Expectation Processes in Satisfaction Formation

JOURNAL OF SERVICE Oliver, RESEARCH Burke / EXPECTATION / February 1999 PROCESSES
Expectation Processes in Satisfaction Formation

A Field Study
Richard L. Oliver
Vanderbilt University
Raymond R. Burke
Indiana University
Expectations of a novel restaurant dining experience were manipulated in a controlled field setting to test for the role and persistence of expectation and expectation-related effects within the expectancy disconfirmation and performance model. In an effort to ensure external validity, preconsumption expectations were manipulated via realappearing reviews, actual service experience was recorded through protocol methods, and postconsumption perceptions were measured in the immediate postusage period. Results showed that the expectation manipulation and the expectations thereby created had an immediate but declining effect over the consumption period, that expectations acted as forward assimilation agents for performance, that retrospective expectations were partially influenced by performance observations in the manner of backward assimilation, that expectation-initiated performance comparisons (disconfirmation) and performance judgments were important satisfaction influences, and that the expectancy disconfirmation model is dimension-specific with regard to operation of its components. These findings shed insight into the operation of expectations, performance, and disconfirmation in service environments and illustrate some effects of consumption tracking.
The consumers postpurchase or postusage response is now thought to be an important aspect of repatronage behavior and other critical dimensions of consumer buying such as loyalty. With a change in practitioner emphasis from offensive to defensive marketing (Fornell and Wernerfelt 1987), greater study of the pre- and postpurchase phenomena leading to repeat purchasing would seem to be warranted. Research has answered this call primarily with regard to consumption events (e.g., performance sampling) and postconsumption judgments. The latter phenomena have been studied most frequently within the confines of discrepancies between preperformance standards and performance itself. This would suggest that greater research attention is needed in the area of prepurchase or preusage processing, generally relating to expectations and their variants. This article is an effort to add to the body of literature suggesting both direct and indirect effects of prepurchase processing on satisfaction within the context of a single, but multifaceted, consumption event. The theory that informs this investigation is the expectancy disconfirmation with performance conceptualization (Bolton and Drew 1991; Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987; Oliver 1980, 1997; Oliver and DeSarbo 1988; Tse and Wilton 1988; Yi 1990), which posits that satisfaction is a function of prepurchase expectations in-
This research was supported in part by the Center for Service Marketing and the Deans Fund for Faculty Research, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their many helpful suggestions.
Journal of Service Research, Volume 1, No. 3, February 1999 196-214 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES
197
FIGURE 1 The Expectancy Disconfirmation With Performance Model
cluding norms and/or predictions, perceived performance, and disconfirmationthought to be a comparison of expectations with performance (Oliver 1981; Bearden and Teel 1983). Evidence for the wide applicability of this process is building as studies appear in both product and service areas (e.g., Tse and Wilton 1988; Bolton and Drew 1991) using, variously, survey and laboratory designs (e.g., Bearden and Teel 1983; Oliver and DeSarbo 1988). Generally, this process begins after consumers acquire expectation standards or scripts of product/service performance. Expectations have many sources including prior experience, vicarious experience, and both interpersonal and commercial communications. Once acquired, these expectations exist as comparative referents for performance judgments. After performance has been sampled, the expectancy disconfirmation model suggests that a process is activated whereby consumers construct separately a subjective better/worse than comparison of expectations and performance. This latter construct, referred to as disconfirmation, then takes on its own character and becomes an alternative antecedent of satisfaction. In a final step, satisfaction is thought to be a judgment based jointly on the direct effects of expectations, performance, and disconfirmation. Unless unattainable ideals are used as the referent norm, a direct expectation effect is likely to occur because expectation levels provide an evaluative tone that influences subsequent judgments in the manner suggested by assimilation theory (Pieters, Koelemeijer, and Roest 1995; Oliver 1997). The operation of performance in the model is straightforward as consum-
ers generally are thought to respond to desired product benefits or features when evaluating consumables. Lastly, disconfirmation is thought to be a separate influence on satisfaction; as noted, it initially is partly a function of performance but later is processed as a distinct facet of consumption in its own right. This expectancy disconfirmation process is shown in Figure 1 with some additional variables and relations tested in the present study. These include the expectation manipulation and service provider assignment states as exogenous to the model structure as well as repurchase intention and repatronage as consequents of satisfaction. Note that a supplementary relation between expectations and performance is shown, resulting from conceptual reasoning presented here.
EXPECTATION INFLUENCES IN SATISFACTION Initial Processing Effects The effect of expectations on subsequent observations of outcomes and events has a long history in the psychology of judgment, dating from Hovland, Harvey, and Sherif (1957). A current perspective with specific reference to customer satisfaction can be found in Pieters, Koelemeijer, and Roest (1995). As shown in their review, the dominant manner by which expectations influence subsequent judgments, such as performance and satisfaction, is forward assimilation. In forward assimilation, a confirma-
198
JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999
tion bias (Klayman and Ha 1987) operates to cause consumers to interpret outcome information to be consistent with their expectations. Explanations for this phenomenon include a need for consistency, ego protection, and ego enhancement. If the expectation effect operates as described, then a reasonable question arises concerning the potency of the expectation effect and how far it carries into the satisfaction process. One group of researchers suggests that its effect continues throughout the process with updating along Bayesian lines (Boulding et al. 1993; Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987; Clow et al. 1997). This would imply that the expectation effect modulates, but persists, over the consumption experience. It also has been suggested that expectation influences may be dominated by performance or disconfirmation (Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Patterson 1993) so that the effect decays as soon as performance is observed. Another possibility, in line with the updating argument posed previously, is that expectations change form as performance is sampled, thus reducing or eliminating the effect of predictive expectations. For example, Iacobucci and colleagues (Iacobucci, Grayson, and Ostrom 1994; McGill and Iacobucci 1992) suggest that performance observation may trigger latent comparisons against unanticipated performance dimensions or performance dimensions out of context, whereas Arnould and Price (1993) find that some performances are so unusual that they cannot be predicted; rather, they must be discovered when the service is rendered. In both cases, the new comparison referents may override those existing previously. Regardless of whether one assumes that predictive expectations are those that are accessed by the consumer in satisfaction judgments, researchers relying on postusage recollections of these variables need to know how accurately individuals recall expectations retrospectively. Many research designs preclude identification of consumers before the product/service encounter. Postencounter or retrospective expectations must then be used if the expectancy disconfirmation model is to be tested in its entirety. This raises the possibility that product performance might taint retrospective expectations, causing them to be more highly correlated with performance than would be the case under preusage measurement, a phenomenon Pieters, Koelemeijer, and Roest (1995) refer to as backward assimilation. Similar to hindsight bias (Fischhoff 1975; Christensen-Szalanski and Willham 1991), backward assimilation predicts that, once the outcome is observed, recall inefficiencies will cause the outcome to play a role in foresight remembrances. Thus, as described here, two expectation mechanisms may influence the operation of performance within the satisfaction response in different manners. In the first, initial
or predictive expectations may operate to assimilate performance observations so that performance is influenced by expectations and their antecedents. In the second, performance influences expectation recall so that much of the initial expectation effect is carried by performance observations and, in a separate process, by disconfirmation. This suggests that expectation influences will decay in a cascading fashion over the satisfaction formation process, similar to the early hierarchy-of-effects models used to describe advertising influences. Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses are suggested: Hypothesis 1a: The causes or antecedents of expectations will have the strongest influence on expectations and other perceptions early in the consumption experience. The effect will decline as later performance events are observed and subsequent latent thoughts materialize. Hypothesis 1b: Similarly, the expectations so created will have their greatest effect on performance and other perceptions early in the consumption experience. The effect will decline as later latent thoughts (e.g., disconfirmation) are realized. Hypothesis 1c: Retrospectively recalled expectations will be influenced by the performance experience as predicted by backward assimilation. It follows that retrospective expectations will be a joint function of actual expectations and performance. Expectation-Initiated Influences and Their Joint Operation With Expectations It is suggested here that, once created, expectation beliefs prime the consumer to compare those expectations with performances once the latter are observed. Thus, the disconfirmation process becomes still another expectation-based influence on satisfaction, operating in tandem with the direct effects of expectation and performance. This pervasive nature of the expectation effect within the expectancy disconfirmation model has implications for the operation of its components because, as shown in Figure 1, it is expected that all main model components (expectations, performance, and disconfirmation) will be jointly predictive of the satisfaction response. However, Oliver (1997) notes that all possible variants and combinations of the operation or lack of operation of these variables have been observed in the literature. Of these, it has been noted that the expectation effect tends to be the weakest of the three if it emerges as significant at all (Oliver 1980; Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987; Tse and Wilton 1988; Pieters, Koelemeijer, and Roest 1995). A likely explanation for this, following from the preceding discussion, is that the expectation effect has
199
