Understanding the Role of Consumer Heterogeneity in the Formation of Satisfaction Uncertainty

Abstract

Prior empirical research has focused on the antecedents and consequences of attitude uncertainty. Drawing on regulatory focus theory and need for closure theory, this research examines the role of individual difference variables in shaping satisfaction uncertainty. This empirical work seeks to explore the interplay of individual difference variables, cognition and affect, in shaping satisfaction uncertainty. The proposed model maintains that need for closure and regulatory focus shape satisfaction uncertainty through their influence on cognitive and affective processes. The model was tested on 192 participants in an experiment using a restaurant scenario. Satisfaction uncertainty is estimated, rather than measured, using the Judgment Uncertainty and Magnitude Parameters (JUMP) model. The results show that prior expectation, pleasure, and arousal have positive effects on satisfaction uncertainty, while perceived performance has a negative impact. Furthermore, regulatory focus is found to moderate the effects of cognition and affect on satisfaction uncertainty, while need for closure moderates the impact of affect on satisfaction uncertainty.

Understanding Environmental Attitude and Willingness to Pay With an Objective Measure of Attitude Strength

“…Furthermore, we decompose environmental attitude into two dimensions: environmental attitude magnitude and environmental attitude strength. Following the definitions of attitude magnitude and strength in the JUMP models (Chandrashekaran et al, 2005; Chandrashekaran et al, 2007; Qian et al, 2015), we define the environmental attitude magnitude as the level of environmental attitude, and the environmental attitude strength as the strength with which one’s environmental attitude is held. Note that simultaneously modeling the magnitude and strength of environmental attitude provides greater and more valid insights into the process by which environmental attitude is formed and how it predicts pro-environmental behavioral intention.…”

“…According to the NFC theory, people with a higher need for closure may process less information before committing to a judgment while paradoxically feeling more assured of those judgments, even though they are less grounded in thorough exploration (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). There exist many empirical studies documenting the effect of need for closure on attitude strength/certainty (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Kruglanski et al, 1993; Qian et al, 2015). For instance, Qian et al (2015) found that consumers with a higher level of need for closure were more certain about their satisfaction toward restaurant service, compared to those with a lower level of need for closure.…”

“…Compared with subjective measures of attitude strength, it is unaffected by attitude extremity (as indexed by the deviation of a scalar value from the neutral point on the scale), and is independent of the valence of the stated attitude. This approach of attitude modeling has been used to measure satisfaction strength when researching customer satisfaction (Chandrashekaran, Rotte, Tax, & Grewal, 2007; Qian, Chandrashekaran, & Yu, 2015) and trust uncertainty when investigating consumer trust (Rotte, Chandrashekaran, Tax, & Grewal, 2006).…”

The Role of Anticipated Emotions in Purchase Intentions

“…However, purchase decisions are often unconnected with previous decisions, as in the case with new products or unique promotions (Shapiro, 1982). In these cases, individuals must rely on their current available information to make predictions about the affective consequences of their behavioral choices (Quian, Chandrashekaranet, & Yu, 2015;van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2005).…”

“…As another limitation, the current research focused on affective consequences of the general outcome of a decision (to purchase or not), without analyzing the multifaceted meaning that an outcome may represent for a consumer. Previous research implies that AEs may be related to the decision itself (Patrick, Lancellotti, & Demello, 2009b), the outcome (Mellers et al, 1999), product performance (Philips & Baumgartner, 2002;Quian et al, 2015), the consumption experience (Hunter, 2006), or the attained goal (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). However, in some contexts it is difficult to clearly differentiate these targets conceptually, because goals are ends or outcomes produced by the implementation of instrumental behaviors (Bagozzi et al, 1998;Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1997).…”