ROLPH E.

ANDERSON*
Four psychological theories ore considered in determining the effects of dis-
confirmed expectations on perceived product performance ond consumer satis-
faction. Results reveal that too great a gap between high consumer expectations
and actual product performance may cause a less favorable evaluation of a
product than a somewhat lower level of disparity.
Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of
Disconfirmed Expectancy on
Perceived Product Performance
CONSUMER DISSATISEACTION
It seems incongruous that consumerism could have
become such a powerful prevailing force when the mar-
keting concept, i.e., "customer satisfaction at a profit,"
has been so highly publicized as a successful business
credo since the early 195O's. To date, most of what has
been written about the consumer movement, its un-
derlying eauses, and the appropriate response for busi-
ness has been based on little more than speculation. To
really understand the underlying reasons for consum-
erism, one must follow Alderson's edict to set up
falsifiable propositions or testable hypotheses concern-
ing the problems, then obtain empirical evidence to sup-
port or refute these hypotheses [1]. Today's consum-
erism is such a complex forceso interrelated with
other ecological, social, political, ethical, economic, and
technological problemsthat, at this stage, it ean be
studied empirically only one step at a time. Probably
the most fundamental question being raised about con-
sumerism is: What are the sources of consumer dissat-
isfaction?
No satisfactory literal definition has yet been devel-
oped for consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the
literature of marketing. The Random House Dictionary
states: "dissatisfaction results from contemplating what
falls short of one's wishes or expectations. . . ." Con-
sumer dissatisfaction, then, might be measured by the
degree of disparity between expeetations and perceived
produet performance.
* Rolph E. Anderson is Associate Professor of B"usiness Man-
agement at Old Dominion University.
There is much conflicting evidence in the journals of
psychology regarding the effects on individuals of dis-
confirmed expectancies, and this critical question for
designing promotional mixes has been virtually ignored
in the marketing literature. Only two experiments (with
conflicting results) have been published to date [4, 19].
There may be significant policy implications for quality
control, price, promotion, and other elements of the
marketing mix depending upon whether consumer ex-
pectations are too higli, produet performances too low,
or promotional messages misplaced, i.e., aimed at gen-
erating an inappropriate level of expectations. Cor-
porate promotional mixes may be ereating unrealistic
expeetations for produets which result in consumer dis-
satisfaction upon purchase and use of the products.
Buskirk and Rothe go so far as to say: "It is this sense
of frustration and bitterness on the part of consumers
who have been promised much and have realized less,
that may properly be called the driving force behind
consumerism" [3, p. 62].
THEORETICAL MODELS
In predicting the effects on product evaluation and
customer satisfaction of disparity between expeetations
and actual or objective product performance, at least
four psychological theories may be considered, namely:
(1) cognitive dissonance (assimilation), (2) contrast,
(3) generalized negativity, and (4) assimilation-contrast.
Dissonance or assimilation theory posits that any dis-
erepaney between expectations and produet perform-
anee will be minimized or assimilated by the consum-
er's adjusting his perception of the produet to be more
consistent (less dissonant) with his expectations.
38
Journal of Marketitig Research,
Vol. X (February 1973}, 38-44
CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION: EFFECT OF DISCONFIRMED EXPECTANCY
39
Contrast theory assumes that the customer will mag-
nify the difference between the product reeeived and the
product expected; i.e., if the objective performance of
the product fails to meet his expectations, the customer
will evaluate the product less favorably than if he had
no prior expectations for it. Contrast is thus the con-
verse of assimilation.
The generalized negativity thesis is that any discrep-
ancy between expectations and reality results in a gen-
eralized negative hedonic state, causing the product to
receive a more unfavorable rating than if it had coin-
cided with expectations. Even if the product's perform-
ance exceeds the customer's expectations, it will be
perceived as less satisfying than its objective perform-
ance would justify.
Finally, the assimilation-contrast approach maintains
that there arc zones or latitudes of acceptance and re-
jection in consumer perceptions. If the disparity be-
tween expectations and product performance is suf-
ficiently small to fall into the consumer's latitude of
acceptance, he will tend to assimilate the difference by
rating the product more in line with expectations than
its objective performance justifies. However, if the dis-
crepancy between expectations and actual product per-
formance is so large that it falls into the zone of rejec-
tion, then a contrast effect comes into play and the
eonsumer magnifies the perceived disparity between the
product and his expectations for it.
Which theory is correct? What is the effect on con-
sumer product perception and satisfaction when ex-
pectancies are disconfirmed? To answer this question,
it is necessary to review these theories in more depth.
Cognitive Dissonance (Assimilation)
An unconfirmed expectancy, according to Festinger's
theory of cognitive dissonance, creates a state of dis-
sonance or "psychological discomfort" because the out-
come contradicts the cotLsumer's original hypothesis
[13]. The theory suggests that an individual has cognitive
elements (or "knowledges") about his past behavior, his
beliefs and attitudes, and his environments [20], Con-
sumers continually receive various kinds of product in-
formation from their own experience, associates, adver-
tisements, and salesmen. These bits of information are
cognitions which consumers like to have consistent with
one another [15]. When an individual receives two ideas
which are psychologically dissonant, he attempts to re-
duce this mental discomfort by changing or distorting
one or both of the cognitions to make them more con-
sonant. The stronger the cognitive dissonance, the more
motivated he is to reduce dissonance by changing the
cognitive element [2].
