Satisfaction Formation Processes in Library Users:
Understanding Multisource Effects
by Xi Shi, Patricia J. Holahan, and M. Peter Jurkat
This study explores whether
disconfirmation theory can
explain satisfaction formation
processes in library users. Both
library users’ needs and
expectations are investigated as
disconfirmation standards.
Overall library user satisfaction
is predicted to be a function of
two independent sources—
satisfaction with the
information product received
and satisfaction with the
information system and library
services used to retrieve the
information product. Both
sources are hypothesized to
contribute independently to
satisfaction in library users.
Xi Shi,
SUNY Rockland Community
College, Suffern, NY 10901, USA
<xshi@sunyrockland.edu>;
Patricia J. Holahan,
Stevens Institute of Technology,
Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA;
M. Peter Jurkat,
Stevens Institute of Technology,
Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA.
122 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 30, Number 2, pages 122–131
nderstanding satisfaction forma-
U tion processes in library users has
been a concern of researchers and
practitioners alike in the field of library
and information sciences. Although user
satisfaction is not an unfamiliar topic in
library science, there is not yet a common-
ly accepted theoretical model that predicts
library user satisfaction. Well-developed
and tested theories of satisfaction are
needed to guide the practical aspects of
library management. The current study
applies a theoretical model of customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) from
the field of marketing to the study of
satisfaction formation processes in library
users. This study is a solid step in linking
customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction re-
search to the fields of library and informa-
tion sciences and provides a theoretical
framework for understanding satisfaction
formation processes in library users as
consumers of information services and
products.
CONSUMER SATISFACTION/
DISSATISFACTION THEORY
Library User Satisfaction and
Multisource Effects
In this study, information is investigated
as a consumable product. Library users are
customers who are having a purchasing
experience. Accordingly, information sear-
ching and retrieval activities are viewed as
‘‘purchasing’’ experiences of library users.
As with many consumables, information
as a product is defined by two components:
(1) the information system/services1 that
the customer utilizes to access and retrieve
the information product and (2) the infor-
mation product itself.
Research on products bundled together
with certain services in a way similar to
information products is found in the cus-
tomer satisfaction/dissatisfaction litera-
ture. One example of such products is
restaurants.2 The product of a restaurant
is its food. However, the customer satis-
faction judgment is based not only on food
quality (the product itself), but also factors
such as speed of service, friendliness of
waiters or waitresses, and so forth. Like-
wise, within library science research, in-
formation can be seen as a consumable
product that can only be consumed togeth-
er with certain information delivery sys-
tems and/or services.
Thus, we propose that satisfaction for
library users is a function of multiple
sources—the customer’s satisfaction with
the information product(s) received as
well as satisfaction with the information
system and library services utilized to
obtain the information product. This prop-
osition is consistent with the propositions
made by other library science researchers
and the findings from several satisfaction
studies. For example, Singh3 studied sat-
isfaction in the health care industry and
found that overall patron satisfaction was a
result of three sources—satisfaction with
the physician, satisfaction with the hospi-
tal, and satisfaction with the insurance
provider. Halstead and Hartman4 studied
alumni satisfaction and found overall sat-
isfaction was a result of satisfaction with
two independent sources—namely, satis-
faction with intellectual environment and
satisfaction with employment preparation.
Similarly, library science researchers have
suggested that satisfaction with services
(such as ‘‘user friendliness’’ of the infor-
mation search system, speed of retrieval,
etc.) and satisfaction with the information
obtained (such as its content and quality)
might be two distinct entities.5 Consistent
with this proposition are the research find-
ings by Applegate.6 Applegate found that
sometimes the library users would claim to
be ‘‘satisfied’’ even when their questions
were not answered. Applegate called this
phenomenon ‘‘emotional satisfaction’’ as
opposed to ‘‘material satisfaction.’’
It is noteworthy that research on deter-
minants of satisfaction within the library
science literature has most often not dis-
tinguished between satisfaction with the
information product and satisfaction with
the information system/services. That is,
researchers have assessed only the user’s
satisfaction with the information prod-
uct(s) received, or they have assessed
only the quality of information system/
services that users accessed when seeking
information.7 Or, they have chosen to
operationalize satisfaction as a global
construct, confounding users’ satisfaction
with the information product and infor-
mation system/services.8 In the first two
cases, we contend that the satisfaction
construct is underspecified. In the third
case, we contend the satisfaction con-
struct is confounded. Assessing satisfac-
tion globally clouds our understanding of
the satisfaction construct and its determi-
nants. Moreover, it is possible that the
‘‘Assessing satisfaction
globally clouds our
understanding of the
satisfaction construct and
its determinants.’’
determinants of satisfaction with the in-
formation system/services differ from the
determinants of satisfaction with the in-
formation product. Unless our research
recognizes and conceptualizes the multiple
sources of satisfaction separately and
comprehensively, we may not be able to
develop adequate models of satisfaction
formation.
Thus, this research proposes that satis-
faction in library users is a function of two
sources—satisfaction with the information
product and satisfaction with the informa-
tion system/services that provide the in-
formation product. We propose that each
of these sources of satisfaction contributes
independently to the library user’s overall
satisfaction. Consider two different cases.
In the first case, a library user may expe-
rience a given level of satisfaction because
they found the information system/serv-
ices used to retrieve the information prod-
uct convenient to access, easy to use, etc.
For example, a library may have a well-
developed home page that provides clear
explanations of how to use the library
subscription databases, which enables the
user to navigate the databases comfortably
and conduct a thorough search easily. In
the second case, the library user may
experience a given level of satisfaction
because the information they received
was current and relevant to their problem.
