A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions

Author(s): Richard L. Oliver

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Nov., 1980), pp. 460-469
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150499
Accessed: 09/03/2013 03:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research.

http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RICHARDL. OLIVER*

A model is proposed which expresses consumer satisfaction as a function

of expectation and expectancydisconfirmationSatisfaction,. in turn, is
believed to influence attitude change and purchase intention. Resultsfrom a
two-stage field study support the scheme for consumers and
nonconsumersof a flu inoculation.

A Cognitive Model of the

Antecedents and

Consequencesof Satisfaction Decisions

A recent wave of interest in research on consumer satisfaction Though writers do agree that expectations are a factor
has stimulated several thoughtful inter-pretations of the causes in postpurchase evaluations, viewpoints differ on the
and effects of satisfaction cognitions. Reviews of the literature process of expectancy disconfirmation. Some conclude
Tour and Peat Olander
(Day 1977; La- 1979; 1977; Oliver that the latter phenomenon exists implicitly
1977) suggest
that two
constructs, performance-specific
whenever
expectations are paired with disparate per-
and formance, others view it as a comparative process
expectation expectancy disconfirmation, play a major role in
culminating in an immediate satisfaction decision, and still
satisfaction decisions. The purpose of this article is to extend
others view it as a distinct cognitive state resulting from
this body of literature in a manner which the comparison process and preceding a satisfac-
will permit one to integrate the suggested antecedents tion judgment.
and some
hypothesized cognitive consequences into a coherent
framework of satisfaction-related concepts.
gained from prior research
Insight on this issue can be

and in the fields of social and applied psychology. Almost

Expectation Disconfirmation Effects
Early propositions linking disconfirmed expecta-tions
to subsequent consumer satisfaction were ad-
vanced and
by Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1968, p. 512-15)
Howard and Sheth
(1969, p. 145-50), although
little evidence in
the
product performance area could be cited to support the
seemingly obvious conclusion that satisfaction increases as the
perfor-
mance/expectation ratio increases. This view was
based largely on the results of a seminal laboratory study by
Cardozo (1965). Since that time, further
in the
experiments laboratory (Anderson 1973; Cohen
Goldberg 1970; Olshavsky and Miller 1972; Olson
and Dover
1976, 1979; Woodside 1972) and longitudinal surveys
in the
field (Oliver 1977; Swan 1977) have suggested that the
satisfaction decision is more com-
plex.
*Richard L. Oliver is Associate Professor, Graduate School of
Business
Administration, Washington University, St. Louis.
without exception, reviewers and early re-searchers in the
areas of job, life, self, and patient satisfaction agree that
satisfaction is a function of
an initial standard and some perceived discrepancy from
the initial reference point (see, variously, An-
drews and Withey 1976; Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers 1976;
Dunt
Ilgen 1971; Locke 1969; Locker and 1978; Shrauger 1975;
Spector 1956; Watts 1968; Weaver and Brickman 1974.)
searchers choose to measure
Although many re-
discrepancies objective-ly, reviewers of the early dissonance
studies (e.g., Watts 1968; Weaver and Brickman 1974) were
among the first to argue that individuals implicitly make
summary comparative judgments apart from and as an input
and
to their feelings of satisfaction. This perspec-tive is the one
used here.
The research cited strongly suggests that the effects
of
expectation and discrepancy perceptions may be additive.
Specifically, expectations are thought to create a frame of
reference about which one makes
a comparative judgment. Thus, outcomes poorer than
expected (a negative disconfirmation) are rated below this
reference point, whereas those better than expect-
460

