Keywords:

Expectations,

satisfaction, delight,

dissatisfaction,

disconfirmation,

simple confirmation

Jessica SantosNFO Incom,

Wembley Point,

Harrow Road,

Wembley,

Middlesex HA9 6DE,

UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 8782

3071

Fax: +44 (0)20 8900

1500

e-mail: jessica.

santos@nfoeurope.

com

A theoretical exploration andmodel of consumer expectations,post-purchase affective statesand affective behaviourReceived in revised form.

Jessica Santosis an Associate Director in NFO – a leading market research agency. She completed

her PhD in 2000 and published over a dozen research papers. Her research interests

include service quality, customer satisfaction and consumer behaviour.

Jonathan Booteis a Senior Research Officer at Sheffield Care Trust and an Honorary Research Fellow

at the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield. His research

interests include analysing the impact of consumer involvement on research processes

and outcomes.

AbstractThrough a detailed review of the service quality and (dis)satisfaction literatures, this paperpresents a theoretical model exploring the interrelationship between expectations, affectivepost-purchase states and affective behaviour. Drawing together a comprehensive hierarchyof expectations culled from the service quality literature, the authors seek to apply levels ofexpectation to specific post-purchase affective states and affective behaviour. The authorsargue that consumers have two types of expectation that influence post-purchase affectivestates: the core or predictive ‘will be’ expectation; and peripheral expectations — that canrange from the ideal standard to the minimum tolerable level. By applying the levels-of-expectation approach to the expectation-disconfirmation paradigm, the authors argue thatthere are four types of post-purchase affective states: delight, satisfaction (or positiveindifference), acceptance (or negative indifference) and dissatisfaction. These four statesmay lead onto affective action — ie varying degrees of complaining or complimentingbehaviour. The paper presents 11 propositions relating to expectations and theirinterrelationship with post-purchase affective states and subsequent consumer behaviour,with the aim of stimulating further scholarly enquiry. The managerial implications of theanalysis are also considered.

INTRODUCTION: EXPECTATIONS AND

THE SERVICE QUALITY–CONSUMER

SATISFACTION INTERFACE

At a theoretical level, expectations and

(dis)satisfaction remain controversial

issues among marketing scholars. Many

questions relating to differing levels of

consumer expectation, and the

properties of post-purchase affective

states such as satisfaction and

dissatisfaction, remain unresolved.

Since Miller (1977) argued that each

consumer may have several different

preconsumption expectations, and that

different consumers may well apply

different types of expectation in

different situations, it is a logical step to

assume that post-purchase affective

states are just as fluid; therefore, degrees

of expectation, at least theoretically,

should be coterminous with degrees of

resultant (dis)satisfaction. This has led

142 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

scholars to consider different types of

satisfaction and dissatisfaction (see for

example Stauss and Neuhaus, 1997).

Despite these endeavours, Stewart

(1998, p. 239) has rightly argued that

‘[research into] how consumers evaluate

quality and satisfaction and their

subsequent behaviours . . . is still in its

infancy’.

Much of the early conceptual

interpretation of expectations has

emerged from the service quality, as

opposed to the consumer satisfaction,

literature. Despite the debate which

exists relating to the interrelationship

between service quality and customer

satisfaction, both literature pools share a

certain degree of common ground. For

example, both seek to define

expectations and their interrelationship

with perceptual evaluations

(Parasuraman et al., 1985; Liljander and

Strandvik, 1993) and both apply Oliver’s

(1977) disconfirmation-of-expectations

paradigm as their core theoretical

underpinning (Bitner, 1991; Woodruff

et al., 1983). It is, therefore, theoretically

possible to cross-fertilise concepts

relating to consumer expectations from

the service quality into the satisfaction

literature.

Through a review of the service

quality and consumer (dis)satisfaction

literature pools, this paper aims to

deepen the conceptual understanding of

the interrelationships between

consumers’ expectations, affective states

arising out of perceived product/service

success or failure, and resultant

affective actions. Based on the authors’

analysis, a conceptual model is

presented and 11 propositions are

offered to stimulate further thought in

this area. The paper begins with a

discussion of levels of expectation put

forward in the fields of both customer

satisfaction and service quality. The

central argument here is that consumers

do not possess just one expectation of

how well a product or service will

perform, rather they have a set of

expectations ranging from the ideal to

the worst imaginable. The paper moves

on to examine the leading theory of

consumer (dis)satisfaction —

disconfirmation of expectations — in

order to explore how the theory can be

united with the levels of consumer

expectation proposed. The next section

discusses how consumers’ post-

purchase affective states can lead to

affective behaviour, based on whatever

level of expectation has either been

exceeded or unfulfilled. The paper

concludes by presenting a model

showing the proposed

interrelationships between expectations,

post-purchase affective states and

affective behaviour.

A HIERARCHY OF EXPECTATIONS

In marketing theory, expectations are

associated with various standards, most

of which are based on consumers’

subjective predictions. The

interpretations of expectations are

numerous, ranging from a realistic

evaluation (Spreng et al., 1996) or

experience-based norms (Woodruff

et al., 1983) to a subjective belief (Olson

and Dover, 1979); from a highest ideal

standard (Miller, 1977; Tse and Wilton,

1988) or desire (Swan and Trawick,

1980) to a minimum tolerable emotional

state (Zeithaml et al., 1993).

