines service separation as customers' absence from service production, which denotes the spatial separation between service production and consumption. In a series of qualitative and quantitative studies across different services, the authors examine customer reactions to service separation. The results indicate that service separation increases customers' perceptions of not only access convenience and benefit convenience but also performance risk and psychological risk. Furthermore, these effects differ across services. Specifically, relative to experience services, for credence services, the effects of separation on service convenience are mitigated, and the effects on perceived risk are magnified. Subsequently, the convenience and risk perceptions induced by service separation can influence customers' purchase decisions and postexperience evaluations. Customers prefer separation for experience services and when they have an established relationship with the service provider. Finally, the authors discuss the theoretical contributions and managerial implications and offer directions for further research.

Prior research suggests that consumers experience psychological discomfort when they make a choice under attitudinal ambivalence. The research reported here examines systematic cross‐cultural variations in psychological discomfort as a function of dialectical thinking and attitudinal ambivalence in the context of choice. It shows that compared to nondialectical (Western) consumers, dialectical (Eastern) consumers experience less psychological discomfort when they hold bivalent evaluations of the focal object, but more psychological discomfort when they hold univalent evaluations (Study 1). It also identifies “uncertainty about making the correct choice” as the underlying process that accounts for these findings (Study 2). In addition, this research explores the downstream effects of psychological discomfort on choice deferral in the context of free choice (Study 3) and preference reversal in the context of forced choice (Study 4). Contributions to and implications for research on attitudinal ambivalence, choice behavior, and dialectical thinking are discussed.