DAVID K. TSE and PETER C.

WilTON*

The authors extend consumer satisfaction literature by theoretically and empiri-

cally (1) examining the effect of perceived performance using a model first proposed
by Churchill and Surprenant, (2) investigating how alternative conceptualizations of
comparison standards and disconfirmation capture the satisfaction formation pro-
cess, and (3) exploring passible multiple comparison processes in satisfaction for-
mation. Results of a laboratory experiment suggest that perceived performance ex-
erts direct significant influence on satisfaction in addition to those influences from
expected performance and subjective disconfirmation. Expectation and subjective
disconfirmation seem to be the best conceptualizations in capturing satisfaction for-
mation. The results suggest multiple comparison processes in satisfaction formation.

Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation:

An Extension

Recent attempts to understand and model consumer ambiguities. First, though Churchill and Surprenant (1982)
satisfaction formation have produced several important found perceived performance to be a determinant of CS/
findings. First, it is generally agreed that postconsump- D, most CS/D models have not incorporated a direct
tion consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) can be link from this construct to CS/D. Second, researchers
defined as the consumer's response to the evaluation of have not converged on the exact conceptualization of the
the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations (or comparison standard and disconfirmation constructs. For
some other norm of performance) and the actual perfor- example, the comparison standard has been conceptual-
mance of the product as perceived after its consumption ized as expected (e.g., Oliver 1980), ideal (e.g., Sirgy
(Day 1984). Second, researchers have suggested that CS/ 1984), or normative performance (e.g., Woodruff, Ca-
D is influenced by a pre-experience comparison standard dotte, and Jenkins 1983). Similarly, disconfirmation has
(Bearden and Teel 1983; Cardozo 1965; Day 1977; been modeled as the result of subtractive functions (e.g.,
Liechty and Churchill 1979; Miller 1977; Oliver 1977, LaTour and Peat 1979) between product performance and
1980; Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins 1983) and dis- some comparison standards or as the subjective evalu-
confirmation, that is, the extent to which this pre-ex- ation (e.g., Oliver 1980) of this discrepancy. Finally,
perience comparison standard is disconfirmed (e.g., An- some researchers have suggested consumers may engage
derson 1973; Bearden and Tee11983; Day 1977; Howard in multiple comparisons in CS/D formation (e.g., Oliver
and Sheth 1969; LaTour and Peat 1979; Maddox 1981; 1985), but this proposition has not been assessed em-
Oliver 1977, 1980; Olshavsky and Miller 1972; Swan pirically.
and Combs 1976; Swan and Trawick 1981; Wilton and The purpose of our note is to (1) examine theoretically
Tse 1983; Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins 1983). and empirically the role of perceived performance using
Within this consensus, however, there are three major Churchill and Surprenant's model (1982), (2) compare
the effects of alternative disconfirmation and comparison
standard conceptualizations, and (3) investigate the pos-
*David K. Tse is Assistant Professor, Marketing Division, Uni- sibility of multiple comparison standards in satisfaction
versity of British Columbia. Peter C. Wilton is Chief Operating Of- formation.
ficer, MP (Myer Pacific) Ventures Inc.
The study was partially supported by a grant from the Humanities
and Social Science Council, University of British Columbia. The au- Perceived Performance in Satisfaction Formation
thors thank the anonymous JMR reviewers, and as well as Gerald
Gorn and Charles Weinberg, for their comments. Theoretical support can be found for including per-
ceived performance as a direct determinant of CS/D. In

204

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XXV (May 1988),204-12
CONSUMER SATISFACTION FORMATION 205