Journal of Marketing Research

 Vol. XVII (November 1980), 460-9

This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODELOF ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES OF SATISFACTIONDECISIONS 461
ed are evaluated above in of
(a positive disconfirmation) effects, larger magnitude than that expectation, were
this base. observed in all cases. To date, these studies
Researchers in offer for an level
job satisfaction (e.g., Ilgen 1971; Smith, encouraging support adaptation interpretation
Kendall, and Hulin 1969)have noted that this additive of satisfaction decisions.
interpretationis modeled well by Helson's
level which that Cognitive Postpurchase Consequences
(1948, 1959)adaptation theory posits one
Much of the literature on postpurchase satisfaction pertains to
perceives stimuli only in relation to an adapted standard. The
standardis a function of perceptions of the stimulus itself, the the behavioral criteria of complaining and repurchase (see
Robinson 1979 for
context, and psychological andphysiologicalcharacteristicsof the review). Develop-ment of the cognitive
ramifications is largely theoreti-cal at this point in time, but is well
organism.Once created, the "adaptation level" serves to sustain
subsequent
evaluations in that positive
and negative deviations will grounded in the literature on emotional affect (attitude). Generally,
remainin the general vicinity of one's it is agreed that satisfaction interacts with other
on the adaptation
originalposition. Only largeimpacts cognitions of an emotional nature (Homans 1961). Howard and Sheth
level will changethe final tone of the subject's (1969, p. 147) recognized this notion
evalua-tion. explicitly. In their notation:
As applied to satisfaction decisions, one's level of expectation
about
product performance,
however
created, can be seen as
an A,+2 =f(S,+, - A,) + A,
adaptationlevel. Expecta-tions are influenced by the same factors where:
that Helson =
(1959)suggested
in his discussionof
adaptationphenom-ena, namely (1)
A, prepurchaseattitude,
the =
product itself including one's S,+, immediatepostpurchasesatisfaction, and A,+2
prior experience,
brand connotations, and symbolic elements, (2) the = revised postpurchaseattitude.
context including the content of communicationsfrom
- is a
The difference, (S, + A,), cognitive comparison
salespeopleandsocial referents, between satisfaction
anticipated (represented by A,) and
and (3) individualcharacteristics includingpersuasibil- received satisfaction. It is, in effect, a discon-firmation at the
ity and perceptual distortion. Postdecision deviations from the more abstract affect level rather than
the to which
adaptation level are thought to be caused by degree
the at the more objective attribute level.
product exceeds, meets, in
of one's The Howard and Sheth (1969) equation can be reinterpreted
or falls short expectations,i.e., positive, zero, or of Fishbein's work on
negative disconfirmation. Satisfaction, then, can light (1967) the components of attitudes
be seen as an additive combinationof the expectation level and the and with respect to the research cited previously. If one views
resultingdisconfirmation. rec-
expectations as belief probabilities of attribute occurrence, a
A growing number of studies suggest that this it
ommendation originally proposed by Olson and Dover (1976),
paradigmmay be useful in the study of consumer satisfaction. is that these beliefs
readily apparent perform two functions. First,
Data from the laboratory and the field have shown that both
affect they serve to provide the founda-tion for attitude formation and,
expectationand disconfirmation postexposure product
reactions. in where have second, they serve as an adaptation level for subsequent
Specifically, investigations expectations
been or measured to satisfaction decisions. Satisfaction, in turn, can be seen as a function
ma-nipulated prior product exposure, sig-
of the expectation (adaptation) level and perceptions of
nificant expectation effects have been observed con-sistently.
disconfirmation. In a similar manner, the revised postpurchase
Interestedreadersare referredto Olshavsky
attitude at t2 can be viewed as a function of the initial attitude at t,
and Miller (1972), Anderson (1973), Olson and Dover (1976), and the influence
Oliver of one's sense of Thus:
Oliver (1977), Swan (1977), and Linda and (1979). satisfaction/dissatisfaction.
discon- attitude (t,) = f(expectations)
Investigations demonstrating significant firmation effects
include those of Cardozo (1968), Cohen and Goldberg (1970), satisfaction = f(expectations, disconfirmation)
Woodside (1972), and Olson and Dover (1979). Of note are four two-
attitude =
(t2) f(attitude (t,), satisfaction)
stage
field studies (Oliver1977;Swan 1977;Gilly 1979;Linda The postpurchase model can be expanded further by
and Oliver 1979) where the disconfirmation effect was including purchase intentions. In fact, a later version of the
Howard and Sheth model (Howard 1974)
measured independently of expectation level through explicitly recognizes that satisfaction experiences in-
the use of hierarchical ANOVA and partial regression fluence future purchase intention as well as postpur-
coefficients. The results of each of these studies chase attitude. Most consumer behaviorists would
showed that expectations measured before product agree that a dissatisfying product purchase should
exposure were uncorrelated with subsequent expec- decrease one's inclination to repurchase. If one also
tancy disconfirmation, thus permitting an additive recognizes that the most immediate precursor of be-
interpretation. Moreover, significant disconfirmation havioral intention is attitude (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975),
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
462 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH,NOVEMBER1980

Figure 1 ed in this survey were measures of behavior, discon-

COGNITIVEMODELOF THE ANTECEDENTSAND firmation, attitude, and future intention in the event of
CONSEQUENCES OF SATISFACTIONDECISIONS another identical flu campaign. One followup re-
quest with a duplicate questionnaire and postage-paid return

