Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

Transcription

1 Customer Satisfaction and Customer Behavior: The Differential Role of Brand and Category Expectations Author(s): Kamal Gupta and David W. Stewart Source: Marketing Letters, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp Published by: Springer Stable URL: Accessed: 19/11/ :48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Marketing Letters.

2 Marketing Letters 7:3 (1996); Kluwer Academic Publishers, Manufactured in The Netherlands Customer Satisfaction and Customer Behavior: The Differential Role of Brand and Category Expectations KAMAL GUPTA Department of Marketing, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA DAVID W.STEWART Analytical Services Department, A. C. Nielsen Company, New York, NY {Received / Accepted } Key words: customer satisfaction, expectations, norms, recommendations, repurchase Abstract Previous researc has suggested that consumers use multiple strands to evaluate their satisfaction with a product and to establish postpurchase behavioral intention. However, prior empirical research has focused on which individual standard best predictsatisfaction. In contrast, this article develops and tests a model of consumer satisfaction and postpurchase behavioral intention which consumersimultaneously use multiple standards - perceptions of performance, brand expectations, and category expectations. The results of an experiment for a simulated service encounter provide support for the proposition that consumers use multiple standards and that these standards have differential effects on such postpurchase outcomes as satisfaction, repurchase intention, and willingness to recommend. Brand expectations are shown to be better predictors of affective outcomes (such as satisfaction), while category expectations are shown to be better predictors of behavioral outcomes (repurchase and recommendation). Consistent with prior research, perceived performance is shown to have a strong effect on both satisfaction and behavioral intention. Achieving customer satisfaction has long been an important objective of marketing. In recent years it has received growing attention from marketing researchers and practitioners alike. Customer satisfaction has become an explicit corporate objective for numerous firms, and it is frequently linked to efforts to attain higher business profitability (Business International, 1990). This focus on satisfaction has, in turn, spawned a large industry and body of research concerned with understanding the drivers of satisfaction and measuring its impact on a firm's business (Loro, 1992). Research on customer satisfaction has focused on the development of both normative measurement methodologies and theoretical foundations that explain the postpurchase responses of consumers. The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm has been the dominant theoretical approach for studying consumer satisfaction with products and services (Cardozo, 1965; Day, 1977; Oliver, 1980; Parsuraman et al., 1984, 1986). Despite its dominance, there remain a number of unresolved issues regarding the paradigm. For example, the paradigm suggests that if the perceived performance of a product or service is consistent with consumers' expectations, then customers will be satisfied and be more likely to repurchase. Common experience suggests that such relationships between satisfaction and

3 250 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART repurchase may not always hold. Consumers often complain about products and services but may not switch to competitive products. This raises the question of when satisfaction is really important, at least in those circumstances in which dissatisfied customers are inclined to continue purchasing. It also raises the converse question of whether customers might be satisfied but still switch away from the satisfying brand. In this research we posit a theoretical framework that suggests that consumers use multiple standards to evaluate the performance of a product or service. Such multiple standards may explain both the reasons for the relatively frequently observed lack of relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intention and the conflicting findings of prior research on customer satisfaction. Specifically, we focus on two standards consumers may use for evaluating products - brand expectations and category expectations. We argue theoretically and provid empirical evidence that the use of multiple standards provides a more complet explanation for and more robust predictor of customer satisfaction and behavior intentions. Our empirical results demonstrate that in the context of the expectancy-disconfirmation model, brand expectations play an important role in the determination of satisfaction, but they have little or no direct influence on such postpurchase behaviors as repurchase, switching, or recommendations. On the other hand, category expectations are shown to play a dominant role in the determination of behavioral outcomes, but such expectations make a more modest contribution to effective outcomes: feelings and satisfaction. Consistent with prior research, our results confirm the importance of perceived performance in the determination of both satisfaction and postpurchase behavioral intention. 1. Theory and research on consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm suggests that key determinants of satisfaction judgments are expectations about and perceptions of performance (Oliver, 1980). Considerable attention has been given to the definitions and operationalizations of these elements in the literature. We will briefly consider each in turn. /./. Expectations Expectations have been defined as beliefs or predictions about a product's (brand's) attributes (Olson and Dover, 1979; Oliver, 1980). Expectations of performance represent consumers' perceptions of the most likely performance of a product or service. Expectations have been shown to be affected by average brand product performance (Miller, 1977) and by advertising (Olson and Dover, 1979), among other factors. This conceptualization of expectations has a strong theoretical grounding in Helson's adaptation level theory ( 1964), but empirical research has offered only equivocal support: evaluations based on brand expectations have been shown on occasion to be poor determinants of satisfaction (Woodruff et al., 1983, Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins, 1987). One explanation for such findings is that consumers use standards for postpurchase evaluation other than average

4 THE DIFFERENTIAL ROLE OF BRAND AND CATEGORY EXPECTATIONS 25 1 brand expectations. Evidence that these multiple standards play a role in product evaluation has been provided by Tse and Wilton (1988), who found that expectations of an ideal product, as well as brand expectations, were related to satisfaction. Woodruff et al. (1983) have suggested that consumers rely on standards that reflect both the desired performance of a brand and the levels of performance that are actually possible given available alternatives. The notion of experience based norms is based onthibaut and Kelly's (1959) comparison level theory. Thus, performance is evaluated relative to a comparison level that is a composite of available alternatives (LaTour and Peat, 1979). Indeed, there is some evidence that unavailable alternatives, so called "phantom products," may also influence consumers' evaluations (Farquahr and Pratkanis, 1987). Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins (1987) used brand expectations, best brand norms, and category expectations as standards of comparison. They found that satisfaction was better explained when "best brand" norms or "category" norms were used as standards of comparison rather than brand expectations. It is important to note however, that their study tested the influence of each normal individually. It is possible that consumers possess and use both brand expectations based on information and experience with a given brand, and category expectations based on information and experience with several or all of the brands in the category. Tse and Wilton (1988) studied two norms in detail - brand expectations and ideal brand. They found that while the ideal brand norm had a significant influence on consumers' perceptions of product performance, only brand expectations had a significant impact on satisfaction. Although no direct influence of the ideal brand norm on satisfaction was found, these results provide some support for the proposition that consumers use multiple norms for evaluating performance. They also suggesthat different standards of evaluation influence different postpurchase outcomes. Similarly, Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, and Zeithaml (1993) examined consumers' simultaneous use of "will" and "should" expectations (predicted and ideal norms) at the brand level. Both types of expectations appeared to influence postpurchase outcomes. Thus, prior researc has suggested and providesome modest evidence that consumers use several different standards for evaluating products and for determining satisfaction, repurchase intention, and other postpurchase behaviors. At least three standards of evaluation have been identified: brand expectations, category expectations, and expectations of an ideal product. Prior research also demonstrates that consumers simultaneously use both brand expectations and notions of an "ideal" product in making their evaluations of products. Yet an "ideal" is highly idiosyncratic and may or may not be realistic. On the other hand, expectations about available alternatives, category norms, represent a more objective, and, in the short term, more realistic standard for evaluation. Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins (1987) observe that the product category norm is a potentially more relevant and less abstract norm than the ideal brand norm. Although prior research has shown that category norms are important, no research to date has examined consumers' simultaneous use of brand and category norms. The present study fills this gap in the literature by focusing on consumers' simultaneous use brand and category expectations. Expectations are not the only factors that appear to influence postpurchase perceptions and behavior, however.