been filtered through the performance and disconfirmation constructs. Thus, it would not be surprising to find weak expectation effects on satisfaction compared to performance and disconfirmation. Not answered in this discussion are conditions favoring disconfirmation over performance or vice versa. A related early question regarding the operation of these latter two variables addresses the issue of whether the performance experience affects satisfaction independently of disconfirmation or whether it is mediated through disconfirmation. This issue has been raised both directly and indirectly in a number of studies measuring both simultaneously (Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Oliver 1993, 1994; Oliver and DeSarbo 1988; Tse and Wilton 1988). This question is unresolved because specific instances of performance-only effects (Cronin and Taylor 1994), disconfirmation-only effects (Oliver, Balakrishnan, and Barry 1994), and dual performance-disconfirmation influences (Patterson, Johnson, and Spreng 1997) can be found. At the aggregate product level, research is not available to suggest which of these possibilities will emerge. Despite the evidence presented in reviews of this phenomenon (Yi 1990; Oliver 1997), a sufficiently large number of studies is not yet available for meta-analysis. Some insight is provided in the context of low- versus high-involvement products (Patterson 1993), where it was found that highinvolvement products evoke performance processing over disconfirmation processing. But once again, a systematic study of product or service differences will be needed to address this question. Reasoning is available at the featureor dimension-specific level, presented next. Regarding this issue, both Pieters, Koelemeijer, and Roest (1995) and Oliver (1997) note that dimensions having strong objective performance characteristics favor a performance effect, particularly if product or service functionality is of paramount concern. However, for more ambiguous or subjective dimensions, expectation and expectation-related variables, such as disconfirmation, will be prominent because individuals will be unable to assess performance independent of the forward assimilation effect. Thus, consumers might sense that performance is better or worse than expected without knowing whether performance is good or bad on an objectively measured basis. Examples of this are provided by Bitner (1990) and Hutton and Richardson (1995) in the context of service environments. In these situations, performance is not quantifiable, but individuals are able to determine whether the environment appears neater or more messy than expected, more pleasant or less pleasant than expected, and so on. In one study of this dimension-specific phenomenon, Halstead, Hartman, and Schmidt (1994) found that, in the context of ones college education, the dimension of intellectual environment was found to be performance driven,
whereas the dimension of job preparation was found to be disconfirmation driven. Here, the intellectual environment qualifies as a less ambiguous dimension because it is easily quantified by observations of the scholarly accomplishments of faculty and competitive course performance of the student body, to use two examples. Job preparation, by contrast, is more ambiguous. Whereas finding a job is observable, the impact of interviewing skills and the like is not directly translatable into part contributions to finding a job. These examples of dimension-specific effects suggest that similar effects will operate in the present context. Thus, the following hypotheses are posited: Hypothesis 2a: As hypothesized by the expectancy disconfirmation with performance model, satisfaction will be a function of aggregate levels of expectation, performance, and disconfirmation. Whereas the expectation effect is thought to be the weakest of the influences, no predictions are ventured as to whether performance or disconfirmation will be dominant in the present study. Hypothesis 2b: When the list of performance features is factored into dimensions, differential effects will be observed with regard to the dimension-specific operation of the expectancy disconfirmation (with performance) components. Generally, the more subjective, ambiguous, and expectation oriented the dimension (e.g., the decor), the greater the operation of expectation and disconfirmation effects; the more performance oriented the dimension (e.g., actual service outcomes), the greater the influence of performance. Repatronage: Intentions and Fulfilled Intentions Lastly, are the consequences of satisfaction, namely intention and actual repatronage, related to any residual expectation effects and, of course, satisfaction? At this stage of the cascading process, it would be unlikely for any expectation-based influences, with the possible exception of performance, to have a repatronage effect. Rather, it is expected that all prior influences will be channeled through satisfaction. The satisfaction-intention linkage has been shown to be robust in many studies (Bearden and Teel 1983; Oliver 1980; Oliver and Bearden 1985; Oliver and Swan 1989), but only a very few have examined fulfilled intentions. Here, the answer to the repatronage question is available from the data, and we ask the following: Hypothesis 3a: Intention is predicted to be related to satisfaction alone; the effect of the antecedents of satisfaction are fully mediated through satisfaction. Hypothesis 3b: Repatronage is related to intention; the effect of satisfaction is fully mediated through intention.
200
METHOD Overview The study was designed in three phases. The initial experimental phase is represented by a single factor design in which participants received expectation manipulations of good, bad, and null (control) restaurants balanced across men and women participants and patronage at four different restaurants. These latter variables were treated as covariates and were not part of the study hypotheses. The male/female balance was considered desirable to mitigate potential gender effects (Dub and Morgan 1996), whereas the restaurant diversity was intended to increase variance in the measures. After receiving an expectation manipulation in the form of a printed restaurant review of one of the four restaurants with which they had no familiarity, participants proceeded to the site, where they registered prepatronage expectations and tape-recorded their actual restaurant experiences. In the second, immediate postpatronage phase, they were asked to reflect on their restaurant experiences in a solitary setting and to tape-record freely elicited thoughts for 10 minutes. This was followed by the third phase, in which the respondents were asked to complete a postpatronage survey. A final repatronage follow-up was conducted at 6 weeks. A temporal flow chart of this procedure is shown in Figure 2.
PHASE 1: EXPECTATION CREATION AND RESTAURANT TREATMENTS
FIGURE 2 Temporal Schematic of Study Methodology
Four medium-priced and moderately sized restaurants outside the immediate campus area of an urban university were selected to represent a diversity of dining establishments. This set of restaurants was chosen based on recent restaurant reviews and the personal dining experiences of one of the authors who was familiar with student likes and dislikes in restaurants. The published reviews were used to create two sets of expectation materials for each of the four restaurants. Using a desktop publishing program, accurate mock-ups of the reviews were used in their entirety to reflect the actual content of the original reviews (two restaurants were graded favorable and two unfavorable). Using an antonym source and creative editing, contrary reviews were constructed by changing positive descriptors and phrases to negative ones and vice versa so that each restaurant could be described with one essentially positive review and one essentially negative review. In addition, a no information control manipulation was constructed of each restaurants address and basic description only. This comprised the third expectation treatment state.
Undergraduate students without prior knowledge of or exposure to at least three of the restaurants were randomly assigned to patronize one of the three or four target outlets in a study of dining out. Each participant was asked to select one same-sex friend to accompany him or her (not as a focal respondent) and was given $10 toward the cost of the two-person meal as payment for participation. Based on the range of published restaurant meal prices, it was expected that this would cover approximately one-half of the total cost of the two meals including beverages and tips. This strategy was intentional and was designed to motivate participants to become involved in the study through use of their personal funds.
201
Of the three expectation treatments (positive, negative, and control), only two were semantic, the third containing no information except the name and address of each restaurant. The two valenced reviews were tested on an independent sample of 60 undergraduate students at another university. These students rated two positive and two negative reviews on a 9-point enjoyable/unenjoyable dining experience scale, balanced against other participants who rated the reverse situation for other sets of restaurant pairings. This resulted in independent samples of positive and negative reviewers for each restaurant. Independent sample t tests showed that all positive reviews were rated significantly higher than the negative reviews for all restaurants, ts = 11.12, 6.90, 9.77, and 13.15, all ps < .001. One of the three expectation treatments was randomly assigned to participants. If they received either of the two valenced reviews, then they were required to read this review before going to the restaurant site. Once at the site, they were asked to view the outside of the establishment and to complete a short, 16-item expectation measure. The first 15 items were restaurant features based on pretesting and script analysis (June and Smith 1987; Shoemaker 1996; Sweeney, Johnson, and Armstrong 1992) of restaurant patronage. The last item was an overall measure. Each item was worded in 7-point fashion from bad experience (e.g., discourteous service), to neutral, to good experience. A sample item is shown in the appendix along with the survey instructions for this section. Each participant was asked to place this separate page in his or her envelope of restaurant materials and not to refer to it again. This measure served to act as a manipulation check as well as a metric scale of predictive expectations. Over all restaurants, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the treatments significantly dispersed participants expectations in the expected positive, neutral, and negative directions. For the 15 attributes in summed form, F = 3.466, p = .036; for the summary measure, F = 7.550, p = .001. When contrasts were run comparing the negative and null treatments to the positive treatment and comparing the positive and null treatments to the negative treatment, the t values were significant at the .049 and .029 levels for the summed attribute measure and at the .004 and .002 levels for the summary measure. Adding the gender and restaurant assignment covariates to the model did not change these results. Thus, the expectation treatments appeared to create very different expectations for the three groups of participants.
PHASE 2: DINING EXPERIENCE
tape recorders and to proceed into the restaurant as they would on any other visit. Once seated, the participants were to turn on the recording devices and attach receiving microphones to the focal respondents lapels. No instructions were given regarding participants behavior during the meals themselves except that all activities were to be as they would normally (e.g., ordering). That this condition was achieved was verified by the transcripts of the tapes as well as by the dining statistics collected in the postpatronage survey (average time spent in restaurant = 1.12 hours, average amount spent on dinner for two = $19.19, average tip left = 15%). Participants were instructed to turn the tape recorders off on exiting the restaurant.
PHASE 3: POSTENCOUNTER SURVEY
Each experimental respondent, on returning to his or her residence, was instructed to reflect on the restaurant experience and to verbalize his or her thoughts into the same tape recorder for 10 minutes. After having performed this task, participants were instructed to complete a posttransaction survey. This included three sections containing the same attribute and overall list used for the preexpectations form. In order, these measured retrospective expectations (without reference to the previous expectations page), attribute-specific and overall performance, and attribute-specific and overall disconfirmation. In addition, a nine-item satisfaction scale in Likert-type format (Oliver 1980, 1997) and a four-item intention scale using descriptors based on the respondents surety, likelihood, certainty, and possibility of returning were administered. As noted, questions on meal cost and tip also were included. Sample items from these additional scales also are shown in the appendix. Reliability analyses on the satisfaction and intention scales were performed. These analyses suggested that the satisfaction scale reliability could be improved if one item were eliminated, resulting in a final alpha value of .96. The intention scale achieved a similarly high reliability of .98 without the need to remove any items. To assess whether participants returned to the assigned restaurant after the study, one of the researchers attempted to contact each one after a period of approximately 6 weeks. This interval was chosen to allow participants to return multiple times if they were so disposed. The number of times each participant reported having returned was used as a final dependent variable. As is noted later, not all participants could be contacted either because they were unavailable when repeatedly recontacted or because they did not return the researchers phone calls. This problem became more acute as the end of the semester approached. The final n for this variable is noted in the next section.
Prior to the dining experience during the instructional period, the experimental respondents were coached on the use of a small, palm-sized tape recorder. Once at the restaurant site, participants were instructed to conceal the
202
TABLE 1 Restaurant Study Coding Categories

