Expectancy-disconfirmation and consumer satisfaction: A meta-analysis

IF 10.1 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1007/s11747-024-01078-x
Tom Schiebler, Nick Lee, Felix C. Brodbeck
{"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":10.1000,"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. 

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
期望-不确认与消费者满意度:一项元分析
40多年来,期望-不确认一直是解释消费者满意度形成的主要范式。在这个范例中,期望有可能对消费者满意度产生相反的影响,这取决于预先假定的潜在心理过程。一般来说,同化过程预测积极的影响,而对比过程预测消极的影响。缺乏对这些立场的经验证据的全面评估。因此,我们使用150条记录(N = 58,597)对期望-失证研究进行了元分析,以测试感知绩效和绩效期望对消费者满意度的直接影响,同时还将失证作为每个路径的中介(使用元分析路径分析)。我们发现了期望值与消费者满意度之间总体正相关的证据(r =。29[0.24, 0.34]),没有证据支持对比效应。调节分析显示,在预测性(相对于规范性)期望、服务(相对于商品)和横断面(相对于纵向和实验)研究中,绩效期望与消费者满意度之间的正相关关系明显更强。此外,我们发现了一个意想不到的向下发表偏差,这表明不确认和消费者满意度之间的真实相关性高于我们发现的(已经很高的)估计。我们讨论了未来的研究如何通过经验审查流行的从业者观点,促进因果解释的发展,解释非线性效应,并阐明这里发现的异常发表偏倚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
30.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
82
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.
期刊最新文献
When does past sales performance predict turnover in contemporary inside and outside sales forces? Free and paid word-of-mouth from physical to digital, AI and beyond Inside the call: How customer service agent warmth and competence shape customer reactions Possessions and the extended and incorporated self Thumbnail power: Visual cues and video popularity on UGV platforms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1