In the first case, satisfaction is a result of
user’s experience with the information
system/services. In the second case, satis-
faction results from the user’s perceptions
of the information product itself. Each of
these sources of satisfaction is believed to
be independent, that is, one does not
depend on the other. Accordingly, we offer
the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Increases in satisfaction
with the information product are related to
increases in the user’s overall satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Increases in satisfaction
with the information system/services are
related to increases in the user’s overall
satisfaction.
Satisfaction Formation
Disconfirmation theory9 is the most
popular and widely used model for pre-
dicting customer satisfaction/dissatisfac-
tion. The basic concepts that compose
disconfirmation theory are shown in Fig.
1. According to disconfirmation theory,
before shopping, customers have some
prepurchase standard(s) in their minds
(such as performance expectations) that
guide their purchasing activities. After
purchasing a product (service), customers
evaluate the performance of the product
(service) against this prepurchase stan-
dard. Accordingly, CS/D is defined as
the consumer’s response to the evaluation
of a perceived discrepancy between the
prepurchase performance standard and the
actual performance of the product (ser-
vice) after its consumption.10 When per-
formance is greater than expectations (or
other prepurchase standard), resulting in
Figure 1
Conceptual Model of CS/D.
positive disconfirmation, satisfaction
occurs. When performance is less than
expectations (or other prepurchase stan-
dard), resulting in negative disconfirma-
tion, dissatisfaction occurs. Confirmation
occurs when performance and expecta-
tions match, resulting in moderate satis-
faction or indifference. Thus, the extent to
which a customer experiences satisfaction
or dissatisfaction is related to the size and
direction of disconfirmation.11 We pro-
pose that disconfirmation can explain sat-
isfaction formation processes in library
users. We now turn to a discussion of the
components of the model-perceived per-
formance and disconfirmation standards
(see Fig. 1).
Performance
In disconfirmation theory, performance
is defined as the customer’s subjective
perception of the quality of the product
(or service) after it is consumed. Perfor-
mance, moreover, is seen as multifaceted.
According to the marketing literature, cus-
tomer satisfaction is not determined by
evaluation of any one factor or component
of performance.12 Instead, customer satis-
faction is believed to be the result of
customer evaluations of several compo-
nents or attributes of performance.
In the field of library and information
science, attributes used to assess the ‘‘per-
formance’’ of information products in-
clude the perceived accuracy, complete-
ness, currency, precision, relevance, and
reliability of the information product.13
Accordingly, library users are believed to
evaluate these attributes of the information
received (e.g., its’ accuracy, completeness,
precision, relevance) against some precon-
sumption or disconfirmation standard.
When the user’s judgment of the product
performance (i.e., the product attributes)
exceeds their prepurchase standard(s), sat-
isfaction results. Conversely, when the
user’s evaluation of the product perfor-
mance (i.e., product attributes) falls short
March 2004 123
of their prepurchase standard(s), dissatis-
faction results.
In a similar fashion, several attributes
have been identified as comprising satis-
faction with information system/services.
Attributes that have been studied as com-
ponents of satisfaction with information
system/services include response time, at-
titude of service staff (e.g., librarians), the
user friendliness of the information sys-
tem, and convenience of access.
Disconfirmation Standards
Within disconfirmation theory, discon-
firmation standards are the customer’s
prepurchase or preconsumption compari-
son standards.14 Although the dominant
model of CS/D in the field of marketing
continues to be the model based on the
‘‘disconfirmation of expectations,’’ dis-
confirmation standards other than perfor-
mance expectations have been investigat-
ed. The following are some examples.
Barbeau15 reported a study of student
satisfaction with a marketing course. In
his study, disconfirmation of past experi-
ence, disconfirmation of expectations,
and disconfirmation of needs were tested
as three separate disconfirmation stand-
ards. Spreng and Olshavsky16 compared
customer needs and customer expecta-
tions as disconfirmation standards and
found customer needs to be a powerful
predictor of satisfaction. Their study was
replicated by Spreng et al.17 who also
found that disconfirmation of consumer
needs explained consumer satisfaction
better than disconfirmation of consumer
expectations.
In library science, customer needs as
well as customer expectations are often
assumed to affect satisfaction.18 In the
present study, library users’ needs and
expectations are investigated as disconfir-
mation standards. Library users’ ‘‘needs’’
refer to what the user wants or desires to
receive from their information search. The
term ‘‘expectations’’ as a disconfirmation
standard refers to what the library users
believe they will receive from their infor-
mation search. To illustrate the difference
between needs and expectations, the fol-
lowing example is given. A professor
working in an academic institution with
extensive library collections and sophis-
ticated computer search technology is
invited to teach as a visiting scholar by
a small college. This professor needs
supporting materials for his teaching
and research at his new position. How-
ever, the library collections and technol-
124 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
ogy available in this small college may
not be as sophisticated as what he is used
to in his home institution. Therefore, he
may expect more limited access to infor-
mation and supporting materials com-
pared to what he could retrieve from his
home library. We propose that both li-
brary users’ needs and expectations func-
tion as disconfirmation standards and
both play a role in explanation of satis-
faction formation processes in informa-
tion users.
In summary, we propose that the cur-
rent models of satisfaction are underspe-
cified since needs have not been included
in the model construction. We predict
‘‘...we propose that the
current models of
satisfaction are
underspecified since needs
have not been included in
the model construction.’’
satisfaction is highest when performance
exceeds both the user’s expectations and
needs. Given the foregoing discussion, we
offer the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: The more the information
product performance is perceived to fulfill
the library user’s needs, the greater the
library user’s satisfaction with the infor-
mation product.
Hypothesis 4: The more the information
product performance is perceived to fulfill
Figure 2
Hypothesized Model.
the library user’s expectations, the greater
the library user’s satisfaction with the
information product.
