Research Method and Analysis

A survey was used in this study. Questionnaires were distributed to 1,000 MBA students in Korea. All of them were part-time students and most were fully employed at the time of the survey. We received 222 usable respondents, a return rate of 22.2 percent.

The initial data analysis showed that most participants were proficient in computer: power-users (11.3 percent), above average (20.7 percent), average (41.0 percent), below-average (18.5 percent) and novice (9.4 percent). In their career paths, the participants were from various fields: manufacturing (20.3 percent), financing/banking (1.4 percent), transportation (12.2 percent), information technology (1.8 percent), retailing (12.0 percent), communications (3.2 percent), education (35.6 percent), health care (5.1 percent), others (7.4 percent) and no response (2.7 percent). The survey utilized a seven-point Likert-type scale to measure respondents' overall perceptions about measurement items. Measurement items per each construct ask respondents to rate the extent to which they feel or agree with the feature described by the statement on a scale of one through seven, where 1 = subjects strongly disagree and 7 = subjects strongly agree.

To test the hypotheses, we first performed a cluster analysis. Cluster analysis is an exploratory data analysis tool for developing meaningful subgroups of individuals or objects. Its object is to sort cases (people, things, events, etc.) into groups, or clusters, so that the degree of association is strong between members of the same cluster and weak between members of different clusters (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). We grouped the clusters based on face-to-face, telephone, fax, e-mail, and Internet information. Table 2 shows the results of this cluster. We identified three groups of end-users: one group utilizing all of the media, another group using most of the electronic media such as e-mail and Internet, and the other group using mostly telephone and face to face. We named the first group the hybrid group (HG), second group the electronic group (EG), and third group the conventional group (CG). The numbers of end-users were 55, 95, and 54, respectively.

Table 2: Cluster Analysis of End-Users, Media Choice Pattern

media \ mean	Hybrid	Electronic	Conventional
Face to face	4.58	1.63	1.89
Telephone	4.93	4.79	5.22
Fax	4.24	1.69	1.57
E-mail	4.55	5.38	2.44
Internet	5.11	5.93	1.85
Total number	(55)	(95)	(54)
Mean: the extent to which respondents frequently use the media

Secondly, we performed factor analysis using measures related to the service perception constructs to assess the reliability of the multi-item scales. Table 3 shows the factor analysis results. These five factors account for more than 78.36 percent of the observed variance. The loading of each of the 15 measures on its respective factor is well over 0.40, and the Eigenvalue of each construct is above one. The results of the factor analysis, therefore, showed convergent and discriminate validity for the measures we used (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Cronbach, 1971). Also, the reliabilities for the measures were calculated based on Cronbach's alpha, and all five constructs showed strong reliability, with all over 0.75.

Table 3: Factors Analysis of Independent Variables

	Tang.	Resp.	Assu.	Reli.	Empa.
The medium you use the most will increase visual attention using materials such as pamphlets or public relations.	.854
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service is visually appealing.	.838
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service has modern-looking equipment.	.780
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service is never too busy to respond to your requests.		.906
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service is always ready to respond your request.		.813
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service provides a prompt service.		.774
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service make you feel safe with your transactions.			.839
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service gives you a confidence about the transaction.			.784
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service has knowledge about your transactions.			.598	.420
The medium you use the most makes you feel that customer service provides the service promptly.				.834
The medium you use the most makes you feel that customer service will solve the problem right the first time.				.774
The medium you use the most makes you feel that customer service shows sincere interest in the customer.			.447	.594
The medium you use the most makes you feel that customer service is polite.			.454	.476	.420
The medium you use the most makes you feel that customer service shows a personal interest.					.847
The medium you use the most makes you feel customer service tries to pay personal attention.					.771
Eigenvalue	2.506	2.476	2.462	2.404	1.906
Percentage of Variance Explained	16.708	16.504	16.416	16.028	12.705

Finally, we conducted a one-way ANOVA to detect differences in end-user perceptions among the three groups. In general, our results demonstrate that conventional media users posses a positive perception toward help desks and reliability. However, empathy is not different among the three media-using groups. Electronic media users have significantly more positive perception in terms of tangibles, even though assurance is not statistically significant. The hybrid media user group has more positive perception toward reliability and responsibility than the other two groups (conventional and electronic groups) have (see Table 4).

Table 4: Results of a One-Way ANOVA by Different Media Choice Group with LSD

			Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.
Dependent Variable	(I) Cluster Number of Case	(J) Cluster Number of Case	Mean Difference	Std. Error	Sig.
Reliability	HG	EG	2.310	.585	.001[a]
	HG	CG	1.499	.660	.011[b]
	EG	CG	-0.811	.588	.089[c]
Empathy	HG	EG	0.778	.621	.211
	HG	CG	0.810	.702	.250
	EG	CG	0.032	.624	.959
Assurance	HG	EG	0.567	.539	.294
	HG	CG	1.077	.616	.082[c]
	EG	CG	0.510	.542	.348
Tangibles	HG	EG	0.351	.613	.568
	HG	CG	1.873	.701	.008[b]
	EG	CG	1.522	.617	.015[b]
Responsiveness	HG	EG	1.467	.651	.025[b]
	HG	CG	1.908	.740	.011[b]
	EG	CG	0.441	.655	.502
[a]p < .001 [b]p <.05 [c]p<.10