particular, LaTour and Peat (1979) argue that under cer- models of consumer preference and choice (see, e.g.,
tain conditions the disconfirmation construct alone may Holbrook 1984), represents the optimal product perfor-
fail to explain CS/D formation adequately. For exam- mance a consumer ideally would hope for. It reflects what
ple, consumers forced to buy an inferior brand (say, if performance "can be." It may be based on previous
their preferred brand is out of stock) may not necessarily product experiences, learning from advertisements, and
experience disconfirmation of a pre-experience compar- word-of-mouth communication (Liechty and Churchill
ison standard, but may nonetheless be dissatisfied be- 1979; Miller 1977).
cause of its inferior performance. Triers of new brands Expected product performance, deriving from expec-
who experience unfavorable disconfirmation of a high tancy theory (Tolman 1932), represents a product's most
pre-experience standard (generated, say, through adver- likely performance. It is the most commonly used pre-
tising) may still be satisfied with the brand if it has more consumption comparison standard in CS/D research. The
of the desired attributes than do competing brands. construct reflects what performance "will (probably) be"
Additional support is provided by studies in cognitive (Liechty and Churchill 1979; Miller 1977). It is affected
dissonance (e.g., Festinger 1957; Holloway 1967), which by the average product performance (Miller 1977) and
suggest that the dissonance reduction strategy adopted advertising effects (Olson and Dover 1979).
by an individual after a disconfirming consumption ex- Alternative approaches to modeling the comparison of
perience will depend on the psychological costs of al- product performance against a pre-experience standard
ternative reduction strategies. After a very bad (or good) have been discussed by Swan and Trawick (1981). The
product experience, the psychological costs of adjusting subtractive disconfirmation approach (e.g., LaTour and
the product performance cognition in line with a pre- Peat 1979), deriving from comparison level theory (Thi-
experience anchor may exceed the costs of not adjusting baut and Kelley 1959), assumes that the effects of a post-
the performance cognition but modifying the pre-expe- experience comparison on satisfaction can be expressed
rience anchor. In this case, product performance per- as a function of the algebraic difference between product
ception will dominate in the postconsumption evalua- performance and a comparison standard. This approach
tions and hence the construct is important in CS /D has considerable support from studies in industrial and
formation. cognitive psychology (e.g., Anderson 1981; Locke 1977),
A consumer's consumption motive also suggests a di- where simple algebraic rules of psychological variables
rect link between perceived performance and CS /D. A have been found to represent human information pro-
study by Cohen and Houston (1972) on the cognitive cesses adequately over a wide variety of situations.
consequences of brand loyalty indicates that dissonance As an alternative approach, subjective disconfirmation
reduction is only one possible postconsumption process. (e.g., Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Oliver 1980) rep-
If learning from experience is an important consumption resents a distinct psychological construct encompassing
motive (especially with new products), then whenever a a subjective evaluation of the difference between product
product performs well a consumer is likely to be satis- performance and the comparison standard; that is, sub-
fied, regardless of the levels of the pre-experience com- jective disconfirmation encompasses the set of psycho-
parison standard and disconfirmation. Clearly, to capture logical processes that may mediate perceived product
a diversity of consumption experiences, a comprehen- performance discrepancies. Such processes are likely to
sive CS/D model should incorporate perceived perfor- be important in situations in which product performance
mance. cannot be judged discretely.
An important distinction between the two approaches
is drawn by Oliver (1980), who suggests that subtractive
Alternative Comparison Standards and disconfirmation may lead to an immediate satisfaction
Disconfirmation Models judgment, whereas subjective disconfirmation represents
an intervening "distinct cognitive state resulting from the
Three approaches to conceptualizing a pre-experience comparison process and preceding a satisfaction judg-
comparison standard have been suggested in CS/D lit- ment" (p. 460). Hence, subjective disconfmnation is likely
erature. Equitable performance, borrowing from equity to offer a richer explanation of the complex processes
theory (Adams 1963), represents a normative standard underlying CS/D formation. Further, if CS/D is mod-
for performance based on implicit relationships between eled with direct effects from perceived performance, a
the individual's costs/investments and anticipated re- comparison standard, and disconfirmation simulta-
wards. It represents the level of performance the con- neously, specifying disconfirmation as a subtractive
sumer ought to receive, or deserves, given a perceived function of the remaining two independent variables will
set of costs (Liechty and Churchill 1979; Miller 1977; induce overspecification of the CS /D model. Subjective
Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins 1983). The construct is disconfmnation, as a distinct evaluative construct, is free
likely to be affected by the price paid, effort invested of such confounding. In subsequent analysis subtractive
(J acoby 1976), and previous product experiences disconfirmation is not used to predict CS/D judgment
(Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins 1983). together with comparison standard and perceived per-
Ideal product performance, deriving from the ideal point formance.
206 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1988