5 252 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART 1.2. Perceived performance Some empirical research sugggests that expectations may play a lesser role in determining postpurchase outcomes than theory might otherwise suggest. This research suggest that expectation may be an unnecessary, or at least less important, mediator of postpurchase outcomes than simple cognitive summaries of product performance. For example, Churchill and Suprenant (1982), Tse and Wilton (1988), and Fornell (1992) have demonstrated that perceived performance directly affectsatisfaction especially when the consumer is very familiar with a product. Such findings might be explained by the fact that in such cases, expectations are very similar to actual performance (Johnson and Fornell, 1991). Interestingly, the study conducted by Anderson and Sullivan (1993) perceived quality (performance), and not expectations, had a direct effect on satisfaction. Most researchers have defined perceived performance in terms of a composite of attributes or benefits received or in terms of an overall measure of perceived performance (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins, 1987; Tse and Wilton, 1988). The expectancydisconfirmation paradigm suggests that performance indirectly affects consumers' satisfaction and postpurchase behavior by confirming or disconfirming expectations. Tse and Wilton (1988) argue that apart from this indirect influence, product performance has a direct impact on satisfaction. LaTour and Peat (1979) support this argument by suggesting that if a product performs well, consumers are likely to be satisfied regardless of their expectations before the product was bought and consumed. Thus, it would appear important to account for the direct effect of performance perceptions on consumer satisfaction and behavioral intention any investigation of the effect of multiple standards of postpurchase outcomes Disconfirmation and satisfaction Research and theory related to consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction have consistently emphasized the role of confirmation or disconfirmation of expectations in the determination of postpurchase outcomes such as satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Disconfirmation has most often been measured as either a subjectivevaluation (Oliver, 1980) or a subtractive function between some standard of comparison and performance (LaTour and Peat, 1979). For example, Hunt 1977) defined satisfaction as "not the pleasurableness of the experience... it is the evaluation rendered that the experience was at least as good as it was supposed to be" (p. 479). This definition carries with it an explicit reference to some comparison standard. Satisfaction may also manifest itself in certain behavioral outcomes: changes in repurchase intention or actual repurchase, word-of-mouth communication, and complaint behavior. Clearly, these outcomes are influenced by factors other than satisfaction, however. For example, repurchase behavior is obviously influenced by the continuing availability of the focal product and the availability of alternatives. Word-of-mouth commu-

6 THE DIFFERENTIAL ROLE OF BRAND AND CATEGORY EXPECTATIONS 253 nication and complaint behavior are also likely to be influenced by consumers' involvement levels, among other things. Nevertheless, these behavioral outcomes have been linked strongly to satisfaction and are frequently included among measures of consumer satisfaction (Johnson and Fornell, 1991; Fornell, 1992). Much of the previous research has implicity or explicitly assumed that satisfaction drives repurchase behavior. In other words, when a brand performs as expected, consumers will be satisfied and as a result of this experience of satisfaction they will repurchase the brand. This may not always be the case, as we noted earlier. Thus, there is a need to explicitly measure the effects of disconfirmation both consumers' felt satisfaction and other measures of behavioral intentions. 2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses The previous discussion suggests that alternative models of satisfaction within the more general expectancy-disconfirmation framework may provide a more complete picture of the determinants of satisfaction and postpurchase intentions. We propose and test such a model that has these three distinctive features relative to prior research: It includes the direct influence of perceived product performance on satisfaction and postpurchase behavior behavioral intention; It includes the simultaneous use of multiple standards for evaluation of product performance, specifically brand and category expectations; and It examines the differential role of individual perceptions and expectations on alternative measures of postpurchase outcomes. This framework is illustrated in Figure 1. Most empirical studies of consumer satisfaction have either manipulated product performance while holding expectations constant, or, more often, have soughto simultaneously manipulate or measurexpectations and performance. In light of the relative nature of most performance evaluations such approaches make it very difficult to fully separate the effects of expectations from performance evaluations even within the context of an experimental design. An alternative approach, which has been employed in the present study, provides consumers with an identical description of product performance while varying only expectations. Such an approach has the advantage of clearly isolating the effects of expectations on performance evaluations from differences in objective performance experiences. This does not mean that performance evaluations will be constant, however. Rather, such evaluations may vary considerably based not only on the brand and category expectations provided in the study but also on respondents' prior histories and individual differences (Wall, Dickey, and Talarzyk, 1979). Thus, perceptions of performance may be inextricably linked to consumers history and expectations. Nevertheless, there remains an empirical question regarding whether direct measures of perceived performance, measures of disconfirmation of expectations (of any sort), or both provide the greatest prediction and explanatory power in the context of postpurchase outcomes.