There is, however, less agreement on

a specific definition of the nature of

expectations. Through a review of both

the service quality and consumer

satisfaction literatures, 56 definitions of

‘expectation’ were found in both service

quality and customer satisfaction

literature, which have been summarised

into nine groups. These nine groups of

standards have been labelled as the

ideal, the ‘should’ (what the consumer

feels ought to happen), the desired

(what the consumer wants to happen),

the predicted (what the consumer

thinks will happen), the deserved, the

adequate, the minimum tolerable, the

intolerable, and finally, the worst

imaginable. These nine standards are

presented in the form of a hierarchy,

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 143

A theoretical exploration and model of consumer expectations

from highest to lowest, in Figure 1, and

the sequence of this hierarchy is derived

from the conceptual and empirical

observations of previous authors. The

following sections discuss the nature of

each level of expectation, together with

consideration of how the different levels

interface and interact.

The first time expectations were

introduced into the service quality

literature was as the notion of the ideal

standard. Miller proposed the ideal

expectation in 1977 as the ‘wished for’

level of performance. The ideal standard

is similar to ‘excellence’ as suggested by

Buttle (1998) — a perfect, excellent

standard that forms the highest

consumer expectation. Because ideal

expectations represent enduring wants

and needs that remain unaffected by the

full range of marketing and competitive

factors postulated to affect the ‘should’

expectation, Churchill (1979) believes

that ideal expectations are more stable

over time than consumer expectations of

what ‘should’ occur. Tse and Wilton

(1988) argued that ideal expectations

have only an indirect, negative effect on

satisfaction through performance, and

this is probably the reason why the ideal

standard has been neglected in the

disconfirmation model within the

satisfaction literature; however, the

interpretation of ‘ideal standard’

appears mainstream in service quality

research.

Expectation as ‘should be’ or

persuasion-based standard

In the service quality literature,

expectations have often been

interpreted as what a ‘customer feels a

service should offer rather than would

offer’ (Parasuraman et al., 1985).

Scholars consider the ‘should be’

expectation as lower than the ideal

standard, because it is usually formed

by the market supplier or by

persuasion-based antecedents. Spreng

et al. (1996) employed the concept of the

‘market environment’ as a unique

expectation standard which they called

‘persuasion-based or marketer supplied

standards’; these are expectations

developed through marketer-controlled

sources (ie advertising or personal

selling). Gardial et al. (1994), Spreng and

Dixon (1992) and Woodruff et al. (1991)

Ideal

Normative (should)

Desired (want)

Predicted (will)

Minimum tolerable(adequate)

Intolerable

Worst imaginable

Zoneof

tolerance

Positivedisconfirmation

Negativedisconfirmation

Simpleconfirmation

Deserved

Figure 1: A hierarchy of expectations with expectation as the ‘ideal standard’

144 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote

also described marketer-supplied,

persuasion-based expectations or

promises as standards suggested by

corporate/marketing communications

(eg promotions, salespeople or

manufacturers). The marketer supplier

or persuasion-based standard is similar

to the idea of induced images, formed

by deliberate portrayal and promotion

by various sources, such as

advertisements, posters, leaflets and

brochures (Gunn, 1988). Although they

have very similar sources, induced

images have a smaller linkage with

consumption than persuasion-based

expectations (Zhang, 1996). Persuasion-

based expectations influence

‘information satisfaction’ (satisfaction

with information given by market

suppliers), and will lead to

disconfirmation of marketer-created

expectations.

Because ‘should be’ expectations are

formed mainly by promises made by

the market supplier, consumers employ

the norm that market suppliers ‘should’

keep their promises. Since over-

promising is a common phenomenon

among market suppliers in order to

attract consumers, consumers often

perceive there is a gap between ‘should

be’ expectations and realistic predictive

or ‘will be’ expectations’; however,

‘should be’ expectations ought not to

change due to the ‘under-delivery’

behaviour of market suppliers and

consumers’ own purchasing experience.

Expectation as ‘desired standard

(want to happen)’

Swan and Trawick (1980) defined

‘desired expectation’ as the level at

which customers want the product or

service to perform. Some scholars (eg

Zeithaml et al., 1993) define the ‘desired

standard’ closer to the ideal standard

expectations. In this paper, desired

standards are defined as ‘the level of

performance that consumers want, or

what they hope to receive’. Desired

performance is a blend of what the

customer believes ‘can be’ and ‘should

be’. It is similar to what Liechty and

Churchill (1979) view as the level of

performance the customer ought to

receive, or deserves, given a perceived

set of costs.

Expectation as ‘predicted standard

(will be)’

Boulding et al. (1993), Spreng and Dixon

(1992), Zeithaml et al. (1993) and Oliver

(1981) noted that predictive ‘will be’

expectations represent consumers’

expectations about ‘the level of service

that will or is likely to happen in his/

her next interaction with the firm’. This

standard stems from past experience

with a product or service category and

from a consumer’s perception of typical

product performance, which has been

defined as ‘expected standard’ by Miller

(1977). The predicted expectation is

‘based on past averaged performance . . .

what the respondent feels performance

will be’ (Miller, 1977, p. 76). Woodruff

et al. (1983) called these expectations

‘experience-based norms’ because they

capture both the ideal and realistic

aspects of expectations. Customers rely

on standards that reflect what the focal

brand should provide to meet needs

and wants, but these expectations are

constrained by the performance

customers believe is possible based on

experiences with real brands.

Expectation as ‘minimum tolerable’ or

‘adequate’ standard

In contrast to the ideal standard,

‘minimum tolerable expectations’ are

‘the lower level or bottom level of

performance acceptable to the

consumer’ (Miller, 1977, p. 76). This is

similar to ‘adequate service’ defined by

Zeithaml et al. (1993), or adequate

product or service performance defined

by Liljander and Strandvik (1993, p. 10),

which is ‘the lower level expectation for

the threshold of acceptable product or

service’. It is the level of product or

service performance the customer will

accept.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 145

A theoretical exploration and model of consumer expectations

The zone of tolerance

The theory of the zone of tolerance

emerged in 1993 from the work of

Zeithaml et al., who noted customers’

service expectations are characterised

by a range of levels rather than a single

level. From the ideal standard to

minimum tolerable level or from

desired service to adequate service,

Zeithaml et al. (1993) defined this range

as the ‘zone of tolerance’ — that is ‘the

extent to which customers recognise

and are willing to accept heterogeneity’.

Service performance falling within the

zone will be considered by consumers

as satisfactory. This zone, representing

the difference between ideal standard

and the level of service considered

adequate, can expand and contract. It

could also be zero, where adequate and

ideal standard coincide. An individual

customer’s zone of tolerance increases

or decreases depending on a number of

factors, including company-controlled

variables such as price and service

attributes. The zone of tolerance varies

across customers and expands or

contracts for each. Moreover, Liljander

and Strandvik (1993) stated the zone of

tolerance could be interpreted as a kind

of inertia regarding behavioural

responses to disconfirmation of

expectations.

Expectation as ‘deserved standard’

Miller (1977) defined ‘deserved

expectation’ as ‘consumers’ subjective

evaluation of their own product

investment’. As Boulding et al. (1993)

noted, a customer’s deserved

expectation refers to what should at

least happen in the next encounter, ie

the service that customers feel they

appropriately deserve. The deserved

level has been equated to equity theory,

although a number of authors conclude

that ‘equity’ is not a good

operationalisation of a comparison

standard (Tse and Wilton, 1988). In

Figure 1, it is argued that the ‘deserved

expectation’ can coincide with any other

expectation standard from the

normative ‘should’ expectation to the

minimum tolerable level.

Expectation as ‘intolerable’ and

‘worst imaginable’ standards

Under the minimum tolerable level of

expectation, consumers might well

have a set of expectations that are

‘intolerable’, which they ‘won’t accept’

(Buttle, 1998). This expectation

standard might come from word-of-

mouth or from unsatisfactory personal

experiences about which consumers

have bad memories and hope would

never happen again. Even lower than

the intolerable level experience,

consumers might have ‘worst

imaginable level’ expectations formed

through contact with media such as

television, radio or newspapers.

Consumers and/or their family and

friends might never personally

experience such incidents but they

may know such cases are indeed

existing and refer to them as ‘worst-

case’ scenarios. Both the intolerable

and worst imaginable levels of

expectation are outside the zone of

tolerance.

Core and peripheral expectations

Of the levels of expectation discussed

above, only the predictive ‘will be’

expectation seems to have been widely

used in the consumer (dis)satisfaction

(CS/D) literature as a basis on which to

consider post-purchase affective

responses. As such, the authors define

the predicted standard expectation as

the ‘core expectation’ and all other

levels of expectation, ranging from the

ideal to the minimum tolerable, as

‘peripheral expectations’. However, the

core ‘will be’ expectation can be

coterminous with any peripheral

expectation based on consumers’ own

prior experiences, the experiences of

others, or the consumer’s frame of mind

and mood during the purchase

encounter. This analysis leads to the

following propositions:

146 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote

P1: Consumers hold different levels of

expectation that may change or overlap

and which may not be explicit in

relation to post-purchase responses.

P2: The core expectation has a direct, explicit

impact on post-purchase affective

responses, while peripheral expectations

have an indirect, implicit impact.

P3: The core expectation (predictive ‘will

be’) can range from the ideal to the

minimum tolerable.

POST-PURCHASE AFFECTIVE STATES:

DELIGHT, SATISFACTION, ACCEPTANCE

AND DISSATISFACTION

Disconfirmation theory

The classical argument in the CS/D

literature has been that post-purchase

affective states arising from product or

service performance are based on

perceptions of whether prepurchase

expectations are confirmed or

disconfirmed (Oliver, 1977).

Dissatisfaction is conceptualised as

the affective state resulting from the

cognition of negative disconfirmation,

where perceived actual performance is

less than that expected. A debate

exists in the literature, however,

pertaining to the nature of satisfaction;

is it the result of a simple

confirmation (where performance

equals expectations) or is it the result

of a positive disconfirmation (where

performance exceeds expectations)?

One view has been that simple

confirmation leads to neither

satisfaction nor dissatisfaction, but to

indifference, or a ‘neutral’ state

(Erevelles and Leavitt, 1992). When

one considers what this really means,

however — that consumers are not

satisfied with a product or service that

performs exactly as they thought it

would — it does not make sense

deductively. Hunt (1991, p. 109)

highlighted the debate that exists in

this area by arguing from the

opposing standpoint: ‘if one gets what

one wants [ie expectations are

confirmed], then one is satisfied. If

one does not get what one wants,

then expectation is said to be

disconfirmed. A negative

disconfirmation . . . results in

dissatisfaction. A positive

disconfirmation, when actual is better

than expected, has received almost no

attention in the literature, and does

not have a special name’. It is the aim

here to try to clarify this conceptual

debate, by arguing that affective states

arising from (dis)confirmation are built

on different levels of expectation.

The roots of this conceptual debate lie

in the realm of consumer expectations.

It is perhaps fair to argue, invoking the

assumption at the heart of consumer

behaviour theory stating that consumers

are rational economic entities, that most

consumers do not expect to be

dissatisfied, indeed, they expect the

reverse. But do consumers expect

anything above satisfaction such as

delight? In the CS/D literature, a

distinction is increasingly being drawn

between satisfaction and delight

(Kumar and Olshavsky, 1997; Oliver

and Rust, 1997). Delight is considered to

be a more temporary and extreme state

compared with satisfaction (Durgee,

1999), with such antecedents as

surprising performance, unexpected

product or service attributes and

customer compatibility (Williams and

Anderson, 1999).

On an abstract level, one can define

affective responses in terms of how

they relate to prepurchase levels of

expectation. For example, delight can

be considered to be the affective state

that may exist when a consumer’s

desired expectations are positively

disconfirmed. Dissatisfaction, on the

other hand, may exist if a consumer’s

minimum tolerable expectations are

negatively disconfirmed. The next

sections of this paper discuss two

further affective states: satisfaction

and acceptance. In order to do this, it

is necessary to clarify two further

issues: the nature of simple

confirmation and the impact of the

zone of indifference.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 147

A theoretical exploration and model of consumer expectations

The complexity of simple

confirmation

Simple confirmation presents a

potentially greater theoretical challenge

to scholars than disconfirmation,

because this cognition can lead to any

post-purchase affective state. When

Oliver (1977) first defined the

(dis)confirmation paradigm, he stated

that a customer would be satisfied if

perceptions matched expectation (ie if

confirmation were reached). Buttle

(1996) argued, however, that simple

confirmation could lead to dissatisfaction.

For example, a consumer may, for

whatever reason expect a flight to be

delayed, and if this expectation were to

be confirmed, the consumer may well be

dissatisfied. In this case, the consumer’s

minimum tolerable level of expectation

would be confirmed. Consumers, as has

been argued, can hold other levels of

expectation. Staying with the flight

example, a consumer may evoke the

normative expectation and expect that

the flight should not be late. On the

other hand, simple confirmation can

also lead to a state beyond satisfaction,

such as delight. For example, a

consumer may expect a five-star hotel to

offer excellent service, and if confirmed,

then satisfaction or delight may ensue.

In this scenario, the person’s ideal

expectations may have been confirmed.

Therefore, a case can be made that

simple confirmation can lead to any

form of affective response, from

dissatisfaction to delight, depending on

whatever peripheral expectation is

coterminous with the consumer’s

predicted standard. This analysis leads

to a fourth proposition.

P4: Simple confirmation of expectations can

lead to any affective state, dependent

upon whatever level of expectation is

coterminous with the consumer’s core,

predictive ‘will be’ expectation.

The zone of indifference

This theoretical view of post-purchase

affective states is complicated further

when the zone of indifference

between confirmation and

disconfirmation is taken into account

(Woodruff et al., 1983). The zone of

indifference is shown

diagrammatically in Figure 2.

Figure 2 demonstrates that if actual

performance is only slightly greater

than or less than expected performance,

then a disconfirmation of expectations

may not occur. Erevelles and Leavitt

(1992) did not define the explicit level of

expectation in their consideration of

disconfirmation. Therefore, for the

purposes of this analysis, the level of

expectation presented in Figure 2 is that

of the core predictive (‘will be’)

expectation. The zone of indifference

implies that (dis)satisfaction results

from a certain level of disconfirmation

existing beyond this zone.

It is theoretically possible to link the

Positive indifferenceZOI

Negative indifference

AP � EP

AP � EP

AP � EP

AP � EP

AP � EP

Positive Disconfirmation

Positive Disconfirmation

Simple Confirmation

Negative Disconfirmation

Negative Disconfirmation

Expectations/equation

Cognition performance

Delight

Satisfaction

Delight/acceptance/satisfaction/dissatisfaction

Acceptance

Dissatisfaction

Affective state

Figure 2: Confirmation, disconfirmation, the zone of indifference and four affective statesAP ¼ Perceived actual performance, EP ¼ expected performance, ZOI ¼ zone of indifference.Source: Adapted from Erevelles and Leavitt, 1992.

148 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote

zone of indifference with the hierarchy

of expectations presented earlier in this

paper. Although a case has been made

that simple confirmation can lead to any

post-purchase affective state due to the

predictive expectation being

coterminous with other levels of

expectation, the expectation hierarchy is

a useful conceptualisation in

considering the boundaries between

affective states, assuming a consumer’s

expectations were disconfirmed.

Figure 2 suggests that there are four

post-purchase affective states: delight,

satisfaction, acceptance and

dissatisfaction. It is argued that both

satisfaction and acceptance exist within

the zone of indifference, as two halves

of the ‘indifference’ construct.

