The Dissonance Theory suggests that a person who expected a high-value product and received a low-value

product would recognize the disparity and experience a cognitive dissonance (Cardozzo, 1965). That is, the
disconfirmed expectations create a state of dissonance or a psychological discomfort (Yi, 1990). According to
this theory, the existence of dissonance produces pressures for its reduction, which could be achieved by
adjusting the perceived disparity. This theory holds that "post exposure ratings are primarily a function of the
expectation level because the task of recognizing disconfirmation is believed to be psychologically
uncomfortable. Thus consumers are posited to perceptually distort expectation-discrepant performance so as to
coincide with their prior expectation level" (Oliver, 1977, p. 480). For instance, if a disparity exists between
product expectations and product performance, consumers may have a psychological tension and try to reduce it
by changing their perception of the product (Yi, 1990). Cardozzo argues that consumers may raise their
evaluations of those products when the cost of that product to the individual is high. For example, suppose that
a customer goes into a restaurant, which she or he expects it to be good, and is confronted with an unappetizing
meal. The consumer, who had driven a long distance and paid a high price for the meal, in order to reduce the
dissonance, might say that the food was not really as bad as it appeared or she likes overcooked meal, etc. The
researchers pursued this approach implicitly assume that consumers would generally find that product
performance deviated in some respect from their expectations or effort expenditures and that some cognitive
repositioning would be required (Oliver, 1980). Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues [Şirket adını yazın] |
Gizli Tourist Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior: Measurement, and Management Issues in the Tourism
and Hospitality Industry, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2008 .This theory has not gained much support
from researchers, partly because it is not clear whether consumers would engage in such discrepancy
adjustments as the model predicts in every consumption situation. In his criticism of the Dissonance theory,
Oliver (1977), for instance, argues that "Generally, it is agreed that satisfaction results from a comparison
between X, one’s expectation, and Y, product performance. Thus, it is the magnitude and direction of this
difference, which affects one’s post-decision affect level. X serves only to provide the comparative baseline.
Moreover, consumers are under no particular pressure to resolve the X-Y difference. In fact,
satisfaction/dissatisfaction is thought to arise from recognition and acknowledgement of dissonance" (p. 206). If
the Dissonance Theory holds true, then companies should strive to raise expectations substantially above the
product performance in order to obtain a higher product evaluation (Yi, 1990). However, the validity of this
assumption is questionable. Raising expectations substantially above the product performance and failing to
meet these expectations may backfire, as small discrepancies may be largely discounted while large
discrepancies may result in a very negative evaluation. This suggestion fails to take into account the concept of
"tolerance level". The tolerance level suggests that purchasers are willing to accept a range of performance
around a point estimate as long as the range could be reasonably expected. When perceptions of a brand
performance, which are close to the norm (initial expectation), are within the latitude of acceptable
performance, and then it may be assimilated toward the norm (Woodruff et al 1983). That is, perceived
performance within some interval around a performance norm is likely to be considered equivalent to the norm.
However, when the distance from this norm is great enough, that is perceived performance is outside the
acceptable zone, then brand performance will be perceived as different from the norm, which, in contrast to this
model's assumption, will cause dissatisfaction not a high product evaluation. The Dissonance Theory fails as a
complete explanation of consumer satisfaction, however, it contributes to the understanding of the fact that
expectations are not static in that they may change during a consumption experience. For instance, the
importance attached to pre-holiday expectations may change during the holiday and a new set of expectations
may be formed as a result of experiences during the holiday. This implies that as customers progress from one
encounter to the next, say from hotel's reception to the room or the restaurant, their expectations about the room
may be modified due to the performance of the previous encounter (Danaher & Arweiler, 1996).