Hypothesis 5: The more the information
system/services performance is perceived
to fulfill the library user’s needs, the
greater the library user’s satisfaction with
the information system/services.
Hypothesis 6: The more the information
system/services performance is perceived
to fulfill the library user’s expectations,
the greater the library user’s satisfaction
with the information system/services.
Fig. 2 presents the proposed theoret-
ical model. In summary, we propose that
overall library user satisfaction is influ-
enced by the user’s satisfaction with the
information product itself and with the
information system/services that provide
the information product. Product satis-
faction and information system/services
satisfaction are, in turn, a function of
the degree to which the information
product and the information system/serv-
ices meet or exceed customer needs and
expectations.
RESEARCH METHODS
Research Sample
The research sample consists of 105
faculty and administrators from eight
accredited science and engineering col-
leges and universities located in the north-
east United States. The eight colleges and
universities were selected primarily as a
convenience sample. Five hundred and
forty-five questionnaires were sent out.
One hundred and twenty-one usable ques-
tionnaires were returned, for a response sion—the degree of exactness in the infor- Spreng et al.22 Using a five-point scale,
rate of 22 percent. This response rate is mation; (3) relevance—the degree of we asked respondents to indicate how
similar to or better than that reported in pertinence or congruence of the informa- important (1 = not important to 5 = very
other studies of satisfaction formation tion relative to the interests of the user; (4) important) each of the five information
processes.19 detail—the amount and depth of the product performance attributes was to
knowledge that is delivered to the user them in the information for which they
Data Collection Methods by the information; and (5) appropriate- were searching. The five product perfor-
Questionnaires were sent directly to ness—the extent to which the format, mance attributes included the accuracy of
faculty of the selected colleges and uni- language, and comprehension levels of the information, the appropriateness of
versities and to the head librarian at the the information are suitable for the user. the information, the level of detail in
eight colleges and universities. The faculty The five information system/services the information, the precision of the
wh o re ceiv ed que stionn aires w as performance attributes included the fol- information, and the relevance of the
requested to complete the questionnaire lowing: (1) ease of searching—the techni- information.
for an upcoming information search. The cal aspects of information storage and
librarians were requested to hand out the retrieval systems; (2) user-friendliness— User Expectations (Information
questionnaires to faculty and administra- the mechanical aspects of the information Product)
tors who were initiating an information systems including the interface, display, Our measure of user expectations for
search. A sheet of detailed instructions format, and navigational design of the the information product, adapted from
accompanied all questionnaires. The ques- system; (3) timeliness—the time required Spreng et al.,23 asked respondents to eval-
tionnaire contained two parts. Respond- to obtain the needed information from the uate the extent to which they expected
ents were instructed to complete ‘‘Part I: point where the information search was each of five performance attributes—ac-
Presearch Questions’’ before they engaged initiated to the point where the information curacy, appropriateness, detail, precision,
in searching activities, that is, precon- is received by the user; (4) staff or knowl- and relevance—to be present in the infor-
sumption. Respondents were instructed edge skills—the capability and expertise mation for which they were searching.
to complete ‘‘Part II: Postsearch Ques- of the library staff in assisting the infor-
tions’’ after the search was complete, that mation seeker in finding the needed infor- User Needs (Information System or
is, postconsumption. A preaddressed, mation; and (5) helpful staff attitude—the Services)
stamped envelope was provided for the library staff’s willingness to assist the Our measure of user needs, also adap-
return of the questionnaire. information seeker in finding the needed ted from the research by Spreng et al.,24
Part I of the questionnaire asked res- information. asked respondents to indicate how impor-
pondents to record their needs and tant (1 = not important to 5 = very impor-
expectations for an upcoming information User Needs (Information Product) tant) each of the five performance attri-
search. Needs and expectations for the Our measure of user needs for the butes was to them in the information
information product as well as for the information product was adapted from system/services they would access during
information system/services were soli-
cited. In Part II, respondents rated the
performance of the information product Table 1
received and the information system/serv- Descriptive Statistics for the Measured Variables
ices accessed and responded to the scales
used to measure disconfirmation (see Mean SD Min Max No. of a
Items
below).
Overall customer 3.91 0.94 1.00 5.00 1 N/A
Measures satisfaction
Five information product performance Satisfaction with product 3.81 0.96 1.00 5.00 5 .96
attributes, derived from the User Infor-
mation Satisfaction (UIS) survey devel- Satisfaction with service 3.73 0.93 1.00 5.00 5 .91
oped by Ives et al.20 and revised by User needs (product) 4.46 0.43 3.20 5.00 5 .65
Baroudi and Orlikowski,21 were used to User expectations (product) 3.27 0.50 2.20 4.00 5 .84
assess needs, expectations, needs discon-
firmation, expectations disconfirmation, Need disconfirmation 3.77 0.76 1.00 5.00 5 .88
and satisfaction with the information (product)
product. Five information system/services Expectation disconfirmation 3.80 0.76 1.00 5.00 5 .87
performance attributes also derived from (product)
the revised UIS were used to assess User needs (system or service) 4.36 0.54 2.60 5.00 5 .68
needs, expectations, needs disconfirma-
tion, expectations disconfirmation, and User expectations 4.00 0.76 2.00 5.00 5 .85
satisfaction with the information system/ (system of service)
services. Need disconfirmation 3.96 0.70 1.00 5.00 5 .84
The five information product perfor- (system or service)
mance attributes included the following:
Expectation disconfirmation 3.97 0.72 1.00 5.00 5 .86
(1) accuracy—the extent to which the
(system or service)
information is correct and true; (2) preci-

March 2004 125

their information search. The five service five information product (information items adapted from the research by Patter-
performance attributes included the fol- system/services) attribute ratings were son et al. On a five-point scale, res-
lowing: (1) ease of searching, (2) user- then averaged, which yielded an expect- pondents were asked the extent to which
friendliness of search tools, (3) timeliness ations disconfirmation score for the in- they agreed or disagreed (1 = strongly
with which they obtained they informa- formation product and an expectations disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with each
tion, (4) staff knowledge and skills, and disconfirmation score for information of five statements. Sample statements in-
(5) helpfulness of the staff. system/services. cluded, ‘‘I can find what I am looking for
because of the available information serv-
User Expectations (Information Satisfaction with Information Product ices’’, and ‘‘The information services here
Services) Information product satisfaction was helped me find what I was looking for.’’
Our measure of user expectations measured using five items adapted from
asked respondents to evaluate the extent the research by Patterson et al.27 On a five- Overall Library User Satisfaction
to which they expected each of five per- point scale, respondents were asked the Overall satisfaction is defined as the
formance attributes—ease of searching, extent to which they agreed or disagreed library user’s subjective summary evalua-
user-friendliness, timeliness, staff knowl- (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly tion of their entire information search acti-
edge and skills, and helpful staff atti- agree) with each of five statements. Sam- vity as one information ‘‘purchase’’ expe-
tude—to be present in the information ple statements include, ‘‘I am very satis- rience. The evaluation includes the user’s
system/services they would access during fied with the information I found from this experience with the information product
their information search. This measure search’’, and ‘‘The information I found is and with using available information sys-
was also adapted from the research by just right to solve my problems.’’ tems and services in retrieving the infor-
Spreng et al.25 mation. Overall satisfaction was ope-
Satisfaction with Information System rationalized by a single item measured
Operationalization of Needs or Services on a five-point scale. The item asked
Disconfirmation and Expectations Satisfaction with the information sys- respondents ‘‘Overall, how satisfied were
Disconfirmation tem/services was measured using five you with your information search?’’ where
We measured disconfirmation using
the procedure recommended by Spreng
et al.26 Needs disconfirmation and expect- Table 2
ations disconfirmation for the information Correlations Among the Measured Variables
product and for the information system/
services were measured in a similar way. Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Needs disconfirmation was measured for 1. User needs 1.00
each performance attribute by asking, (product)
‘‘For each of the five attributes listed,
please tell us if the information you found 2. User expectations .26* 1.00
(or the information system/services you (product)
utilized) was ‘5 = exactly what I needed,’ 3. Need disconfirmation .22* .08 1.00
‘3 = somewhat different from what I (product)
needed,’ ‘1 = extremely different from 4. Expectation .19 .04 .72** 1.00
what I needed.’’’ Thus, this question disconfirmation
asked the respondents for their subjective (product)
assessment of the discrepancy between
their needs and the perceived perfor- 5. User needs .36* .30* .20* .16 1.00
mance. The five information product (in- (system or service)
formation system/services) attribute 6. User expectations .06 .50* .07 .07 .55* 1.00
ratings were then averaged, which yielded (system or service)
a needs disconfirmation score for the
7. Need disconfirmation .20* .18 .52* .45** .09 .07 1.00
information product and a needs discon-
(system or service)
firmation score for information system/
services. 8. Expectation .10 .20* .33* .51* .11 .01 .72** 1.00
Expectation disconfirmation was oper- disconfirmation
ationalized in the same way. Respondents (system or service)
were asked for their subjective assess- 9. User satisfaction .20* .09 .72** .69** .18 .10 .53* .44* 1.00
ment of the discrepancy between what with product
they expected and what they received.
That is, respondents were asked, ‘‘Please 10. User satisfaction .21* .05 .58* .57* .08 .08 .67** .55* .70** 1.00
tell us if the information you found (or with system or
the information system/services you uti- service
lized) was ‘5 = exactly what I ex- 11. User satisfaction .19 .01 .66* .55* .18 .11 .58** .46* .84** .76** 1.00
pected,’ ‘3 = somewhat different from overall
what I expected,’ ‘1 = extremely differ- Notes: *P < .05.
ent from what I expected.’’’ Again, the **P < .01.

126 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

 Table 3
Stepwise Regression: Overall Library User Satisfaction Regressed on
Satisfaction with Information Product and Satisfaction with Information
System/Services
Predictors B SE
Product satisfaction .64*** 0.07
System or service .30 0.07
satisfaction
Notes: F = 160.30***; R2 = .77; adjusted R2 = .77.
***P < .001.
1 = not satisfied at all and 5 = very
satisfied.
RESEARCH RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
The mean, range, standard deviation,
number of items per scale, and, where
appropriate, coefficient alpha for the mea-
sured variables are presented in Table 1.
All variables were measured using Likert
scales that ranged from 1 to 5, with 5
indicating a greater degree of the measured
variable.
Coefficient alphas for the measured
variables ranged from .65 to .96. Coeffi-
cient alpha is a measure of reliability or
internal consistency and indicates whether
respondents answer the items that com-
pose a scale in a consistent fashion. Co-
efficient alphas for the scales assessing
user needs for the information product
and user needs for information services
were .65 and .68, respectively. According
to Cohen and Cohen,28 these reliabilities
are acceptable when doing research in the
behavioral and social sciences. The stan-
dard deviations for the scales assessing
user expectations for the information
product, user needs for the information
product, and user needs for information
system/services indicate that there may be
some restriction of range on these varia-
bles. This restriction in range may make it
more difficult to detect a difference when
indeed one may exist.
Intercorrelations among the measured
variables are shown in Table 2. Satisfac-
tion with the information product and
satisfaction with information services are
correlated .70. This result suggests that
library users, who feel satisfied with the
information product, feel satisfied with
information services and vice versa.