ATIO
DISCONFIRMATION envelope was made to stimulate compliance.
Subjects

EXPECTATION
I I SATISFACTION
Two thousand residents of a south-central city (a
1%sample) were selected from the telephone directory by
I
systematic random sampling to receive the ques-tionnaire
used in the study. In addition, 1,000 students from a
ATTITUDE - ATTITUDE major state university in the community were asked on
a random basis to participate in the survey. Forty-five
of contacted and
percent the student population
28% of the residents
receiving questionnaires
responded to the first wave of the study. Of these
DISCONFIRMATION respondents, 76% of the students and 79% of the
T, PERIOD T2 community at large returned the second survey. On the
basis of respondent self-reports, 80% of the resi-dents and
and that prior intention at t, may act as the adaptation 66% of the students elected to receive the
level for future intention at t2, two equations can be flu shot. After deletion of a small number of respon-dents
added to those
already proposed: for whom complete data were not available, the samples used
intention = in the study consisted of 291 resident and 162 student
(t,) f(attitude (t1))
intention = "vaccinees," and 65 resident and 86 student "nonvaccinees."
(t2) f(intention (t,), satisfaction,
attitude (t2)) Nonresponse bias was examined by comparing the resident
1 is a of the demographic profile with the county census figures. The data showed
Figure path diagram system of equations
here. that the sample contained
suggested a disproportionate number of males, whites, and residents in
Study Objective high income brackets. The first of these
The main purpose of the author's study is to provide findings was thought to derive from the sample frame because head
a more substantial and simultaneous test of the rela- of household telephone listings are likely to be in the husband's
tionships among expectation, disconfirmation, satis- name. The second and third
faction, and the traditional criteria of attitude and response to the flu campaign
reflect interest in and actual
purchase intention than has been performed to date. In the conduct of the Oliver and
under study. Further elaboration is given by
study, attempts were also made Berger (1979).
to certain
improve methodological shortcomings pecu-liar to much of the Measures
prior satisfaction research. The as
situation with a Preexposure variables. Expectations were measured
refinements include use of an actual "purchase" lengthy the belief
sis of of perceived probabilities attributed to eight
"consumption" period, analy- nonpurchasers, comparison of receiving the flu shot in response
consumer and consequences
student and of to suggestions by Olson and Dover (1976). Because it was believed
samples, development operationaliza-tions of
expectation, disconfirmation, and satisfaction. that one's expectations involve not only the probability of outcome
METHOD occurrence but also the evaluation of that outcome, the overall
expectation measure was viewed as the sum of belief-evaluation
Procedure and Design and The
products (Fishbein Ajzen 1975). probabilistic measure of beliefs
The study is an extension of an earlier field study about outcomes was obtained by
on a nonrecurring federal flu vaccination program. Details of the the to scale the
asking subjects possibility of occur-
first stage, wherein questionnaires measuring attitudes and
intentions toward the flu rence of each consequence of receiving the flu shot on a
inoculation were mailed to residents of a medium-size SMSA 5-point scale ranging from "no chance" to "certain."
before the vaccine became available, are given
The evaluation component was measured by asking
Oliver and Berger (1979). At the officially designat- respondents to evaluate each consequence on a 5-point
by good-bad scale.
ed end of the flu
season, those subjects responding to the first wave of A 9-item semantic differential scale was used to
the study were sent a second obtain a summary measure of one's overall attitude
for
questionnaire asking their feelings toward the federal flu program and toward getting the inoculation. The coefficient alpha
flu shots in retrospect. Includ- scale reliability over both samples combined was 0.94.
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODELOF ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES OF SATISFACTIONDECISIONS 463

A continuous measure of behavioral intention was The satisfaction measure was a 6-item Likert scale
obtained by asking respondents to indicate constructed for this study. All items were emotional in content (Hunt

the "chances in 10" that they would get a flu shot on an 1977) and included references to the
respondent's outright satisfaction, regret, happiness, and general
11-point scale ranging from "no chance" to "cer-tain."
variables. Three have feelings about the decision to receive or not to receive the shot.' The
Postexposure approaches been used of this scale over all was
coefficient alpha reliability subjects
to operationalize the disconfirmation con-cept. In an historical showed
mode, numerous studies have 0.82; analysis that no item deletions would improve this
measured the between
objective discrepancy expecta-tions and value. Postexposure attitude and intention toward getting a
similar flu shot in the future if it were offered were
performance outcomes to arrive at a dif-ference score. (See, for measured on scales identical to those used in the
Foa inoculation behav-
example, 1957; Ilgen 1971; Morris, Crull, and Winter 1976; preexposure questionnaire. Finally, ior was
Spector 1956; Weaver and Brickman 1974). More recently, others obtained in self-report fashion.2
have used the difference between preexposure and postexposure
ratings with equally favorable results (Madden, Little, and Dolich Analysis
A recursive can
1979; Oliver 1977; Swan 1977). In all studies cited, the difference just-identified fully path analysis (Dun- 1975;
was to the four
score was found to be significantly related to postexposure Wright 1934) applied samples (two respondent
satisfaction or affect scales. two inoculation cate-
groups by gories) to test the theoretical
In other recent work, researchers have attempted
to capture the
scheme suggested here. The complete system of tested equations,
consumer's summary judgment of overall disconfirmation on a "better ables in order of their
with vari- arrayed suggested temporal
than expected-
worse than scale and precedence, is shown in Table 1. If the variables are expressed in
expected" (Aiello, Czepiel, Rosenberg are as
standard form (Z,), the coefficients (pj,) directly interpretable
1977; Linda and Oliver 1979; Oliver 1977; Swan and Trawick standardized
regression (path) coefficients where j and i denote the
1980; Westbrook 1980). These results paralleled and, in some
those dependent
and
cases, exceeded using difference scores. independent variables, respectively.3
For the purpose of the present study, overall better-worse than A complete recursive system was selected for anal-ysis rather
expected scales were used for the discon-firmation measures. than the abbreviated, overidentified system in Figure I for three
Individual attribute data were also
scheme reasons. First, the path coeffi-cients obtained with a just-identified
collected by means of a probabilistic disconfirmation
which with the framework are unique in that only one solution to the estimates is
compared prior probabilities occurrence or
a recursive model considered
nonoccurrence of predicted states of nature. Preliminary results possible. Second, a test of fully is
showed that the summary to be a of a
more fairly stringent analysis temporally ordered system
measures displayed a meaningful relationship to because "troublesome" paths cannot be eliminated a priori. Third,
satisfaction. Interested readers are referred to Oliver
(1980). heuristical-ly, some evidence attesting to the nature of the
For the subset of respondents who indicated that they had adaptation level may emerge. Because the three
been inoculated, a 2-item overall discon-firmation scale based on
the perceived benefits of receiving the inoculation and the
'The six items were:
problems associated withit was constructed. These subjects -I am satisfied with my decision to get or not to get a flu
were first asked to reflect on the problems encountered with the shot.
-If I had it to do all over again, I would feel differently about
shot and to indicate on a 7-point scale whether these the flu shot program.
at the one -My choice to get or not to get a flu shot was a wise one.
problems were "much more serious than expected" -I feel bad about my decision concerning the flu shot.
extreme much as
through "pretty expected" at the midpoint to -I think that I did the right thing when I decided to get or
"much less serious than expected" at the other extreme. Subjects not to get the flu shot.
were then asked to consider the benefits received and, on a similar -I am not happy that I did what I did about the flu shot. 2Actual inoculation
scale, behavior was obtained from health department
records and was used to classify respondents for a second set of identical
to check whether they were "much less than analyses. The results were very similar to those reported here. Differences in
most
findings were reflected typically in higher coefficients of determination
expected" at the negative extreme to "much greater with the use of actual behavior as
than expect-ed" at the positive extreme. Both items were the classification variable. The decision to use self-report data was made on the
summed to form the inoculation group disconfirmation basis of a high likelihood that many "true" inoculated
scale. The unvaccinated group was asked to indicate on a and
similar 7-point item whether they were "much worse off respondents were omitted because of recording nonreport
than expected" at the one extreme, "as well off as errors.
expected" at the midpoint, or "much better off than 3Maximum likelihood estimates of the path coefficients were also
expected" at the other extreme as a result of their decision Thillo with
calculated using LISREL (J6reskog and van 1972) nearly
not to get the flu inoculation. identical results. The author thanks Richard P. Bagozzi for his
advice and assistance.
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
464 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH,NOVEMBER1980

