Allied Academies International Conference

page 41

CONSUMER SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION (CS/D): A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE PRIOR TO THE 1990s

Reginald M. Peyton, Christian Brothers University
rpeyton@cbu.edu

Sarah Pitts, Christian Brothers University

spitts@cbu.edu

Rob H. Kamery, Christian Brothers University

rkamery@cbu.edu ABSTRACT This paper presents a review of the literature prior to the 1990s related to the areas of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D). It addresses both the theoretical and measurement-related issues involved in these areas of study. INTRODUCTION In addition to presenting a review of theoretical bases of the research in the area of consumer satisfaction, the paper also addresses the major elements of the most widely accepted models of CS/D. It also presents a review of the literature prior to the 1990s on the family decision-making process. This review focuses on the major components of the syncratic decision-making process. The place of role expectation and individual commitment to the family dyad is examined in the context of the syncratic decision-making process. This paper also addresses the measurement-related issues relevant to this body of literature. THE NOTION OF CONSUMER SATISFACTION The basis for consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction lies in mankind's ability to learn from past experiences. Accordingly, consumer preferences are constantly being updated by way of the learning process. Learning theory posits that " a given response is reinforced either positively or negatively to the extent that it is followed by a reward. Reward, in turn, leads to an evaluation that the purchase was satisfactory and hence it can exert an effect on brand beliefs and attitudes. The probability of engaging in a similar buying act will be increased if there are positive consequences in the act of purchase and use and vice versa" (Engel, Kollat & Blackwell, 1968, p. 532). A basic tenet of marketing is that consumer satisfaction with a product is likely to lead to repeat purchases, acceptance of other products in the product line, and favorable word-of-mouth (Cardozo, 1965). However, while the idea of post-purchase outcome has been included as a variable in early consumer behavior models (Engel, Kollat & Blackwell, 1968; Howard & Sheth, 1969), the
Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 7(2) Las Vegas, 2003

page 42

Allied Academies International Conference

study of CS/D, as a separate outcome of the purchase decision, was not given much research attention until the latter part of the 1970s (Anderson, 1973). Early attempts to understand consumer post-purchase responses focused on the notion of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). A number of early studies suggested that CS/D was a more definitive outcome of the post-purchase decision (Cardozo, 1965; Engel, Kollat & Blackwell, 1968). In noting that it "would indeed be an understatement" to say that there is no general agreement on how to define satisfaction, Day (1980) asserts that "while everyone knows what satisfaction means, it clearly does not mean the same thing to everyone" (p. 593). Early conceptualizations of consumer satisfaction view it as a single variable which involves a single evaluative reaction from consumers, which may or may not be related to pre-evaluation concepts. In discussing the conceptualization of consumer satisfaction, for example, Hunt (1977b) notes that " satisfaction is a kind of stepping away from an experience and evaluating it One could have a pleasurable experience that caused dissatisfaction because even though it was pleasurable, it wasn't as pleasurable as it was supposed to be. So satisfaction/dissatisfaction isn't an emotion, it's the evaluation of the emotion" (p. 39). APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF CONSUMER SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION A number of theoretical approaches have been utilized to explain the relationship between disconfirmation and satisfaction (Oliver, 1980b; Anderson, 1973). These approaches can be viewed as variations of consistency theories and focus mainly on the nature of the consumer's post-usage comparison process (Oliver, 1980b). Consistency theories suggest that when expectations and the actual product performance do not match the consumer will feel some degree of tension. In order to relieve this tension the consumer will make adjustments either in expectations or in the perceptions of the product's actual performance. Four theoretical approaches have been advanced under the umbrella of consistency theory: 1. assimilation theory, 2. contrast theory, 3. assimilation-contrast theory, and 4. negativity theory. 1. Assimilation theory. Festinger's (1957) dissonance theory forms the basis of assimilation theory. Dissonance theory posits that consumers make some kind of cognitive comparison between expectations about the product and the perceived product performance. If there is a discrepancy between expectations and perceived product performance then dissonance arises. This view of the consumer post-usage evaluation was introduced into the satisfaction literature in the form of assimilation theory (Anderson, 1973). According to Anderson (1973), consumers seek to avoid dissonance by adjusting perceptions about a given product to bring it more in line with expectations. Consumers can also reduce the tension resulting from a discrepancy between expectations and product performance either by distorting expectations so that they coincide with perceived product performance or by raising the level of satisfaction by minimizing the relative importance of the disconfirmation experienced (Olson & Dover, 1979). Assimilation theory has a number of shortcomings. First, the approach assumes that there is a relationship between expectation and satisfaction but does not specify how disconfirmation of an expectation leads to either satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Second, the theory also assumes that
Las Vegas, 2003 Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 7(2)