Multiple Comparison Processes in CS/D Formation on a 5-point bipolar scale ranging from "very poor" to
Though most empirical operationalizations of CS /0 "very good"), equitable product performance (perfor-
have focused on a single, unique comparison process, mance that should be "reasonably expected if you in-
several researchers have suggested the possibility of vested $50 of your own money in purchasing the product
multiple comparison processes in CS/O formation. Sirgy . . ." on a 5point bipolar scale ranging from "very poor"
(1984), for example, has identified at least four concep- to "very good"), product attitude (6-point bipolar "over-
tually distinct comparisons that may underlie CS/O for- all opinion" scale ranging from "strongly dislike" to
mation. More recently, Oliver (1985), Wilton and Ni- "strongly like"), and finally purchase intent. For the first
cosia (1986), Forbes, Tse, and Taylor (1986), and Tse three constructs, measures were taken for both the over-
and Wilson (1986) have conceptualized CS/O as a post- all product and for the 26 individual attribute levels.
choice process involving complex, simultaneous inter- Subjects next were exposed to the expectation manip-
actions that may involve more than one comparison stan- ulation and were asked to evaluate expected product per-
dard. In light of these propositions, a process of multiple formance at both the overall product and attribute levels
comparisons (which might occur either simultaneously (performance that". . . you would expect to see, con-
or sequentially) is likely to have reasonable empirical sidering everything you have seen or read so far") on 5-
support. point, bipolar scales ranging from "very poor" to "very
good" product attitude and purchase intent. Support for
these various operationalizations is given by Liechty and
RESEARCH DESIGN
Churchill (1979), Miller (1977), and Oliver (1980).
The preceding propositions were tested by a 2-expec- Then subjects received the good or poor performance
tation by 2-product factorial experiment that explicitly player (depending on the treatment to which they were
allowed for measurement and estimation of alternative randomly assigned) plus a set of discs and written in-
model specifications within the basic expectancy-discon- structions on how to operate the player. They were told
fmnation paradigm. Subjects were instructed to act as to use it for as long as they wished. Subjects subse-
potential consumers in a test market trial of a new elec- quently evaluated perceived performance (". . . your
tronic, hand-held, miniature record player. The design objective evaluation of the [product's] performance. . .
required subjects to report their psychological states at regardless of your level of satisfaction with [it] . . ."
each of three stages during the experiment: before and on a 5-point bipolar scale ranging from "very poor" to
after exposure to an expectation manipulation and after "very good" performance), subjective disconfirmation
product performance manipulation. (" . . . overall . . . how close did the [product] come
to your expectations . . .," on a 5-point bipolar scale
Treatments
ranging from "very much poorer than expected" to "very
Expectation of product performance was manipulated much better than expected"), satisfaction (" . . . con-
by giving subjects a written evaluation of the product by sidering everything, how satisfied are you with the
an independent consumer testing laboratory. Half of the [product]?" on a 5-point bipolar scale ranging from "very
subjects (chosen at random) were given favorable eval- dissatisfied" to "very satisfied"), future expectation,
uations of the overall product and on 14 specific product product attitude, and purchase intent. Support for the
attributes (e.g., ease of operation, sound clarity, etc.). operationalizations of perceived performance and satis-
The remaining subjects received unfavorable evaluations faction is found in articles by Churchill and Surprenant
of the overall product and its attributes. (1982) and Oliver (1980). There were 15 subjects in each
Product performance was manipulated by two ver- of the two favorable expectation conditions and 16 sub-
sions of the product: one an unmodified, advanced model jects in each of the two unfavorable expectation condi-
(representing good performance), the other an earlier tions for a total of 62 subjects.
model further modified by the experimenters to guar-
antee poor product performance (representing poor per-
formance). Subjects were assigned randomly to the treat- RESULTS
ment conditions.
Manipulation Checks
Procedure and Measurement Manipulation checks of the expectation and product
Subjects (student volunteers from advanced marketing treatments suggest they were highly effective. Subjects
management courses at a western university) entered the in the favorable expectation condition expressed signif-
laboratory and were directed to individual soundproof icantly higher expected performance (p < .001), more
cubicles. After reading a one-page description of the positive attitudes (p < .001), and stronger purchase in-
product and the assigned task, subjects provided re- tentions (p < .05) than subjects in the unfavorable ex-
sponses on the pre-expectation manipulation constructs: pectation condition. In addition, subjects in the good
ideal product performance (anticipated performance of performance condition perceived the product to perform
a player that "has exactly the combination of attributes better (p < .001) and were more satisfied (p < .001)
you would like to see in a miniature record player. . ." than those in the poor performance condition.
CONSUMER SATISFACTION FORMATION 207