Table 1
HYPOTHESIZEDRELATIONSHIPSBETWEENTHE ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES OF
SATISFACTIONARRAYEDIN ORDEROF TEMPORALPRECEDENCE

Variable Structural equations

Z,: Expectation
Z2: Attitude (t,) p21Za
+
Z3: Intention (t,) p31ZZ P32Z2
Z4: Disconfirmation P41Zl + P42Z2 + P43Z3
Satisfaction +
Z,: psZa +P52Z2 + 53Z3
+ +
P54Z4
Z6: Attitude (t2) p61Z P62Z2+ P63Z3 p64Z4 + p65Z4
+ + + + +
Z,: Intention (t2) P71ZI P72Z2 P73Za P74Z4 P75Z5a P76Z6a
aA significant coefficient is hypothesized.

all attitudinal measures

preexposure variables remain in subsequent regres- postexposure (satisfaction, attitude, and
sions it is that one of intention
simultaneously, possible may dominate as an intention) with the exception in the student inoculation
anchor for all postpurchase evalua-tions. This information would sample.4 Second, no preexposure measure is correlated with
not be available if the disconfirma-
were matched with tion in any sample. Third, the sequence of postpur-
preexposure components selectively
their chase events, satisfaction -- attitude -- intention,
postexposure counterparts. to be in both inoculation
One of this is multi- appears supported samples in that the
major disadvantage approach collinearity. satisfaction-intention correlation is lower
Because the variables are than the satisfaction-attitude and attitude-intention
preexposure thought to be related, they
may be highly correlated. Significant degrees of correlation correlations (Blalock 1964). The effect of disconfirma-tion,
however, is not unique to satisfaction but appears to affect all
between variables may render the path coefficients unstable and
postexposure criteria.
subject to sampling variations. The extent of this problem is Tables 2 and 3 show the results obtained when the variables
readily observed when results are compared over are entered into the path analysis in order
the four used here.
respondent samples Alternatively, similar of of the
suggested temporal precedence. Analysis
findings over the sample groups would indicate that the weights inoculation group postexposure data reveals, first, that
are fairly stable despite the inherent multicollinearity among disconfirmation is of all
antecedents. independent preexposure
RESULTS
Correlations between variables for the resident and 4Variable intercorrelation matrices for both inoculation groups
over the two samples, not reported here because of space limitations,
student inoculation and non-inoculation samples show, first, that all are available from the author.
preexposure measures are associated with
Table 2
PATH COEFFICIENTSOBTAINEDFROMTHE INOCULATIONGROUP DATA

Variable Structural equationa R2

Z,: Expectation

Z2: Attitude (t,) .49Zb .24b

.48Zb .23b
Z3: Intention (t,) .06Z + .56Zb .35b
.06Z + .57Zb .36b
Z4: Disconfirmation .05Z1 + .05Z2 - .10Z3 .01
.02Z - .15Z2 + .10Z3 .01
Z,: Satisfaction .07Z + .21Zb + .04Z3 + .33Zb .19b
+ + + .47Zb
.17Zc .15Z2 .14Z3 .35b
-
Z6: Attitude (t2) .1lZ + .26Zb .05Z3 + .22Zb + .45Zb .49b
.20Zb + .06Z2 - .09Z3 + .26Zb + .48Zb .49b
Z,: Intention (t2) -.05Z + .01Z2 + + .09Z4 + .15Zb + .53Zb .48b
.10Z3
-.04Z - .24Zb + .17Z - .01Z4 + .26Zb + .47Zb .43b
=
aParameters for the first equation in each pair were obtained from the resident sample (n 291); those for the second were calculated
from the student sample (n = 162).
bp <.01.
Cp< .05.
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODELOF ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES OF SATISFACTIONDECISIONS 465

Table 3
PATHCOEFFICIENTSOBTAINEDFROMTHE NON-INOCULATION GROUP DATA

Variable Structural equationsa R2

Z,: Expectation

Z2: Attitude (t1) .43Zb 19b

.54Zb .30b
Z3: Intention (t,) .16Z, + .64Zb .52b
.06Z, + .65Zb .47b
Z4: Disconfirmation .05ZI - .17Z2 +
.06Z3 .02
-.17Z, - .03Z2 + .00Z3 .03
Z,: Satisfaction -.16Z - .23Z2 - .04Z3 + .34Zb .27b
.llZ, - .40Z - .15Z3 + .32Zb .34b
-
Z6: Attitude (t2) .07Z + .llZ2 - .10Z3 - .14Z4 .55Zb .43b
-
.18Z, +.40Zb- .19Z3 .10Z4 - .42Zb .53b
Z7: Intention (t2) -.10Z, + .02Z2 + .33Z - -.20Z5 + .32Zb .53b
-.05Z + .33Zb~- 24Z4 - .25Zc + .48Zb .53b
- .23Z2 .12Z4
for the first equation in each
"Parameters pair were obtained from the resident sample (n = 65); those for the second were calculated
from the student sample (n = 86).
bp < .01.

p < .05.
cussion.
measures and thus may be considered exogenous to by prior intention in accord with the theoretical dis-
the system. Satisfaction, in turn, is a function of disconfirmation The same also a
equation yields negative
and a linear combination of preexpo-sure variables. Attitude preexposure attitude coefficient, best explained by suppressor
effects
appears to be the primary determinant of adaptation level (see Darlington 1968).
in the resident sample, whereas the expectation measure
receives the highest coefficient in the student sample. The
disconfirmation
measure, however, appears to produce the greatest impact on
satisfaction in both cases.
Analysis of postusage attitude in the inoculation group reveals
and
that satisfaction is the primary deter-minant, as hypothesized, The postexposure results on the non-inoculation group closely resemble those obtained with the vac-cinated group. Specifically, disconfirmation is unrelat-ed to any of the expectation variables, whereas satis-faction is significantly related to
that has in both disconfirmation in both samples and to preexposure attitude in the student sample. (The negative coefficient is due to the direction of scaling on the attitude measure.)

disconfirmation also significant impacts samples.

Coefficients
obtained with the preexposure expectation and coefficient in the resident sample is greater than 0.2 in magnitude
attitude variables are similar to those found in the regressions on
but does not attain significance because of the small sample size
satisfaction. Analysis of the intention criterion for involved.
this same group suggests that both postexposure atti-tude and As hypothesized, postusage attitude is a function of
satisfaction affect future purchase probabil- satisfaction in both non-inoculated samples. In the
as no one's attitude to
ities, hypothesized. Surprisingly, student group prior appears provide an adaptation
to have measure a
preexposure variable, including intention, appears any level whereas in the resident group no preexposure yields
coefficient.
impact in the resident group. Among the student sample, significant Analysis of the postexposure intention variable
intention is influenced
however, postusage shows that postusage attitude and preexposure intention

Table 4
SUMMARYOF SIGNIFICANTCOEFFICIENTSOVERTWO SAMPLESAND USAGE GROUPS

Users Non-users
Dependent
variable Residents Students Residents Students
Attitude (t,) Exp Exp Exp Exp
Intention (t,) Att, Att, Att, Att,
Disconfirmation -
Satisfaction Att , Disc Exp, Disc Disc Att,, Disc
Sat
Attitude (t2) Att,, Disc, Sat Exp, Disc, Sat Sat Attp,
Intention (t2) Sat, Att2 Int1, Sat, Att2 Intl, Disc, Att2 Int1, Sat, Att2
as
(Att, suppressor)
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
466 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH,NOVEMBER1980

