The behavior of consumers while waiting in line for services is often analyzed, in North America, in relation to the concepts of social justice, egalitarism, orderliness, and fairness (Milgram, Liberty, Toledo, & Wackenhut, 1986; Schmitt, Dubé, & Leclerc, 1992). Accordingly, while waiting, one’s attentional focus is directed toward others to limit violation of these principles. Indeed, protection of implicit waiting in line rules was found to be more important when the disturbing behavior occurred nearby, for example, an intrusion immediately in front of a customer. However, no studies have been reported in which it was investigated whether or not reactions toward violation of these social norms are related to the participants’ level of concern toward the self as perceived by others. In other words, is there a personality disposition likely to generate specific affective and cognitive reactions toward intrusion because of greater concerns for others’ impressions or expectations? In this study we examined whether high vs. low public self-conscious participants may have distinctive reactions when an additional delay is related to violation of social norms – rather than to a simple loss of time related to the service provider. More precisely, high vs. low private participants’ private thoughts, causal attribution for delay, and evaluation of the waiting experience were examined in different waiting situations involving an additional delay, but only one related to an intrusion immediately in front of the main participant, dictating the need to restore social justice in the queue.

The public self-consciousness state refers to a participant’s tendency to think about the publicly displayed aspects of the self that can easily be examined by others, such as physical appearance, fashion, (Kwon, 1992; Miller & Cox, 1982; Solomon & Schopler, 1982) or purchasing behavior. For example, in an attempt to improve their public image, high public self-conscious people were found to prefer national brand products to low-price brand products (Bushman, 1993).

Different studies have provided evidence of greater focus on the public aspects of self among high public self-conscious subjects – for example, Franzoi and Brewer (1984) showed that high public self-conscious participants had greater self reports of thoughts referring to the public self. Similarly, Fenigstein (1984) found that, when asking participants how likely it was that an instructor would have chosen them as the participant in a class demonstration that was about to take place, high public self-conscious participants rated the probability as higher than did low public self-conscious participants.

Interestingly, Buss (1980) stated that, with exceptions to be noted, no one is publicly self-focused unless there are others to observe them. In other words, public self-consciousness does not occur unless it is turned on by some stimulus such as being observed, which would be the case if an intrusion was to happen immediately in front of a participant waiting in line with others. According to Buss (1980), stares lead to public self-consciousness especially when they come from strangers, and public self-awareness rarely occurs with friends, family, or lovers. Not surprisingly, these conditions will lead high public participants to be less comfortable – while their low self-conscious counterparts will feel less uncomfortable because they are less concerned about others’ evaluations of them and their expected behaviors (Franzoi & Brewer, 1984).

In summary, in general, an additional delay while waiting in line with unknown people will lead high public self-conscious participants to be more concerned with self-related thoughts than low public participants would be (Hypothesis 1.1). Moreover, specific waiting conditions may also exacerbate high public participants’ sensitivity to other people’s concerns, such as would be the case if a situation leading to an additional waiting time should occur immediately in front of the participants and attract other clients’ attention to them. Indeed, in such cases, because he/she is the next person behind, the high public participant may strongly believe that everyone around is expecting him/her to react to the situation which has led to a loss of time. Therefore, for high public participants, additional waiting time caused by a situation occurring immediately in front of them will lead them to be more concerned with self-related thoughts than low public participants would be (Hypothesis 1.2). Moreover, a waiting line intrusion will lead high public participants to be more concerned with self-related thoughts than low public participants would be (Hypothesis 1.3). Indeed, the high public participant may be asking him/herself why the stranger decided to intrude in front of him/her instead of in front of someone else. Finally, because both loss of time and social norm violations would occur when there is an intrusion immediately in front of the participants, high public participants’ sensitivity to other people’s concerns should be more intense in such a case, than when a comparable loss of time could be related to a service provider’s behavior occurring immediately in front of them. Indeed, violation of social norms may imply that high public participants strongly believe that they are expected to restore social justice – which is more important than reacting only to a loss of time. Therefore, a waiting line intrusion occurring immediately in front of high public participants will lead them to be more concerned with self-related thoughts than low public participants would be (Hypothesis 1.4).