The discriminant and convergent validity of alterna- models, and (3) multiple comparison standards in CS/
tive comparison standard operationalizations was as- D formation.
sessed by examining the correlation between a compar- Effect of Perceived Performance in Satisfaction
ison standard's sum of attribute ratings and its overall
Formation
product rating, according to the criteria of the multitrait,
multimethod procedure (Campbell and Fiske 1959). The Our preceding discussion suggests that perceived per-
correlation matrix is at the top left comer of Table 1, formance is important to CS/D formation. Table 2 com-
which also gives the pairwise product-moment correla- pares Churchill and Surprenant's (1982) CS/D model,
tion coefficients for other constructs measured in the study. which incorporates perceived performance in addition to
The intrastandard correlation coefficients (along the di- expectation and subjective disconfmnation, with other
agonal) are all statistically significant and higher than the CS/D models. This model (r = .730) outperforms all
corresponding interstandard correlations, suggesting the other models, with the improvement in over the bestr
measures have good discriminant and convergent valid- two-variable model (e.g., Oliver 1980 model with r2 =
ity. .597) significant at p < .01.
Discriminant validity checks for the remaining con- However, this model raises possible interpretive prob-
structs were obtained by comparing their frequency dis- lems because of potentially high collinearity in our study,
tributions. Though not reported here in detail, the results as perceived performance is highly correlated with sub-
of a series of Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample and Wil- jective disconfmnation (r = .73, last row in Table 1).
coxon matched pairs, ranked signs tests (Siegel 1956) Collinearity among independent variables can produce
indicated systematic differences for 25 of 30 possible inflated standard errors, negatively correlated beta esti-
distribution pairs. Hence, our operationalizations appear mates, and smaller estimated coefficients in comparison
to be valid. with models using the independent variables separately.
Let us now examine the effects of (1) perceived per- In our study, though the standard error for perceived per-
formance using Churchill and Surprenant's model, (2) formance in the proposed three-variable model increases
alternative comparison standards and disconfirmation marginally over the errors observed for either a single-

Table 1
CONSTRUCT ASSOCIATIONS
(product moment correlations)

Model construct
Disconfirmation
Comparison standard" Perceived Perceived Perceived
Subjective minus minus minus Perceived
Expectation Ideal Equity disconfirmation expected ideal equitable performance
Model construct (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Comparison standard"
Expectation (1)
(2) .72**
Ideal (1) .04 -.04
(2) -.17 -.13 .42**
Equity (1) .13 .19 .18 -.02
(2) -.09 -.01 .26** .20 .57**

Disconfirmation
Subjective
disconfinnation (1) .11 -.07 .07
Perceived-expected
performance (1) -.53** -.23* -.10 .56**
Perceived-ideal
performance (1) .18 -.64** -.08 .61 ** .64**
Perceived-equitable
performance (1) .13 -.29** -.57** .56** .62** .78**

Perceived product
performance (1) .25* -.23* -.00 .73** .68** .89** .82**
Satisfaction (1) .39** -.24* .08 .71** .41** .75** .62** .81**
"(1) Overall product-level rating. (2) Average of 26 individual attribute ratings.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
208 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1988

Table 2
ALTERNATIVE MODElS OF THE DIRECT DETERMINANTS OF SATISFACTION LEVEl

Determinant(s r
Model Subtractive Subjective Perceived
proponent(s) disconfirmation disconfirmation Expectation performance ?
Cardozo (1965)
Olshavsky and nab .71 na na .500
Miller (1972) (.095)
Anderson (1973)

Oliver (1985)
Bearden and na .70 .33 na .597
Teel (1983) (.087) (.088)

Churchill and na na na .81 .650

Surprenant (1982)' (.068)