The Contrast Theory suggests the opposite of the Dissonance Theory. According to this theory, when actual
product performance falls short of consumer’s expectations about the product, the contrast between the
expectation and outcome will cause the consumer to exaggerate the disparity (Yi, 1990). The Contrast theory
maintains that a customer who receives a product less valuable than expected, will magnify the difference
between the product received and the product expected (Cardozzo, 1965). This theory predicts that product
performance below expectations will be rated poorer than it is in reality (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988). In other
words, the Contrast Theory would assume that "outcomes deviating from expectations will cause the subject to
favorably or unfavorably react to the disconfirmation experience in that a negative disconfirmation is believed
to result in a poor product evaluation, whereas positive disconfirmation should cause the product to be highly
appraised" (Oliver, 1977, p. 81). In terms of the above restaurant situation, the consumer might say that the
restaurant was one of the worst he or she had ever been and the food was unfit for human consumption, etc.
If the Contrast Theory were applied to a consumption context, then the poor performance would be worse than
simply poor, and good performance would be better than a rating of good would suggest (Oliver, 1997). Under
the dissonance theory, the opposite effects occur, perceived performance, whether it is less or more favorable
than the consumer's expectations, is drawn to the original expectation level. It is important to note that these
theories have been applied and tested in laboratory settings where the customer satisfaction was tightly
controlled, situation specific and individually focused. For instance, researchers investigated the ability of these
theories in predicting customer satisfaction with a pen (Cardozzo, 1965), a reel-type tape recorder (Olshavsky &
Miller, 1972), ball-point pen (Anderson, 1973), and a coffee brand (Olson & Dover, 1975). Thus, it is curious
whether hypotheses held by these theories could be accepted or rejected when applied in a field survey
Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues
[Şirket adını yazın] | Gizli Tourist Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior: Measurement, and Management
Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2008 research study of
hospitality and tourism services (Oh & Parks, 1997). It is, for instance, not clear whether all purchase decisions
in tourism and hospitality services result in dissonance.

The Comparison Level Theory

A number of authors criticized the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm on the grounds that this approach
posits that the primary determinant of customer satisfaction is the predictive expectations created by
manufacturers, company reports, or unspecified sources (Yi, 1990). For instance, La Tour & Peat (1979) argued
that the EDP ignores other sources of expectations, such as the consumer's past experience and other consumer's
experience with similar constructs. They proposed a modification of the Comparison Level Theory (Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959). In contrast to the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm which uses predictive or situationally-
produced expectations as the comparison standard, the Comparison Level Theory argues that there are more
than one basic determinants of comparison level for a product: (1) consumers' prior experiences with similar
products, (2) situationally produced expectations (those created through advertising and promotional efforts),
and (3) the experience of other consumers who serve as referent persons. Applying the Comparison Level
Theory to the confirmation/disconfirmation process, LaTour & Peat found that experience based standards or
norms play a role as a baseline for comparisons in consumer's satisfaction judgments. They found that
situationally induced expectations had little effect on the customer satisfaction, while expectations based on
prior experiences were the major determinant of customer satisfaction. This finding suggests that consumers
may give less weight to manufacturer-provided information, when they have personal experience and relevant
information about other consumer experiences (Yi, 1990). Unlike the Expectancy/ Disconfirmation paradigm,
the Comparison Level Theory suggests that consumers might bring a number of different comparison standards
into the consumption experience. Consumers might be more likely to use predictive expectations based on
external communication (advertisement) before the purchase (in their decision-making), while different
standards (for example, past experience and experiences of other consumers Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual
Issues [Şirket adını yazın] | Gizli Tourist Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior: Measurement, and
Management Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2008
suggested by LaTour and Peat’s model) might become more likely after the purchase. There is, however,
inadequate information concerning what standards that consumers bring into the consumption experience are
being confirmed and disconfirmed. Theoretical discussions aside, the use of past experience suggested by the
Comparison Level Theory as the comparison standard in customer satisfaction investigations may serve
managers to compare their performance with their rivals, and undertake required actions to catch-up or for
product differentiation.