emerge as antecedents in both non-inoculation sam- the same instrument as satisfaction, one must re-
ples. Disconfirmation also produces a significant coefficient in member that disconfirmation does not occur until after
the resident group. product exposure and that subsequent cognitive reac-
and tions probably follow soon thereafter. Until a three-
Table 4 summarizes the findings over the two samples
two The of stage study is conducted whereby satisfaction is mea-
usage groups. findings interest to this study sured at a point in time subsequent to and separate
pertain to the four postexposure variables. The first, from the disconfirmation assessment, one must con-
clude that the disconfirmation effect is at least as
disconfirmation, is unrelated to any preexposure variable in
all cases. Satisfaction is related to disconfirmation in all potent as the effect attributed to expectation.
Moreover, the path-analytic results suggest that
samples and to either preexposure attitude or the expectation disconfirmation is well positioned in the proposed
three of four
measure in sample groups. Of these, attitude theoretical satisfaction framework in that the most
appears to serve the adaptation level function in two of the three. immediate impact appears to be on satisfaction, as
Postexposure attitude is a function of satisfaction in all sample hypothesized. The effect of disconfirmation on later
groups and a function of disconfirmation in the inoculation groups. stages of the model (postexposure attitude and inten-
In accord with the regression results found with the satisfaction tion), however, does not appear to have the same
pervasive influence as the adaptation level variables in
criterion, preexpo-sure attitude apparently was used as an
adaptation a multivariate perspective.
level for
postexposure attitude in two of three cases Implications for a model of consumer satisfac-
where a preexposure variable yields a significant tion. The data reported here provide support for an
coefficient. Finally, postexposure intention is related integrated model of consumer satisfaction which
to one's revised attitude in all cases, to satisfaction dovetails well with the more general attitude models
in three, and to preexposure intention-the apparent such as that suggested by Fishbein (1967). Specifically,
level-in
adaptation three. On balance, the theoretical satisfaction appears to mediate changes between
scheme in Figure 1 appears to be a fairly accurate and
of the cognitive processes preexposure postexposure attitudinal components. The
representation used in the Helson's
here. nature of the mediatorial process is
level
predicted by
satisfaction decisions investigated (1948) adaptation theory whereby preexposure cognitions
DISCUSSION serve as the consumer's adaptation level. A cognitive comparison
from between the adaptation level and actual product experience (dis-
Despite the fact that this study differs in many respects
the
prior investigations, findings support the results of earlier studies confirmation) determines the manner in which subse-quent
on the expectation effect evaluations will deviate from the adaptation level. These
and recent interpretations of the disconfirmation effect (Oliver evaluations then become a revised
Swan
1977; 1977; Weaver and Brickman 1974). Specifically, adaptation level used in future product performance
postusage ratings of satisfaction appear to be a function of a evaluations.
of satisfaction
linear combination of an adaptation Suggested consequences decisions, namely
level revised attitude and intention in that respective order, are reflected
component (expectations or prior attitude) and well by the results shown in Tables
-- --
disconfirmation. 2 and 3. In fact, the satisfaction postattitude
Two items are worthy of note in relation to the findings. First, the
postintention sequence is well supported in all samples.
resistant to In The data show that the coefficients attributed to
adaptation level effect is remarka-bly extinction.
prior studies, expectation satisfaction in the attitude regressions are much greater in
creation, product exposure, and postexposure evalua-tion all magnitude than the other explanatory variables in the model.
occurred in the span of a very short time. When small time frames An analogous pattern of results holds for the regression of
that or intention on attitude and its antece-dents. Although more
are used, one could argue primacy recall effects are
as behavior and
operating. In the concrete behavioral criteria such complaining
repeat purchasing were
present study, however, the seven-month time span between the not the
pretest and posttest makes recall a less investigated, cognitive postexposure response
for the obtained the pattern appears to support current theoretical views of
likely explanation findings. Apparent-ly,
beliefs satisfaction effects (Andreasen 1977; Day 1977).
underlying which give rise to expectation formation are
internalized to the extent that the sum- Data from the unvaccinated respondents provide
mary expressions of attitude or, perhaps, intention encouraging support for the satisfaction model in two
persist over some unspecified period of time. ways. First, the two nonuser groups can be viewed as
The second observation one might make about the validation samples in that independent assessments
results in Tables 2 and 3 concerns the large discon- of the parameter coefficients are provided. Generally,
firmation effect evident in all regressions on satisfac- the results show that the magnitudes and pattern of
tion. Though it is conceivable that the significant coefficients are in accord with those obtained on the
disconfirmation coefficients are due to method user groups. Second, results from the non-inoculation
variance in that disconfirmation was measured with
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODELOF ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES OF SATISFACTIONDECISIONS 467
groups suggest that the the proposed framework of cognitive demographic features indicated that the resulting bias may
for satisfaction decisions be toward higher income white respondent cate-gories. It
processes operates in a more general
to the ramifications of should be noted, however, that parallel analyses of the student
mode. Apparently consumers re-spond dents be of
nonpurchasing (e.g., opportunity costs, vicarious relief and regret) in sample suggest that the resi- may representative
the on a
population correlational basis. For example, no
the same manner as they do for the purchase itself.
consistent dif-ferences were observed between the regression
Methodological issues and limitations. Although the findings
results obtained with the student and community samples.
reported here are consistent with a number of proposed theoretical Individual readers must decide, however, whether this fact is
frameworks and with the results and conclusions of prior studies,
sufficient evidence for the representativeness of the resident
two method-ological issues require elaboration. The first and most
to the measures used for the sample.
problematical pertains expectation
and disconfirmation variables. In accord with recommendations
REFERENCES
made by Olson and Dover
Fishbein and Aiello, Albert,Jr., JohnA. Czepiel, and LarryA. Rosenberg
(1976), scaling (Fishbein Ajzen 1975) was used in
(1977), "Scaling the Heights of Consumer Satisfaction:
thepresent study. The results show that belief-evaluation An Evaluation of Alternate Measures," in Consumer
and
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction Complaining Behavior, Ralph L. Day, ed.
products perform the function of an adaptation level in
some cases, but that one's overall attitude seems to act as the Bloomington, Indiana: School of
Business, Indiana University.
cognitive anchor on a more frequent basis. It may be Anderson, Rolph E. (1973), "Consumer Satisfaction: The
Effect of
argued that one's attitude somehow captures the totality of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product
Journal 10
the expecta-tion level and that it provides the baseline for Performance," of Marketing Research, (Febru-ary),
satisfac- 38-44.
other cognitions of an overall nature, particularly tion. Andreasen, Alan R. (1977), "A Taxonomy of Consumer
Problems also remain in the operationalization of the Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction Measures," in Conceptual-
disconfirmation construct. Although a 2-item sum-mary ization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction, H. Keith Hunt, ed. Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts:
concept was used here, disconfirmation ulti-mately takes place at MarketingScience Institute.
that an
the individual attribute level, suggesting attribute- Andrews, Frank M. and Stephen B. Withey (1976), Social Indicators of
measure one would
specific may yield greater insight. Ideally, Well-Being. New York: Plenum Press.
wish to obtain of the in Non-
postpurchase perceptions expected Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. (1964), Causal Inferences experimental
attitude Research. Chapel Hill, North Carolina:
Uni-
levels to demonstrate that a set of expectations had, in versity of North Carolina
fact, been disconfirmed. Earlier studies used attri- Press.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, and Willard L.
bute rating change scores to measure attribute discon-firmations. More The
Rodgers (1976), Quality of American Life. New York:
recent ongoing works by Suprenant (1977) and the author are exploring Russell Sage Foundation.
the use of better- The Pattern Human Concerns.
worse than Cantril, Hadley (1965), of Press.
expected attribute-specific scales, and other New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University
N. "An of
researchers are on Cardozo, Richard (1968), Experimental Study
currently working multiple-item Consumer Effort, Expectation, and Satisfaction," Journal
2 244-9.
overall disconfirmation scales in bipolar adjective format. of Marketing Research, (August),
The author regrets that the attribute level approach taken in this Cohen, Joel B. and Marvin E. Goldberg (1970), "The Dissonance
Model in Post-Decision Product Evaluation,"
study (reported by Oliver 1980) did not yield more encouraging 7 315-21.
results. The overall scales used Journal of Marketing Research, (August), Darlington,
the net Richard B. (1968), "Multiple Regression in
hopefully served to capture cognitive feeling of the
Psychological Research and Practice," Psychological Bulletin, 69
disconfirmation experience. Limited prior re-search has shown that 161-82.
(March),
overall measures may be more highly correlated with postpurchase
Day, Ralph L. (1977), "Toward a Process Model of Con-sumer Satisfaction," in
evaluations than are aggregates of individual attribute pre and post and Measure-
Conceptualization
a ment of Consumer Satisfaction
and
Dissatisfaction,
H.
Keith
comparisons (Oliver 1977), position analogously
taken by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) in their discussion Hunt, ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science
of attitude development. A better understanding of the Institute.
disconfirmation construct is expected to emerge as
work develops in the satisfaction area. Duncan, Otis Dudley (1975), Introduction to Structural
Finally, the sample frame used here remains a Equation Models. New York: Academic Press.
potential source of error. A national sample of re- Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell
spondents was not used; the resident sample was drawn
from one community. Moreover, the response rate was (1968), Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
not particularly high. An analysis of respondent Fishbein, Martin "1967), "Attitude and the Prediction of Behavior,"
in Readings in Attitude Theory and Measure-ment, Martin Fishbein,
ed. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
_- and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention,
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
468 JOURNALOF MARKETINGRESEARCH,NOVEMBER1980

and Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. to Move," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38 (May),
Foa, Uriel G. (1957), "Relation of Workers' Expectation to 309-21.
Satisfaction with Supervisor," Personnel Psychology, Olander, Folke (1977), "Consumer Satisfaction-A Skep-tic's
10 161-8. View," in Conceptualization and Measurement of
(Summer),
C. Consumers: Their Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, H. Keith Hunt,
Gilly, Mary (1979), "Complaining Satisfaction with
mensions Consumer ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science
Organizational Response," in New Di- of
and Institute.
Satisfaction Complaining Behavior, Ralph L. Day and H. Keith Hunt,
Indiana: of Indiana Uni- Oliver, Richard L. (1977), "Effect of Expectation and
eds. Bloom-ington, Department Marketing,
versity. Disconfirmation on Postexposure Product Evaluations: An
Helson, Harry (1948), "Adaptation-Level as a Basis for Alternative Interpretation," Journal of Applied Psy-
a of chology, 62 (August), 480-6.
Quantitative Theory Frames of Reference," Psycho-logical
Review, 55 (November), 297-313. 1980, "Conceptualization and Measurement of Dis-
Level in A
(1959), "Adaptation Theory," Psychology: Study of confirmation Perceptions in the Prediction of Consumer
a Science, Vol. 1, Sigmund Koch, ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Satisfaction," in Proceedings of Fourth Annual Conference
Company. on Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Com-
Homans, George Caspar (1961), Social Behavior: Its Ele- plaining Behavior, H. Keith Hunt and Ralph L. Day, eds.
mentary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Bloomington: School of Business, Indiana University.
in
Howard, John A. (1974), "The Structure of Buyer Behav-ior," and Philip K. Berger (1979), "A Path Analysis of
Consumer Behavior: Preventive Health Care Decision Models," Journal of
Theory andApplication, John U. Farley, John
Consumer Research, 6 (September), 113-22.
A. Howard, and L. Winston Ring, eds. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Olshavsky, Richard W. and John A. Miller (1972), "Con-
- and N. Sheth The
Jagdish (1969), Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: sumer Expectations, Product Performance, and Perceived
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Product Quality," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (Fe-
Hunt, H. Keith (1977), "CS/D-Overview and Future bruary), 19-21.
in and Measurement
Directions," Conceptualization of Olson, Jerry C. and Philip Dover (1976), "Effects of
and
Consumer Satisfaction Dissatisfaction, H. Keith
Hunt, ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Expectation Creation and Disconfirmation on Belief Ele-
ments of Cognitive Structure," in Advances in Consumer
Institute. Research, Vol. 3, Beverlee B. Anderson, ed.
Chicago:
Ilgen, Daniel R. (1971), "Satisfaction with Performance as a Association for Consumer Research.
and the
Function of the Initial Level of Expected Performance and- (1979), "Disconfirmation of Consumer
Deviation from Expectations Through Product Trial," Journal of Applied
Expectations," Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 6 (January), 345-61.
Psychology, 64 (April), 179-89.
Robinson, Larry M. (1979), "Consumer Complaint Behavior: A
Jireskog,
Karl G.
and Marielle van Thillo (1972), "LISREL: New
Review with Implications for Further Research," in
A General Computer Program for Estimating a Linear Dimensions Consumer and
Structural of Satisfaction Complain-ing
Equation System Involving Multiple Indicators of Behavior, Ralph L. Day and H. Keith Hunt, eds. Bloomington,
Unmeasured Variables," Research Bulletin 72-56. Indiana: School of Business, Indiana Uni-
Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service. versity.
A. and C. Peat
LaTour, Stephen Nancy (1979), "Conceptual and J. a
Methodological Issues in Satisfaction Research," in Advances in Shrauger, Sidney (1975), "Responses to Evaluation as
Consumer Research, Vol. 6, William L. Function of Initial
Wilkie, ed. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Con- Self-Perceptions," Psychological
sumer Research. Bulletin, 82 (July), 581-96.
Smith, Patricia Cain, Lorne M. Kendall, and Charles L. Hulin
Linda, Gerald and Richard L. Oliver (1979), "Multiple Brand (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and
Analysis of Expectation and Disconfirmation Effects on
Satisfaction," paper presented at the 87th Annual Con-vention of Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
the American Psychological Association. Aaron J.
Spector, (1956), "Expectations, Fulfillment, and
Locke, Edwin A. (1969), "What is Job Satisfaction?" Organizational 52 51-6.
Morale," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (January),
Behavior 309-36.
and Human Performance, 4 (No-vember),
Suprenant, Carol (1977), "Product Satisfaction as a Function
Locker, David and David Dunt (1978), "Theoretical and Methodological of Expectations and Performance," in Consumer Satis-
Issues in Sociological Studies of Con-sumer Satisfaction with Medical L.
Care," Social Science faction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Ralph
&
Medicine, 12 (July), 283-92.
ed. Indiana
Day, Bloomington, Indiana: School of Business,
Madden, Charles Stanley, Eldon L. Little, and Ira J. Dolich University.
(1979), "A Temporal Model of Consumer S/D Concepts as Swan, John E. (1977), "Consumer Satisfaction with a Retail
Net Expectations and Performance Evaluations," in New
Dimensions of Consumer Satisfaction and Complain-ing Store Related to the Fulfillment of Expectations on an
Behavior, Ralph L. Day and H. Keith Hunt, eds. Initial Shopping Trip," in Consumer Satisfaction, Dissat-
Bloomington, Indiana: School of Business, Indiana Uni- isfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Ralph L. Day, ed.
Bloomington, Indiana: School of Business, Indiana Uni-
versity. versity.
Morris, Earl W., Sue R. Crull, and Mary Winter (1976), -
"Housing Norms, Housing Satisfaction and the Propensity and I. Fredrick Trawick (1980), "Satisfaction Related
to Predictive vs. Desired Expectations," in Proceedings of
Fourth Annual Conference on Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, H. Keith Hunt
and Ralph L. Day, eds. Bloomington, Indiana: School
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODELOF ANTECEDENTSAND CONSEQUENCES OF SATISFACTIONDECISIONS 469