LaTour and .04 (.012) na na na .146

Peat (1979)d .02 (.009) na na na .077
.03 (.008) na na na .195

Sirgy (1984)" .52 (.060) na na na .557

.31 (.089) na na na .168
.45 (.074) na na na .381
.18 (.026) na na na .451

Combined model na .27 .23 .55 .730

(Churchill and (.102) (.07) (.104)
Surprenant) 1982
"Beta coefficients with standard error in parentheses.
"na: not included in the proposed model.
'In the Churchill and Surprenant study, two models were proposed. For video disc players, only perceived performance was significant whereas
for house plants, perceived performance, subjective disconfirmation, and expectation were significant. The former is tested here and the latter is
tested in the combined model.
dThe functional form of LaTour and Peat's model tested is:
. . " Importance, x (Perceived Performance, - Comparison Standard.)
Satisfaction = LJ
Comparison Standard,
The disconfirmations are estimated by using ideal expectation and equity, respectively.
"The disconfirmations are estimated by using perceived performance minus ideal, expectation, equity, and the sum of these differences, re-
spectively.

or two-variable model, the signs for all coefficients in plete CS/D model separately for each standard, em-
the proposed three-variable model remain positive and ploying a subjective disconfirmation measure as proposed
subjective disconfmnation remains highly significant. in our theoretical discussion. The results are reported in
Thus, though collinearity is present, it is not sufficiently Table 3. Note that equity fails to produce a direct effect
severe to misspecify the CS/D model by omitting per- on any of the three dependent variables (model 3). Con-
ceived performance or subjective disconfirmation (Chat- sequently, its indirect effects on satisfaction are also in-
terjee and Price 1977). significant. This result, which suggests eliminating the
The importance of perceived performance in CS/D comparison standard altogether, contradicts previous
formation is evident from Table 1. It explains 65% of findings in CS/D research. A more reasonable inference
the variation in satisfaction, outperforming any other single is that equity is not a good operationalization of the com-
predictor model, including disconfirmation, and the two- parison standard.
variable model proposed by Oliver (1980), shown in Ta- Results for expectation and ideal are more meaningful
ble 2. In addition, perceived performance exerts a sig- (the insignificant chi square values for both models 1 and
nificant indirect effect on satisfaction through its influ- 2 suggest that neither model can be rejected as a good
ence on subjective disconfirmation (beta is .74 at p < representation of the data), though their effects are very
.001, Table 3). dissimilar. For expectation, the effect on satisfaction is
direct and positive; for ideal, it is indirect (through per-
Alternative Comparison Standards and
ceived performance) and negative. This result is intu-
Disconfirmation Models itively appealing. If one is prepared to accept both as-
To determine both direct and indirect effects of alter- similation/contrast explanations in CS/D formation, the
native comparison standards, we path analyzed the com- results suggest that ideal as an anchor may tend to evoke
CONSUMER SATISFACTION FORMATION 209

a contrast effect on the evaluation of the experience, tive disconfirmation to predict CS/D is .56 (r = .75,
whereas expectation may evoke an assimilation effect. last row of Table 1), in comparison with .73 for sub-
This result suggests that the appearance of assimilation jective disconfirmation with perceived performance and
and/or contrast effects may depend on the specific in- expectation. Hence, in a comparison of the subjective
ternal anchor employed. Note also that all comparison and subtractive approaches to model disconfmnation, the
standards show only weak influence on subjective dis- former would be superior. The subtractive approach con-
confmnation. In each case, the effect of the standard ap- tains an inherent confound when predicting satisfaction
pears to be dominated by perceived performance. This and does not capture all the determinants of CS/D for-
issue is discussed shortly. mation.
The last row in Table 1 reports the performance of
alternative disconfirmation models in predicting CS/D. Multiple Comparison Standards in Satisfaction
As expected, subjective disconfirmation performs well. Formation
The effect of this variable on CS /D is significant and The last row in Table 1 suggests more than one com-
positive, though not as large as the effect of perceived parison standard may be involved in CS/D formation,
performance. Together with perceived performance and because both expectation (r = .39) and ideal (r = - .24)
expectation, subjective disconfirmation achieves an r2 of relate individually to satisfaction. Model 4 of Table 3
.73. In comparison with the fully recursive model with assesses possible simultaneous effects of these two com-
all relevant paths included, this model achieves a high parison standards in CS /D. The path coefficients ob-
goodness of fit (Q = .940) and an insignificant chi square tained support the proposition. Expectation exerts sig-
statistic, suggesting this disconfirmation model fits the nificant influence in both subjective disconfirmation and
data well. satisfaction, whereas ideal is significant in affecting per-
In contrast, subtractive disconfirmation does not ap- ceived performance in CS/D formation. This model has
pear to yield a better representation of satisfaction than a high goodness of fit (Q = .919) and an insignificant
subjective disconfirmation. The r 2 for the best subtrac- chi square.