Acceptance (negative indifference),

theoretically, may occur when the

perceived performance of a product or

service is somewhere between the

predicted and the minimum tolerable

expectation, while satisfaction (positive

indifference) may occur when perceived

performance falls between a consumer’s

desired and predicted levels of

expectation. The positive and negative

affected states of delight and

dissatisfaction exist outside the zone of

indifference. Delight is posited to occur

if perceived performance is over and

above the desired level of expectation,

while dissatisfaction refers to perceived

performance below the minimum

tolerable expectation level. Table 1

summarises the four post-purchase

affective states assuming

disconfirmation of expectations has

occurred. This analysis leads to the

following propositions.

P5: The affective states of acceptance and

satisfaction exist within the zone of

indifference, while delight and

dissatisfaction exist outside the zone of

indifference.

P6: Delight occurs when:

— performance of a product or service

falls between a consumer’s ideal and

desired level of expectation (a

disconfirmed experience of delight);

or

— the consumer expected to be

delighted (a confirmed experience of

delight).

P7: Satisfaction or positive indifference

occurs when:

— performance of a product or service

falls between a consumer’s desired

and predicted level of expectation (a

disconfirmed experience of

satisfaction); or

— the consumer expected to be satisfied

(a confirmed experience of

satisfaction).

P8: Acceptance or negative indifference

occurs when:

— performance of a product or service

falls between a consumer’s predicted

and minimum tolerable level of

expectation (a disconfirmed

experience of acceptance); or

— the consumer expected to accept the

performance of a product or service

(a confirmed experience of

acceptance).

P9: Dissatisfaction occurs when:

— performance of a product or service

falls between a consumer’s

minimum tolerable and worst

imaginable levels of expectation (a

disconfirmed experience of

dissatisfaction); or

— the consumer expected to be

dissatisfied (a confirmed experience

of dissatisfaction).

Table 1: Defining four affective states

Affective stateDefinitions of affective states in terms of theirexpectation boundaries (assuming disconfirmation) Zone of indifference

Delight Between ideal and desired OutsideSatisfaction Between desired and predicted WithinAcceptance Between predicted and minimum tolerable WithinDissatisfaction Between minimum tolerable and worst imaginable Outside

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 149

A theoretical exploration and model of consumer expectations

AFFECTIVE ACTION: COMPLAINING

AND COMPLIMENTING BEHAVIOUR

Consumers’ affective states arising out

of product or service performance may

trigger complaining and complimenting

behaviour. If a product or service

performs better than the consumer’s

desired expectations and where the

consumer is delighted (either confirmed

or disconfirmed) then a compliment

may be given by the consumer to the

focal company. Where the product or

service performs somewhere between

the predicted and desired expectations,

and where the consumer is satisfied

(either confirmed or disconfirmed),

complimenting behaviour may also

occur. As the level of positive

disconfirmation increases (or the more

the core expectation is coterminous

with the desired level of expectation in

cases of simple confirmation), the

‘intensity’ of the compliment may

increase.

Complaining behaviour is

particularly likely if the perceived

performance of the product or service is

between the minimum tolerable

expectation and the consumer’s worst

imaginable expectation (either

confirmed or disconfirmed).

Complaining behaviour is also likely if

the perceived performance is between

the consumer’s adequate and minimum

tolerable expectation levels. As the level

of negative disconfirmation increases

(or the more the core expectation is

coterminous with the lower reaches of

the consumer’s zone of tolerance in

cases of simple confirmation), the

‘intensity’ of the complaint may

increase.

Much more has been written on

complaining compared with

complimenting behaviour — probably

because the former is a more common

phenomenon than the latter (Robinson

and Berl, 1979). Bearden and Teel (1983)

classified complaining behaviour on a

Guttman scale ranging from the least

intense (which they considered to be

negative word of mouth) to the most

intense (legal or third party action). No

similar scale exists for complimenting

behaviour. The four cornerstones of

complaining behaviour — exit, negative

word of mouth, voice and third party

action — have been classified by Boote

(1998) into a two-factor taxonomy,

where certain complaining behaviour

types (such as third party action, certain

exit types and public negative word of

mouth) are only entered into after an

attempt at redress through voice has

failed. In other words, it can be argued

that certain complaining responses are

more intense and these are linked to

more intense feelings of dissatisfaction,

which in turn are associated with higher

predictive or desired expectation

standards. More research is needed into

complimentary behaviour, and a similar

taxonomy of complimenting responses

is needed.

This analysis of the relationship

between expectations, affective states

and affective action leads to the final

two propositions:

P10: As the level of positive disconfirmation

increases (or the more the core

expectation is coterminous with the

desired level of expectation in cases of

simple confirmation), the ‘intensity’ of

the compliment may increase.

P11: As the level of negative disconfirmation

increases (or the more the core

expectation is coterminous with the

lower reaches of the consumer’s zone of

tolerance in cases of simple

confirmation), the ‘intensity’ of the

complaint may increase.