7 254 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART Figure 1 : Performance Evaluation Simuttanaous Us* of Brand and Category Expectations Evaluation Outooma I I I Catagory lexpactatlonal*^^. ^_^^ ^*['*m*-1i"ysl > Satisfaction «^,, ^*\ ^ZS >Affctlv -^ ^. Facings " IParcalvad 7^Biand^*\ _ ^*V Dlaeonf. J S 5 ^ ^ Expectations! ^. Repurchase «^ ^Bahavloral " Raeommand ^^^ 2. /. Performance evaluation using brand and category expectations When performance is compared with both brand and category expectations, this comparison may result in confirmation or disconfirmation of brand expectations, category expectations, or both. It is also possible that one of these expectations will be weighted more heavily in the evaluation process depending on the outcome under consideration. For example, it is likely that category expectations will play a greater role in determining behavioral intentions because such expectations suggest the nature of available alternatives. The category normal encompasses consumers' perceptions of competitive offerings (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins, 1987) and may therefore be more strongly associated with intentions to repurchase or switch brands. Such perceptions of competitive offerings may also influence consumer satisfaction. On the other hand, product performance and disconfirmation of individual brand expectations may influence product satisfaction but may have less influence such postpurchase behavior as repurchase if there are no alternatives perceived to be as good or better. Similarly, switching behavior may occur even in the presence of high perceived performance and high satisfaction if other members of the product category are perceived to be superior. Thus, contrary to some prior research (e.g., Johnson and Fornell, 1991) there is good reason to assume that satisfaction and repurchase behavior may not be tightly linked and that brand and category norms may have very different effects on these outcomes. The present research examines these linkages. In previous research expectations have been treated as either higher or lower than the performance level. When both brand and category expectations are used to evaluate performance, the issue is more complex. Brand expectations may be higher or lower than the category expectations. Thus disconfirmation of expectations may take a number of different forms. Both brand and category expectations may be positively or negatively disconfirmed. Alternatively, disconfirmation of one set of expectations may not imply discon-

8 THE DIFFERENTIAL ROLE OF BRAND AND CATEGORY EXPECTATIONS 255 firmation of the other set. Indeed, it might be the case that one set of expectations is negatively disconfirmed while the other set of expectations is positively disconfirmed. The present study examinesix scenarios of different relative levels of performance (P), brand (B), and category (C) expectations. Cases 1 through 3 represent situations in which category expectations are lower than the brand expectations. Cases 4 through 6 represent situations in which brand expectations are lower than the category expectations. These six different scenarios are l.c<b<p, 2.C<P<B, 3.P<C<B, 4. B<C<P, 5.B<P<C, 6.P<B<C. As noted earlier the influence of discontinuation satisfaction and repurchase intention is likely to vary considerably depending on the relative relationships of perceived performance, brand expectations, and category expectations. In cases 1 and 4, performance is higher than both brand and category expectations. Therefore, even if the consumer were using multiple norms, there would be no ambiguity in these cases tha the product is superior. Consumers are therefore likely to be satisfied with the brand and express their intentions to repurchase it. Cases 3 and 6 represent the opposite scenarios where performance is worse than both brand and category expectations. Once again, there is no ambiguity in evaluating product performance. In these cases consumers are likely to be dissatisfied and may intend to switch brands. Cases 2 and 5 provide interesting scenarios. In case 2 performance is below brand expectation but above category expectation. Case 5 represents a scenario in which performance is above brand expectation but below category expectation. In these two cases, use of multiple norms does not result in unambiguous product evaluation. We propose that brand expectations will be better predictors of affective reactions such as satisfaction and feelings in such situations. This is because the brand, as opposed to the category, is the source of dissatisfaction. On the other hand, since category expectations represent consumers' perceptions of the competitive market situation (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins, 1987), behavioral outcomes such as repurchase, not switching brands, and recommendation will be better predicted by the disconfirmation of category expectations. When performance is below category expectations the consumer is more likely to switch brands. When performance is above category expectations, the consumer is more likely to repurchase and recommend. We propose the following hypotheses based on the above discussion: Hypothesis 1: Performance has a direct and positiv effect on satisfaction and repurchase intention. Hypothesis 2: Consumers use multiple norms (brand and category expectations) when evaluating products - that is, a model with multiple norms will predict consumer satisfaction and postpurchase behavior better than a model with only brand or category expectations.