Table 3
SUBJECTIVE DISCONFIRMATION AND ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON STANDARDS IN SATISFACTION FORMATION
(path analysis)"

Independent variables
Perceived Objective
Comparison Subjective product product
Dependent variable standard disconjirmation performance qualityb
Model 1. Standard = expected performance
Satisfaction .23* .27** .55** na .73
Subject disconfmnation ns na .74** na .55
Perceived performance ns na na .69** .47
Q = .940: X , 2 d.f. = 3.69, p < .15
2

Model 2. Standard = ideal performance

Satisfaction ns .24* .63** na .68
Subjective disconfmnation ns na .74** na .55
Perceived performance -.24* na na .69**
Q = .945: X2 , 2 d.f. = 3.38, p < .18

Model 3. Standard = equitable performance

Satisfaction ns .24* .63** na .68
Subjective disconfirmation ns na .74** na .55
Perceived performance ns na na .69** .47
Q = .977: X2 , 3 d.f. = 1.39, P < .70

Model 4. Multiple standards

Expected Ideal
Satisfaction .23* ns .27** .55** na .73
Subjective disconfirmation ns ns na .74** na .55
Perceived performance .18* -.25** na na .67** .56
Q = .919: X , 3 d.f. = 4.97, P < .18
2

'Table shows the estimated path coefficients for the reduced model only. Coefficients estimated but proving statistically insignificant in the
fully recursive model are omitted and denoted ns; na indicates not applicable.
b A dichotomous variable representing the product treatment.

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
210 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1988

The validity of this paradigm requires that the two out apparently would continue to be supported if method-
standards be independent. The validity checks described adjusted correlations were used.
before strongly support their independence. In addition, Another issue is the strength of the product manipu-
the reliability coefficient when ex~ectation and ideal are lation. Because perceived performance is central to CS/
pooled is low at .07 (Hotelling T = 91.10). Thus, ex- D formation, it may dominate all other determinants in
pectation and ideal appear to represent different con- predicting CS/D if the product manipulation is too strong,
structs contributing separately to the CS/D formation as reported by Churchill and Surprenant (1982) using video
process. disc players. In our study, perceived performance is found
In addition, the single-comparison standard models to exert more influence than other model elements in
(Table 3, models 1 and 2) are nested within, and can be predicting CS/D. Nevertheless, the other elements (e.g.,
considered reduced forms of, the multiple-comparison expectation) do have significant direct influences on CS/
standard model (model 4). Testing the difference be- D (models 1 and 4, Table 3). In future studies research-
tween these two types of models when expectation is the ers must be cautious in balancing the strengths of prod-
standard produces a Q index of .748 and a chi square uct and expectation manipulations in their designs.
with 2 d.f. of 17.88 (p < .001). When ideal is the stan-
dard, the Q index is .790 and the chi square is 14.38 Implications
with 2 d.f. (p < .001). Thus, the single-standard model
fails to represent the underlying processes adequately in Our study provides strong theoretical and empirical
comparison with a multiple-standard paradigm. support for extending the expectation and disconfirma-
tion model of CS /D to include direct influences from
perceived performance. Several theoretical frameworks
DISCUSSION
discussed before suggest that perceived performance
Methodological Issues cognition may outweigh expectation in determining CS /
D judgments across a variety of consumption situations.
As in prior CS /D studies, the distribution of responses
For example, subjects may modify their expectations when
on some variables in our study is skewed and nonhom-
their expectations are disconfirmed by the product treat-
ogeneous. Whether deviations from normality or non-
ment. If this happens, their responses may show both
homogeneous variable distributions should disqualify the
(1) a weaker association between satisfaction and ex-
study's inferences depends on both sample size and the
pectation and (2) a greater propensity to modify the ex-
size of the correlations assuming equivalent distribu-
pectation after the product trial than they would if ex-
tions. On the basis of the criteria proposed by Nunnally
pectations were confirmed. In our study, the association
(1978, p. 142), it appears that correlation coefficients
between expectation and satisfaction proves to be much
obtained from 62 subjects should be considered only
moderately robust. I lower and the shift in pre-/post-product-trial expecta-
tions much larger for subjects in the disconfirmation
The r2,s reported here are higher than those in other
condition than for subjects in the confirmation condition
studies (e.g., Bearden and Tee11983; Oliver 1980), sug-
(bivariate correlations of -.05 (p > .10) and .78, re-
gesting the possibility of common methods variance in
spectively; mean shifts on a 5-point bipolar expectation
the measures. Though the discriminant validity results
scale of 1.0 and .35, respectively). Thus, because ex-
for comparison standards reported before suggest this is
pectation and product performance appear to assume dis-
unlikely, the issue can be explored further by applying
tinctly different roles in CS/D formation, the effect of
the multitrait, multimethod procedure to the other mea-
perceived performance on CS/D should be modeled sep-
sures. By the common method used throughout the study
arately.
(overall product-level measures on each construct), the
Another important finding is the presence of multiple
correlations between satisfaction and (1) subjective dis-
comparison standards in CS/D formation. Though mul-
confirmation and (2) perceived performance are .71 and
tiple comparisons have been suggested conceptually by
.81, respectively. Replacing the overall satisfaction
previous researchers (Sirgy 1984) and supported by a
measure with an average attribute rating estimate causes
broad process conceptualization of CS/D (Oliver 1985;
these correlations to drop to .63 and .71, respectively.
Wilton and Nicosia 1986), our study provides the initial
Hence, it appears that, though the common method em-
empirical evidence. This process conceptualization ex-
ployed throughout the study slightly elevates the ob-
plicitly allows for simultaneous interactions or temporal
tained coefficients, the relationships observed through-
changes in key satisfaction determinants. Possibly, for
example, the postexperience comparison can be de-
scribed best not as a state variable, but as a continuous
lIn this study the ideal measure was skewed positively, with as process involving different comparison standards as the
expected a small but nonzero variance. The lack of variability in the effects of product usage decay. Though testing of such
ideal can explain the high correlation (.89) between perceived per-
formance and perceived performance minus the ideal (i.e .• subtractive
possibilities requires longitudinal observations not avail-
disconfirmation). Further research is needed to investigate other pos- able in our study, further investigation could be expected
sible measures for the ideal that would have more variability. to prove rewarding.
CONSUMER SATISFACTION FORMATION 211