Thus, these two variables may not be
independent predictors of overall satisfac-
tion as proposed. To separate out the
b t
.65 9.37
.29 4.25
relative contribution of satisfaction with
the information product and satisfaction
with services in determining overall sat-
isfaction, stepwise regression analysis
will be used.
Measures of need disconfirmation and
expectations disconfirmation are highly
correlated (r = .72) for both products and
system or services. Again, stepwise re-
gression analysis will be used in tests of
the hypotheses where need disconfirma-
tion and expectation disconfirmation are
included as predictors. The use of stepwise
regression analysis should allow us to
separate out the unique contribution each
predictor makes to explained variance in
the dependent measure.
Tests of Hypotheses
Test of Hypotheses 1 and 2
Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that o-
verall user satisfaction of information
products or services is a result of the
independent effects of satisfaction with
the information product and satisfaction
with information system/services accessed
to obtain the information product. Given
the high correlation between satisfaction
with product and satisfaction with serv-
ices, a stepwise regression was run to test
whether each of these predictors made a
Table 4
Stepwise Regression: Satisfaction with Information Product Regressed
on Needs and Expectations Disconfirmation Controlling for User Needs
and Expectations
Predictors entered
User needs (product)
User expectations (product)
Need disconfirmation (product)
Expectation disconfirmation (product)
Notes: F = 67.11***; R2 = .58; adjusted R2 = .57.
***P < .001.
unique contribution to explained variance
in overall customer satisfaction (see Table
3). Service satisfaction was entered as a
predictor in the first round but was exclud-
ed in the second round. Product satisfac-
Variables tion accounted for 77 percent of the
removed
variance in the dependent variable ( F =
160, P < .001). This finding suggests that
X satisfaction with the information product
may be a better predictor of overall library
user satisfaction than satisfaction with the
information system/services accessed to
retrieve the information product.
‘‘...satisfaction with the
information product may
be a better predictor of
overall library user
satisfaction than
satisfaction with the
information system/
services accessed...’’
Tests of Hypotheses 3 and 4
Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted that both
needs and expectations disconfirmation
predicted of satisfaction with the informa-
tion product. To test Hypotheses 3 and 4,
stepwise regression was conducted. Satis-
faction with the information product was
regressed on needs disconfirmation and
expectations disconfirmation for the infor-
mation product (see Table 4). User needs
and user expectations were included in the
regression equation as control variables—
that is, it was necessary to demonstrate
that it was the disconfirmation of user
needs and expectations rather than user
needs or expectations alone that predicted
satisfaction. As shown in Table 4, user
needs and expectations were removed
B SE b t Variables
removed
X
X
.55*** 0.12 .42 4.43
.51*** 0.12 .40 4.22
March 2004 127
 Table 5
Stepwise Regression: Satisfaction with Information System/Services
Regressed on Needs and Expectations Disconfirmation Controlling for
User Needs and Expectations
Predictors
User needs
(information system/service)
User expectations
(information system/service)
Needs disconfirmation
(information system/service)
Expectations disconfirmation
(information system/service)
Note: F = 65.72***; R2 = .46; adjusted R2 = .45.
***P < .001.
from the model in Step 2. However, both
needs disconfirmation (b = .42, P < .001)
and expectations disconfirmation (b = .40,
P < .001) were retained. These predictors
jointly accounted for 57 percent of the
variance in the dependent variable ( F =
67.11, P < .001). These findings support
Hypotheses 3 and 4—that is, both needs
and expectations function as disconfirma-
tion standards and predict satisfaction with
the information product.
Tests of Hypotheses 5 and 6
Hypotheses 5 and 6 predicted that needs
disconfirmation and expectations discon-
firmation predicted of satisfaction with the
information system/services. Stepwise re-
gression was conducted to test whether
needs disconfirmation and expectations
disconfirmation made a unique contribu-
tion to explained variance in user satisfac-
tion with information system/services (see
Table 5). User needs and user expectations
were included in the regression equation as
control variables. As can be seen from
Table 5, three of the independent varia-
bles—needs, expectations, and expecta-
tions disconfirmation—were removed
from the model. Needs disconfirmation
alone accounted for 45 percent of the
variance in the dependent variable ( F =
65.72, P < .001; b = .67, P < .001). These
results suggest that needs disconfirmation
explains unique variance in the dependent
measure and may be a better predictor of
satisfaction with information system/serv-
ices than expectations disconfirmation.
DISCUSSION
This study explored whether disconfirma-
tion theory could explain the satisfaction
128 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
B SE b t Variables
removed
X both the quality of information products
X improvement of the information delivery
.87*** 0.11 .67 8.11
X es in library users. Our results support that
formation process for library users.
Within the disconfirmation paradigm,
both library user’s needs and expect-
ations were investigated as disconfirma-
tion standards. Overall, library user
satisfaction was conceptualized as com-
posed of two independent sources—sat-
isfaction with the information product
received and satisfaction with the infor-
mation system and services used to
retrieve the information product. Both
sources were hypothesized to contribute
independently to overall library user
satisfaction.
Our results indicate that satisfaction
with the information product may be
more important for overall satisfaction
when compared to satisfaction with the
information system/service. This finding
is consistent with Pitt et al.29 who contend
that information is the dominant concern
of the user. Thus, it may be that finding
the information sought is more important
to the library user than the ease with
which the information is obtained. In
other words, if the information search
tools are perceived to be difficult to use
and support services are perceived to be
poor, but the user acquired the needed
and expected information product, the
work for which it was sought can proceed
with confidence. From a practical per-
spective, this finding would seem to sug-
gest that more resources should be
allocated to developing the quality of
the information products versus the infor-
mation delivery system. That is, if library
users know they will find the information
they need from a library, they will utilize
this library’s resources, even if the infor-
mation delivery system or services are
perceived as poor (e.g., difficult to use,
hard to navigate, etc.). The problem with
this prescription is that the users may
never get to experience the quality of
the information product if they cannot
navigate the delivery system. Thus, it
would appear that library information
management should consider developing
through collection development as well as
systems or services.
Second, this study explored the appli-
cability of the disconfirmation paradigm in
explaining satisfaction formation process-
it is the disconfirmation of user needs and
expectations and not user needs or expect-
ations alone that determine library user
satisfaction. That is, satisfaction or dissat-
‘‘...disconfirmation of user
needs and expectations and
not user needs or
expectations alone that
determine library user
satisfaction.’’
isfaction results only when consumers
compare the performance of what they
received against some ‘‘prepurchase’’
or disconfirmation standard. This result
is consistent with earlier researches
and supports the notion that needs
and expectations affect satisfaction
only indirectly via the disconfirmation
process.30
Third, our research explored discon-
firmation standards other than expecta-
tions as predictors of satisfaction in
library users. Our results indicate that
product needs and expectations discon-
firmation both had a significant effect on
product satisfaction. Although others
have discussed the importance of needs
as a comparison standard when forming
satisfaction judgements,31 currently there
is little empirical evidence within library
sciences research to support this propo-
sition. This is an important contribution
to models of satisfaction formation pro-
cesses. As noted by Spreng et al.32 and
others, incorporating needs disconfirma-
tion into models of satisfaction formation
processes eliminates the dilemma embod-
ied in the disconfirmation of expectations
model. That is, if a library user expects
an inferior information product and
receives such, using a purely expecta-
tions-based model of satisfaction predicts
the user will be satisfied. However, when
the user’s needs are also taken into
consideration, the prediction changes.
When needs as well as expectations are
considered, for satisfaction to be high the
information product must exceed both
the user’s expectations as well as the
user’s needs. From a practical perspec-
tive, the results of our research indicate
that fulfilling the library users’ needs
around information products plays an
important role in shaping customers’
feelings of satisfaction. Thus, understand-
ing library user needs and delivering
information products that meet these
needs is important.
Interestingly, disconfirmation of user
needs and not expectations predicted sat-
isfaction with information system/serv-
ices. This finding, that need disconfir-
mation predicts services satisfaction, is
consistent with several past research find-
ings in the satisfaction area.33 Several
researchers have suggested that disconfir-
mation standards may vary depending on
the product or service category. For ex-
ample, Oliver34 argued that for continu-
ously provided products or services such
as cable television or public utilities,
customer expectations become passive
and are not actively processed. Parasura-
man et al.35 argue that the evaluation
process for services (as opposed to prod-
ucts) may be different, that is, based on
different sources and types of expecta-
tions or based on the evaluation of pro-
cess as well as outcome. Future research
should explore disconfirmation processes
for pure services versus services bundled
with products.
Limitations of the Current Study
This study surveyed faculty and admin-
istrators working in academic institutions.
Academic libraries (including remote ac-
cess to the institutional resources) were
used as the research context. Therefore,
the information-searching activities stud-
ied in this research project were restricted
to academic settings only. In addition, our
sample was nonrandomly selected. As a
result, generalizability of the results from
this study may be limited to information
consumers in similar settings.
Second, in this study, information prod-
uct satisfaction and information service
satisfaction were measured as the aggre-
gate of their attribute components. Thus,
all attributes were given equal weight in
the satisfaction measures. This computa-
tion of satisfaction obscures the possibility
that any single attribute (e.g., accuracy of
the information) may be a more important
determinant of satisfaction when com-
pared to the other attributes (e.g., precision
of the information or relevance of the
information).
Third, the present study did not in-
vestigate how various situational varia-
bles may moderate the relationships
contained in the disconfirmation model
of CS/D. Examples of the situational
variables for information consumers that
may affect the proposed relationships
include how important the sought infor-
mation is to the user or how urgently
the information is needed. Future re-
search should investigate how situation-
al variables may impact the proposed
relationships.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this investigation pro-
vide valuable suggestions for the field
of library and information science. First,
the findings support the disconfirmation
paradigm as applicable when studying
satisfaction formation processes in li-
brary users. Second, the findings support
the notion that library user’s needs and
expectations function as disconfirmation
standards that influence satisfaction with
the information product and satisfaction
with information delivery system or
services. However, needs disconfirma-
tion, rather than expectations disconfir-
mation, appears the most robust predic-
tor of library user satisfaction. Third,
overall library user satisfaction appears
more a function of the user’s satisfaction
with the information product itself rather
than satisfaction with the information
system/services accessed to obtain the
information product. In conclusion, we
believe this study is a solid step in
providing a theoretical framework to
guide practical information management
activities.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Library users may (1) interact directly with
the information system without assistance
from library staff; (2) interact indirectly
with the information system through the
assistance of the library staff; or (3) inter-
act directly with the information system
while obtaining assistance from service or
support staff. The last condition is analo-
gous to users who access an online infor-
mation system but who request online help
from the technical services support staff to
use the system effectively. Thus, our con-
struct ‘‘information system/service satis-
faction refers to the users’ satisfaction
with attributes of the information system
as well as satisfaction with the information
services received.’’
2. E. R. Cadotte, R. B. Woodruff, & R. L.
Jenkins, ‘‘Expectations and Norms in Mod-
els of Consumer Satisfaction,’’ Journal of
Marketing Research 24 (August 1987):
305 – 314.