The Value Percept Theory

Similar to LaTour and Peat's argument, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) argue that the Expectancy-
Disconfirmation paradigm may not be the most appropriate model to explain customer satisfaction, as customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction is more likely to be determined by comparative standards other than expectations.
They proposed a Value-Percept Disparity theory, originally formulated by Locke (1967), as an alternative to the
Expectation-Disconfirmation paradigm. Criticizing the predictive expectations used as a comparison standard in
the traditional Disconfirmation paradigm, Westbrook and Reilly argue that what is expected from a product may
or may not correspond to what is desired or valued in a product. Conversely, that which is valued may or may
not correspond to what is expected. Thus, values have been proposed to be a better comparative standard as
opposed to expectations in explaining customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. According to the value-percept
theory, satisfaction is an emotional response that is triggered by a cognitive evaluative process in which the
perceptions of an offer are compared to one's values, needs, wants or desires (Westbrook & Reilly, 1983).
Similar to the Expectancy/Disconfirmation paradigm, a growing disparity between one’s perceptions and one's
values (value-perception) indicates an increasing level of dissatisfaction.
In their study, Westbrook and Reilly compared the expectation-confirmation model with the value-percept
disparity model. The value-disparity was defined as the extent to which the product provides the features and
performance characteristics needed or desired. The disparity was assessed on a single differential scale
anchored with "provides far less than my needs" and "provides exactly what I need". In contrast to their
hypothesis, which states that values, as opposed to expectations, determine satisfaction, Westbrook and Reilly
found that the disconfirmation of expectations had a stronger effect on satisfaction than the disparity between
value and perceptions. They suggested that both constructs (expectations and values) were needed in explaining
customer satisfaction, as they found neither the expectation-disconfirmation model nor the value percept model
was sufficient on its own. Similarly, results of recent studies investigating the ability of value and expectations
in determining satisfaction demonstrate that it might be better to integrate desires and expectations into a single
framework, as they are both affecting consumer satisfaction (Spreng et al 1996). The Value-Percept theory
which postulates satisfaction as the fulfillment of consumer desires, values, or wants, as opposed to their
expectations, has not received as much support from researchers as the EDP did in ascertaining customer
satisfaction with hospitality and tourism services.

The Attribution Theory

Research of the Attribution Theory is primarily developed from the Weiner, Frieze and Kukla’s (1971) work. It
is important to note that the Attribution theory has been mostly used in dissatisfaction/ complaining behavior
models than in satisfaction models per se. According to this model, consumers are regarded as rational
processors of information who seek out reasons to explain why a purchase outcome, for example dissatisfaction,
has occurred (Folkes, 1984). This model argues that when the delivery of a service does not match customers’
prior expectations or other standards, customers engage in an attributional process in order to make sense of
what has occurred (Bitner, 1990). More specifically, this model assumes that consumers tend to look for causes
for product successes or failures and usually attribute these successes or failures using a three dimensional
schema (Folkes, 1989; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Pearce & Moscardo, 1984; Weiner et al 1971):
Locus of Causality (internal or external): This means that the purchase outcome, for example, is cause of
dissatisfaction and can be attributed either to the consumer (internal) or to the marketer or something in the
environment or situation (external). Stability (stable/ permanent or unstable/ temporary): Stable causes are
thought not to vary over time, while unstable causes are thought to fluctuate and vary over time. Controllability
(volitional/ controllable or non volitional/uncontrollable): Both consumers and firms can either have volitional
control over an outcome or be under certain controllable constraints. It is argued that under some conditions, for
example, when a number of consumers find themselves in agreement about the cause of their dissatisfaction,
when the same establishment repeats their mistake over and over again (consistency), and when only this
establishment commits error(distinctiveness of the behavior is high), external attribution process takes place. On
the other hand, when the agreement is low, consistency is low and distinctiveness is low, consumers are
assumed to relate their negative reactions (dissatisfaction) to themselves (i.e., just having an "off" day) (Pearce
& Moscardo, 1984). Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues
[Şirket adını yazın] | Gizli Tourist Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior: Measurement, and Management
Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2008 In his study, Folkes
(1984) asked subjects to remember the last time they went to a restaurant, ordered something and did not like it.
The subjects were further asked who had to be responsible for this (locus), whether this type of incident
happens at this restaurant (stability), and whether the restaurant could prevent the problem (control). The
subjects were then asked whether they would prefer a refund, exchange, or an apology. Folkes found that the
subjects who felt that the problem was restaurant related (external) stated that they deserved a refund, exchange,
or an apology. Subjects who felt the cause as stable were more likely to prefer a refund rather than an exchange,
while subjects who thought that the company could have prevented the problem demonstrated high levels of
anger, and showed their behavioral intentions to hurt the restaurant’s business. Such feelings of anger toward
the company were heightened when the responsiveness of the firm to the problem was considered less than
adequate and hence resulted in negative word-of-mouth recommendations. In addition, under conditions where
the consumer perceived the company to be non-responsive, they were less likely to complain to the company
and more likely to use negative word-of-mouth recommendations to express their dissatisfaction. Similarly
company-related (external) attributions elicited greater feelings of anger and desire to hurt the company than
internal attributions (Folkes, 1984; Richins, 1985).
In the past, attribution models have been more useful in predicting consumers’ reactions when they are
dissatisfied than in explaining the satisfaction process itself (Huang and Smith, 1996). However Folkes (1984)
and Richins (1985) have obtained some evidence that supports a relationship between locus of causality
(internal and external attributions) and satisfaction judgments. The results, especially those of Folkes’,
demonstrate that the locus of causality dominates satisfaction judgments and satisfaction is associated more
with internal than with external factors. Oliver and Desarbo (1988) who compared the effects of five
determinants of satisfaction (expectancy, performance, disconfirmation, equity and attribution) have reported
similar findings that the attribution dimension was the least significant of all effects in the situation tested. Some
researchers suggest the Attribution theory as an alternative model to explain customer satisfaction, however, it
seems rather like an extension of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm because the attribution process is
triggered off primarily by negative disconfirmation of expectations. The attribution theory further appears to be
more useful to apply in ascertaining customer dissatisfaction and complaining behavior.