REFERENCES liam L. Wilkie, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-
sumer Research, 431-7.
Adams, J. Stacy (1963), "Towards an Understanding of In- Liechty, M. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1979), "Conceptual
equity," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 Insights into Consumer Satisfaction with Services," in Ed-
(October), 422-36.
ucators' Conference Proceedings, Series 94, Neil Beckwith
Anderson, Norman H. (1981), Information Integration The- et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 509-
15.
ory: A Case History in Experimental Science, Vol. 1. New
Locke, E. A. (1977), "The Nature and Causes of Job Satis-
York: Academic Press, Inc.
faction," in Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psy-
Anderson, Ralph E. (1973), "Consumer Dissatisfaction: The
Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product
chology, Marvin D. Dunnette, ed. Chicago: Rand McNally
College Publishing Company, 1297-350.
Performance," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (Febru-
ary), 38-44. Maddox, R. Neil (1981), "Two-Factor Theory and Consumer
Bearden, William D. and Jesse E. Teel (1983), "Selected Satisfaction: Replication and Extension," Journal of Con-
Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint sumer Research, 8 (June), 97-102.
Reports," Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), Miller, John A. (1977), "Studying Satisfaction, Modifying
21-8. Models, Eliciting Expectations, Posing Problems and Mak-
Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), "Conver- ing Meaningful Measurements," in Conceptualization and
gent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multi- Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction,
method Matrix," Psychological Bulletin, 56 (March), 81- H. Keith Hunt, ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science In-
105. stitute, 72-91.
Cardozo, Richard N. (1965), "An Experimental Study of Con- Morrison, D. F. (1976), Multivariate Statistical Methods, 2nd
sumer Effort, Expectations and Satisfaction," Journal of ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Marketing Research, 2 (August), 244-9. Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New
Chatterjee, S. and B. Price (1977), Regression Analysis by York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Example. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Oliver, Richard L. (1977), "A Theoretical Reinterpretation of
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. and Carol Surprenant (1982), "An Expectation and Disconfirmation Effects on Post-Exposure
Investigation into the Determinants of Consumer Satisfac- Product Evaluations: Experience in the Field," in Consumer
tion," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 491- Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
504. Ralph L. Day, ed. Bloomington: Indiana University, 2-9.
Cohen, Joel B. and Michael J. Houston (1972), "Cognitive - - - (1980), "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and
Consequences of Brand Loyalty," Journal ofMarketing Re- Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of Mar-
search, 9 (February), 97-9. keting Research, 17 (November), 460-9.
Day, Ralph L. (1977), "Towards a Process Model of Con- - - - (1985), "An Extended Perspective on Post-Purchase
sumer Satisfaction," in Conceptualization and Measurement Phenomena: Is Satisfaction a Red Herring?", unpublished
of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. H. Keith Hunt, paper presented at 1985 Annual Conference of the Associ-
ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 153-83. ation for Consumer Research, Las Vegas (October.)
- - - (1984), "Modeling Choices Among Alternative Re- Olshavsky, Richard W. and John A. Miller (1972), "Con-