3. Jagdip Singh, ‘‘A Multifacet Typology of
Patient Satisfaction with a Hospital Stay,’’
Journal of Health Care Marketing 10 (4)
(December 1990): 8 – 21.
4. D. Halstead, D. Hartman, & S. L. Schmidt,
‘‘Multisource Effects on the Satisfaction
Formation Process,’’ Journal of the Acade-
my of Marketing Science 22 (2) (1994):
114 – 129.
5. M. E. Murfin & M. G. Gugelchuk, ‘‘Devel-
opment Testing of a Reference Transaction
Assessment Instrument,’’ College & Re-
search Libraries 48 (1990): 314 – 348.
6. R. Applegate, ‘‘Models of User Satisfac-
tion: Understanding False Positive,’’ Re-
search Quarterly 32 (4) (1991): 525 – 540.
7. B. Thompson, C. Cook, & F. Heath, ‘‘A
Short Form of the LibQUAL+(TM) Proto-
col Assessing Users’ Perceptions of Li-
brary Service Quality,’’ Library Quarterly
(in press).
8. A. Bhattacherjee, ‘‘Understanding Informa-
tion Systems Continuance: An Expecta-
tion – Confirmation Model,’’ MIS Quar-
terly 25 (3): 351 – 370; A. Martensen &
L. Gronholdt, ‘‘Improving Library Users’
Perceived Quality, Satisfaction and Loy-
alty: An Integrated Measurement and Man-
agement System,’’ Journal of Academic Li-
brarianship 29 (3) (May 2003): 140 – 147.
9. R. L. Oliver, ‘‘A Cognitive Model of the
Antecedents and Consequences of Satis-
faction Decisions,’’ Journal of Marketing
Research 17 (November 1980): 460 – 469;
G. A. Churchill & C. Surprenant, ‘‘An
Investigation into the Determinants of
Consumer Satisfaction,’’ Journal of Mar-
keting Research 19 (4) (November 1982):
491 – 504.
10. G. A. Churchill & C. Surprenant, ‘‘An
Investigation into the Determinants of
Consumer Satisfaction,’’ Journal of Mar-
keting Research 19 (4) (November 1982):
491 – 504; D. K. Tse & P. C. Wilton,
‘‘Models of Consumer Satisfaction For-
mation: An Extension,’’ Journal of Mar-
keting Research 25 (2) (May 1988):
204 – 212.
11. E. W. Anderson & M. W. Sullivan, ‘‘The
Antecedents and Consequences of Custom-
er Satisfaction for Firms,’’ Marketing Sci-
ence 12 (2) (1993): 125 – 143; R. L. Oliver,
‘‘A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents
and Consequences of Satisfaction Deci-
sions,’’ Journal of Marketing Research 17
(November 1980): 460 – 469; J. C. Olson &
P. A. Dover, ‘‘Disconfirmation of Consum-
March 2004 129
 er Expectations through Product Trial,’’
Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (2)
(1979): 179 – 189; D. K. Tse & P. C. Wil-
son, ‘‘Models of Consumer Satisfaction
Formation: An Extension,’’ Journal of
Marketing Research 25 (2) (May 1988):
204 – 212.
12. D. Halstead, D. Hartman, & S. L.
Schmidt, ‘‘Multisource Effects on the Sat-
isfaction Formation Process,’’ Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2)
(1994): 114 – 129; J. C. Olson & P. A.
Dover, ‘‘Disconfirmation of Consumer
Expectations through Product Trial,’’
Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (2)
(1979): 179 – 189; Jagdip Singh, ‘‘Under-
standing the Structure of Consumers’ Sat-
isfaction’’ 19 (3) (1991): 223.
13. J. Baroudi & W. Orilowski, ‘‘A Short-Form
Measure of User Information Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Management Information
Systems 4 (4) (1988): 45 – 59; B. Ives
& M. H. Olson, ‘‘User Involvement and
MIS Success: A Review of Research,’’
Management Science 30 (5) (1984): 586 –
603; B. Ives, M. H. Olson, & J. J. Baroudi,
‘‘The Measurement of User Information
Satisfaction,’’ Communications of the
ACM 26 (10) (1983): 785 – 793.
14. In the literature, the terms disconfirmation
standards, prepurchase comparison stand-
ards, and preconsumption comparison
standards are used interchangeably.
15. J. B. Barbeau, ‘‘Predictive and Normative
Expectations in Consumer Satisfaction: A
Utilization of Adaptation and Comparison
Levels in a Unified Framework,’’ In Con-
ceptual and Empirical Contributions to
Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, H. K. Hunt & R. L. Day (Eds.)
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
School of Business, 1985): 27 – 32.
16. R. A. Spreng & R. W. Olshavsky, ‘‘A
Needs Congruency Model of Consumer
Satisfaction,’’ Journal of Academy of Mar-
keting Science 21 (1993): 169 – 177.
17. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the Deter-
minants of Customer Satisfaction,’’ Journal
of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996): 15 – 33.
18. F. Heath, M. Kyrillidou, D. Webster, S.
Choudhury, B. Hobbs, M. Lorie, & F.
Nicholas, ‘‘Emerging Tools for Evaluating
Digital Library Services: Conceptual
Adaptations of LibQUAL+ and CAPM,’’
Article No. 170, 2003-06-09, Journal of
Digital Information 4 (2) (June 2003); G.
S. Choudhury, M. Lorie, E. Fitzpatrick, B.
Hobbs, G. S. Chirikjian, A. Okamura, & N.
E. Flores, ‘‘Comprehensive Access to Print
Materials (CAPM),’’ Proceedings of the
First ACM+IEEE Joint Conference on
Digital Libraries (Roanoke, VA: ACM
Press, 2001): 174 – 175.