of Business, Indiana University. Social Psychology, 30 (March), 420-8.

Watts, William A. (1968), "Predictability and Pleasure:
Reactions to the Disconfirmation of Expectancies," in
Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, Robert
P. Abelson, Elliot Aronson, William J. McGuire, Theodore
M. Newcomb, Milton J.
Rosenberg, and Percy H.
Tan-
nenbaum, eds. Chicago:
Rand-McNally.
Weaver, Donald and Philip Brickman
(1974), "Expectancy, Feedback and
Disconfirmation as Independent Factors
Westbrook, Robert A. (1980), "Intrapersonal Affective Influences upon
Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 7 (June), 49-54.
Woodside, Arch G. (1972), "Positive Disconfirmation of
Expectation and the Effect of Effort on Evaluation," Proceedings,
Association.
80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Wright, Sewall (1934), "The Method of Path Coefficients," Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161-215.

Journal and
of Personality

JMR REPRIN T POLICY AND PROCEDURE

of 50
All reprints are sold according to the following price schedule, in minimum orders
copies.

50
copies with covers $ 75.00
100
copies with covers 125.00
be
(multiples of 100 may ordered)
There is NO RETURN and NO EXCHANGE on reprints.

Under the "fair use" provision of the new copyright law taking effect January 1978, anyone may make a
photocopy of a copyrighted article for his or her own use without seeking
permission. Also, a single copy reprint or an order of less than 50 copies may be
obtained from University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road,
Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Articles are priced prepaid at $6.00 plus $1.00 for
each additional copy of the same article. Complete issues are obtainable at
0I per page, minimum order $10.00.
To obtain permission to reproduce one's own reprints in qua
Plaza,
Permissions Department, American 222 S. Riverside

Chicago, IL 60606.
This content downloaded on Sat, 9 Mar 2013 03:17:55 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions