+a.1983.selected det+a.1983.selected determinants of consumer satisfactionerminants of consumer...

8/12/2019 +A.1983.Selected Det+A.1983.Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfactionerminants of Consumer Satisfaction

1/9

WILLIAM O. BEARDEN and JESSE E. TEEL

Data obtained from 375 members of a consumer panel in a two-phase study ofconsumer exfjeriences with automobile repairs and services were used to examinethe antecedents and consequences of consumer satisfaction. The results support pre-vious findings that expectations and disconfirmatian are plausible determinants ofsatisfaction and suggest that complaint activity may be included in satisfac tion/dissatisfaction research as suggested by earlier descriptions of consumer complain-

ing behavior.

Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfactionand Complaint Reports

Consumer satisfaction is important to the marketerbecause it is generally assumed to be a significant de-terminant of repeat sales, positive word-of-mouth, andconsumer loyalty. Satisfaction is important to the indi-vidual consumer because it reflects a positive outcomefrom the outlay of scarce resources and/or the fulfill-ment of unmet needs (Day and Landon 1977; Landon1977).Growing recognition of consumer satisfaction as acritical construct in marketing and consumer behaviorhas generated substantial research interest in the pro-cesses preceding judgm ents of satis faction/dissatisfac-tion and the consequences of those decisions. This re-se a r ch ha s c ons i s t e d p r im a r i l y o f e xpe r im e nta lInvestigations of consumer expectations (e.g., Anderson1973; Cardozo 1965) and surveys of problem incidencesand reports of redress-seeking activity (e.g., Andreasen1977; Day and Ash 1979).' In an effort to integrate the-ory and prior empirical research in the area of consumersatisfaction, Oliver (1980a) reported the developmentand test of a model encompassing interrelationshipsamong expectations, disconfirmation. satisfaction, andthe traditional criteria of attitudes and intentions. Ourstudy is an attempt to extend this research effort by in-corporating consumer complaining behavior into a the-oretical model of consumer satisfaction.

'For an excellent review of these experimental studies, see LaTourand Peal (1979).

*WilHam O, Bearden and Jesse E. Teel are Associate Professorsof Marketing, University of South Carolina.

COMPL INING BEH VIOR^Complaining behavior research has been largely lim-ited to retrospective self-reports of behavior which oc-curred prior to assessment of the antecedents of satis-faction/dissa tisfaction. Thou gh this l imitation stemsfrom the inherent shortcomings of cross-sectional datacollection designs typically used in consumer satisfac-tion research, surveys of sources of consumer dissatis-faction and reports of complaint actions after unsatisfac-

t o r y p u r c h a s e e x p e r i e n c e s h a v e e n h a n c e d o u runderstanding of consumer problems and consumer ef-forts to seek redress.Unsatisfactory purchases, though varying by productor service category, appear to be prevalent. For exam-ple, Andreasen and Best (1977) report that as many asone in five purchase experiences results in some dissat-isfaction. Similarly, Day and Bodur (1978) and Day andAsh (1979) report frequent incidences of dissatisfactionfor services and durable products.Reaction to dissatisfaction in terms of complainingbehavior and redress seeking, however, varies consid-erably. Frequently, consumers do not take action to al-leviate marketplace problems. Day and Bodur (1978, p.

265) found that reported cases of extreme dissatisfactionfor which no action of any kind was taken were 49.6^Day (1980) has classified consumer responses to dissatisfactioninto three categories: (1) redress seeking in which a specific remedyis sought, (2) complaining or communications for reasons other thanredress seeking, and (3) boycotting or personal decisions to discon-tinue usage or patronage. For purposes of our study, consumer com-plaint reports are used in the generic sense to include a range of theseactivities.

21

Journal of Marketing ResearchVol. XX (February 198.1), 21-8


2/9

22 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 19for nondurable products, 29.4% for durable products,and 23.2% for services. Similarly, Andreasen and Best(1977, p. 96) report that well over half of all the non-price purchase difficulties uncovered in their study pre-cipitated no action. These results are corroborated by theearlier national survey of Warland, Hemnann. and Wil-lits (1975) and a recent regional study reported by Shup-trine and Wenglorz (1981).These findings are discouraging for several reasons.First, failure to express dissatisfaction prevents the con-sumer from achieving redress from an unpleasant mar-ketplace experience. Second, limited action on the partof consumers may mask marketplace problems whichthe firm could and/or should correct. Further, wide-spread failure to express complaints limits the usefulnessof complaint data as a basis for policy. For example,complaint data have been suggested as being useful foranalysis of consumer discontent over time and acrossproducts (e .g. , Gronhaug and Amdt 1980). Munns(1978) has advocated providing complaint data to con-sumers as prepurchase information. However, the lim-ited research on reactions to dissatisfaction and the lackof representative data limit these potential applications.

Our study was designed to further understanding ofconsumer satisfaction by integrating complaint behaviorinto an explanation of consumer satisfaction. The frame-work examined (Figure 1) reflects a revision of Oliv er's(1980a, p. 463) original model to include complaint be-havior. Satisfaction is depicted as a function of con-sumer expectations operationalized as product attributebeliefs (Olson and Dover 1979) and disconfirmation.Expectations and disconfirmation are presented as beingunrelated, additive, and exogenous to the system. As isconsistent with the multiattribute explanation of atti-tudes, expectations/beliefs about product attributes areincluded as determinants of attitudes which precede in-

Figure 1THEORETICAL ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF

CONSUMER SATISFACTION

Figure 2CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

Based on Day and Landon (1977).tentions. Satisfaction/dissatisfaction is, in tum , prsumed to infiuence subsequent attitudes, intentions, acomplaint behavior.The hypothesized relationships between satisfactiand expectations and disconfirmation are based Oliver's (1980a, b) interpretation of Helson's (196adaptation level theory which posits that one perceivstimuli in relation to an adapted standard. Expectatioare assumed to perform the function of an adaptatilevel in that they define the standard against which susequent performance is jud ged . Disconfirmation is asumed to serve as a major force causing movement awfrom the standardthe net effect of which is satisfactior dissatisfaction (Oliver 198 1. p. 28).

Though a substantial body of research supports thypothesized causal chain between beliefs, attitudes, aintentions, the effects of disconfirmation in conjunctiwith expectations on satisfaction have received less tention. Some support for the additive and unrelated asumption about expectations and disconfirmation wprovided by the zero order correlations reported Oliver (1980a). However, disconfinnation may also ifiuence satisfaction and postpurchase attitudes throuan interactive relationship with expectations. In an effoto help clarify this issue, an alternative version of tmodel incorporating disconfirmation as a moderatvariable was tested (Sharma, Durand, and Gur-Ar1981, p. 293).

All of the relationships with the exception of the pabetween satisfaction and complaining are hypothesizto be positive. For this negative path, satisfaction is asumed to be related inversely to complaint behavior. Tnature of the satisfaction/dissatisfaction and complaiprocess as conceptualized by Day and Landon (1977) shown in Figure 2. Though many factors may inhibit encourage complaint expressions, dissatisfaction is reognized as a primary determinant of legitimate consumcomplaints. As shown, the various actions that cosumers take may be subdivided into private and pubresponses. Private actions include decisions to stop futher purchases and warnings to friends; public actio


3/9

DETERMINANTS OF CONSUMER SATISFACTION 3include redress-seeking efforts directed toward the sellerand complaints to third-party consumer affairs institu-tions.The potential for other individual and situational fac-tors to infiuence complaining behavior should be ac-knowledged. Many of these factors have been examinedin the consum er satisfactio n/dissa tisfaction literatureand include socioeconomie characteristics (Bourgeoisand Barnes 1979), personality differences (Fomell andWestbrook 1979), the costs and benefits from complain-ing (Richins 1982), propensity to complain (Day andLandon 1977), and importance of purchase (Gronhaug1977). Many of these infiuences on complaining behav-ior have been reviewed by Landon (1977) and Day andLandon (1977).

METHOData were collected in a two-phase longitudinal studywith a four-month measurement interval from membersof a t200-family. two-state consumer panel. Expecta-tions, attitudes, intentions, satisfaction, and complaint

reactions were collected for the use of automobile repairservice outlets.^ The results described are based on the375 user adult respondents from an original sample of749 households participating in both waves.As part of the initial data collection, respondents wererequested to provide the name and address of an autoservice outlet which might be used during the comingmonths. Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions were then col-lected with respect to that outlet. These variables weremeasured again in a followup mailing which also as-sessed reports of complaint behavior. Panel membersexcluded from the final sample were respondents pro-viding incomplete responses to one or both mailings,nonusers of the originally identified repair service facil-ity, and those respondents who were not familiar witha repair outlet. Names and addresses of the auto busi-nesses were also collected in the followup mailing forhelp in verification and matching of surveys. Fifty-fourpercent of the respondents were men; 93% were white.The median family income category was $25-30,000and the respondents' age was 49.94 years. The 749 sam-ple members were compared with the 451 nonpartici-pants by means of the permanent demographic file main-tained on each panel member and updated annually. Nosignificant differences were found in terms of demo-graphic characteristics.Operational Measures

Expectations, attitudes, and intentions were assessedby using multi-item measures commonly employed in

attitude research (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Dis-confirmation of expectations and satisfaction were as-sessed by procedures similar to those described byOliver (1980a). An index of complaint behavior wasdeveloped on the basis of the research of Day and hiscolleagues into the range of actions consumers may takeafter an unsatisfactory purchase experience. All scaleswere worded to refiect the automobile repair service con-text. An initial version of the questionnaire was testedby a mail survey of the general population of a medium-sized metropolitan area.

Expectations were collected for the six service attri-butes identified by Adier and Hlavacek (1978): (1) rea-sonableness of costs, (2) location, (3) quality of repairs,(4) reputation of firm, (5) speed of service, and (6)friendliness of management. Each was operationalizedas a seven-item bipolar statement labeled li ke ly - u n-like ly and scored -1-3 to 3. As is consis tent with themultiattribute depiction of belief structure and the pro-cedures suggested by Oliver (1980a), expectations wereformed as a sum of the six belief scores. Evaluation di-mensions were not included because of the assumptionsof unit positive evaluation for each attribute and over-time stability of attribute evaluations. Attitudes towardpatronizing the outlet were assessed by three seven-placesca le d s t at e m e nt s l ab e le d g o o d - b a d , w i s e - foo l i sh , and benef ic iaP ' - ' ^ 'harmfu I . S ta tementswere similar to: M y taking vehicles for needed repairsto (business) is. . . . Beh avioral intentions were op-erationalized via two seven-place scaled statements la-beled l ike l y - un l ik e ly and p robab le ' - improba-b l e . Sim i la r i tems we re used in the fo l low upquestionnaire to represent both attitudes and intentions.

In the followup analyses, disconfirmation was as-sessed by a single measure labeled bett er th an - wo rse tha n reflecting each respon dent's overall re-actions to the disconfirmation of expectations. Satisfac-t ion was defined via four ag re e - di sa gr ee state-ments sim ilar to those used by Oliv er (1980a). ' Thesatisfaction items were similar to the following two ex-amples: (1) O ur choice to use the repair outlet was awise o ne . or (2) If I had it to do all over again, Iwould feel differently about using the business.An index of complaint activity was constructed to rep-resent complaint behavior. The operational measure ofcomplaint behavior consisted of a scale containing re-sponses to the personal and direct complaint alternativesidentified and investigated in prior studies of consumer

reactions to marketplace dissatisfaction (Day and Ash1979; Day and Bodur 1978; Day and Landon 1977).These actions ranged from wa rned family and frien ds

'Problems with automobile repairs and service are one of the mostfrequently mentioned consumer complaints. Because of yearly ex-penditures now in excess of $30 billion and the perva.sive u.se, im-portance, and complexity of automobiles, consumer problems withauto repairs and service are worthy of study in themselves (Survey1979; Webbink 1978).

Data were colle cted for the com plete set of six items used byOliver (1980a, p. 463) to operationalize satisfaction. Two of theseitems were omitted on the basis of the results of a reliability analysis(coefficient alpha) which indicated that the two items lowered theoverall reliability of the scale nd were apparently perceived s am -biguou s by the respondents.