19. e.g., Bhattacherjee, 2001; Cook & Thomp-
son, 2001; Patterson et al., 1997.
20. B. Ives, M. H. Olson, & J. J. Baroudi, ‘‘The
Measurement of User Information Satisfac-
130 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
tion,’’ Communications of the ACM 26 (10)
(1983): 785 – 793.
21. J. Baroudi & W. Orilowski, ‘‘A Short-Form
Measure of User Information Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems 4 (4) (1988): 45 – 59.
22. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the Deter-
minants of Customer Satisfaction,’’ Journal
of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996): 15 – 33.
23. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the De-
terminants of Customer Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996):
15 – 33.
24. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the De-
terminants of Customer Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996):
15 – 33.
25. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the Deter-
minants of Customer Satisfaction,’’ Journal
of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996): 15 – 33.
26. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the De-
terminants of Customer Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996):
15 – 33.
27. P. G. Patterson, L. W. Jonson, & R. A.
Spreng, ‘‘Modeling the Determinants of
Customer Satisfaction for Business-to-
Business Professional Services,’’ Journal
of the Academy of the Marketing Science
25 (1) (1997): 4 – 17.
28. J. Cohen & P. Cohen, Applied Multiple Re-
gression/Correlation Analysis for the Be-
havioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (New Jersey:
Erlbaum, 1983), p. 70.
29. L. F. Pitt, R. T. Watsom, & C. B. Kavan,
‘‘Service Quality: A Measure of Informa-
tion Systems Effectiveness,’’ MIS Quar-
terly 19 (2) (1995): 173 – 187.
30. Richard L. Oliver & L. Gerald, ‘‘Effect of
Satisfaction and its Antecedents on Custom-
er Preference and Intention,’’ Advances in
Consumer Research 8 (1) (1981): 88 – 93;
R. W. Oshavsky & R. A. Spreng, ‘‘A ‘De-
sire as Standard’ Model of Consumer Sat-
isfaction,’’ Journal of Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior
2 (1989): 49 – 54; R. A. Spreng, S. B. Ol-
shavsky, & R. W. Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexami-
nation of the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction,’’ Journal of Marketing 60 (3)
(July 1996): 15 – 33; R. A. Westbrook & M.
D. Reilly, ‘‘Value-Percept Disparity: An
Alternative to the Disconfirmation of Ex-
pectations Theory of Consumer Satisfac-
t i o n , ’’ I n A d v a n c e s i n C o n s u m e r
Research, vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi &
A. M. Tybout (Eds.) (Ann Arbor, MI: Asso-
ciation for Consumer Research, 1983):
256 – 261.
31. e.g., Spreng et al., ‘‘A Reexamination of
the Determinants of Customer Satisfac-
tion,’’ Journal of Marketing 60 (3) (July
1996): 15 – 33.
32. R. A. Spreng, S. B. Mackenzie, & R. W.
Olshavsky, ‘‘A Reexamination of the De-
terminants of Customer Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Marketing 60 (3) (July 1996):
15 – 33.
33. J. B. Barbeau, ‘‘Predictive and Normative
Expectations in Consumer Satisfaction: A
Utilization of Adaptation and Comparison
Levels in a Unified Framework,’’ In Con-
ceptual and Empirical Contributions to
Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, H.K. Hunt, R.L. Day (Eds.)
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
School of Business, 1985): 27 – 32; R. A.
Spreng & R. W. Olshavsky, ‘‘A Needs
Congruency Model of Consumer Satisfac-
tion,’’ Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science 21 (3) (Summer 1993): 169 – 177;
J. E. Swan & I. F. Trawick, ‘‘Satisfaction
Related to Predictive vs. Desired Expecta-
tions and Complaining Behavior,’’ In Refin-
ing Concepts and Measures Consumer
Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
H. Keith Hunt & Ralph L. Day (Eds.)
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University,
1980): 7 – 12.
34. R. L. Oliver & J. E. Swan, ‘‘Equity and
Disconfirmation Perceptions as Influences
on Merchant and Product Satisfaction,’’
Journal of Consumer Research 16 (Decem-
ber 1989): 372 – 383.
35. V. A. Zeithaml, L. L. Berry, & A. Parasura-
man, ‘‘The Nature and Determinants of
Customer Expectations of Services,’’ Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21
(1993): 1 – 12; A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zei-
thaml, & L. L. Berry, ‘‘Reassessment of Ex-
pectations as a Comparison Standard in
Measuring Quality: Implications for Further
Research,’’ Journal of Marketing 58 (Janu-
ary 1994): 111 – 124.
***
Xi Shi, an associate professor of li-
brary services, is head librarian at SUNY
Rockland Community College. She holds
a PhD in MIS from Stevens Institute of
Technology and MLS and EdM degrees
from Rutgers University. Combining over
thirteen years experience as a librarian
with advanced studies in information
management, her research focuses satis-
faction formation processes in informa-
tion users.
Patricia Holahan, an associate profes-
sor of management at Stevens Institute of
Technology, teaches graduate courses in
the management of technology and orga-
nizational design and theory. Her research
focuses on the implementation of new
technology and the management of
cross-functional product development
teams. Dr. Holahan obtained her PhD in
organizational behavior from Purdue Uni-
versity’s Krannert Graduate School of
Management.
Peter Jurkat, professor emeritus at
Stevens Institute of Technology, holds
a PhD in mathematics and statistics.
Dr. Jurkat’s work building mathemati-
cal and statistical models of off-road
vehicle mobility led to the development
of the NATO Reference Mobility Model
adopted by the U.S. Army and many
of the NATO allies for vehicle design
and evaluation. Dr. Jurkat has over
five dozen publications and invited
presentations.
March 2004 131