The Equity Theory

According to the Equity Theory, satisfaction exists when consumers perceive their output/input ratio as being
fair (Swan & Oliver, 1989). Equity models are derived from the Equity Theory (Adams, 1963), and are based
on the notion of input-output ratio, which plays a key role in satisfaction (Oliver & Swan, 1989). According to
this theory, parties to an exchange will feel equitably treated (thus, satisfied), if in their minds, the ratio of their
outcomes to inputs is fair (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988). Whether a person feels equitably treated or not may
depend on various factors including the price paid, the benefits received, the time and effort expended during
the transaction and the experience of previous transactions (Woodruff et al 1983). This implies that comparative
baseline may take many different forms. This theory shares similarities with the Comparison Level Theory
which posits that bases of comparison used by consumers in satisfaction judgments may be more than just
expectations. Equity models of consumer satisfaction appear to be different from the other models, in that
satisfaction is evaluated relative to other parties (people) in an exchange and the outcomes of all parties sharing
the same experience are taken into consideration. Erevvels and Leavitt (1992) argue that equity models can
provide a much richer picture of consumer satisfaction in situations that may not be captured using traditional
satisfaction models. For example, they may be especially useful in modeling situations where satisfaction with
the other party is considered to be an important element of the transaction. Translated into a tourism context, the
Equity theory suggests that tourists compare perceived input-output (gains) in a social exchange: if the tourist’s
gain is less than their input (time, money, and other costs), dissatisfaction results (Reisinger & Turner, 1997).
Satisfaction is therefore, "a mental state of being adequately or inadequately rewarded" (Moutinho, 1987, p. 34).
The comparison may take other forms. The output/input ratio for a service experience may be compared to the
perceived net gain of some others (such as friends) who have experienced a similar offer (Meyer &
Westerbarkey, 1996). According to this theory, satisfaction is seen as a relative judgment that takes into
consideration both the qualities and benefits obtained through a purchase as well as the costs and efforts borne
by a consumer to Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues obtain that purchase. Fisk and Coney (1982), for
instance, found that consumers were less satisfied and had a less positive attitude toward a company when they
heard that other customers received a better price deal and better service than them. In other words, their
perceptions of equitable treatment by the company translated into satisfaction judgments and even affected their
future expectations and purchase intentions. Equity theory applied to customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction has
become accepted as an alternative way to conceptualise how comparisons work (Oliver & Desarbo, 1988).
Equity disconfirmation has been supported empirically, though it applies primarily to social interactions (Oliver
& Swan, 1989). The equity theory as well as the attribution theory has been proposed as satisfaction
determinants, however "they have not gegenerated the same level of interest in customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction research