9 256 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART Hypothesis 3: Disconfirmation of brand expectations effects consumer satisfaction and postpurchase behavioral intention. Positive disconfirmation has a positive effect on these variables, while negative disconfirmation has a negative effect on these variables. Disconfirmation of brand expectations will be more strongly associated with affective outcomes (such as satisfaction and feelings) than disconfirmation of category expectations. Hypothesis 4: Disconfirmation /"category expectations effects consumer satisfaction and postpurchase behavioral intention. Positive disconfirmation has a positive effect on these variables, while negative disconfirmation has a negative effect on these variables. Disconfirmation of category expectations will be more strongly associated with behavioral intentions (such as, repurchase and recommendation) than disconfirmation of brand expectations. 3. Methodology Brand and category expectations were manipulated via verbal descriptions of services offered and performance provided in the past. The manipulations were expressed in the form of scenarios about a specific bank and about all the banks in the city. Respondents were exposed to information about banks in general in the city and about a specific bank. Brand expectations were operational ized in terms of what a given bank (Bank B) was likely to offer on a set of service related attributes. Category expectations, the other hand, were operational ized as what banks in general in the city were likely to offer on the same set of attributes. Performance was described as a servic encounter tha the subject had in a recent visit to the bank (a similar approach for manipulating expectations via verbal descriptions was used by Boulding et al., 1993). The selection of attributes for performance evaluation was based on focus group discussions conducted prior to the primary study Sample A total of 147 students from the Midwest and West Coast of the United States participated in the study. These respondents were assigned to one of the six scenarios described above. The sample was a mix of students, employees of a large business organization, and staff employees of a university. All were experienced with banks and had one or more current banking accounts. The age of the subjects ranged from twenty to sixty-six years; 55 percent were males and 45 percent were females Product stimuli The scenarios and stimulus descriptions used in the study were submitted to a series of independent pretests prior to the initiation of the formal study. These pretests were conducted to ensure that the six descriptions represented the desired brand and category expectations. Results of the pretests confirmed that the scenarios offeredifferent levels

10 THE DIFFERENTIAL ROLE OF BRAND AND CATEGORY EXPECTATIONS 257 of category expectations, brand expectations, and perceptions of performance consistent with the intent of the study. In addition, pretests were used to determine the extent to which the scenarios were involving. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of involvement after reading a given scenario. The twenty-item Zaichkowsky (1985) inventory scale was used to measure involvement. The mean involvement level in tl is pretest was 6.5 on seven-point scale. Involvement was similar across all six scenarios. Thus, the scenarios appeared to elicit a consistently high level of involvement among respondents and differences in expectations were not confounded with the level of involvement Procedure Subjects were provided information about service related attributes for a specific bank and the banks in general in the city. A between-subjects designed was employed. Brand expectations were manipulated to be either higher or lower than category expectations. This was accomplished by either describing Bank B as a much better bank than others in the city or by suggesting that Bank B was not as good as the other banks. Respondents' perceptions of brand and category expectations were obtained. These measures, along with earlier pretests, served as a manipulation check for the different conditions. Ratings were obtained on the following attributes: (1) employee service, (2) employee friendliness, (3) account updating, and (4) solving account-related problems. In addition, a single item rating overall service quality was obtained. Composite scores for each respondent were obtained by averaging over all of the attributes.1 All measurements were on a nine-point bipolar scale ranging from "very poor" to "very good." After reading the description of their experience with the bank, subjects were asked to rate its perceived performance. Ratings of performance were obtained for each of the four individual attributes (employee friendliness, accounting updating, employee service, solving account related problems) and overall service quality Manipulation checks A comparison of means across the six conditions indicated that the manipulations were effective. Note that the description of performance was constant across all conditions (manipulation check results are reported in Table 1 ). Table I. Manipulation checks: Mean values of independent variables Case Condition Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 N 1 C<B<P C<P<B P<C<B B<C<P B<P<C P<B<C Note: C = category expectations, B = brand expectations, P = perceived performance.