A MODEL OF EXPECTATIONS, POST-

PURCHASE AFFECTIVE STATES AND

AFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR

According to the model presented in

Figure 3, complimentary behaviour is

the result of a delighted affective state

in relation to the perceived

performance of a product or service,

which, in turn, is equated to perceived

performance above the consumer’s

desired expectations. On the other

150 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote

Ideal

Should

Desired (want)

Predicted (will)

Minimum tolerable(adequate)

Intolerable

Worst imaginable

Cognitions(expectations)

Zoneof

tolerance

Positivedisconfirmation

Negativedisconfirmation

Post-purchase affective states(satisfaction/dissatisfaction)

Affective action(compliment and complaining behaviour)

Delight

Satisfaction

Acceptance

Dissatisfaction

Learningprocess

Simpleconfirmation

Zoneof

indifference

Compliment

No action

Complain

Increasingintensity ofcompliment

Increasingintensity ofcomplaining

Figure 3: A conceptual model of expectations, post-purchase affective states and affective behaviours

Jou

rnalo

fC

on

sum

er

Beh

avio

ur

Vo

l.3,2,142–1

56#Henry

Stewart

Public

ations

1479-1

838

151

Ath

eo

retica

lexp

lora

tion

an

dm

od

elo

fco

nsu

mer

exp

ecta

tion

s

hand, complaining behaviour is

affective action arising from

dissatisfaction that, in turn, arises from

the perceived performance of a product

or service that is below a consumer’s

minimum tolerable expectations. The

affective states of satisfaction and

acceptance (which, the authors argue,

fall within the zone of indifference)

may cause no affective action (but not

necessarily). The affective responses of

acceptance and satisfaction equate to

expectations between the minimum

tolerable (or the adequate) and the

desired. The affective response of no

action is likely if a consumer’s

expectations between the predicted and

the deserved are met.

A feedback loop labelled ‘learning’ is

provided to illustrate the point that

consumers do not purchase in a

vacuum. The influence of previous

purchase experiences and the outcome

of previous complimenting and

complaining behaviour engaged in may

influence and change future

prepurchase expectations (Woodruff

et al., 1983).

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

This section considers the implications

of the foregoing analysis, relating to the

management of consumers’

expectations and post-purchase

affective behaviour. In theory, it has

been said that marketers can influence

one key prepurchase expectation

standard — the ‘should be’ or

‘persuasion-based standard’ — through

advertising or through the actual

performance of the focal product or

service. Improving product or service

performance should therefore make

positive disconfirmations, and

subsequent consumer satisfaction or

delight, more likely. If improved

performance is not possible, then

marketers actually may seek to lower

consumers’ ‘should be’ expectation

standards using appropriate

communications.

Through their advertising, marketers

in fact have the opportunity to appeal

to a range of peripheral expectation

standards; the ideal, the should, the

desired and the deserved. Advertising

the performance of the product or

service by appealing explicitly to

consumers’ peripheral expectation

standards will have a (direct or

indirect) impact on whether

consumers’ expectations are confirmed

or disconfirmed; resultant post-

purchase affective states; and whether

complimenting or complaining

behaviour is subsequently engaged in.

Marketers need to think very

carefully, bearing in mind the average

performance (ie stability of

performance) of their product or

service, whether they want to appeal

to certain peripheral expectations. It

can be argued that ethical advertising

should be based around the average

performance of the product or service,

thus giving the consumer a truer

reflection of likely performance; and

appealing to the consumers’ ‘should

be’ expectations. Due to extensive

competition in some markets,

however, over-promising is

increasingly commonplace. Over-

promising impacts on certain

peripheral expectation standards (such

as the desired or the ideal), and if

performance falls short of what was

promised, negative disconfirmations

are likely, as are negative affective

states and resultant complaining

behaviour.

Advertising that appeals to the

peripheral ideal standard of expectation

could lead to the post-purchase affective

state of delight. Consumer delight may

be a key objective for the marketer;

however, consistently inducing

consumer delight is considered costly.

This is because delight, especially if it is

disconfirmed, is relative in nature; what

may be surprising and therefore

delight-inducing in one purchase

encounter may become ‘must have’ in

the next purchase encounter (and

therefore only surprising if not present).

152 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote

Advertising that appeals to consumers’

ideal expectations therefore could

contribute to the ideal standard being

inflated to a level beyond which the

marketer can satisfy profitably.

As well as attempting to manage

prepurchase expectations, marketers

need to understand the nature of

consumers’ post-purchase affective

states and resultant affective behaviour.

Four post-purchase affective states have

been proposed: delight, satisfaction

(positive indifference), acceptance

(negative indifference) and

dissatisfaction. Marketers undertaking

satisfaction surveys of their customer

base therefore should go beyond their

traditional focus on satisfaction and

dissatisfaction. Ways of measuring

delight and acceptance also should be

carefully considered, in order to reflect

more accurately the full range of

consumers’ post-purchase reactions to

the focal product or service.

This paper has argued that the four

affective states proposed will lead to

either complimenting behaviour,

complaining behaviour or no action.

Complaining and complimentary

behaviour should be carefully managed

because the outcome of such behaviour

may impact on expectations of future

purchase encounters; this is shown in

the conceptual model in Figure 3 by the

feedback loop labelled ‘learning

process’. Compliments received by the

focal company should be logged, and

the consumer could be formally thanked

and told how important it is for the

company to receive feedback about the

performance of their product or service.

Voiced complaining to the company,

on the other hand, can be managed by

developing a complaint policy based

on the three elements of perceived

justice: distributive, interactional and

procedural (Tax et al., 1998; Blodgett,

1994; Blodgett and Tax, 1993;

Goodwin and Ross, 1990). Distributive

justice is concerned with the perceived

fairness of the tangible outcome.

Interactional justice refers to the

quality or fairness of interpersonal

treatment during the redress

encounter. Procedural justice refers to

the perceived fairness of procedures

and criteria used by decision makers

during conflict resolution. Research

suggests that consumers may be

satisfied with the complaining

experience (even if they did not get

the redress wanted) if they perceived

they were treated fairly and/or in

accordance with the company’s

redress policy as laid out in advance

(Blodgett, 1994).