Allied Academies International Conference

page 43

consumers are motivated enough to adjust either their expectations or their perceptions about the performance of the product (Forman, 1986). If the consumer adjusts either expectations or perceptions about product performance then dissatisfaction would not be an outcome of the post-usage evaluation process. A number of researchers have found that controlling for actual product performance can lead to a positive relationship between expectation and satisfaction (Olson & Dover, 1979; Anderson, 1973). Therefore, it would appear that dissatisfaction could never occur unless the evaluative process were to begin with negative consumer expectations (Bitner, 1987). 2. Contrast theory. Contrast theory, first introduced by Hovland, Harvey and Sherif (1957), presents an alternative view of the consumer post-usage evaluation process than was presented in assimilation theory in that post-usage evaluations lead to results in opposite predictions for the effects of expectations on satisfaction (Cardozo, 1965). The approach holds that when consumers experience disconfirmation they seek to minimize the discrepancy between prior expectations and actual product performance by shifting their evaluations away from the expectations. Dawes, Singer and Lemons (1972) define contrast theory as the tendency to magnify the discrepancy between "one's own attitudes and the attitudes represented by opinion statements" (p. 281) endorsed by persons with opposing views. While assimilation theory posits that consumers will seek to minimize the discrepancy between expectation and performance, contrast theory holds that a surprise effect occurs leading to the discrepancy being magnified or exaggerated. 3. Assimilation-contrast theory. The assimilation-contrast theory has been proposed as yet another way to explain the relationships among the variables in the disconfirmation model (Hovland, Harvey & Sherif, 1957). A combination of both the assimilation and the contrast theories, this paradigm posits that satisfaction is a function of the magnitude of the discrepancy between expected and perceived performance. Generally, consumers have zones or latitudes of acceptance or rejection with respect to their perceptions. As with assimilation theory, the consumers will tend to assimilate or adjust differences in perceptions about product performance to bring it in line with prior expectations, but only if the discrepancy is relatively small. When there is a large discrepancy between expectations and perceived performance, contrast effects occur and the consumer tends to magnify the perceived difference. Whether assimilation or contrast occurs depends upon the perceived disparity between expectations and actual product performance. Arguing that Cardozo's (1965) attempt at reconciling the two earlier theories was methodologically flawed, Anderson (1973) presented his adaptation of an earlier work. He asserted that consumers possess a "noticeable difference" disconfirmation threshold. Assimilation-contrast theory attempts illustrate that both the assimilation and the contrast theory paradigms have applicability in the study of consumer satisfaction. The approach makes it possible to " hypothesize variables other than the magnitude of the discrepancy that might also influence whether the assimilation effect or the contrast effect would be observed when product performance is difficult to judge, expectations may dominate and assimilation effects will be observed contrast effects would result in high involvement circumstances. The strength of the expectations may also affect whether assimilation or contrast effects are observed" (Bitner, 1987, p. 13). Researchers attempting to empirically test this theory have met with mixed results. For example, Olson and Dover (1979) and Anderson (1973) found some evidence to support the assimilation theory approach. In discussing both of these studies, however, Oliver (1980a) argues
Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 7(2) Las Vegas, 2003