The Evaluative Congruity Theory

According to Sirgy’s (1984) Evaluative Congruity Model (or the Social Cognition Model), satisfaction is a
function of evaluative congruity, which is a cognitive matching process in which a perception is compared to an
evoked referent cognition in order to evaluate a stimulus or action. The result of this cognitive process is
assumed to produce either a motivational or an emotional state. Customer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction is
regarded as an emotional state because it prompts the consumer to evaluate alternative course of action to
reduce an existing dissatisfaction state and /or obtain a future satisfaction state (Sirgy, 1984). This model argues
that there are three congruity states; negative incongruity, congruity, and positive incongruity. Similar to the
confirmation/disconfirmation concept, negative incongruity is a cognitive state that results from a negative
discrepancy between the valence levels of a perception and an evoked referent cognition, which induces
dissatisfaction. Congruity is a cognitive state that leads to a non-significant or negligible discrepancy between a
perception and an evoked referent cognition, which results in a neutral evaluation state or a satisfaction state.
Finally, positive incongruity-state results from a positive discrepancy between a perception and an evoked
referent cognition, which generates satisfaction. Unlike the EDP, Sirgy’s model views the customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction as a function of one or more congruities between perceptual and evoked referent
states and states that the occurrence of multiple comparison processes could explain consumer satisfaction
better. More specifically, the original Evaluative Congruity Model assumes that satisfaction may be determined
by one or more cognitive congruities, such as between (1) new product performance after usage and expected
product performance before use, (2) new product performance after use and old product performance before
use, (3) expected product performance after purchase and ideal product performance before purchase, (4)
expected product performance after purchase and deserved product performance after use. Such discrepancies
are argued to independently influence consumer’s overall satisfaction with a given product (Sirgy, 1984). One
of the most important features of the Evaluative Congruity Theory seems to be its ability in explaining the
different states of satisfaction/dissatisfaction resulting from different combinations of expectations and
performance outcome (Chon, 1992; Chon, Christianson & Cin-Lin, 1998). Recall that the traditional
Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm holds the view that the level of resulting satisfaction will be the same in
both cases where low expectations are met by low performance and high expectations are met by high
performance. According to the Evaluative Congruity Theory, however, different expectation-performance
combinations (high expectation/high performance; low expectation/low performance) would result in different
satisfaction states (Chon & Olsen, 1991; Chon, 1992; Chon et al 1998; Sirgy, 1994). For instance, Chon (1992)
and Chon et al (1998), basedFor instance, Chon (1992) and Chon et al (1998), based on the Evaluative
Congruity Theory, postulated that under a positive incongruity condition, in which the tourist expectation of a
given service performance is negative but his/her perceived outcome is positive, the tourist would be most
satisfied. Indeed, their results revealed that when the tourist’s expectation of a destination was negative but the
perceptions were positive the tourist was most satisfied, whereas when the tourist’s expectations were positive
and perceptions were positive, the level of satisfaction was moderate. In addition, when the tourist’s
expectations were negative and perceptions were negative, the satisfaction was lower than the first two
congruity conditions, and when the tourist expectations were positive but the perceptions were negative, the
tourist was least satisfied. These findings provides some degree of support for the underlying assumption of the
Evaluative Congruity Theory which suggests that different states of satisfaction may result from different
combinations of expectations and performance perceptions. In addition, Sirgy further postulated that product
images should be classified as being functional (i.e. physical benefits associated with the product) and symbolic
(i.e., self image) and argues that customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not only an evaluative function of the
consumer’s expectations and performance, but it is also an evaluative function of the consumer’s self image and
product image congruity. Chon and Olsen (1991) in their study on tourist satisfaction with destinations found
some evidence supporting the view that the consumer decision making process involves the evaluation of not
only the functional attributes of a product (the availability of suitable accommodation) but also personality
related attributes. They found that functional congruity explained customer satisfaction better than symbolic
congruity. It is important to note that although Evaluative Congruity model has been offered as an alternative
way to explain satisfaction process, its methodological mechanism is analogous to that of the Expectancy-
Disconfirmation paradigm (Oh & Parks, 1997). That is, both the Evaluative Congruity and Expectation-
Disconfirmation models are based on the disconfirmation concept which presupposes that customers form
expectations about the product prior to purchase and compare these expectations against perceived performance
after the product is used. Both models, however, may not be suitable to apply in consumption situations where
customers do not have prior expectations such as with unfamiliar products.