Coding Category Expectation/anticipation: Prior impressions Valence Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Example Comment The review was right; this place is great Didnt know if Id like it one way or the other I knew from the outside I wouldnt like this place I knew I would like this place Just about all restaurants take credit cards Restaurants like this are always overpriced The waiter was courteous and prompt We were seated in a booth The food was cold I loved my appetizer I have no particularly good or bad things to say about this place I cant think of anything nice to say about this place The entre portions were larger than I imagined No big deal, just another roadhouse The service was much poorer than that reported in the review Far out! This place was much nicer than I had imagined (Neutral statements are unlikely in the latitude of rejection.) I just couldnt believe how dirty the rest room was What a delightful dining experience! Just a typical restaurant That waiter made me so angry! Im definitely coming back Dont know if Ill go there again or not Last time Ill ever eat there
Expectation/anticipation: Passive (retrospective)
Performance: Descriptive beliefs
Performance evaluation: Affects, likes, good/bad
Disconfirmation: In the latitude of acceptance
Disconfirmation: In the latitude of rejection
Feelings and emotions: Satisfaction (general)
Repatronage intentions
Transcriptions were performed on all dinner conversations and on postdinner reflections using comments made only by the focal respondent. Three trained coders not involved in the experiment or the design of the study independently coded the transcripts using a coding key developed by the authors. This key followed principles set down by Bettman and Park (1980), Bolton and Bronkhorst (1991), Kolbe and Burnett (1991), and others and included references to a number of postpurchase processes and other outcome-dependent reactions to events. It is important to note that the codings referred to consumption constructs (e.g., disconfirmation) and not to attribute references (e.g., food, prices). Those reported here are shown in Table 1. Each comment was coded as to its valence (positive, neutral, or negative). In order of their occurrence in the consumption experience, these were as follows:

Expectation/prior impression (predictive expectations) Retrospective expectations Performance beliefs Performance evaluations (evaluative good/bad statements) Disconfirmation (latitude of acceptance) Disconfirmation (latitude of rejection) General feelings, emotions, and satisfactions Repatronage intentions
These types of statements conform to constructs common to the consumption literature. Predictive and retrospective expectations have already been elaborated, as have performance beliefs, in the form of feature ratings (e.g., courteous service). Performance evaluations are the desirable/undesirable components of multiattribute attitude models (Eagly and Chaiken 1993), whereby a performance rating is rated for its desirability or valence. Disconfirmation in the latitude of acceptance is performance that is better or worse than expected in an unsurprising sense, such as the weather being hotter or colder than predicted (Anderson 1973; Woodruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins 1983; Oliver and Winer 1987). By contrast, disconfirmation in the latitude of rejection occurs when the disconfirmation is surprisingly unexpected such as when a highly rated vehicle model turns out to be a lemon. The general feelings, emotions, and satisfactions category was reserved for comments having no specific referent other than the restaurant in a holistic sense (e.g., I feel really good about this place). Finally, repatronage intentions include references to any desire to return (or not) to the establishment. A sample transcript from an unusable encounter (due to equipment failure) was used for the training sessions where coders reached agreement on coding differences. The interrater reliability of the experimental transcripts over all three coders was .90 for the restaurant protocols
203
and .92 for the postencounter free-form protocols. Only marginal and nonsignificant improvement in these values could be obtained by eliminating the coder with the least agreement; hence, all were used in the analysis. Analysis showed that the absolute number of positive, negative, and neutral comments was of limited value in suggesting satisfaction and other key variable relationships. Rather, the net difference between positive and negative comments was much more informative. As a result, all references to the protocol codings are in terms of the net difference score. Final Samples Because of the extensive procedures necessitated by the studys design, a large sample could not be justified on a time or cost basis. Based on these considerations, a decision was made to use a three (expectation)-level design with a cell size of 16, blocking on restaurant assignment (four levels) and gender (two levels) for a total of 48 participants. Unfortunately, the respondent protocol tapings proved to be problematic. Although some respondent loss was anticipated due to likely equipment failure, the extent of this loss was greater than expected. Despite efforts to instruct participants on the use of the tape recorder prior to the restaurant visit, participant errors, background noise, battery drain, and other problems necessitated additional runs with new students. These runs continued until the 48 design cells were filled. In all, 78 students were needed to achieve this goal, resulting in 30 additional paper surveys available for analysis. Thus, two overlapping samples were obtained: one of 48 observations with complete protocol data and survey responses and one of 78 observations with complete survey data. Each was used to answer various hypotheses in the study. The expectation manipulation check, discussed earlier, relied on the sample of 78. For reasons noted previously, the repatronage variable could not be collected for all participants. Despite repeated efforts to recontact all participants, only 64 of the 78 survey respondents (82%) provided repatronage data. Fortunately, a much higher percentage of the protocol respondents were successfully contacted. Repatronage data are available for 46 of the 48 protocol respondents (96%). Analysis To take advantage of the greater n obtained for the survey sections of the study, those research questions that could be answered with the survey data used the sample of 78. Using the experimental treatments, the study was analyzed first as a single factorial unequal n (78) and/or equal n (48) experiment based on the expectation treatment. Because no hypotheses relied on the restaurant assignment or
gender, these variables were used as covariates. Both were dummy variables, with one gender 0-1 state and three of the four restaurant assignments also coded in 0-1 fashion. Including all restaurants in 0-1 form results in a computational matrix singularity. The restaurant with the smallest n from the sample of 78 was the one that was relegated to the constant term. Each of the main components of the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm was used as a dependent variable in serial fashion to determine at what point in the model the expectation manipulation decayed. These variables were, in turn, preexpectations (previously analyzed as a take measure), retrospective expectations, performance, disconfirmation, satisfaction, intention, and repatronage in the order that participants would experience these constructs (see Figure 1). Both the full set of survey data and the protocol data were analyzed in this manner. Factor analysis was then applied to the set of performance attribute ratings to determine whether the restaurant experience studied here resulted in dimensions of performance that would emerge consistently across stages in the service experience. Corroborative analyses were then performed on the other attribute lists (e.g., disconfirmation). The expectancy disconfirmation with performance model shown in Figure 1 was then tested on dimensionspecific sets using hierarchical regression until a best trimmed model was determined. The analysis concluded with analyses of the expectancy disconfirmation model and satisfaction as predictive of future intention and actual repatronage.
FINDINGS Depth of Effects of the Expectation Manipulation It has already been shown that the positively and negatively valenced expectation treatments withstood the test of a manipulation check. At the next level, it was demonstrated that these treatments, couched in the guise of restaurant reviews, influenced the predictive expectations held by the participants prior to entering the establishment. A reasonable next question concerns to what extent these treatments penetrate into the entire consumption experience. To answer this, one-way ANOVAs were performed on the subsequent stages of the satisfaction experience, as depicted in Figure 1. The results are shown in Table 2 along with the earlier results of the preexpectations measures. Summed attribute lists and overall measures were used as before for the dependent measures based on the features list. An identical analysis was performed on the protocol data for both the restaurant and free-form postconsumption recordings (first and second
204
TABLE 2 Depth of Effect of the Expectation Manipulation

Dependent Variable Survey Data Preexpectations Overall preexpectations Retrospective expectations Overall retrospective expectations Performance Overall performance Disconfirmation Overall disconfirmation Satisfaction Intention Repatronage Recordings (first and second protocols) Prior expectations First protocol Second protocol Retrospective expectations First protocol Second protocol Performance beliefs First protocol Second protocol Performance affects First protocol Second protocol Disconfirmation: In the latitude of acceptance First protocol Second protocol Disconfirmation: In the latitude of rejection First protocol Second protocol Feelings/satisfactions First protocol Second protocol Repatronage intention First protocol Second protocol F Significance Level Significance Level With Covariates
3.466 7.550 3.825 4.576 0.795 1.355 0.208 0.267 0.727 0.065 0.348
.036 .001 .026 .013 .455 .262 .813 .766 .487 .938 .708
.006 .000 .006 .001 .281 .050 .637 .428 .146 .614 .663
0.875 6.567 0.285 1.864 0.199 0.996 0.339 0.562 0.936 1.241 1.195 0.457 1.004 0.426 0.016 1.024
.424 .003 .754 .167 .820 .377 .714 .574 .400 .299 .312 .636 .374 .656 .984 .367
.445 .005 .731 .192 .902 .340 .681 .466 .407 .334 .359 .685 .438 .703 .976 .301
NOTE: In the top panel, all F values are based on df = 2, 75, with the exception of repatronage, with df = 2, 61. In the bottom panel, all F values are based on df = 2, 45.
protocols). Both sets of findings are reported in Table 2, presented as F test significance levels. It is clear from the survey results that the expectation manipulation effect is very shallow, affecting only preexpectations and their recollection. In fact, the effect deteriorates rapidly and appears to nearly disappear for the latter experience variables (e.g., disconfirmation, intention). The effect is more dramatic in the protocol findings. Here, only prior impressions in the free-form transcripts were affected. Thus, Hypothesis 1a is supported. When the covariates were entered into the model for the survey data, the expectation results remained unchanged and only the overall performance variable became significant precisely at the .05 level. No protocol findings were affected. Thus, the treatments were successful in creating expectations
and (to an arguable extent) in influencing overall performance, but once patronage experience was acquired, only the effect of the created expectation was operative. Depth of Effect of Predictive Expectations The second and third columns of Table 3 show, via correlations (not significance levels), the cascading effect of predictive expectations as resulting from the manipulations used here in the survey data. If one eliminates the two disconfirmation measures from consideration, then it is clear that the summed expectation measure significantly influences every construct from performance to intention in an ordered weakening of effect. This effect extends even to repatronage, where the correlation was significant at the
205
TABLE 3 Depth of Effect of Preexpectations and Retrospective Expectations: Correlations

Predictor Variable Overall Preexpectations Retrospective Expectations Overall Retrospective Expectations
Dependent Variable Survey Data Preexpectations Overall preexpectations Retrospective expectations Overall retrospective expectations Performance Overall performance Disconfirmation Overall disconfirmation Satisfaction Intention Repatronage Recordings (first and second protocols) Prior expectations First protocol Second protocol Retrospective expectations First protocol Second protocol Performance beliefs First protocol Second protocol Performance affects First protocol Second protocol Disconfirmation: In the latitude of acceptance First protocol Second protocol Disconfirmation: In the latitude of rejection First protocol Second protocol Feelings/satisfactions First protocol Second protocol Repatronage intention First protocol Second protocol
b
Preexpectations
. .710** .839** .586** .443** .399** .090 a .181 .386** .304** a .202
. . .615** .728** .248* .301** .010 .088 .249* .173 .043
. . . .605** .430** .400** .075 .173 .383** .296** .120
. . . . .306** .439** .094 .233* .371** .275** .093
.084 .408** .036 .166 .040 .309* .053 .339** .029 .045 .073 .127 .076 .013 .156 .366**
.125 .405** .011 .056 .041 .284* .070 .315* .034 .011 .158 .060 .106 .033 .231 .289*
NOTE: rs > .185 and .260 are significant at .05 (*) and .01 (**) by one-tailed test for all survey relations except those involving repatronage, where the respective minimal rs are .207 and .290. For the protocol data, the minimal rs are .240 and .335. a. p < .06. b. No retrospective expectation correlations are shown because these expectations were obtained after the protocols were recorded and are not predictive of these variables.
.06 level. The overall measure does not do as well with the effect becoming nonsignificant at satisfaction. Nonetheless, the power of expectations is evident, as is the diminishing effect, largely supporting Hypothesis 1b. Similar but weaker effects are evident with the freeform protocol data. Significant correlations were obtained for both the summed attribute and summary forms of the expectation measure, although the overall results were somewhat weaker. In order, protocol references to prior expectations, performance beliefs and affects, and repa-
tronage intention were influenced by the expectations created prior to entering the restaurant. Here, the magnitudes of the correlations in the cascade were more uniform. True Predictive Versus Retrospective Expectations To address the issue regarding the ability of participants to recall expectations accurately, participants were asked to reflect on what their expectations were before entering
206
TABLE 4 Intercorrelations and Regression of Retrospective Expectations on Preexpectations and Performance

Correlationsa Predictive and Retrospective Expectations
EIJ A %# $% $ % #% %"! $% $$ #$ $ 8 .544 .568 .729 .727 .627 .607 .728
Regression Weights Retrospective Expectations and Performance