11 258 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART 3.5. Independent variables Respondents' numeric ratings of category expectations, brand expectations, and perceived performance were used as independent variables in the study Dependent measures Respondents were asked to provide responses on measures related to satisfaction and behavioral intentions. These were measured on a nine point scale /. Satisfaction. Affective outcomes were measured both in terms of "feelings" and "overall satisfaction." A five-item bipolar scale was used to obtain respondents' feelings. These five items were frustrated/contented, displeased/pleased, disappointed/fulfilled, unimpressed/impressed, and angry/happy. Overall satisfaction was measured on a singleitem scale ranging from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied Behavioral intentions. The most typical measure of postevaluation behavioral response has been repurchase intention (Oliver, 1980; Cadottet al., 1987; Tse and Wilton, 1988). The behavioral intention measures in the present study included intention to repurchase, likelihood of recommending the bank to a friend, and likelihood of switching to another bank. The responses were obtained on "very unlikely/very likely" scale. 4. Analysis and results The present study examined the influence of expectations, perceived performance, and disconfirmation of expectations using regression analysis. Subtractive measures of disconfirmation of expectations was used in the analyses.2 Although differences scores have been shown to have serious limitations (Peter et al., 1993), such limitations appear to be problematic only when there is a high correlation between the measures used to compute the difference score. In the present study the correlations between both expectations and performance were low (Table 2). Thus, it was reasonable to employ difference scores, especially in the context of prior research that has regularly employedifference measures to operationalize disconfirmation of expectations. Covariates, such as knowledge and involvement, were not significant and were therefore not included in the analyses. The dependent variable was modeled as a function of disconfirmation of category and brand expectations, and perceived performance. Results of the regression analyses for all dependent variables are presented in Table Satisfaction Analysis using the composite measure of feelings as the dependent variable produced a statistically significant model (R2 = 0.59). The parameter for disconfirmation of category

12 THE DIFFERENTIAL ROLE OF BRAND AND CATEGORY EXPECTATIONS 259 Table 2. Correlation matrix of independent and dependent variables. Category Brand expectations expectations Performance Feelings Satisfaction Recommend Repurchase Category expectations 1.00 Brand expectations Performance Feelings 0.04* -0.08* Satifaction 0.05* -0.01* Recommend * Repurchase * *p values greater than Table 3. Regression results: parameter estimates and (t-values). Independent Variables* Nested model Dependent variable Intercept P-C P-B P R2 F** p> F Affective: Feelings (3.80) (1.95) (5.24) (10.17) (3.37) (5.38) (10.99) (3.37) (2.23) (10.99) Satisfaction (2.82) (1.95) (4.31) (11.73) (2.37) (4.49) (12.58) (1.75) (2.27) (12.27) Behavioral: Repurchase (4.25) (5.64) (1.34) (3.65) (2.59) (1.76) (4.83) (4.03) (5.79) (4.03) Recommend (3.35) (7.66) (0.29) (4.07) (1.15) (0.93) (5.34) (3.38) (7.75) (4.25) Note: C - category expectations, B - brand expectrations, P - perceived performance. *F-value for the nested model test is = F^. kf) [(RSSr-RSSu)l{ku-kr)\l[RSSJ{n - * )], where RSSU = residual sum of squares for the unrestricted model, with ku parameters, RSSr - residual sum of squares for the restricted model, with kr parameters, and n = number of observations.