4/9

24 JOU RNA L OF MARKE TING RESEARC H, FEBRUARY 19Table 1

INDICATOR CORREL ATIONS, ME AN S, AN D STANDARD DEVIATIONS

yyy^ 4

y' '

yyyyy

y,.70.70.66.70.50.49.42.44.48.49.50.4 3.4 8- . 2 5.7 4.22

y:.5 6.71.85.83.49.47.42.43.48.54.5447.5 4- . 1 9.7 0? l

y..55.8 1.63.69.43.36.30.33.42.42.46.3 8.4 2- . 2 4.6 3IS

y*.4 6.6 869.904^.36.30.36.38.42.423841- 156?

y j.4 3.6 9.7 1.7 5.4 6.42.39.35.42.43.42.3 9.4 4- . 2 1.6 4.1 8

y*111919

.2 0.2 6

.81.73.76.70.7368

.6 67?- 44.5 4SO

yj.31.4 0.3 9.2 4.2 9.8 3.90.77.68.72.69.6 9.7 4- . 3 6.5 0.4 5

y.3 0.41.3 8.2 7.28.80.8 3.77.68.70.6770.7 4- . 3 44 019

y^.3 4.31.3 3.2 421.7 0.6 9.7 5.61.666562.6 9- . 3 74 54 ?

y,o.3 7.4 5.4 7.3 0.2 8.6 8.6 5.6 5.59.90.8287.8 4- . 3 64 9.3 6

y j i.4 44 9.5 1.3 6.3 47?.7 37?.64.85.8390QO- . 3 34819

y . i.3 4.3 3.4 3.2 9.2 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.52.73.7780.8 1- . 2 5501 1

y ]3.3 4.3 4.4 0.3 8.3 8.6 5.6 0.6 3.60.65.75.71.93- . 3 24 0.3 7

y,4.3 1.3 3.4 1.3 8.3 8.6 1.5 6.5 9.54.61.71.73.85

- . 3 645.4 2

y. s- . 1 1- . 1 1- . 0 9- . 0 8- 01- . 2 3- . 2 5- . 3 2- . 3 1- . 3 4- . 3 1- . 2 7- . 2 6- . 2 6

11.2 4

.6 5.6 6.6 6.4 5.52.50.4 6.4 5.37.61.59.48.46.43- . 2 878

Xi15

.2 0.2 5.1 50 844S.4 4.4 6.44.48.52.45.45.41- 14.1 9

InitialMean5.745.965.906.266.285.895.946.146.015.965.956.065.996.04

.5 29.234.37

SD1.43L281.301.21 181.701.671.571.761.331.461.351.641.59

.9 37.121.55

Repli-cationMean5.796.166.216.426.466.015.956.045.915.955.905.956.025.98

.5 29.774.44

S1111111111117.1

"Correlations below the diagonal are based on the initial sample data; correlations above the diagonal are based on the replication sample.to "contacted lawyer or took some legal action." Theconstruct was operationalized as a Guttman scale in aneffort to reflect increasing intensity of possible com-plaint actions. The coefficients of reproducibility andscalability were .98 and .78, respectively/

RESULTSh 375 user respondents were split randomly intoinitial {n = 188) and replication (n = 187) samples. Themodels for both samples were estimated by the systemestimation procedures developed by Joreskog and Sorbom

(1978) and reviewed by Aaker and Bagozzi (1979). Con-struct indicator intercorrelations, means, and standarddeviations for both groups are reported in Table 1.Initial Sample

Overall analysis. Analysis of the hypothesized model(see Figure I) for the initial sample resulted in a chisquare statistic of 305.13 (108 d.f., p < .01).^ Exami-nation of the first derivatives of the endogenous indicatorerror terms and tests of the model allowing additionalpaths among constructs suggested that the fit of the

'The items included, in order of increasing complaining intensity,were: (1) wamed family and friends, (2) returned vehicle for reworkand/or complained to management. (3) contacted manufacturer, (4)contacted Better Business Bureau, state office of consumer affairs,or private consumer agency, and (5) took some legal action.''As is consistent with procedures used in multiwave studies, theindicator coefficients for the two identical m easures of attitude andof intentions were restricted to be equal over the two waves. Theserestrictions result in exactly equal estimates for the unstandardizedparameter values: however, the standardized coefficients may differ.Further, the structural error terms and the errors in measurement forthe two identical attitude and the two intentions measures were al-lowed to he correlated.

model to the data could be improved. Specifically, ttwo exogenous variablesexpectations and disconfmationwere allowed to be correlated and four patamong error terms within three of the constructs wefreed. Two correlated errors were allowed among tfour satisfaction indicators and one each within the tim1 and time 2 attitude constructs. The resulting chi squais 263.82 (103 d.f., p < .01). These results are showin Figure 3.Normally, a significant chi square value is taken evidence that the model is an inadequate fit or poor re

resentation of the data/ Bentler and Bonett (1980) sugest computation of an incremental fit index for coparing a theoretical model with a relevant null modFor purposes of our study, the null model chosen fcomparison was that of no relationships in which onthe error term paths were allowed to be free. This analogous to the test of the hypothesis that the vector regression coefficients is the zero vecto r in a single cterion variable multiple regression analysis.Tests of this null model based on the initial sampresulted in a chi square value of 3599.43 (136 d.f.). Thfinding suggests that the model does result in a substatial improvement over the assumption of no relatioships. This conclusion is supported by a normalized

'The split-half samples in this study were 188 and 187 respondfor the initial and replication studies, resfwctively, and could not described as especially large. However, the eight constructs and indicators result in a somewhat more complex framework than tycally used in most marketing applications. Though Bagozzi (19has suggested that LISREL is appropriate if the sample size minus degrees of freedom exceeds 50, the effects on the distribution of square from small sample sizes and the use of nonmultivariate nmally distributed data are currently unknown.


5/9

DETERMINANTS OF CONSUMER SATISFACTION 25F i g u r e 3

PATH ANALYSIS RESULTS

'Standardized coefficients for the iniitial sample analyses are shown above each arrow; the chi square statistic is 263.82 (103 d.f., p


6/9

26 JOURN AL OF MAR KETIN G RESEARCH FEBRUARY 19

ConstructAttitude 1)Intentions 1)SatisfactionAttitude 2)Intentions 2)

No ofindicators32432

TableRELIABILITY A N D SH ARED

Indicatorreliability rangeInitial

.64-.83.90-.90.76-.96.71-.90.90-92

Replication66 8I.74-.76.66-.83.72-.88.88-92

2VARIANCE

Initial.88.95.95.94.96

ESTIMATESConstructreliabitiry

Replication.87.85.93.90.92

SharedInitial

.70.90.82.84.92

varianceReplication

.70.75.76.79.85

Measurement model. As in the initial sample analysis,each of the indicator coefficients is significant. Exami-nation of their reliabilities see Tab le 2) and the mag-nitude of their error variances indicates that the individ-ual reliability estimates are above .60. The reliabilityestimates for the constructs with multiple indicatorsrange from .85 to .93. The shared variance estimatesrange from .70 for the first attitude construct to .85 forthe second intentions variable.Structural model. In the replication, nine of the 10proposed causal paths are significant. Again, each isconsistent with the hypothesized direction of influence.The eight significant paths based on the initial sampleanalyses are also significant in the replication and arecomparable in magnitude to the initial sample results.The path between the two intentions measures is againnot significant.In sum, the results support the previous findings thatexpectations and disconfirmation appear to be plausibledeterminants of satisfaction. The traditional directionalrelationships between beliefs, attitudes, and intentionsare also confirmed. Moreover, satisfaction is related

negatively to complaint activity as hypothesized.Additional Tests

Disconfirmation as a moderator. In an effort to ex-amine the effect of disconfirmation on the relationshipsbetween expectations and satisfaction and postpurchaseattitudes, we tested an altemative model incorporatingdisconfirmation as a quasi moderator Sharm a, Durand ,and Gur-Arie 1981, p. 295) of these relationships forboth the initial and replication samples. A quasimoder-ator variable is allowed to affect a criterion variable di-rectly and also indirectly through an interactive relation-ship with another variable. For this test, the model ofFigure 3 was reformulated with an additional exogenousvariableexpectations multiplied with disconfirmation.The resulting chi square values are 301 .41 116 d.f.) and194.87 116 d.f.). Th e paths from the interaction vari-able to satisfaction and to postpurchase attitudes are notsignificant for the initial sample p


7/9

DETERMINANTS OF CONSUMER SATISFACTION 7Second, in spite of measurement at two time periodsseparated by four months, several constructs were mea-sured simultaneously on the same questionnaire and are.hence, subject to common response bias. Further, thecomplaint behavior measure is a unidimensional variable( i .e. , from no actions to severe actions) and the corre-lation of this measure with a bidirectional satisfactionmeasure may have been attenuated. Last, the large sig-nificant chi square values suggest some model misspe-cification which in this case is probably due to omissionof constructs likely to influence such a complex behavioras complaining (e.g., costs and benefits of complaining,individual circumstances) and/or measurement error.

The study does, however, overcome some of theshortcomings of previous consumer satisfaction/dissat-isfaction research. The use of panel data helped avoidthe tendency to sample only extreme cases (typicallyfound in complaint files or self-reported in single sur-veys covering the preceding 12 months). Further, theintegration of two existing and complementary theories,i.e., explanations of both consumer satisfaction andcomplaint behavior (topics which are normally not in-cluded simultaneously in empirical research) circum-vents further ove rtheoriz ing an area already criticizedfor that tendency (Russo 1979). In contrast to Oliver'sinoculation study, the focus on automobile services andrepairs represents a situation in which consumers selectfrom a number of altemative outlets and pay for ser-vices, and so more closely reflects normal consumer ac-tivity. The availability of altemative outlets also pro-vides the consumer with more ways to respond to anunsatisfactory experience (e.g., changing outlets).Implications for Satisfaction Research

Several issues pertaining to expectations and discon-firmation as determinants of satisfaction remain to beaddressed. For the relationship between expectations andsatisfaction, several possibilities seem plausible. First,satisfaction as operationalized may be simply anotherform of attitude. In this case, the expectations sat-isfaction link represents another approximation of thegeneral depiction of attitude structure. Second, becauseusers were the focus of the study, their responses mayhave been biased by attempts to respond consistentlywith the first wave of data collection. One could alsoargue that higher levels of satisfaction are reported inefforts to rationalize earlier high expectations. Oliver(1980b) has suggested that certain dogmatic tendenciesresulting from involvement or commitment may makesome individuals rely more heavily on expectation lev-els.For disconfinnation, it is apparent that there is still aneed for further research into why consumers displacethemselves at various points along the disconfirmationcontinuum. Problems remain in the operationalization ofdisconfirmation. As suggested by Day (1980) and Oliver(1980a), issues of the relative appropriateness and effi-cacy of overall versus individual attribute disconfirma-

tion measures badly need resolving. It should also benoted that, though tests of our model using disconfir-mation as a moderator variable did not improve facevalidity of the results or appreciably the overall fit, wefound some evidence that disconfirmation and expecta-tions are correlated constructs.The consumer satisfaction paradigm examined appears

capable of encompassing more concrete behavioral cri-teria in a manner that is consistent with previous theoriesof consumer complaining (e.g., Andreasen 1977; Day1977; Day and Landon 1977; Lando n 1977). S pecifi-cally, satisfaction is found to be related negatively to anindex of complaint reports in both analyses. Because ofthe positive contributions to both consumers and mar-keters that are possible from early expressions of dis-satisfaction, understanding the determinants of com-plaint behavior seems important. The ability of a singlesatisfaction variable to moderately explain complaintbehavior is encouraging. Much as interpersonal andother affective influences have been shown to affect con-sumer satisfaction (cf. Westbrook 1980), both intemalcharacteristics (e.g., perceived risk, assertiveness) andextemal structural factors (e.g.. economic constraints,the benefits and costs from complaining) may also in-hibit or encourage complaint behavior (Richins 1980,1982). Future efforts need to incorporate these variablesinto further research on the determinants of consumersatisfaction and complaining behavior.

Additionally, several other issues related to consumercomplaining behavior are unresolved and in need of con-sideration. For example, the role of the relative intensityof satisfaction and the interaction of (cf Day 1980) dis-satisfaction with the benefits (or the potential payoffs)from complaining need addressing. Further, the con-sumer complaining behavior construct itself warrantsadditional conceptualization and measurement attention.

RE FE RE N CE SAaker, David A. and Richard P. Bagozzi (1979 ), Uno bserv-able Variables in Structural Equation Models with an Ap-plication in Industrial Selling, Journal of arketing Re-search. 16 (May), 147-58.Adlcr, Lee and James D. Hlavacek (1978), Key Repair Ser-vice Factors for Consumer Durable Goods, Journal of arketing Research 15 (November), 63 4-8 .Anderson, Rolph E. (1973), Consu mer Dissatisfaction: TheEffect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived ProductPerformance, Journal o f Marketing Research 10 (Febru-ary) 38^W.Andreasen, Alan R. (1977), A Taxono my of Consu mer Sat-isfaction/Dissatisfaction Measures, Journal of ConsumerAjfairs. U (Winter), 1 1 -2 3 .and Arthur Best (1977), Con sumer s ComplainDoes Business Respond, Harvard Business Review. 55(July-Augus t) , 9 3 - 1 0 1 .Bagozzi, R. B. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.(1981), Evalu ating Structural Equation Models withUnobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Com-


8/9

28 JOURN AL OF MA RKE TING RESEARCH FEBRUARY 19m e n t , Journal of Marketing Research. 18 (Augus t) , 37 5-81 .Bentler. P. M. and Douglas G. Bonett (1980 ), Signif icanceTests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of CovarianceStructures , Psychological Bulletin. 88 , 588-606 .Bourgeois, J . C. and James G. B ames (1979), Viability andProfile of the Consumerist Segment, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 5 (March) . 217-28 .

Cardozo, Richard N. (1965). A n Experimental Study ofConsumer Effort, Expectation and Satisfaction, Journal ofMarketing Research. 2 (Augus t ) , 244-9 .Day, Ralph L. (1977), Exte ndin g the Concept of ConsumerSatisfaction. in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol . 4 .W.D. Perreault . ed. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Re-search, 149-54.(1980), Rese arch Perspectives on Consum er Com -plaining Beh avio r. in Theoretical Developments in Mar-keting, C. W. Lamb and P. M. Dunne, eds . Chicago:American Market ing Associa t ion. 211-15.and Stephen B. Ash (197 9). Co nsu me r Response toDissatisfaction with Durable Pr od uct s, in Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 6, W. L. Wilkie, ed. Miam i:Association for Consumer Research. 438-44.and Muzaffer Bodur (1978 ). Co nsu me r Response toDissatisfaction with Services and Inta ngib les.' in Advancesin Consumer Research, Vol. 5, H. Keith Hunt, ed. AnnArbor: Association for Consumer Research, 263-72.and E. Laird Landon (1977), To wa rd a Theory ofConsumer Complaining Beha vior , in Consumer and In-dustrial Buying Behavior. A. G. Woodside , J. N. Sheth,and P. D. Bennett, eds. New York: North-Holland. 425-37 .Fishbein, Martin and leek Ajzen (1975),Belief Attitude. In-tention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Re-search. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Fom ell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), Evalu atingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variablesand Measurement ETTO T,^ Journat of Marketing Research.

18 (February), 39-5 0,and Robert A. Westbrook (197 9). A n ExploratoryStudy of Assediveness, Aggressiveness, and ConsumerComplaining Beha vior . in Advances in Consumer Re-search. Vol. 6, W. L. Wilkie, ed. Miami: Association forConsumer Research, 105-10.Gronh aug, Kjell (1977), Exp loring Consum er Com plainingBehavior: A Model and Some Empirical Resu lts . in Ad -vances in Consumer Research. Vol. 4, W. D . Perreault, ed.Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research. 159-65.; and Johan Am dt (1980 ). C ons um er Dissatisfactionand Complaining Behavior as Feedback: A ComparativeAnalysis of Public and Private Delivery Sy ste m s. in Ad -vances in Consumer Research. Vol. 7, Jerry Olson, ed. SanFrancisco: Association for Consumer Research, 324-8.Helson, Harry (1964). Adaptation Level Theory. New York:Harper and Row.Joreskog. Karl and Dag Sorbom (1978), LISRE L IV: Analysisof Linear Structural Relationships hy the Method of Ma xi-mum Likelihood. Chicago : National Educational Resources,Inc.Landon, E. Laird (1977), A Model of Consum er ComplaintBehavior , in Consumer Satisfaction. Dissatisfaction, andComplaining Behavior, Ralph L. Day, ed. Bloom ington:Indiana University, 31-5.LaTour. Stephen A. and Nancy C. Peat (1979 ), Con ceptu al

and Methodological Issues in Consumer Satisfaction Rsearch, in Advances in Consumer Research. Vol . 6 , L. Wilkie. ed. Miami: Association for Consumer Resear4 3 1 - 7 .Munns, Joyce M. (197 8). Co nsum er Com plaints as Pre-pchasc Information: An Evaluation of Better Busine.ss BureReports to Consumers . Journal of Consumer Affairs,(Summer) , 76 -87 .Oliver, Richard L. (1977), Effect of Expectation and Dconfirmation on Postexposure Product Evaluations: An Atemative Interpretation, Jourtial of Applied Psycholo62 , 4 8 0 - 6 .(1980a ). A Cog nitive Model of the Antecedents aConsequences of Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Mketing Research, 17 (November) , 46 0- 9.1980b), Theore tical Bases of Consum er SatisfactResearch: Review. Critique, and Future Di rect ion , in Toretical Developments in Marketing, C. W. Lamb andM. Dunne, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Associati2 0 6 - 1 0 .(I 98 I) . Measu tt;ment and Evaluation of SatisfactProcesses in Retail Settings, Journal of Retailing,(Fal l ) . 25-47.Olson. Jerry C. and Philip A. Dover (1979 ), Discon firmatiof Consumer Expectations Through Product Trial, Jourof Applied Psychology, 64 , 179-89 .Peter, J . Paul (1981), Con struct Validity: A Review of BaIs.sucs and Marketing Practices, Journal of Marketing R.search. 18 (May). 133-4 5.Richins, Marsha L. (1980), Co nsu me r Perceptions of Coand Benefits Associated With Co m pla inin g, in RefiniConcepts and Measures of Consumer Satisfaction and Coplaining Behavior. H. Keith Hunt and Ralph L. Day, eBloomington: Indiana Univers i ty . 50-3 .

(1982), A n Investigation of Con sum ers ' AttitudToward Com plaining, in Advances in Consumer ResearVol. 9, Andrew Mitchell, ed. St. Louis: Association Consumer Research (forthcoming).Russo, J . Edward (1979 ), Co nsu me r Satisfaction/D issatfaction: An Outsid er's V iew , in Advances in ConsumResearch, Vol. 6. W. L. Wilkie, ed. Miam i: Associatfor Consumer Research, 453-5.Sharma, Subhash, Richard M. Durand, and Odcd Gur-A(1981), Identification and Analysis of Mod erator Vaab le s , Journal of Marketing Research. 18 (Augus t ). 29300.Shuptrine. F, Kelly and Gerhard Wenglorz (198 1), Co mphensive Identification of Consumers ' Marketplace Probleand What They Do Abtiut The m, ' in Advances in Cosumer Re.search, Vol. 8. Kent Monroe, ed. WashingtAssociation for Consumer Research, 687-92. Surv ey of Automob ile Repair Se rvic es (197 9), Office the Secretary of Transportation, Division of Consumer A

fairs, Washington, DC.Warland, Rex H., Robert O. Herrmann, and Jane Will(1975), Dissatisfied Consum ers: Who Gets Upset and WTakes Act ion, Journal of Consumer A ffairs. 9 (Winte148-63 .Webbink. Douglas W. (1978). Autom otive Repair: DoRegulation or Consum er Information Matte r, Journal Consumer Research, 5 (December ) . 206-9 .Westbrook. Robert A. (1980 ), Intraper sonal Affective Infences Upon Consumer Satisfaction with Products . Journof Consumer Research. 1 (J une ) , 49 -54 .


9/9

+a.1983.selected det+a.1983.selected determinants of consumer satisfactionerminants of consumer...

Documents