"% "& !' %# "" !%' "'& !&%
Attribute 1. Matre d HA?AFJE

6=> A M=EJE C JE ! " # $ % & ' 9=EJFAHI 9=EJFAHI
Predictive Expectations and Performance

!$ "# # & "# !'' !$' %'
Predictive Expectations Beta

$' #' #&& #!% $%$ $ ## "'
Performance Beta
$% I & %& $ I '# #
Adjusted R2
#%& !%" " !## #$ "# "'& !##
? KHJAIO IAHLE?A
>
A K L=HEAJO 2DOIE?= )J IKHH K @E CI
IFDAHA
KIE? 2HE?AI
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Noise level Meal waiting time Food appearance Food taste Other clientele After-meal service Overall impression
.345 .n.s. .n.s. .391 .354 .346 .210 .301
.347 .359 .232 .327 .390 .394 .196 .439
.577 .506 .564 .709 .673 .558 .592 .655
.n.s. .295 .223 .n.s. .151 .201 .n.s. .242
.398 .364 .355 .521 .537 .414 .356 .572
a. rs > .185 and .260 are significant at .05 and .01 by one-tailed test. b. p < .06.
the restaurant (see instructions in the appendix). Note that this is not the same as asking for a remembrance in lieu of a preexpectations measure as most companies are required to do when customers cannot be identified or intercepted prior to consumption. Thus, it would be expected that the retrospective responses as measured here would not be as contaminated with performance observations as they would be if preexpectations had not been measured. In a first pass at addressing these issues, the correlations between predictive and retrospective expectations are reported in the top panel of Table 3. Here, it is clear that the two sets of variables are highly related, with the two summed measures correlating at r = .84 and the overall measures correlating at r = .73. However, the shared variance estimates are lower at approximately two-thirds and one-half. Thus, either memory retrieval failure or contamination (or both) is evident. The depth of effect correlations, however, are on the order of those found using predictive expectations. To address the effect of performance contamination, correlations between predictive and retrospective expectations and performance over each of the features in the attribute list as well as the overall measure are shown in Table 4, as are regression results obtained when retrospective expectations are regressed on both preexpectations and performance. Virtually all are highly significant. (Significance-level flags have been omitted so as not to clutter the table.)
Here, it can be seen that the predictive and retrospective measures correlate in the range of .55 to .75, indicating some fair amount of shrinkage from pre to post measures. That some of this shrinkage can be attributed to the effect of performance is evident from the correlations between retrospective expectations and performance, where all correlations are significant at the .05 level by one-tailed test (all hypotheses are directional). To determine the degree to which performance contributes to retrospective expectations scores, these latter scores were regressed on both preexpectations and performance. In all, 10 of the 15 attributes as well as the overall measure showed significant performance effects, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1c for these features. Those not displaying this effect are so marked. However, it is clear that the effect of preexpectations is, on average, more than twice the magnitude of the performance effect, thus giving some confidence that retrospective expectations do capture the bulk of the variance in preexpectations. Regarding the five features not showing performance influence (table waiting time, physical surroundings, prices, food appearance, and after-meal service), it is apparent that no underlying theme emerges. This will become more evident when the feature list is factored. It appears, then, that Hypothesis 1c is largely supported. Note that Table 4 also answers Hypothesis 1b regarding the influence of predictive expectations on performance at the attribute level. Recalling that this aspect of the study is
207
TABLE 5 Unidimensional Correlation and Regression Results: Satisfaction and Aggregate Measures
Using Predictive Expectations Expectations Performance Disconfirmation Satisfaction Expectations .443 .090 .368 Overall Expectations Overall expectations Overall performance Overall disconfirmation Satisfaction Using Retrospective Expectations Expectations Performance Disconfirmation Satisfaction .301 .088 .226 Expectations .430 .075 .337 Overall Expectations Overall expectations Overall performance Overall disconfirmation Satisfaction .439 .233 .315 Performance Disconfirmation Beta .124 .498 .258 Significance .091 .000 .025 .572 Beta .044 .481 .426 Significance .238 .000 .000 .763 Beta .092 .528 .240 Significance .162 .000 .035 .568 Beta .005 .517 .401 Significance .355 .000 .000 .761 Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2
.768 .752 Overall Performance
.652 Overall Disconfirmation
.832 .849 Performance
.830 Disconfirmation
.768 .752 Overall Performance
.652 Overall Disconfirmation
.832 .849
.830
NOTE: rs > .185 and .260 significant at .05 and .01 by one-tailed test.
a true predictive design over two time periods, the correlations cannot be attributed to common method variance. Correlations between preexpectations and performance are shown in the second data column of Table 4. Here, it can be seen that all but two correlations, including that of the overall measure, are significant, thereby largely supporting the hypothesis that expectations affect performance observations at the attribute level. The correlation for waitperson service was significant at the .06 level, consistent with the pattern, and is displayed. The two features with nonsignificant correlations (noise and meal waiting time) show no commonality. Whereas it is true that neither could have been predicted by participants from the expectation materials, this observation also is true of the other features that did display significance. Generally, the correlations ranged from .200 to .400, with the modal category in the .300s. None was negative, including those not shown, thus suggesting that expectations do indeed set the tone for subsequent performance judgments. Survey Data: The Expectancy Disconfirmation With Performance Model Using a naive assumption of unidimensional performance, the expectancy disconfirmation model was first tested on the summed attribute list and the overall mea-
sures of expectation, performance, and disconfirmation. Because retrospective expectation measures were available, a second analysis was performed with the retrospective measures replacing the predictive measures. Then, in accord with Oliver (1997), the expectancy disconfirmation model was tested on performance dimensions determined through factor analysis to determine whether there were dimension-specific effects. The unidimensional results are shown in Table 5, where the top panel displays findings using predictive expectations and the bottom panel displays those using retrospective expectations. The simple correlations for both panels show that all independent measures are significantly related to satisfaction; that is, satisfaction is a positive linear function of expectation, performance, and disconfirmation in the bivariate mode. Thus, Hypothesis 2a is supported at the bivariate level. However, in all regressions tested, the expectation results drop out when the three independent variables are included simultaneously. Inspection of the correlation matrices suggests that this result might be due to the moderate correlations between expectation and performance. At the unidimensional level, then, satisfaction is a function of both performance and disconfirmation, but not expectation, in the multivariate mode. Because expectations are uncorrelated with disconfirmation with the exception of the overall retrospective solu-
208
TABLE 6 Factor Solution From the Performance Data