page 44

Allied Academies International Conference

that they only measured expectations and assumed that there were perceptual differences between disconfirmation or satisfaction. This criticism is of some significance because researchers do not actually measure satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Instead, researchers generally believed that it is the perception of disconfirmation that leads to satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Forman, 1986). In contradiction to the findings supporting the assimilation perspective, Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins (1983) reported negative correlation between expectation and disconfirmation. They therefore concluded that satisfaction is really an additive function of the two concepts. Further ambiguity is created by results of studies which found no relationship between expectation and disconfirmation (Oliver, 1977a, 1977b, 1979). 4. Negativity theory. Like the three previous theories, negativity theory has its foundations in the disconfirmation process. Introduced into the consumer satisfaction literature by Anderson (1973), negativity theory posits that when expectations are strongly held, consumers will respond negatively to any disconfirmation. Accordingly, dissatisfaction will occur if perceived performance is less than expectations or if perceived performance exceeds expectations (Carlsmith & Aronson, 1963; Anderson, 1973). CONCLUSION The satisfaction construct has been defined in a number of different ways. Researchers have defined satisfaction in terms of need fulfillment, pleasure/displeasure, cognitive state, attribute or benefit evaluation, and subjective evaluation of experience. Currently, satisfaction is viewed as an emotional response to a product experience. However, while researchers have used a number of different definitions for satisfaction, they generally agree that satisfaction involved a set of inter-related variables rather than a single variable. REFERENCES
Anderson, R. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(2), 38-44. Bitner, M. (1987). Contextual cues and consumer satisfaction: The role of physical surroundings and employee behaviors in service settings. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington. Bolfing, C. (1985). An examination of selected triggering mechanisms for consumer satisfaction processes. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee. Cadotte, E., R. Woodruff & R. Jenkins (1987). Expectations and norms in models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, (8), 305-314. Cardozo, R. (1965). An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 2(8), 244-249. Carlsmith, J. & E. Aronson (1963). Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(2), 151-156.

Las Vegas, 2003

Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 7(2)

Allied Academies International Conference

page 45

Dawes, R., D. Singer & P. Lemons (1972). An experimental analysis of the contrast effect and its implications for intergroup communication and indirect assessment of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 281-295. Day, R. (1980). How satisfactory is research on consumer satisfaction? In J. Olson (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 7 (pp. 593-597). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research. Engel, J., D. Kollat & R. Blackwell (1968). Consumer behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford Press. Forman, A. (1986). The impact of purchase decision confidence on the process of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee. Hovland, C., O. Harvey & M. Sherif (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reaction to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(7), 244-252. Howard, J. & J. Sheth (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hunt, H. (1977b). CS/D: Bits and pieces. In R. Day (Ed.), Consumer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction and complaining behavior (pp. 38-41). Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction and complaining behavior conference. April 20-22, 1977. Oliver, R. (1980a). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(11), 460-469. Oliver, R. (1980b). Theoretical bases of consumer satisfaction research: Review, critique, and future direction. In C. Lamb & P. Dunne (Eds.), Theoretical Developments in Marketing (pp. 206-210). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Oliver, R. (1979). Product satisfaction as a function of prior expectation and subsequent disconfirmation: New evidence. In R. Day & H. Hunt (Eds.), New Dimensions of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior (pp. 66-71). Bloomington: Indiana University. Oliver, R. (1977a). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on post-exposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(8), 480-486. Oliver, R. (1977b). A theoretical reinterpretation of expectation and disconfirmation effects on post-exposure product evaluations: Experience in the field. In R. Day (Ed.), Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior (pp. 2-9). Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior Conference, April 20-22, 1977. Oliver, R. (1976). Hedonic reactions to the disconfirmation of product performance expectations: Some moderating conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 246-250. Olson, J. & P. Dover (1979). Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology (64), 179-189.

Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 7(2)

Las Vegas, 2003

page 46

Allied Academies International Conference

Las Vegas, 2003

Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 7(2)