Marketers seeking an insight into the

expectations of their customers need to

be very careful in their use of the term

‘expectation’. As has been discussed,

‘expectations’ can be interpreted in

numerous different ways. Asking a

consumer ‘what do you expect from our

company’ is likely to develop

misleading data, as different consumers

may invoke different standards; for

example, one may invoke their ideal

standard, while another may invoke

their deserved standard. In order to

research customers’ expectations

accurately, marketers need to be very

clear about the types or levels of

expectation about which they are

particularly interested.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

This paper has explored the range of

prepurchase consumer expectations and

their interrelationship with post-

purchase affective states and affective

behaviour. This discussion has

proposed that the predictive ‘will be’

expectation of consumers is

underpinned and influenced by a whole

range of peripheral expectations

ranging from the ideal to the minimum

tolerable. This analysis has important

implications in relation to

disconfirmation theory and consumers’

post-purchase affective states.

Assuming consumers’ expectations

have been disconfirmed, the authors

posit that four affective states are

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 153

A theoretical exploration and model of consumer expectations

possible: delight, satisfaction (positive

indifference), acceptance (negative

indifference) and dissatisfaction. The

authors argue that simple confirmation

of expectations can lead to any of the

four affective states outlined above,

depending upon the level of consumers’

prior predictive expectation. These four

affective states have been operationally

defined by their expectation boundaries

assuming disconfirmation. The

conceptualised model (Figure 3) gives

both academics and practitioners a

clearer picture of how customer

expectations facilitate satisfaction and

consumer behaviour. The authors hope

that the model and propositions

presented here will stimulate further

debate and enquiry into the nature of

consumer expectations and their impact

on post-purchase affective states and

behaviour.

Scholars may wish to explore how

ideas developed here can be integrated

with two other key marketing concepts:

cognitive dissonance and consumer

loyalty. Cognitive dissonance, defined

as psychological discomfort (Elliott and

Devine, 1994) or anxiety, uncertainty

and doubt following a purchase prior

to use (Montgomery and Barnes, 1993),

exists for many consumers, and its

reduction is a necessary condition for

positive post-purchase affective states

to occur (Oliver, 1997). Two key

research questions around the subject

of dissonance that need to be

addressed are, first, how do consumers’

core and peripheral prepurchase

expectations impact on post-purchase,

pre-use feelings of dissonance and,

secondly, among consumers who

experience dissonance, what is its

impact on post-purchase affective states

and behaviour? Research in this area

may wish to make use of Hausknecht

et al.’s (1998) work on the emotional

and cognitive dimensions of

dissonance.

Finally, scholars may wish to

examine the impact of consumer loyalty

on the ideas presented in this paper.

Loyalty, defined as an enduring

positive attitude to a company, brand

or product, often manifesting itself in

the form of positive word of mouth and

repeat purchasing (East, 2000), is likely

to have a moderating effect on the

formation of consumers’ core and

peripheral expectations, as well as on

post-purchase affective states and

behaviour. This issue represents an

important area for continued empirical

research.

REFERENCESBearden, W. O. and Teel, J. E. (1983) ‘Selected

determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint

reports’, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, February,

21–28.

Bitner, M. J. (1991) ‘The evolution of the services

marketing mix and its relationship to service quality’ in

Brown, S. W., Gummesson, E., Edvardsson, B. and

Gustavsson, B. (eds) Service Quality; Multidisciplinary

and Multinational Perspectives, Lexington Books, New

York, NY.

Blodgett, J. G. (1994) ‘The effects of perceived justice on

complainants’ repatronage intentions and negative

word-of-mouth behavior’, Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 7,

1–14.

Blodgett, J. G. and Tax, S. S. (1993) ‘The effects of

distributive and interactional justice on complainants’

repatronage intentions and negative word-of-mouth

intentions’, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6, 100–110.

Boote, J. (1998) ‘Towards a comprehensive taxonomy and

model of consumer complaining behaviour’, Journal of

Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining

Behavior, 11, 140–151.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin R. and Zeithaml, V. A.

(1993) ‘A dynamic process model of service quality:

From expectations to behavioural intentions’, Journal of

Marketing Research, 30, February, 7–27.

Buttle, F. A. (1996) ‘SERVQUAL: Review, critique,

research agenda’ in European Journal of Marketing, 30, 8–

32.

Buttle, F. A. (1998) ‘Word-of-mouth: Understanding and

managing referral marketing’, Proceedings of the 1998

Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing, Sheffield

Hallam University, Sheffield, England, 8–10th July,

100–106.

Churchill, G., Jr. (1979) ‘A paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing constructs’, Journal of Marketing

Research, 11, August, 254–260.

Durgee, J. F. (1999) ‘Deep, soleful satisfaction’, Journal of

Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining

Behavior, 12, 53–63.

East, R. (2000) ‘Fact and fallacy in retention marketing’,

professorial inaugural lecture, Kingston University,

154 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote

Kingston-on-Thames, 1st March, 1–18.

Elliott, A. J. and Devine, P. G. (1994) ‘On the motivational

nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as

psychological discomfort’, Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67, September, 382–394.

Erevelles, S. and Leavitt, C. (1992) ‘A comparison of

current models of consumer satisfaction/

dissatisfaction’, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5, 104–114.

