{"title":"Expectancy-disconfirmation and consumer satisfaction: A meta-analysis","authors":"Tom Schiebler, Nick Lee, Felix C. Brodbeck","doi":"10.1007/s11747-024-01078-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Expectancy-disconfirmation has been the dominant paradigm to explain the formation of consumer satisfaction for over 40 years. Within this paradigm, it is possible for expectations to have opposing effects on consumer satisfaction depending on the underlying psychological processes presupposed. In general, assimilation processes predict positive effects, while contrast processes predict negative effects. A comprehensive assessment of the empirical evidence for these positions is missing. Hence, we provide a meta-analysis of expectancy-disconfirmation research, using 150 records (<i>N</i> = 58,597), to test the direct effects of perceived performance and performance expectations on consumer satisfaction, while also including disconfirmation as a mediator in each path (using meta-analytical path analysis). We found evidence for an overall <i>positive</i> relationship between expectations and consumer satisfaction (<i>r</i> = .29 [0.24, 0.34]) and no evidence supporting contrast effects. Moderator analyses revealed that the positive correlation between performance expectations and consumer satisfaction was significantly stronger for predictive (vs. normative) expectations, for services (vs. goods), and for cross-sectional (vs. longitudinal and experimental) studies. Furthermore, we found an unexpected <i>downward</i> publication bias, which suggests that the true correlation between disconfirmation and consumer satisfaction is <i>higher</i> than the (already high) estimate we found. We discuss how future research can empirically scrutinize popular practitioner views and promote the development of causal explanations, account for non-linear effects, and elucidate the anomalous publication bias found here. </p>","PeriodicalId":17194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-024-01078-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Expectancy-disconfirmation has been the dominant paradigm to explain the formation of consumer satisfaction for over 40 years. Within this paradigm, it is possible for expectations to have opposing effects on consumer satisfaction depending on the underlying psychological processes presupposed. In general, assimilation processes predict positive effects, while contrast processes predict negative effects. A comprehensive assessment of the empirical evidence for these positions is missing. Hence, we provide a meta-analysis of expectancy-disconfirmation research, using 150 records (N = 58,597), to test the direct effects of perceived performance and performance expectations on consumer satisfaction, while also including disconfirmation as a mediator in each path (using meta-analytical path analysis). We found evidence for an overall positive relationship between expectations and consumer satisfaction (r = .29 [0.24, 0.34]) and no evidence supporting contrast effects. Moderator analyses revealed that the positive correlation between performance expectations and consumer satisfaction was significantly stronger for predictive (vs. normative) expectations, for services (vs. goods), and for cross-sectional (vs. longitudinal and experimental) studies. Furthermore, we found an unexpected downward publication bias, which suggests that the true correlation between disconfirmation and consumer satisfaction is higher than the (already high) estimate we found. We discuss how future research can empirically scrutinize popular practitioner views and promote the development of causal explanations, account for non-linear effects, and elucidate the anomalous publication bias found here.
期刊介绍:
JAMS, also known as The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between scholarly research and practical application in the realm of marketing. Its primary objective is to study and enhance marketing practices by publishing research-driven articles.
When manuscripts are submitted to JAMS for publication, they are evaluated based on their potential to contribute to the advancement of marketing science and practice.