Current knowledge concerning high public participants suggests also a distinctive attributional style. Indeed, with respect to causal attribution for the delay, predictions can be made based on the self-serving attributional bias known also as the ego defensiveness approach (Weiner, 1990). This concept refers to the tendency to attribute success to the self and failure to others. The desire to appear good, or to appear in a favorable way in the eyes of others, could be expected from high public self-conscious participants since they are known to be more sensitive about protecting and enhancing their feelings of personal worth and competence (Cheek & Briggs, 1982). Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that public self-consciousness and impression management are two overlapping constructs involving a desire to protect one’s public image (Schlenker, 1980). Therefore, based on the self-serving bias (in general) when waiting in line with strangers and having to face an additional delay, high public participants will attribute more control to others for the cause of waiting than will low public participants (Hypothesis 2.1). Moreover, the self-serving bias is likely to occur also under specific situations leading to greater concerns in terms of sensitivity to other people’s impressions. Therefore, additional waiting time caused by a situation’s occurring immediately in front of them will lead high public participants to attribute more control to others for the cause of waiting than will low public participants (Hypothesis 2.2). The same predictions can be made with respect to the cause of the additional waiting: a waiting line intrusion will lead high public participants to attribute more control to others for the cause of waiting than it will for low public participants (Hypothesis 2.3). Accordingly, in comparison with low public participants, when high public participants are in a waiting situation where an intrusion occurs right in front of them, it is hypothesized that they will attribute more control to others for the cause of waiting (Hypothesis 2.4).

With respect to affective reactions, many high public participants react to what they observe about their social selves with fear and acute discomfort or with inhibition of social behavior. When the observers are other people, the discomfort is more intense, shading into acute social anxiety (Buss, 1980). According to Duval and Wicklund (1972), the discomfort associated with public self-consciousness is likely to generate an affect for which two outcomes are expected. First, individuals may try to avoid the state of self-focus – in other words, divert attention from the self by focusing outward, leaving the site, or becoming involved in other tasks. Second, they may also try to change their behavior, appearance, or feelings, to bring them in line with the perceived standard (Gibbons, 1990). According to Carver and Scheier (1986), in some situations a self-aware participant may wish to withdraw physically in order to end the discomfort, but the context does not always permit or sanction this. It can be reasonably hypothesized that, in a waiting situation, this negative affect may lead high public participants to experience a temporary negative mood state that could lead to their reporting a more negative service evaluation in terms of perception of service quality and satisfaction. Indeed, as stated by Hui and Zhou (1993), consumers may experience different mood states that could affect their reactions to service delay. Also, based on Bitner (1990), personality traits and mood states caused by unrelated events are factors known to affect the level of satisfaction with a service encounter.

Moreover, past service marketing researchers suggests also that consumers’ service evaluations may be related to their attribution process. Taylor (1994) has confirmed that the more the cause of the delay was perceived to be under the control of the service provider, the more anger the consumer felt. These results supported previous findings by Folkes (1984) and Folkes, Koletsky, and Graham (1987). Furthermore, in airline services this negative affective response associated with attribution has been found to negatively influence passenger evaluations of service punctuality and overall evaluation of satisfaction with the service (Taylor, 1994).

For high public participants, the waiting situations that have led to hypothesize that, when compared to low public participants, they would attribute more control to the service manager/enterprise for waiting (Hypotheses 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4), should also lead one to hypothesize a more negative evaluation of the waiting experience. Thus, the following hypotheses can be formulated:
-    in general, while waiting with strangers and facing an additional delay, as compared with low public participants, high public participants will have a more negative evaluation of service quality (Hypothesis 3.1a) and will be less satisfied with the waiting experience (Hypothesis 3.1b).
-  as compared with low public participants, a more negative evaluation of service quality (Hypothesis 3.2a) and less satisfaction with the waiting experience (Hypothesis 3.2b) are expected when high public participants experience a situation leading to additional waiting time that occurs immediately in front of them. In such a case, they may strongly believe that others are expecting them to react to the situation because they are the next person behind the event which has led to either a loss of time, or a loss of time and violation of social norms.
-  as compared with low public participants, when the cause of waiting is related to an intruder, high public participants will have a more negative evaluation of service quality (Hypothesis 3.3a) and will be less satisfied with the waiting experience (Hypothesis 3.3b).
-  as compared with low public participants, a more negative evaluation of service quality (Hypothesis 3.4a) and less satisfaction with the waiting experience (Hypothesis 3.4b) are expected when high public participants experience a direct intrusion situation. In such a situation, besides strongly experiencing the feeling that they are expected to react to restore social justice, they may also be asking themselves why the intruder decided to intrude in front of them rather than in front of someone else, etc.

The study used a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design: cause of waiting (intruder, service provider), proximity of the event (immediately in front of the participant, further away from the participant). The manipulation of the cause of the additional waiting time was retained to explore two specific situations, both involving the same loss of time, but only one being related to violation of social norms while queuing. Schmitt, Dubé, and Leclerc (1992) demonstrated that, in their reactions to intrusions, queuers seem to refer to fairness and as a result would be more likely to react when the social norms are violated because of an intruder than when confronted with a comparable loss of time that does not threaten the rules of the queue (e.g., a delay caused by the service provider).

The manipulation of the proximity of the event from the participant was retained to increase participants’ sensitivity toward other people’s concerns. More precisely, the nearby event is more likely to attract other clients’ attention toward the main participant. Indeed, the principal interest of each participant in a waiting line is to defend the space between himself/herself and the person standing immediately in front. Moreover, as stated by Milgram et al. (1986): ‘A willingness to object to intrusions quickly attenuates with positions further down the line. The queue will hold together if each member defends the space immediately in front, which the queuer often experiences as a zone of special responsibility’ (Milgram et al., 1986, p. 689).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The questionnaire included one of the four versions of a scenario describing a waiting situation at a movie theater. The scenarios described a situation in which the main participant (unaccompanied) had to face a total waiting time of 10 minutes and an additional delay of two minutes. The additional delay was associated either with an inappropriate behavior on the part of the service provider (personnel chatting instead of working) or to an intruder in the line. The event was located either immediately in front of the participant or at the 5th position in front of the participant.

Situational scenarios have been used in previous empirical studies in services marketing (Bitner, 1990; Folkes, 1984; Marquis, 1998; Schmitt et al., 1992). They are appropriate when the variables manipulated do not involve verbal communications, as in the present research. Moreover, in comparison with field experiments, in terms of internal validity, scenarios increase the researcher’s level of control over the variables being studied by reducing the effect of confounding variables likely to be found in field experiments.

Participants were undergraduate students recruited from a Canadian University located in Québec, via a poster located near the university’s financial services. The poster mentioned that university students, familiar with a movie theater environment and willing to answer a written questionnaire on consumers’ reactions at theaters, were needed. The poster mentioned that the experiment would last 20 minutes, and that a free movie pass would be given to each of the respondents. Participants who accepted the invitation to participate were met individually by the first author, who asked them to read very carefully every instruction given throughout the questionnaire. A total of 160 participants were recruited and completed a questionnaire – of which 159 were used, and one of which was rejected. Participants were asked to read the one page scenario and to imagine that they were the main participants of the story.

The student population was relevant to the service context under study since statistical data indicated that the movie theater clientele profile corresponds to that of undergraduate students (Québec Office Statistics, 1995). The movie theater was retained as the service context first because consumers are often faced with waiting lines, and second because theater service managers are very much concerned with service quality and clientele satisfaction.

The Cronbach’s alphas obtained in previous studies are comparable to those obtained herein. The Cronbach’s alphas were, respectively for each subscale: 0.80 (private subscale), 0.84 (public subscale), and 0.78 (social anxiety subscale) while in Scheier and Carver’s study (1985) the Cronbach’s alphas were 0.75 (private subscale), 0.84 (public subscale), 0.79 (social anxiety subscale).

Participants were classified as either high or low on the public subscale based on a median score of 12. Other researchers also have used the scale to classify participants as high or low on the public dimension (Cheek & Briggs, 1982; Fenigstein, 1984; Franzoi & Brewer, 1984; Nasby, 1996; Schlenker & Weigold, 1990).

Dependent variable measures
Attentional focus Among the different measures of cognition available (Clark, 1988), the endorsement procedure consisting of 15 items on a 7-point scale was used where 1 = definitively like me and 7 = not at all like me. The endorsement procedure implies that the participants respond to the predetermined series of items rather than listing their thoughts as they are remembered, or thinking aloud. The items were developed to capture different attentional foci in which there were self-related thoughts inspired by statements related to the public self-consciousness subscale and the social anxiety subscale of the Revised Self-consciousness Scale.

The 15 items were submitted to a principal component factor analysis using varimax rotation. The Bartlett test of sphericity was used to evaluate the probability that the correlation matrix had significant correlations among at least some of the variables. The Bartlett test showed that nonzero correlations existed at p < 0.001 (Bartlett test = 428.3, p = .001). Furthermore, the measure of sampling adequacy was 0.6, indicating that the data were acceptable for factor analysis (Kaiser, 1970).

Four factors emerged from the factor analysis. The items, factor loadings, percentage of variances explained, eigenvalues, and Cronbach’s alphas of each factor are reported in Table 2. The factor represented by self-related thoughts explained 13.3% of the variance.

To verify high public participants’ attentional focus while waiting with strangers in general, a one-way analysis of variance of public self-consciousness on self-related thoughts was conducted. Results were significant (F(1, 158) = 11.0, p = .001). High public participants reported having significantly more self-related thoughts than did low public participants (M = 5.0 vs. M = 5.7). Hypothesis 1.1 is confirmed.

With regards to verifying high public participants’ attentional focus in relation to the proximity of the event, an analysis of variance for the self-related thoughts conducted on proximity of the event (immediately in front of the participant, further away from the participants) and public self-consciousness indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness (F(1, 158) = 11.1, p = .001). Both the nearby and further away scenarios led high public participants to have significantly more self-related thoughts than low public participants (Nearby scenarios: F(1, 78) = 6.2, p = .02; M = 4.8 vs. M = 5.7, respectively) (Further away scenarios: F(1, 79) = 4.9, p = .03; M = 5.1 vs. M = 5.8, respectively). Since Hypothesis 1.2 stated that only the nearby scenarios would lead high public participants to have more self-related thoughts than low public participants, Hypothesis 1.2 is not confirmed.

To verify the effect of the cause of waiting on participants’ attentional focus, an analysis of variance for the self-related thoughts was conducted on cause of waiting (intruder or service provider) and public self-consciousness. Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness (F(1, 158) = 10.2, p = .002) and a main effect of scenarios (F(1, 158) = 13.1, p = .002). The intruder cause led high public participants to have significantly more self-related thoughts than low public participants (F(1, 78) = 8.8, p = .004; M = 4.5 vs. M = 5.5, respectively). The difference was not significant for the service provider cause. The intruder caused high public participants to have significantly more self-related thoughts than did the service provider (F(1, 81) = 9.4, p = .003; M = 4.5 vs. M = 5.5, respectively). This difference is specific to participants classified as high public subjects. Hypothesis 1.3 is thus confirmed.

Finally, to verify Hypothesis 1.4, an analysis of variance was conducted for self-related thoughts on public self-consciousness disposition and Scenario 1 (intrusion immediately in front) and Scenario 3 (service provider’s inappropriate behavior, immediately in front). Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness (F(1, 78) = 6.3, p = .01). Only the scenario with the nearby intrusion in front of the participant (Scenario 1) led high public participants to report significantly more self-related thoughts than low public participants (M = 4.4 vs. M = 5.8). The scenario involving the inappropriate service personnel behavior immediately in front of the participant (Scenario 3) did not lead to any differences between high and low public participants with respect to their self-related thoughts. Hence, Hypothesis 1.4 is confirmed.

To verify Hypothesis 2.1, a one-way analysis of variance of public self-consciousness on the controllability dimension was conducted, and results were significant (F(1, 159) = 6.4, p = .01). High public participants attributed more control to the service manager/enterprise for the cause of waiting than did low public participants (M= 6.4 vs. M= 5.5). Hypothesis 2.1 is confirmed. These results seem to support the self-serving bias: while waiting with strangers, high public participants tended to protect themselves, therefore attributing causality for the controllability of a waiting cause to someone else, herein the service manager/enterprise.

To verify the effect of the proximity of the event (in front of the participant, further away from the participant) on the causal attribution for the cause of the delay, an ANOVA was conducted for the controllability dimension on public self-consciousness disposition. Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness (F(1, 158)= 6.2, p = .01). Under the nearby scenarios, when compared with low public participants, high public participants attributed significantly more control to the service manager/enterprise for the cause of waiting (F(1, 78) = 4.9, p= .03; M = 6.4 vs. M = 5.2). Again, these findings seem to support that high public participants need to always maintain a positive self-image, which would be more threatened under negative events occurring near them, thus confirming Hypothesis 2.2.

To verify the effect of the cause of waiting (intruder, service provider) on the causal attribution for waiting, an ANOVA was conducted for the controllability dimension on public self-consciousness and cause of waiting (intruder, service provider). Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness (F(1, 158) = 7.2, p = .008) and a main effect of scenarios on causal attribution (F (1, 158) = 3.8, p = .05). Under the intruder scenarios, when compared with low public participants, high public participants attributed significantly more control to the service manager/enterprise for the cause of waiting (F(1, 78) = 7.1, p = .01; M = 6.2 vs. M = 4.9). This difference did not appear for the service provider scenarios. In other words, for high public participants, violation of social norms by customers is perceived to be more under the control of the service manager. With respect to the scenario main effect, analysis revealed that the intruder cause led low public participants to attribute less control to the service manager/enterprise than did the service provider cause (F (1, 75) = 4.0, p = .05; M = 4.9 vs. M = 6.0). Hence, Hypothesis 2.3 is confirmed.

Since significant results for proximity and cause of events were available to verify Hypothesis 2.4, an ANOVA was conducted for attribution of control to others on public self-consciousness disposition, cause of waiting and proximity. Significant three-way interactions were obtained between public self-consciousness disposition, cause of waiting and proximity of the event on attribution of controllability (F(1, 158) = 4.6, p = .04; Figure 1).

In general, while waiting with strangers, when compared with low public participants, high public participants were expected to have a more negative evaluation of service quality and to be less satisfied with the waiting experience. To verify these hypotheses, a one-way ANOVA of public self-consciousness on the perception of service quality was conducted, and significant results were obtained (F(1, 158) = 12.2, p = .001). In general, high public subjects had a significantly more negative perception of service quality than did low public participants (M = 4.8 vs. M = 4.2) hence confirming Hypothesis 3.1a.

A one-way analysis of variance of public self-consciousness on the level of satisfaction with the waiting experience was also significant (F(1, 158) = 9.2, p = .003). In general, high public participants were significantly less satisfied with the waiting experience than were low public participants (M = 4.7 vs. M = 4.1, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 3.1b is also confirmed.

To verify the effect of the proximity of the event on high public participants’ evaluation of the waiting experience, an ANOVA for the perception of service quality was conducted on the proximity of the event (immediately in front of the participant, further away from the participant) and public self-consciousness disposition. Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness on perception of service quality (F(1, 156) = 12.5, p =.001). When compared with low public participants, for scenarios involving situations occurring immediately in front of the participant, high public participants had a significantly more negative perception of service quality (F(1, 77)= 10.3, p = .002; M= 4.9 vs. M= 4.2 respectively). The difference was not significant for the further away scenarios. Hypothesis 3.2a is thus confirmed.

An ANOVA for the level of satisfaction with the waiting experience was also conducted on proximity of the event (immediately in front of the participant, further away from the participant) and public self-consciousness. Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness on satisfaction with the waiting experience (F(1, 158) = 8.9, p = .003). In comparison with low public participants, when the scenarios involved a situation occurring immediately in front of the participant, high public participants were significantly less satisfied with the waiting experience (F(1, 78) = 4.9, p = .03; M = 4.6 vs. M = 4.0 respectively). The same significant results are observed when the scenarios included a situation occurring further away from the main participant (F(1, 79) = 4.0, p = .05; M = 4.7 vs. M = 4.2 respectively). Only partial support is therefore given to Hypothesis 3.2b since both the nearby and the further away scenarios led high public participants to be less satisfied than low public participants.

To verify the effect of the cause of waiting on high public participants’ evaluation of the waiting experience, an ANOVA for the effect of the cause of waiting (intruder or service provider) and public self-consciousness of perception of service quality was conducted. A main effect of public self-consciousness on perception of service quality was obtained (F(1, 156) = 13.7, p = .000). When compared with low public participants, the service provider cause led high public participants to have a significantly more negative perception of service quality (F(1, 79) = 9.2; M = 5.0 vs. M = 4.3). No significant differences were obtained between high and low public participants for the intruder cause (M = 4.5 vs. M =4.0). Hypothesis 3.3a is not confirmed.

An ANOVA for the level of satisfaction with the waiting experience conducted on public self-consciousness and cause of waiting also indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness (F(1, 158) = 9.9, p = .002). When compared with low public participants, both the service provider scenarios and the intruder scenarios led high public participants to be significantly less satisfied with the waiting experience: service provider scenarios (F(1, 79) = 6.0, p = .02; M = 4.9 vs. M = 4.2 respectively); intruder scenarios (F(1, 79) = 3.9, p = .05; M = 4.5 vs. M = 4.0 respectively). Only partial support is given to Hypothesis 3.3b since it was hypothesized that only the intruder cause would lead to a difference in satisfaction.

To verify the effect of the event (direct intrusion, inappropriate behavior from the service provider) on high public participants’ evaluation of service quality, an ANOVA for the perception of service quality was first conducted on the four scenarios and public self-consciousness disposition. Results indicated a main effect of public self-consciousness on perception of service quality (F(1, 156) = 14.1, p = .000; see Table 4).

When compared with low public participants, a direct intrusion scenario (Scenario 1) led high public participants to have a significantly more negative perception of service quality (F(l, 37) = 9.4, p = .004) (M = 4.8 highs vs. M = 3.8 lows). No significant differences were observed between high and low public participants for scenario 3. Hypothesis 3.4a is confirmed. The same significant results were observed for the scenario involving the inappropriate behavior from the service provider further away from the participant (Scenario 4) (F(1, 39) = 5.9, p = .02) (M = 4.9 highs vs. M = 4.0 lows).

An ANOVA for the level of satisfaction with the waiting experience was also conducted on the four scenarios and public self-consciousness. Results indicated the same main effect of public self-consciousness on satisfaction with the waiting experience (F(1, 158) = 9.6, p = .002; see Table 5).

Waiting in line with strangers is not a pleasant situation for high public participants. In comparison with low public participants, they feel more concerned about others’ opinions, about being observed, and about being with strangers in general.

Although this unpleasant state seems to persist whatever the location of the event leading to additional waiting time, it is more acute when intrusion is the concern. In other words, service personnel’s inappropriate behavior occurring immediately in front of them does not accentuate their self-related thoughts – whereas an intruder or an intrusion in general does. Do high public participants believe that they are expected to react to violation of social norms, but not to additional waiting time caused by service personnel? Do high public participants worry more about the reasons which might have led an intruder to slip into the line immediately in front of them rather than behind them? When seeing an intrusion, do they start worrying about the proper way to behave if it gets closer to them? One thing is certain, service managers can contribute to alleviation of high public participants’ self-related negative state by always ensuring queue discipline (installing ropes for instance) and by hiring theater ushers to actively manage lines of clients at peak times and dissuade daring intruders from queue jumping (Lovelock, 1996).

Interestingly, service managers of movie theaters are faced with two specific features of leisure industries. First, while knowing that high public customers may have an aversion to waiting, at the same time, seeing customers waiting may be used by others as a positive indicator of a great entertainment. Such a dilemma is also found with respect to management of crowding in bars, theme parks, disco clubs, etc. (Bateson & Hui, 1990). In brief, although waiting lines may be a positive indicator of a great place to be, alternatives to waiting may also need to be offered according to consumer profile.

The second feature refers to the fact that, at a movie theater, the customer is faced with an easily-postponed distraction. In other words, the high public participant may decide to leave the queue, or not join it at all. But if a high public subject decides to join the queue, a sort of entrapment is likely to happen. As stated by Green, Lehmann, and Schmitt (1996, p. 93): ‘the fact that the customer has the option of leaving may result in agonizing over the decision about whether to continue waiting or not, given the amount of time that has already elapsed.’ Moreover, the uncertainty about obtaining a seat to see the selected movie may add to the cost of high public participants’ discomfort in the presence of strangers. In sum, if the service provider cannot prevent high public participants from waiting, he should at least provide them with regular information on seats available to reduce the uncertainty and keep them waiting in a less agonizing state.

With regard to causal attribution, public self-consciousness disposition was found to be a determinant of the attribution of control over the cause of waiting. A closer look at the results suggests also that situations which led high public participants to focus significantly more on self-related thoughts led them also to attribute more control to the service manager/enterprise for the cause of waiting. Overall, these findings seem to support a self-serving attributional bias associated with high public participants (Cheek & Briggs, 1982; Weiner, 1990). Only the effect of proximity gave somewhat more ambiguous results (both nearby and further away scenarios led to self-related thoughts; only the nearby scenarios led to attribution of more control).

To the researchers’ knowledge this is the first time that a causal relationship has been established between consumers’ individual differences and attribution of control over the cause of waiting. Moreover, the results obtained herein with respect to attribution of control to others and self-consciousness disposition not only contribute to a better understanding of motivation as an antecedent of attributions, but also contribute to the identification of service situations (e.g., waiting) which elicit specific attributional biases. As stated by Folkes (1988):
‘Some have suggested that research trying to identify the superiority of motivational or cognitive explanations for attributional biases is fruitless; both influence causal inferences but under different circumstances...Thus, research should try to identify situations eliciting types of biases’ (Folkes, p. 550).

If high public participants do have a specific attributional style, then this finding could have interesting managerial implications. Because of their self-serving bias in attribution of control over the cause of waiting, comments of high public participants on service evaluation should be handled with caution in order to reestablish the accuracy of the situation without hurting the high public participants’ egos.

As stated by Bitner, Booms, and Mohr (1994): ‘managers must acknowledge that the customer is not always right’ (p. 102). However, in order to be able to handle high public participants’ comments with respect to service reliability as well as their own reactions when facing customers marked by a self-serving bias, contact personnel need training as well as appropriate coping skills. Also, more than being taught to recognize situations (e.g., long waiting time) likely to induce dissatisfaction with the waiting experience, contact personnel could be trained to recognize the clientele more likely to have a high public profile (e.g., teenagers). Such an approach must be preceded by a clear organizational policy regarding clientele satisfaction that could range along a continuum from a decision to take the risk of losing a client by responding without concern for his/her ego, to satisfying a high public participant at all costs.

A second managerial implication relates to the classification of contact personnel according to their self-consciousness dispositions. Differences in attributional style between clients and contact personnel may help explain differences in perceptions found between them when attributing the cause of a service delay. Since clients and contact personnel may arrive at different attributions, those differences need to be managed since they do have consequences. For example, if contact personnel attribute the cause of waiting to the client’s decision to come and see the movie on a ‘premiere evening’, then the personnel may not feel compelled to give an apology for waiting. Similarly, during the same evening, consumers who attribute controllability to service managers for the cause of an additional delay will feel angry and irritated and expect at least apologies.

Finally, with respect to service evaluation, as predicted, almost all situations where high public vs. low public participants attributed significantly more control to the service manager/enterprise over the cause of waiting (waiting in general, direct intrusion, nearby events) also produced a negative effect on service evaluation (or at least partially supported). Only the effect of the cause of waiting offered ambiguous results with respect to perception of service quality (Hypothesis 3.3a). To the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first time a relationship has been established between perception of service quality, satisfaction with the waiting experience, and consumers’ personality dispositions.

Since high public participants experience more discomfort while waiting because of various (mostly self-related) thoughts and based on their tendency to adopt a self-serving attributional style (by attributing control over the delay to others), it seems very difficult to expect a favorable evaluation of a waiting experience from high public participants. Having established relationships between attribution/self-related thoughts and between attribution/evaluation of the waiting experience, every effort should be engaged by service managers to reduce waiting when the clientele consists mainly of high public participants. These findings emphasize the need to pursue future studies in which research into observable consumer differences which can be associated with specific self-consciousness profiles is prioritized. Such studies would allow service managers to use self-consciousness disposition as a segmentation basis.

Bateson, J. E. G., & Hui, M. (1990). The effects of perceived control and customer crowding on the service experience. Working Paper, Report No. 90-105, (March). Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L.A. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employee’s view-point. Journal of Marketing, 58, 95-106.

Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality: The customer’s voice. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality – New directions in theory and research, (72-94). New York: Sage.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.

Briëre, N. M., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Effect of private self-consciousness and success out come on causal dimensions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 325-331.

Bushman, B. J. (1993). What’s in a name? The moderating role of public self-consciousness on the relation between brand label and brand preference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 857-861.

Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1986). Functional and dysfunctional responses to anxiety: The interaction between expectancies and self-focused attention. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related cognitions in anxiety and motivation, (pp. 111-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chebat, J. C., Filiatrault, P., Gélinas-Chebat, C., & Vaninsky, A. (1995). Impact of waiting attribution and consumer’s mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34, 191-196.

Cheek, J. M., & Briggs, S. R. (1982). Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. Journal of Research on Personality, 16, 401-408.

Clark, D. A. (1988). The validity of measures of cognition: A review of the literature. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 1-20.

Davis, M. F., & Fixter, J. (1988). Self-focusing effects on self-consciousness. Psychological Reports, 62, 482.

Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. Academic Press: New York.

Fenigstein, A. (1984). Self-consciousness and the overperception of self as a target. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 860-870.

Folkes, V. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 13-23.

Folkes, V. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 398-409.

Folkes, V., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. L. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and consumer reaction: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 534-539.

Franzoi, S. L., & Brewer, L. C. (1984). The experience of self-awareness and its relation to level of self-consciousness: An experiential sampling study. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 522-540.

Gibbons, F. X. (1990). The impact of focus attention and affect on social behavior. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness and embarrassment-perspectives from social psychology, (pp. 119-143). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Green, L. V., Lehmann D. R., & Schmitt, B. H. (1996). Time perceptions in service systems: An overview of the TPM framework. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 5, 85-107.

Hui, M. K., & Zhou, L. (1993). The effects of waiting time information on consumers’ reactions to delays in service. In A. Carson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada-Marketing Division, (pp. 123-131). Canada: University of New Brunswick.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.

Knap, P. A., & Deluty, R. H. (1987). Private and public self-consciousness in clinical and nonclinical samples. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 15, 43-51.

Kwon, Y-H. (1992). Body consciousness, self-consciousness, and women’s attitudes toward clothing practices. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 20, 295-307.

Lovelock. C. H. (1996). Services marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marquis, M. (1998). Self-consciousness disposition sheds light on consumers’ reactions to waiting. In J. Alba & J. Wesley (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, (pp. 544-550). Provo, UT: ACR.

Milgram, S., Liberty, H. J. Toledo, R., & Wackenhut, J. (1986). Responses to intrusion into waiting lines. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 683-689.

Miller, L. C., & Cox, C. L. (1982). For appearances’ sake: Public self-consciousness and makeup use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 748-751.

Mittal, B., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (1987). Testing the dimensionality of the self-consciousness scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 53-68.

Nasby, W. (1996). Private and public self-consciousness and articulation of the ought self from private and public vantages. Journal of Personality, 64, 131-156.

Nasby, W. (1989). Private and public self-consciousness and articulation of the self-schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 117-123.

Québec office statistics (1995). Film industry statistics 1995. Québec: Les Publications du Québec.

Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self-consciousness scale: A revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687-699.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1990). Self-consciousness and self-presentation: Being autonomous versus appearing autonomous. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 820-828.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schmitt, B. H., Dubé, L., & Leclerc, F. (1992). Intrusions into waiting lines: Does the queue constitute a social system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 806-815.

Solomon, M. R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508-514.

Taylor, S. A. (1994). Waiting for service: The relationship between delays and evaluations of service. Journal of Marketing, 58, 56-69.

Vallerand, R. J., & Richer, F. (1988). On the use of the causal dimension scale in a field setting: A test with confirmatory factor analysis in success and failure situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 704-712.

Weiner, B. (1980). Praise or blame? Affective influences on attributions for achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 809-819.

Weiner, B. (1990). Searching for the roots of applied attribution theory. In S. Graham & V. Folkes V. (Eds), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict, (pp. 1-13). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.