The Theory of Assimilation

Festinger’s theory of dissonance (1957) forms the basis for the theory of assimilation. The theory of dissonance
states that the consumer makes a sort of cognitive comparison between the expectations regarding the product
and the product’s perceived performance. If there is a discrepancy between expectations and the product’s
perceived performance, the dissonance will not fail to appear. This point of view on post-usage evaluation was
introduced in the literature discussing satisfaction under the form of the theory of assimilation. (Anderson,
1973)
According to Anderson, the consumers try to avoid dissonance by adjusting their perceptions of a certain
product, in order to bring it closer to their expectations. In a similar way, the consumers can reduce the tension
resulted from the discrepancy between expectations and the product’s performance, both by distorting the
expectations so that they could be in agreement with the product’s perceived performance, and by increasing the
level of satisfaction through minimizing the relative importance of experimental disconfirmation (Olson and
Dover, 1979). The theory presumes the consumers are motivated enough to adjust both their expectations and
their product performance perceptions. If the consumers adjust their expectations or product performance
perceptions, dissatisfaction would not be a result of the post-usage process. Consumers can reduce the tension
resulting from a discrepancy between expectations and product/service 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 and Dover, 1979) Some
researchers have discovered that the control on the actual product performance can lead to a positive
relationship between expectations and satisfaction. (Anderson, 1973) Consequently, it is assumed that
dissatisfaction could never appear unless the evaluation process began with the customers’ negative
expectations. Peyton et al (2003) argues that Assimilation Theory has a number of shortcomings. First, the
approach assumes that there is a relationship between expectations and satisfaction, but it does not specify the
way in which the expectation disconfirmation can lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Second, the theory also
posits that consumers are motivated enough to adjust either their expectations or their perceptions about the
performance of the product. Some researchers have found that controlling for actual product performance can
lead to a positive relationship between expectation and satisfaction. Therefore, it would appear that
dissatisfaction could never occur unless the evaluative processes were to begin with negative consumer
expectations.

The Theory of Contrast

This theory, first introduced by Hovland, Harvey and Sherif (1957), presents an alternative approach to the
evaluation post-usage process that 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). Dawes et al
(1972) define contrast theory as the tendency to magnify the discrepancy between one’s own attitudes and the
attitudes represented by opinionstatements. This approach states that whenever the customers experiment
disconfirmation, they try to minimize the discrepancy between their previous expectations and actual
product/service performances, by shifting their evaluations away from expectations. While the theory of
assimilation asserts that the consumers will try to minimize the expectation-performance discrepancy, the theory
of contrast insists on a surprise effect that can lead to exaggerating the discrepancy. According to the contrast
theory, any discrepancy of experience from expectations will be exaggerated in the direction of discrepancy. If
the firm raises expectations in his advertising, and then a customer’s experience is only slightly less than that
promised, the product/service would be rejected as totally un-satisfactory. Vice-versa, underpromising in
marketing communications and over-delivering will cause positive disconfirmation also to be exaggerated
(Vavra, 1997,p. 44-60)

The Theory of Assimilation-Contrast

The assimilation-contrast theory was suggested as another way of explaining the relationships between
variables within the disconfirmation model (Hovland, Harvey and Sherif, 1957). This paradigm posits that
satisfaction is a function of the magnitude of the discrepancy betweeexpected and perceived performance.
Generally speaking, the consumers move within acceptance or rejection areas, in accordance with their
perceptions. As stated in the theory of assimilation, customers have a tendency of assimilating or adjusting the
differences in product performance perception, with a view of getting them to the level of their previous
expectations, but only if the discrepancy is relatively small (Peyton et. Al., 2003,p.43). A large discrepancy
between perceived performance and expectations results in contrast effects and the consumer’s tendency would
be one of increasing the
perceived difference. Assimilation or contrast can appear in connection with the disparity perceived between
expectations and the actual product performance.
This theory tries to illustrate the fact that both the assimilation and the contrast theory paradigms have
applicability in the study of consumer’s satisfaction. Various researchers tried to test this theory empirically.
Olson and Dover (1979) and Anderson (1973) found some evidence to support the assimilation theory
approach. Referring to these
studies, Oliver (1980) argues that there were perceptual differences between disconfirmation or satisfaction.

The Theory of Negativity

This theory, just like the other three, is also based on the disconfirmation process. This theory developed by
Carlsmith and Aronson (1963) suggests that any discrepancy of performance from expectations will disrupt the
individual, producing ‘negative energy”. Anderson(1973) posits that when the expectations are strongly
sustained, the
consumers will negatively answer any information (Peyton [Link].,2003,p.44) Dissatisfaction will happen if the
perceived performance falls beneath expectations, or if the perceived performance goes beyond the
expectations.

The Theory of Hypothesis Testing

Deighton. (1983) suggested a two-step model for satisfaction generation. First, Deighton hypothesizes,
prepurchase information (advertising) plays a substantial role in building up expectations. Customers use their
experience with product/service to test their expectations. Second, Deighton believes, customers will tend to
attempt to confirm rather than disconfirm their expectations. The theory suggests that customers are biased to
positively confirm their
product/service experiences. It is an optimistic view, but it turns the management of evidence into a very
powerful