Restaurant Feature Physical surroundings Atmosphere Clientele Music Waitperson service Waitperson courtesy After-meal service Matre d Food tastiness Food prices Food appearance Meal waiting time Menu variety Seating waiting time Noise level Cumulative variance Factor 1 .836 .799 .789 .581 .871 .769 .605 .580 .721 .706 .694 .579 .529 .731 .681 65.0 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
21.0
37.9
54.2
tion, it cannot be said that they are mediated through disconfirmation. Rather, it appears that expectations act only as a standard for disconfirmation judgments, implying that, regardless of the expectation level (barring ceiling and floor effects), positive or negative disconfirmation is likely. This is consistent with an early study by Oliver (1977) in which the expectation-disconfirmation correlation was .00 (and .09 in the present study). It remains the case, however, that expectations are correlated with satisfaction at both the bivariate and multivariate levels, the latter if performance is not included in the regression (results not shown). Later, it is demonstrated that expectations do play a role in satisfaction formation in the full multivariate case, but not for all attributes. The reader will note that, when retrospective expectations are substituted for predictive expectations, the expectation relations become weaker at both the bivariate and multivariate levels. Because of this general finding, further consideration of retrospective expectations is dropped. From this point, only preexpectations are used when reference is made to expectations. Dimension-Specific Findings Factor analysis of the restaurant feature list was first performed on the performance data. This list was chosen because it is more grounded than the more psychological expectation and disconfirmation lists. In particular, the participants in this study had only the restaurant reviews to form preexpectation judgments, and their impressions can be considered somewhat tentative. If the participants used here had been frequent patrons of the restaurants, then a greater degree of confidence could be put in the results of analysis of the expectation list. For the same reason, the
disconfirmation list was considered secondary to the performance list because responses were based partly on recollections of expectations. Results of factor analysis of the performance data are shown in Table 6; for clarity, it does not show loadings less than .500. The feature data are arranged by factor representation and not by their order in the survey. As shown, four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were obtained. The factor solution explained 65% of the variance. Reliability analysis and interpretation suggested that one item from the first factor (music) and one item from the third (meal waiting time) could be deleted to improve factor coherence. This was performed. The final scale reliabilities for the first three dimensions were .86, .77, and .77, respectively. The reliability for the fourth two-item scale was unacceptable at .41. Because of this, the fourth dimension was not considered further. From the results, interpretation of the three remaining factors is clear. Factor 1 represents ambiance (cf. Bitner 1990), Factor 2 reflects service, and Factor 3 addresses the menu and food. A nearly identical solution was obtained from the disconfirmation data with changes in the factor order. There, food emerged as the first of the factors with the exception that prices did not load on any factor and meal waiting time loaded with table waiting time (Factor 4). Ambiance was the second factor and contained all of the performance variables plus noise. Lastly, service emerged exactly as it did for the performance solution. Thus, the disconfirmation data essentially corroborated the performance data, which were used for scale construction as follows. Dimension-specific scales were created by summing the factor-identified variables with the exclusion of the two features noted previously. To test the expectancy dis-
209
TABLE 7 Results of Regressing Satisfaction on the Dimension Components: Standardized Regression Weights and Variance Explained
Dimension Specific Predictor Expectations: Ambiance Disconfirmation: Ambiance Performance: Ambiance 2 Adjusted R Expectations: Service Disconfirmation: Service Performance: Service 2 Adjusted R Expectations: Food Disconfirmation: Food Performance: Food 2 Adjusted R Excluding Performance .340** .645** . .555** .239* .248* . .094** .216** .572** . .424** With Performance .211** .369** .372** .591** .160 .055 .246 .100* .009 .120 .599** .481** All Dimensions Excluding Performance .390** .477** . . .083 .035 . . .005 .402** . .675** With Performance .280** .241* .287** . .112 .115 .130 . .135 .192 .307* .729** Service Removed .226** .219* .309** . . . . . .127 .172 .322* .732** Best Model .152* .289** .252* . . . . . . . .417** .720**
*p < .05. **p < .01. Regression coefficients by one-tailed test.
confirmation model, three sets of scales were needed for each restaurant dimension: expectation, performance, and disconfirmation. Because it did not seem to make intuitive sense to have different variables or dimensions for the three model components, each of these scales was calculated using identical features (Oliver 1997, pp. 123-25). Thus, there was an expectation scale for ambiance, one for service, and one for food. Similarly, there was a performance scale for ambiance, one for service, and so on. Thus, there were three scales for each of the three restaurant dimensions used here. The next step was a regression of satisfaction on the dimensions. Three regressions resulted, each with satisfaction regressed on expectation, performance, and disconfirmation for the specific dimension. Next, a regression on all dimensions simultaneously was performed. Then, various other regressions were performed to trim the predictor set. Table 7 shows the findings from these analyses. Examination of the first two data columns, where the expectancy disconfirmation model is tested on a dimensionby-dimension basis first without performance and then with its inclusion, shows that both expectation and disconfirmation are significant predictors for all dimensions. Strong findings are evident for ambiance and food. When performance is added, significant increments in variance explained are evident for ambiance and food. With food, however, the expectation and disconfirmation variables no longer are significant. Turning to models where all dimensions are considered simultaneously, reported in the third and fourth data columns, it is found that the effect of service no longer is evident. Without performance in the models, expectation and disconfirmation for ambiance are significant, as is disconfirmation for food. For performance, all three ambiance predictors retain significance, whereas for food, the effect
of performance dominates the previously significant disconfirmation effect. Because service showed no influence on satisfaction, it was dropped from consideration in the fifth data column; the results were little changed. Finally, only the significant predictors in this column were tested, and again, the results remained little changed. In the fully dimensioned model as well as in the trimmed models, the adjusted variance explained approached or exceeded .70, a highly significant percentage. The dimension-specific findings support this aspect of Hypothesis 2b. Thus, the workings of the model dimensions in this service context are revealed. Satisfaction responds to all dimensions of ambiance in the classic expectancy disconfirmation with performance model. Ambiance, like aesthetics, would appear to conform to the expectation effect prediction because it is not as subject to objective interpretation as is food. Food, by contrast, appears to be a performanceonly dimension, although when food is analyzed without performance, both expectation and disconfirmation are significant at the dimension-specific level, and disconfirmation is significant at the fully dimensional model. The addition of performance, however, obscures these effects. The noninfluence of service is an enigma in this context, but the data are clear on its lack of influence. Does It Matter? Intention and Repatronage Results Table 8 completes the consumption sequence with the findings from regressing intention and repatronage on satisfaction and its significant antecedents from Table 7. The correlations are displayed in the top panel, where one sees strong relationships generally.
210
TABLE 8 Results of Regressing Intention and Repatronage on Their Antecedents