13 260 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART expectations was marginally significant. The parameters for disconfirmation of brand expectations and performance were both significant and positive. These results indicate that lower brand expectations result in more positive disconfirmation and hence positive feelings toward the brand. Higher perceived performance also results in more positive feelings. Analysis with the single indicant of "overall satisfaction" as the dependent variable also produced a statistically significant (R2 = 0.61). The parameters for disconfirmation of brand expectations and perceived performance were significant and positive, while the parameter for disconfirmation of category expectations was marginally significant. These results indicate that brand expectations have a strong influence on satisfaction with the brand. The larger value of the performance coefficient also suggests that perceptions of performance as a very strong determinant of satisfaction. Discussion. Our resultsuggest that brand expectations are less important in determining satisfaction than perceived performance. Perceived performance is a far stronger determinant of satisfaction and feelings about the producthan is disconfirmation of either brand or category expectations, this may be due to the fact that all of the respondents were at least somewhat familiar with banks. Thus, consistent with the suggestion of Johnson and Fornell (1991), expectations may be less important when consumers are well experienced with a product. This finding is also consistent with Hypothesis 1 and providestrong support for including perceived performance in studies designed to assess customer satisfaction. At minimum, these resultsuggesthat the more direct measure of perceived performance may be a more useful predictor of customer satisfaction than more complex composite measures of disconfirmation of expectations. The parameter values in the regression analyses indicate that disconfirmation of brand expectations make a modest contribution to satisfaction. Disconfirmation of category expectations is the least important determinant of satisfaction in our model. A test of nested models (Table 3) indicated that consistent with Hypothesis 2, disconfirmation of both brand and category norms make significant contributions to the explanation of consumers' affective responses. In other words, there is evidence tha the use multiple norms provides a more robust description of satisfaction. Further, in the present study, disconfirmation of brand expectations is a better predictor of consumers' feelings and satisfaction (b = and 0.15, respectively) than disconfirmation of category expectations (b and 0.07, respectively), thus confirming Hypothesis 3. Both of these differences in b are statistically significant (/ = 3.64, p <.01 for the feelings measure and / = 3.53, p <.01 for the satisfaction measure) Behavioral intentions Analysis with repurchase intention as the dependent variable produced a statistically significant model {R2 = 0.33). The parameter for disconfirmation of brand expectations was not significant. Parameters for both disconfirmation of category expectations and perceived performance were significant and positive. These results indicate that lower category expectations result in higher intention to repurchase. Higher perceived performance

14 THE DIFFERENTIAL ROLE OF BRAND AND CATEGORY EXPECTATIONS 26 1 also results in higher intention to continue with the same brand. In contrasto the results obtained with the satisfaction measures, discontinuation of the category norm and perceived performance make relatively equal contributions to the determination of repurchases intention. Further, the difference between the beta associated with category disconfirmation and the beta associated with brand disconfirmation was statistically significant (r = 4.06, p <.01). Finally, regression analysis with intention to recommend as the dependent variable also produced a statistically significant model (R2 = 0.43). The parameters for disconfirmation of category expectations and for perceived performance were significant and positive. These results indicate that when category expectations are low consumers are more likely to recommend the same brand to others. The same is true when perceived performance is higher. The parameter for disconfirmation of brand expectations was not significant, which suggests that intention to recommend the brand is not influenced by this variable. Perceived performance and disconfirmation of category expectations made relatively equal contributions to consumers' willingness to recommend. Further, the difference between the beta associated with category disconfirmation and the beta associated with brand disconfirmation was statistically significant (/ = 7.32, p <.01). This latter finding is consistent with Hypothesis 4. Discussion. Category expectations play an important role in predicting behavioral intentions, but brand expectations appear to have little influence on these measures. One explanation for these results is that behavioral intentions are expressed in the context of available alternatives. Thus, the intention to repurchase or recommend a particular brand depends on wha the category has to offer. These findings also suggesthat behavioral measures are not simply additional manifestations of a unitary latent construct associated with satisfaction. Rather, different processes appear to be at working in producing feelings or satisfaction versus those that produce behavioral intentions. At minimum, these resultsupporthe use of multiple measures for the outcomes of postpurchase evaluation. It is also clear that perceived performance plays an important role in the determination of these behavioral responses. Finally, like the results associated which the satisfaction measures, a test of nested models (Table 3) indicates that a model that incorporates multiple standards provides greater explanatory power. These findings, taken together with those associated with the satisfaction measures, confirm Hypothesis 1 through 4 - that is, disconfirmations of category expectations are positively related to satisfaction and behavioral intentions, but disconfirmations of brand expectations are significantly related to satisfaction only. 5. Conclusions As suggested by some recent consumer satisfaction studies (Boulding et al., 1993; Fornell, 1992; Johnson and Fornell, 1991; Tse and Wilton, 1988) the present study demonstrates that the use of a single standard of comparison does not adequately explain the underlying processes of performance evaluation. The present study providestrong theoretical and empirical support for extending the expectations-disconfirmation paradigm by including

