Joan L. Giese Washington State University
Joseph A. Cote Washington State University
Joseph A. Cote Washington State University
(2000)
Joan L. Giese, Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4730.
Joseph A. Cote, Professor, Department of Marketing, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A review of the existing literature indicates a wide variance in the definitions of satisfaction. The lack of a consensus definition limits the contribution of consumer satisfaction research. Without a uniform definition of satisfaction, researchers are unable to select an appropriate definition for a given context; develop valid measures of satisfaction; and/or compare and interpret empirical results. Consumer satisfaction researchers have contended that these problems are pervasive and important (Gardial, Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, and Burns 1994; Peterson and Wilson 1992; Yi 1990). This research will:
1. Suggest a definitional framework of consumer satisfaction based on commonalities in the literature and the views of consumers.
2. Discuss how this framework can be used to develop a definition of satisfaction to accommodate different contextual settings.
3. Ensure that our definitions of satisfaction are consistent with consumers' views. This is critical since, ultimately, we must understand consumers’ meanings of satisfaction and consumers must understand what we mean when we use the term, satisfaction.
The Literature and Consumer Views of Satisfaction : While the literature contains significant differences in the definition of satisfaction, all the definitions share some common elements. When examined as a whole, three general components can be identified: 1) consumer satisfaction is a response (emotional or cognitive); 2) the response pertains to a particular focus (expectations, product, consumption experience, etc.); and 3) the response occurs at a particular time (after consumption, after choice, based on accumulated experience, etc).
Consumer responses followed a general pattern similar to the literature. Satisfaction was comprised of three basic components, a response pertaining to a particular focus determined at a particular time.
Response: Type and Intensity - Consumer satisfaction has been typically conceptualized as either an emotional or cognitive response. More recent satisfaction definitions concede an emotional response. The emotional basis for satisfaction is confirmed by the consumer responses. 77.3% of group interview responses specifically used affective responses to describe satisfaction and 64% of the personal interviewees actually changed the question term "satisfaction" to more affective terms. Both the literature and consumers also recognize that this affective response varies in intensity depending on the situation. Response intensity refers to the strength of the satisfaction response, ranging from strong to weak.
Terms such as, "like love," "excited," "euphoria," "thrilled," "very satisfied," "pleasantly surprised," "relieved," "helpless," "frustrated," "cheated," "indifferent," "relieved," "apathy," and "neutral" reveal the range of intensity. In sum, the literature and consumers both view satisfaction as a summary affective response of varying intensity.
Focus of the Response : The focus identifies the object of a consumer’s satisfaction and usually entails comparing performance to some standard. This standard can vary from very specific to more general standards. There are often multiple foci to which these various standards are directed including the product, consumption, purchase decision, salesperson, or store/acquisition. The determination of an appropriate focus for satisfaction varies from context to context. However, without a clear focus, any definition of satisfaction would have little meaning since interpretation of the construct would vary from person to person (chameleon effects).
Timing of the Response : It is generally accepted that consumer satisfaction is a postpurchase phenomenon, yet a number of subtle differences exist in this perspective. The purchase decision may be evaluated after choice, but prior to the actual purchase of the product. Consumer satisfaction may occur prior to choice or even in the absence of purchase or choice (e.g., dissatisfied with out-of-town supermarkets, which were never patronized, because they caused a local store to close). It has even been argued that none of the above time frames is appropriate since satisfaction can vary dramatically over time and satisfaction is only determined at the time the evaluation occurs. The consumer responses reinforced this varied timing aspect of satisfaction. In addition, the consumers discussed the duration of satisfaction, which refers to how long a particular satisfaction response lasts.
Dissatisfaction : The literature has taken two approaches to conceptualizing and operationalizing the dissatisfaction construct. Consumer dissatisfaction is portrayed as the bipolar opposite of satisfaction; or consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction are viewed as two different dimensions. Since the literature does not provide a clear conceptualization of dissatisfaction, we turned to consumer perceptions. Consumers suggest that dissatisfaction is still comprised of the three components of the definitional framework: affective response; focus; and timing. However, the consumer data did not help resolve the dimensionality issue. We speculate that the apparent dimensionality of satisfaction might be understood by examining the focus of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Consumers were sometimes satisfied with one aspect of the choice/consumption experience, but dissatisfied with another aspect. In this case, satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be viewed as different dimensions.
Artikel lengkap dikompilasi oleh/hubungi :
Kanaidi, SE., M.Si (Penulis, Pelaku Bisnis, Trainer dan Dosen Marketing Management)
e-mail : kana_ati@yahoo.com atau kanaidi@poltekpos.ac.id
Focus of the Response : The focus identifies the object of a consumer’s satisfaction and usually entails comparing performance to some standard. This standard can vary from very specific to more general standards. There are often multiple foci to which these various standards are directed including the product, consumption, purchase decision, salesperson, or store/acquisition. The determination of an appropriate focus for satisfaction varies from context to context. However, without a clear focus, any definition of satisfaction would have little meaning since interpretation of the construct would vary from person to person (chameleon effects).
Timing of the Response : It is generally accepted that consumer satisfaction is a postpurchase phenomenon, yet a number of subtle differences exist in this perspective. The purchase decision may be evaluated after choice, but prior to the actual purchase of the product. Consumer satisfaction may occur prior to choice or even in the absence of purchase or choice (e.g., dissatisfied with out-of-town supermarkets, which were never patronized, because they caused a local store to close). It has even been argued that none of the above time frames is appropriate since satisfaction can vary dramatically over time and satisfaction is only determined at the time the evaluation occurs. The consumer responses reinforced this varied timing aspect of satisfaction. In addition, the consumers discussed the duration of satisfaction, which refers to how long a particular satisfaction response lasts.
Dissatisfaction : The literature has taken two approaches to conceptualizing and operationalizing the dissatisfaction construct. Consumer dissatisfaction is portrayed as the bipolar opposite of satisfaction; or consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction are viewed as two different dimensions. Since the literature does not provide a clear conceptualization of dissatisfaction, we turned to consumer perceptions. Consumers suggest that dissatisfaction is still comprised of the three components of the definitional framework: affective response; focus; and timing. However, the consumer data did not help resolve the dimensionality issue. We speculate that the apparent dimensionality of satisfaction might be understood by examining the focus of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Consumers were sometimes satisfied with one aspect of the choice/consumption experience, but dissatisfied with another aspect. In this case, satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be viewed as different dimensions.
Artikel lengkap dikompilasi oleh/hubungi :
Kanaidi, SE., M.Si (Penulis, Pelaku Bisnis, Trainer dan Dosen Marketing Management)
e-mail : kana_ati@yahoo.com atau kanaidi@poltekpos.ac.id
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar