Quality, value, satisfaction, trust, a

educes risk and evaluation difficulty when the branded product/service is perceived as
intangible.
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Intangibility
2.1.1. Definition of Intangibility
[Figure 1 about here]
Lovelock (2001) recently identified nine basic differences between products and services
with intangibility as one of the major distinguishing factors. Shostack (1977) illustrated the
differences between tangible products and intangible services by suggesting that the former
could be described precisely, be replicated exactly, be modified, and be duplicated while the
latter were dynamic, evolving, and hard to quantify. Along the same lines, Berry (1980) defined
intangibility as something impalpable. Adding another level of complexity, Bebko (2000)
recently proposed that intangibility should include lack of physical evidence of the process
instead of being defined exclusively as lack of physical attributes of the outcome.
2.1.2. Dimensions of Intangibility
Usually defined as inaccessible by the senses, subjective, and difficult to measure, most
scholars agree that intangibility is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of services
(Bateson 1979, Berry 1980, Lovelock 2001, Shostack 1977, Van Dierdonck 1992).
Characterizing services as physically and mentally intangible, a number of researchers
conceptualized intangibility as a two-dimensional construct (Bateson 1979; Berry 1980;
McDougall and Snetsinger 1990). Among them, Dubé-Rioux, Regan and Schmitt (1990)
proposed a two-dimensional intangibility construct composed of concreteness and specificity.
Their findings revealed that services differed in their cognitive representations with abstract
services represented by means of generic attributes and concrete services represented using more
81