15 262 KAMAL GUPTA AND DAVID W. STEWART the simultaneous use of multiple standards - brand expectations, category expectations, and perceived performance. These findings also emphasize the importance of category expectations in the evaluation process. Indeed, such expectations appear to be more useful predictors of behavioral intention than brand expectations. Our findings also reinforce previous research findings that perceived performance may be as good or better than (brand) expectations in predicting satisfaction, at least in the context of familiar products and services. Despite the limitations of an experiment where expectations and performance are manipulated rather than being observed, the study raises some important new questions about the measurement of consumer satisfaction and the assumptions of strong associations between effective measures and behavioral intentions. The findings of the present study have important implications given the current emphasis on customer satisfaction as an indicator of marketing success. Our results show that satisfaction with performance is but one part of the total picture. A more complete picture of postevaluation phenomena requires examination of different standards that may be used to evaluate performance. Satisfaction alone does not guarantee repurchase. What the competition has to offer plays an important role in determining behavior. Brand expectations appear to be less important in the determination of behavioral intentions. Acknowledgments This paper is based on a dissertation by the first author, which was carried out under the direction of the second author. The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments provided by the editor and the anonymous reviewers. Notes 1. An analysis of the associations among these specific items suggested that they were all manifestations of the same underlying dimensions. Alpha coefficients ranged from.99 to Analyses employing other operationalization of expectancy and disconfirmation failed to produce results appreciably different from those reported below. References Anderson, Eugene W, and Mary W. Sullivan. (1993). "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms." Marketing Science 12 (Spring), Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valeria A. Zeithaml (1993). "A Dynamic process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions." Journal of Marketing Research 30 (February), Business International. (1990). Maximizing Customer Satisfaction: Meeting Demands of the New Global Marketplace. New York: Business International Corporation. 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), Cardozo, Richard N. (1965). "An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Expectation and Satisfaction." Journal of Marketing Research 2 (August),

16 GROWTH-CYCLE DECOMPOSITION DIFFUSION MODEL 263 Churchill, Gilbert A., and Carol Suprenant. (1982). "An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction." Journal of Marketing Research 19 (November), Day, Ralph L. (1977). "Toward a Process Model of Consumer Satisfaction." In H. Keith Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, (pp ). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Farquhar, Peter H., and Anthony R. Pratkanis. (1987). "Phantom Choices: The Effects of Unavailable Alternatives on Decision Making." Working Paper, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie- Mellon University. Fornell, Claes. (1992). "A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience." Journal of Marketing 56 (January), Helson, Harry. (1964). Adaptation Level Theory. New York: Harper & Row. Hunt, H. Keith. (1977). "SC/D: Overview and Future Research Directions." In H. Keith Hunt (Ed)., Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction (pp ). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Johnson, Michael D., and Claes Fornell. (1991). "A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction Across Individuals and Product Categories." Journal of Economic Psychology 12, LaTour, Stephen A. and Nancy C. Peat (1979),"Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Consumer Satisfaction Research," in Advances in Consumer Research, v 6, ed. William L. Wilkie, Ann Arbor, Ml: Association for Consumer Research, Loro, Lara (1992),"Customer Is Always Right, Satisfaction Research Booms," Advertising Age, February 10, 25. Miller, John A. (1977), "Studying Satisfaction, Modifying Models, Eliciting Expectations, Posing Problems, and Making Meaningful Measurements," in Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, Oliver, Richard L. (1980),"A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), Olson, Jerry C. and Phillip A. Dover (1979),"Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations through Product Trial," Journal of Applied Psychology, v 64, n 2, Parsuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Barry (1984),"A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research," Marketing Science Institute Report No , August, Cambridge, MA., and (1986), "SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality," Marketing Science Institute Report No , August, Cambridge, MA. Peter, J. Paul, Gilbert A. Churchill, and Tom J. Brown (1993), "Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March), Thibaut, John W. and Harold H. Kelly ( 1959), The Social Psychology of Groups. John Wiley, New York, NY. Tse, David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1988), "Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension," Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), Wall, Majorie, Lois Dickey, and Wayne Talarzyk (1979), "Correlates of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Clothing Purchase," Journal of Consumer Affairs, (Summer), Woodruff, Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte and Roger L. Jenkins (1983), "Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms," Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (August) Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985). "Measuring the Involvement Construct." Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December),