Gardial, S. F., Clemons, D. S., Woodruff, et al. (1994)

‘Comparing consumers’ recall of prepurchase and

postpurchase product evaluation experiences’, Journal

of Consumer Research, 24, March, 548–560.

Goodwin, C. and Ross, I. (1990). ‘Consumer evaluations

of responses to complaints: What’s fair and why’,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(2), 39–47.

Gunn, C. A. (1988) Vacationscape Designing Tourist Regions,

2nd edn, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

Hausknecht, D. R., Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N. and

Johnson, L. W. (1998) ‘ ‘‘After I had made the decision

. . .’’: Toward a scale to measure cognitive dissonance’,

Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and

Complaining Behavior, 11, 119–127.

Hunt, H. K. (1991) ‘Consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction

and complaining behavior’, Journal of Social Issues,

24(1), 107–117.

Kumar, A. and Olshavsky, R. (1997) ‘Distinguishing

satisfaction from delight: An appraisal approach’,

paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

Association for Consumer Research, 11th October, Tucson,

AZ.

Liechty, M. and Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979) ‘Conceptual

insights into consumer satisfaction with service’, In

Beckwith, N. et al. (eds) Educator’s Conference

Proceedings, Series 94, American Marketing

Association, Chicago, IL, 509–515.

Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1993) ‘Estimating zones of

tolerance in perceived service quality and perceived

service value’, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 4(2), 6–28.

Miller, J. A. (1977) ‘Studying satisfaction, modifying

models, eliciting expectations, posing problems, and

making meaningful measurements’, in Hunt, H. K.

(ed.) Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer

Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, School of Business,

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 72–91.

Montgomery, C. and Barnes, J. H. (1993) ‘POSTDIS: A

short rating scale for measuring post-purchase

Dissonance’, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6, 204–216.

Oliver, R. L. (1977) ‘A theoretical reinterpretation of

expectation and disconfirmation effects on

postpurchase product evaluations: Experience in the

field’, in Day, R. L. (ed.) Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Indiana

University, Bloomington, IN, 2–9.

Oliver, R. L. (1981) ‘Measurement and evaluation of the

satisfaction process in retail settings’, Journal of

Retailing, 57(3), Fall, 25–48.

Oliver, R. L. (1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on

the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R. L. and Rust, R. T. (1997) ‘Customer delight:

Foundations, findings and managerial insight’, Journal

of Retailing, 73(3), 311–327.

Olson, J. C. and Dover, P. (1979) ‘Disconfirmation of

consumer expectations through product trial’, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 64(2) April, 179–189.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985)

‘A conceptual model of service quality and its

implications for future research’, Journal of Marketing,

49, (Fall), 41–50.

Robinson, L. M. and Berl, R. L. (1979) ‘What about

compliments: A followup study on customer

complaints and compliments’, in Hunt H. K. and Day,

R. L. (eds) ‘Refining concepts and measures of

consumer satisfaction and complaining behavior’,

papers from the Fourth Annual Conference on Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Spreng, R. A. and Dixon, A. L. (1992) ‘Alternative

comparison standards in the formation of consumer

satisfaction/dissatisfaction’, in Leone, R. P. and Kumar,

V. (eds) American Marketing Association Summer

Educators’ Conference Proceedings, American Marketing

Association, Chicago, IL, 85–91.

Spreng, R., MacKenzie, S. B. and Olshavsky, R. W.

(1996) ‘A re-examination of the determinants of

consumer satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing, 60(3),

July, 15–32.

Stauss, B. and Neuhaus, P. (1997) ‘The qualitative

satisfaction model’, International Journal of Service

Industry Management, 8(3), 236–249.

Stewart, K. (1998) ‘The customer exit process — A review

and research agenda’, Journal of Marketing Management,

14, 235–250.

Swan, J. E. and Trawick, F. I. (1980) ‘Satisfaction related to

predictive vs. desired expectations: A field study’ in

New Findings on Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining,

Day, R. L. and Hunt, H. K., (eds) School of Business,

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 15–22.

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998)

‘Customer evaluations of service complaint

experiences: Implications for relationship marketing’,

Journal of Marketing, 62, April, 60–76.

Tse, D. K. and Wilton, P. C. (1988) ‘Models of consumer

satisfaction formation: An extension’, Journal of

Marketing Research, 25(2), May, 204–12, American

Marketing Association.

Williams, J. A. and Anderson, H. H. (1999) ‘Customer

delight: The beat of a different drummer’, Journal of

Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining

Behavior, 12, 44–52.

Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte E. R. and Jenkins, R. L. (1983)

‘Modeling consumer satisfaction processes using

experience-based norms’, Journal of Marketing Research,

20, August, 296–304.

Woodruff, R. B., Clemons, S. D., Schumann, D. W.,

Gardial, S. F. and Burns, M. J. (1991) ‘The standards

issue in consumer (dis)satisfaction research: A

historical perspective’, Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 4,

103–109.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 155

A theoretical exploration and model of consumer expectations

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. A. and Parasuraman A. (1993)

‘The nature and determinants of customer expectations

of service’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

21(1), Winter, 1–12.

Zhang, J. (1996) ‘Expectations and images in service

quality’. Paper presented at the 9th UK Services

Marketing Workshop, Stirling, Scotland, 20–22nd

November.

156 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 142–156 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Jessica Santos and Jonathan Boote