sponses to Dissatisfaction," in Advances in Consumer Re- sumer Expectation, Product Performance and Perceived
search, Vol. II, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Product Quality," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (Feb-
Association for Consumer Research, 469-9. ruary), 19-21.
Festinger, Leon A. (1957), A Theory ofCognitive Dissonance. Olson, Jerry C. and Philip Dover (1979), "Disconfirmation of
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Consumer Expectations Through Product Trial," Journal of
Forbes, J.D., David K. Tse, and Shirley Taylor (1986), "To- Applied Psychology, 64 (April), 179-89.
ward a Model of Consumer Post-Choice Response Behav- Siegel, S. (1956), Nonparametric Statistics for Behavioral Sci-
ior," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard ences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
L. Lutz, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Re- Sirgy, M. Joseph (1984), "A Social Cognition Model of Con-
search, 658-61. sumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: An Experiment," Psy-
Holbrook, Morris B. (1984), "Situation-Specific Ideal Points chology and Marketing, 1 (Summer), 27-44.
and Usage of Multiple Dissimilar Brands," in Research in Sobel, Robert A. (1971), "Tests of Performance and Post-Per-
Marketing, Vol. 7, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed. Greenwich, CT: formance of Satisfaction With Outcomes," Journal of Per-
JAI Press, Inc., 93-II2. sonality and Social Psychology, 19 (July), 213-21.
Holloway, Robert J. (1967), "An Experiment on Consumer Swan, John E. and Linda J. Combs (1976), "Product Perfor-
Dissonance," Journal of Marketing, 31 (January), 39-43. mance and Consumer Satisfaction: A New Concept," Jour-
Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of nal of Marketing, 40 (June), 25-33.
Buyer Behavior. New York: Wiley Marketing Series. - - - and I. Frederick Trawick (1981), "Disconfirmation of
Jacoby, Jacob (1976), "Consumer Psychology and Industrial Expectations and Satisfaction with a Retail Service," Jour-
Psychology: Prospects for Theory Corporation and Concep- nal of Retailing, 57 (Fall), 49-67.
tual Contribution," in Handbook of Industrial and Organi- Tolman, E. C. (1932), Purposive Behavior in Animals and
zational Psychology, Marvin D. Dunnette, ed. Chicago: Rand Men. New York: Appleton-Century.
McNally College Publishing Company, 1031-62. Thibaut, J. W. and Harold H. Kelley (1959), The Social Psy-
LaTour, Stephen A. and Nancy C. Peat (1979), "Conceptual chology of Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and Methodological Issues in Consumer Satisfaction Re- Tse, David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1985), "History and Fu-
search," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Wil- ture of Consumer Satisfaction Research," in Historic Per-
212 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1988

spective in Consumer Research: National and International sponse to Communication and Product Experiences," in Ad-
Perspectives (Proceedings of the Association for Consumer vertising and Consumer Psychology, Arch Woodside and
Research, National University of Singapore), Jagdish N. Sheth Larry Percy, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 315-
and Chin-Tiang Tan, eds. 251-6. 32.
Wilton, Peter C. and M. Nicosia (1986), "Emerging Para- Woodruff, Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte, and Roger L. Jen-
digms for the Study of Consumer Satisfaction," European kins (1983), "Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes
Research, 14 (January), 4-11. Using Experience-Based Norms," Journal ofMarketing Re-
- - a n d David K. Tse (1983), "A Model of Consumer Re- search, 20 (August), 296-304.

Call toll free

1-800-828-6107