Correlations Satisfaction Satisfaction Intention Repatronage Ambiance expectations Ambiance disconfirmation Ambiance performance Food performance . a .875 .649 .391 .672 .741 .705 Intent Repatronage Expectations: Ambiance Disconfirmation: Ambiance Performance: Ambiance
. .592 .250 .656 .695 .680
. .214 .313 .366 .429
. .080 .404 .273
. .768 .425
. .493
Intention and Repatronage Regression Results Model Variable Repatronage intention Satisfaction Ambiance expectations Ambiance disconfirmation Ambiance performance Food performance 2 Adjusted R Intention Beta Coefficients . .689** .132 .046 .187* .174* .744** (1) Repatronage Beta Coefficients .582** . .074 .038 .028 .049 .304** (2) Repatronage Beta Coefficients .191 .714** .063 .194 .040 .076 .397**
a. rs > .185 and .260 significant at .05 and .01 by one-tailed test for all survey relations except those involving repatronage where the respective minimal rs are .207 and .290. *p < .06. **p < .01. Regression coefficients by one-tailed test.
The bottom panel shows the results of regressing intention and repatronage on all antecedents. The results are clear. Intention is a function of satisfaction and the two performance scores, food and ambiance (at p < .06). Thus, the model in Figure 1 must be modified to redirect the performance linkages to intention and not, as will be shown, to repatronage. Hypothesis 3a, then, is not supported with regard to the fully mediating effect of satisfaction. The second and third columns of the bottom panel show the repatronage results. The second column shows clearly that, when satisfaction is absent from the regression in Model 1, repatronage is a function only of intention. However, when satisfaction is added in Model 2 in the third column, the intention link is not significant despite its high correlation with repatronage at the zero-order level. Thus, Hypothesis 3b is not supported in the sense that the effect of satisfaction is not mediated by intention; rather, it dominates intention in this particular data set.
DISCUSSION Of the many findings related to this consumption experience, we begin with those relating to the expectation manipulation. This manipulation using real-appearing restaurant reviews achieved the intended effect, but that is all it achieved. One-way and covariate analyses converged on the conclusion that only expectations, their remem-
brances in the postconsumption protocol, and their recollection under recall instructions were influenced. All of these study variables showed significant effects (see Table 2). Thus, the manipulation influences were very shallow in their operation; apparently, the effects were passed off to predictive expectations that were measured immediately before consumption. In the field exercise as studied here, it appears that one cannot rely on expectation manipulations to carry through to other consumption experiences. Rather, one must rely on the expectations created by the manipulation and not on the manipulation itself. The much more enduring effect of predictive expectations was demonstrated in Table 3. Here, it was evident that expectations do indeed influence performance observations. This was true for both the survey findings and the postconsumption protocol results. As predicted by the forward assimilation hypothesis, expectations do frame perceptions of later performance judgments. In fact, correlational (not multivariate) expectation influences could be detected for both the satisfaction (survey findings) and intention (postconsumption protocol) study variables. This finding lends credence to the expectation effect in expectancy disconfirmation models. Expectations appear to have three functions in such models. The first is to provide a baseline against which disconfirmation judgments are made, the second is to influence performance ( see Figure 1), and the third is to influence satisfaction directly, although this effect appears to be dimension specific.
211
Although expectation effects were shown to diminish as further stages in the model were explored, their influence, as shown here, is difficult to refute. With regard to the use of retrospective expectations, one source of contamination in such measures has now been shown. In accord with the backward assimilation hypothesis, fully two-thirds of the feature-specific retrospective expectation scores showed performance observation influences (see Table 4). These influences were not as strong as those of predictive expectations, however, so researchers who must rely on recall can be assured that much of the actual expectation is evident in the retrospective version. Later data showed that predictive expectations operate somewhat better in model testing because they are more independent of performance. This would suggest that before using retrospective expectations, regression analysis could be useful in teasing out the performance effect through the use of residuals. The success of this procedure awaits future testing. When the 15 features selected for this study were examined in a unidimensional manner, the major variables in the expectancy disconfirmation with performance model were correlated with satisfaction at the zero-order level. However, in the multivariate mode, only disconfirmation and performance were related; the expectation influences appeared to have been absorbed or mediated. This was true whether or not true predictive or retrospective expectations were used and whether or not the summed or overall expectation measures were input into the regression. Because performance has been shown to carry the forward assimilation effects of expectations, the mediation suggestion would appear to have merit. However, later dimensional analysis suggested that the expectation effect is more elusive than suggested at this point. With regard to the performance versus disconfirmation issue, our results show that both are joint dual influences on satisfaction (see Table 5). When the overall measures were used, their effects were nearly equal; when summed measures were used, the performance effect was stronger. Thus, this one study is not capable of resolving the issue of when one effect will dominate the other at the unidimensional aggregate product level, but it does add to the body of evidence. That the data reported here are not unidimensional is confirmed by factor analysis in Table 6. Here, three restaurant dimensions emerged as shown in other studies of dining establishments (e.g., Danaher and Mattsson 1998). A fourth was not used because of interpretation and reliability concerns. Dimension-specific regressions performed on the expectancy disconfirmation model showed that expectation and disconfirmation predicted satisfaction for all dimensions in the absence of a performance influence. However, when dimension-specific performance was en-
tered into each of the three equations, all variables were significant for the ambiance dimension, only performance was significant for food, and none was significant for service. This combination of effects was robust when service was removed and when the remaining nonsignificant predictors were eliminated in the trimmed model. It is interesting to note that the difference in the findings for the ambiance and food dimensions followed the reasoning presented for the appearance of performance versus disconfirmation influences on satisfaction. As in Bitner (1990), ambiance is an environmental dimension that is not easily quantified. Thus, the expectation effect, along with its derivative disconfirmation variable, was significant. Food, by contrast, is easily quantified as tasting good or bad. Thus, the performance of food dominated the other expectancy concepts. It also is true that the performance effect for ambiance was significant as well. Perhaps there is a quantifiable aspect to judging ambiance. In a penultimate analysis, the participants stated intentions to repatronize were found to be a function of satisfaction and the ambiance and food performance measures. The satisfaction-intention linkage is now fairly universal and is not a surprise. The separate performance influences on intention, although somewhat weak, are not frequently observed and would appear to warrant further study. Lastly, the variable of most interest to management, repatronage, was found to be correlated with both intention and satisfaction. In a set of regressions, satisfaction was found to dominate intention, thus emphasizing the importance of this variable to management. Interestingly, the influence of performance did not extend to repatronage, implying that there is a limit to performance influences. Limitations Speculation would suggest that these results, and the nonsignificant service dimension findings in particular, would not necessarily generalize to other restaurants and other client populations. All of the participants used here were undergraduates, and the restaurants were low- to medium-priced establishments. It is possible that the students were not considered serious patrons, that they were thought to be poor tippers, and so on. One should consider the findings here as illustrative and not generalizable due, in part, to the necessary small sample size. Other limitations involve satisfaction influences and processes not tested here. Oliver (1997) notes that other comparator responses are known to influence satisfaction including need fulfillment, equity/inequity, and regret. At some point, researchers will want to incorporate more of these parallel influences into their work. In retrospect, one glaring omission in the design of the present study is the inclusion of revised (not retrospective)
212
expectations. Although a third set of expectation measures might have seemed excessive (and redundant) to participants, one result of this oversight is that we were unable to test the updating hypotheses of Boulding et al. (1993). Future researchers are encouraged to include this important variable in their work. Lastly, we coded only for satisfaction construct references and not for specific features. It would be instructive to see whether certain features were systematically related to certain constructs and not others. For example, it might be that only certain aspects of the product or service harbor expectation effects, disconfirmation effects, and the like. Whereas insights on this issue are suggested by the dimension-specific analyses, corroborative data from the protocol codings would be useful in future work. Summary The consumption experience was shown to be a series of related expectation-initiated processes that are linked in a fairly systematic manner. Expectations begin the consumers experience, influencing performance observations and providing a standard for the operation of disconfirmation. Disconfirmation then influences satisfaction, operating largely in tandem with performance. Performance, in turn, influences both satisfaction and, as shown here, repatronage intention. Satisfaction is influenced by the antecedents posed in the expectancy disconfirmation model, but it is not influenced in the same way for all performance dimensions, and for some dimensions it is not influenced at all. In addition, satisfaction appears as a filter for the influence of its antecedents on later consequences such as intention and repatronage. Thus, in one manner or another, expectations influence the consumption experience, although in a decreasing magnitude of effect.
APPENDIX Section-by-Section Instructions and Sample Questions Predictive Expectations You are to complete this section before you enter the restaurant but after you have read the restaurant information. Please tell us what expectations you may have at this point about the restaurant. I Expect That: 1. The matre d/receptionist will be impolite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 polite Retrospective Expectations Before you entered the restaurant, you might have had some expectations about what the restaurant experience would be like. Now we would like you to tell us what these expectations were.
Think back to the time just before you entered the restaurant and answer the questions below. Just Before I Entered the Restaurant, I Thought: 1. The matre d/receptionist would be impolite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 polite Performance Now we would like you to rate the performance of the restaurant on the dimensions listed below. 1. The matre d/receptionist was impolite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 polite Disconfirmation This section asks you to compare the restaurant to your expectations on each of the dimensions you rated previously. In doing so, use the scale below. Please do not refer back to the earlier sections. Much Much worse SomeJust Some- better than what Slightly as Slightly what than expected worse worse expected better better expected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Compared to My Expectations: 1. The matre d/receptionist was much worse Satisfaction Below are several statements about this restaurant. Please read each and tell us how much you agree or disagree with it using the following scale: Strongly disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Neither agree nor disagree (N) Agree (A) Strongly agree (SA) This was one of the best restaurants I could have gone to SD D N A SA Intention If you wished to eat out in the near future and had in mind a restaurant in the general price range of the one we sent you to, how would you rate your chances of going to this same restaurant? no chance 1 2 3 4 5 sure to go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 much better
REFERENCES
Anderson, Rolph E. (1973), Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 38-44. Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (1993), River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the Extended Service Encounter, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 24-45.
213
Bearden, William O. and Jesse E. Teel (1983), Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint Reports, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 21-28. Bettman, James R. and C. W. Park (1980), Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 234-48. Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82. Bolton, Ruth N. and Tina M. Bronkhorst (1991), Quantitative Analyses of Depth Interviews, Psychology & Marketing, 8 (Winter), 275-97. Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991), A Multistage Model of Customers Assessments of Service Quality and Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 375-84. Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 7-27. Cadotte, Ernest R., Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger L. Jenkins (1987), Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 305-14. Christensen-Szalanski, Jay J. and Cynthia Fobian Willham (1991), The Hindsight Bias: A Meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48 (February), 147-68. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. and Carol Surprenant (1982), An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 491-504. Clow, Kenneth E., David L. Kurtz, John Ozment, and Beng Soo Ong (1997), The Antecedents of Consumer Expectations of Services: An Empirical Study across Four Industries, Journal of Services Marketing, 11 (4), 230-48. Cronin, J. Joseph, Jr. and Steven A. Taylor (1994), SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance-Based and PerceptionsMinus-Expectations Measurement of Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 125-31. Danaher, Peter J. and Jan Mattsson (1998), A Comparison of Service Delivery Processes of Different Complexity, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (1), 48-63. Dub, Laurette and Michael S. Morgan (1996), Trend Effects and Gender Differences in Retrospective Judgments of Consumption Emotions, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (September), 156-62. Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Fischhoff, Baruch (1975), Hindsight Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment under Uncertainty, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1 (August), 288-99. Fornell, Claes and Birger Wernerfelt (1987), Defensive Marketing Strategy by Customer Complaint Management, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (November), 337-46. Halstead, Diane, David Hartman, and Sandra L. Schmidt (1994), Multisource Effects on the Satisfaction Formation Process, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Spring), 114-29. Hovland, Carl I., O. J. Harvey, and Muzafer Sherif (1957), Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Reactions to Communication and Attitude Change, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55 (July), 244-52. Hutton, James D. and Lynne D. Richardson (1995), Healthscapes: The Role of the Facility and Physical Environment on Consumer Attitudes, Satisfaction, Quality Assessments, and Behaviors, Health Care Management Review, 20 (Spring), 48-61. Iacobucci, Dawn, Kent A. Grayson, and Amy L. Ostrom (1994), The Calculus of Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction: Theoretical and Empirical Differentiation and Integration, in Advances in Services Marketing and Management: Research and Practice, vol. 3, Teresa A. Swartz, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. Brown, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1-67.
June, Leslie P. and Stephen L. J. Smith (1987), Service Attributes and Situational Effects on Customer Preferences for Restaurant Dining, Journal of Travel Research, 26 (Fall), 20-27. Klayman, Joshua and Young-Won Ha (1987), Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing, Psychological Review, 94 (April), 211-28. Kolbe, Richard H. and Melissa S. Burnett (1991), Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September), 243-50. McGill, Ann L. and Dawn Iacobucci (1992), The Role of Postexperience Comparison Standards in the Evaluation of Unfamiliar Services, in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 19, John F. Sherry, Jr. and Brian Sternthal, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 570-78. Oliver, Richard L. (1977), Effect of Expectation and Disconfirmation on Postexposure Product Evaluations: An Alternative Interpretation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (August), 480-86. (1980), A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-69. (1981), Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings, Journal of Retailing, 57 (Fall), 25-48. (1993), Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 418-30. (1994), Conceptual Issues in the Structural Analysis of Consumption Emotion, Satisfaction, and Quality: Evidence in a Service Setting, in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 21, Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 16-22. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. , P. V. Balakrishnan, and Bruce Barry (1994), Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60 (November), 252-75. and William O. Bearden (1985), Disconfirmation Processes and Consumer Evaluations in Product Usage, Journal of Business Research, 13 (June), 235-46. and Wayne S. DeSarbo (1988), Response Determinants in Satisfaction Judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 495-507. and John E. Swan (1989), Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach, Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 21-35. and Russell S. Winer (1987), A Framework for the Formation and Structure of Consumer Expectations: Review and Propositions, Journal of Economic Psychology, 8 (December), 469-99. Patterson, Paul G. (1993), Expectations and Product Performance as Determinants of Satisfaction for a High-Involvement Purchase, Psychology & Marketing, 10 (September-October), 449-65. , Lester W. Johnson, and Richard A. Spreng (1997), Modeling the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction for Business-to-Business Professional Services, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (Winter), 4-17. Pieters, Rik, Kitty Koelemeijer, and Henk Roest (1995), Assimilation Processes in Service Satisfaction Formation, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6 (3), 17-33. Shoemaker, Stowe (1996), Scripts: Precursor of Consumer Expectations, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37 (February), 42-53. Sweeney, Jillian C., Lester W. Johnson, and Robert W. Armstrong (1992), The Effect of Cues on Service Quality Expectations and Service Selection in a Restaurant Setting, Journal of Services Marketing, 6 (Fall), 15-22. Tse, David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1988), Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension, Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 204-12.
214
Woodruff, Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte, and Roger L. Jenkins (1983), Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using ExperienceBased Norms, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August), 296304. Yi, Youjae (1990), A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction, in Review of Marketing 1990, Valarie A. Zeithaml, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 68-123.
served on the boards of the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, and Journal of Retailing and has published articles in numerous journals. He previously taught at the University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School and at Washington University. Raymond R. Burke is the E. W. Kelley Professor of Business Administration at Indiana University and director of the Customer Interface Laboratory. His research focuses on understanding the influence of point-of-purchase factors (including new products, product packaging, pricing, promotions, assortments, and displays) on consumer behavior in conventional and virtual shopping environments. Prior to joining Indiana University, he was an associate professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School and an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School. His articles have appeared in various journals, and he is coauthor of ADSTRAT: An Advertising Decision Support System (Scientific Press, 1991).
Richard L. Oliver is the Valere Blair Potter Professor of Management (Marketing) at the Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University. His research interests include consumer psychology with a special focus on customer satisfaction and postpurchase processes. He holds the position of fellow of the American Psychological Association for his extensive writings on the psychology of the satisfaction response and is author of Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer (Irwin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997) and coeditor of Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (Sage, 1994). He previously

Expectation Processes in Satisfaction Formation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Expectation Processes in Satisfaction Formation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JOURNAL OF SERVICE Oliver, RESEARCH Burke / EXPECTATION / February 1999 PROCESSES

Expectation Processes in Satisfaction Formation

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

FIGURE 1 The Expectancy Disconfirmation With Performance Model

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

FIGURE 2 Temporal Schematic of Study Methodology

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

TABLE 1 Restaurant Study Coding Categories

Expectation/anticipation: Passive (retrospective)

Performance: Descriptive beliefs

Performance evaluation: Affects, likes, good/bad

Disconfirmation: In the latitude of acceptance

Disconfirmation: In the latitude of rejection

Feelings and emotions: Satisfaction (general)

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

TABLE 2 Depth of Effect of the Expectation Manipulation

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

TABLE 3 Depth of Effect of Preexpectations and Retrospective Expectations: Correlations

. . .615** .728** .248* .301** .010 .088 .249* .173 .043

. . . .605** .430** .400** .075 .173 .383** .296** .120

. . . . .306** .439** .094 .233* .371** .275** .093

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

TABLE 4 Intercorrelations and Regression of Retrospective Expectations on Preexpectations and Performance

Regression Weights Retrospective Expectations and Performance

Attribute 1. Matre d HA?AFJE

Predictive Expectations and Performance

Predictive Expectations Beta

A K L=HEAJO 2DOIE?= )J IKHH K @E CI

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

.345 .n.s. .n.s. .391 .354 .346 .210 .301

.347 .359 .232 .327 .390 .394 .196 .439

.577 .506 .564 .709 .673 .558 .592 .655

.n.s. .295 .223 .n.s. .151 .201 .n.s. .242

.398 .364 .355 .521 .537 .414 .356 .572

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

.768 .752 Overall Performance

.652 Overall Disconfirmation

.832 .849 Performance

.768 .752 Overall Performance

.652 Overall Disconfirmation

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

TABLE 6 Factor Solution From the Performance Data

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

*p < .05. **p < .01. Regression coefficients by one-tailed test.

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

TABLE 8 Results of Regressing Intention and Repatronage on Their Antecedents

. .592 .250 .656 .695 .680

. .214 .313 .366 .429

. .080 .404 .273

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

Oliver, Burke / EXPECTATION PROCESSES

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / February 1999

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

. . .615 .728 .248* .301** .010 .088 .249* .173 .043

. . . .605 .430 .400 .075 .173 .383 .296** .120

. . . . .306 .439 .094 .233* .371 .275 .093