As applied to marketing, if there is a disparity be-
tween expectations for a product and the objective per-
formance of that product, the consumer is stimulated
to reduce the psychological tension generated by chang-
ing his perception of the product to bring it more into
Fi gure 1
THEORIES OF DISCONFIRMATION OF EXPECTATIONS
line with his expectations. Therefore, if this proposition
is true, the promotional mix for a product should sub-
stantially lead expectations above product performance
to obtain a higher consumer evaluation or perception
of the company's product. This concept, illustrated in
Figure 1 by the dotted line, shows that perceived product
performance is always between objective performance
and expectations, except when all three coincide. Con-
siderable controversy and some disaffection with the
theory of cognitive dissonance have developed in re-
cent years due to the accumulation of an increasing
amount of contradictory evidence [8, 12, 17, 21]. One
major criticism is that the theory assumes that the indi-
vidual, instead of learning from his purchasing mistakes,
actually increases the probability of making them again
through his efforts to reduce post-purchase dissonance
by justification and rationalization of his decisions [9].
Contrast \
Even in the studies supporting assimilation theory,
some individuals tend to shift their attitudes and evalua-
tions away from expectations aroused by communica-
tions if inconsistent with reality [16]. When expectations
are not matched by actual product performance, con-
trast theory presumes that the surprise effect or con-
trast between expectations and outcome will cause the
consumer to exaggerate or magnify the disparity.
Contrast theory would predict consumer product per-
ceptions as shown by the dashed line in Figure 1. This
theory suggests that slight understatement of the prod-
uct's qualities in advertising might lead to higher cus-
tomer satisfaction with the company's product. Of
course, the advertisement could not so understate the
product's qualities that customers bypass it for an-
other brand. Several studies tend support to the possible
success of this promotional strategy flO. 14. 16, 22, 23,
241. One of the two marketing studies reported to date
provided some support for contrast theory albeit find-
ings were divided into support of assimilation theory as
40
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1973
well [5]. In attempting to reconcile the difference be-
tween assimilation theory and contrast theory, Cardozo
introduced another variable, shopping effort, into the
decision process. Specifically, he found that customer
product evaluation or satisfaction is lower when the
product does not measure up to expectations, but satis-
faction rises as effort expended to obtain the product
increases. Unfortunately, Cardozo's results may have
been affected by a methodological error since his ex-
perimental subjects rated the product (ballpoint pens)
based on expectations generated from leafing through
either high (average price was $1.95) or low (average
price was $.39) price product catalogs. Subsequent
evaluations on a scale of 0 to 100 as compared to the
products in the catalog were not comparable since in-
dividual subject rating criteria shifted depending upon
the catalog assigned [4, p. 246]. For example, a rating
of 50 in the high-expectation condition indicated aver-
age quality for a $1.95 pen, but this same rating would
also indicate average quality for a $.39 pen in the low-
exjx^ctation condition.
Generalized Negativity
A classic study of the consequences of unconfirmed
expectations was conducted by Carlsmith and Aronson
[7]. In a test of their hypothesis that any disconfirma-
tion of an expeeted result will be perceived as less
pleasant or less satisfying than if the expectancy had
been confirmed, they asked individuals to taste bitter
and sweet solutions, manipulated their expectations re-
garding the tastes, and measured the ratings under the
various conditions. It was assumed that bitter was an
unpleasant taste and sweet was a pleasant taste for the
majority of subjects. The Carlsmith and Aronson find-
ings seem to suggest opposing theories. When the sweet
solution was expected and the bitter solution tasted, a
disconfirmed expectancy resulted in a rating of more bit-
ter which would support contrast theory. On the other
hand, when the bitter solution was expected but the
sweet solution came up, a disconfirmed expectancy re-
sulted in a rating of less sweet or assimilation toward
the expected taste in support of assimilation theory.
Carlsmith and Aronson explain this apparent confiict by
arguing that any disconfirmed expectancy results in a
hedonically negative state which is generalized to ob-
jects in the environment. Thus, one can make the follow-
ing prediction: If a customer expects a particular per-
formance from a product but a different performance
occurs, he will judge the product to be less pleasant than
if he had no previous expectancy.
The Carlsmith and Aronson explanation implies that
promotional claims aimed at target customers should
seek to create expectations which are consistent with
actual product performance. In Figure 1, the theory of
generalized negativity is depicted by the line of alternat-
ing dots and dashes. Note that only when expectations
and product performance coincide is the consumer's
evaluation of the product as favorable as its objective
performance.
A ssimilation-Contrast
A final theory for consideration in attempting to pre-
dict the effects on consumer satisfaction of disparities
between expectations and objective product perform-
ance is assimilation-contrast. As its name implies, it
combines the theories of assimilation and contrast. Work
by Hovland, Harvey, and Sherif provides support for the
contention that product performance differing only
slightly from one's expectations tends to result in dis-
placement of product perceptions toward expectations
Table 1
PREDICTION MATRIX FOR HYPOTHESES
Treatments^
Ti (with take-measure)
Null hypothesis
Assimilation
Contrast
Generalized negativity
Assimilation-contrast
Ti (without take-measure)
Null hypothesis
Assimilation
Contrast
Generalized negativity
Assimilation-contrast
None
Ca
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Very low
Cl
Standard
Very low
Very high
Very low
Very high
Standard
Very low
Very high
Very low
Very high
Conditions^
Low
Ca
Standard
Low
High
Low
Low
Standard
Low
High
Low
Low
Accurate
c,
Standard
On
On
On
On
Standard
On
On
On
On
High
c.
Standard
High
Low
Low
High
Standard
High
Low
Low
High
Very high
c
Standard
Very high
Very low
Very low
Very low
Standard
Very high
Very low
Very low
Very low
' Conditions consist of various levels of expectancies generated by product information.
^ Treatments consist of the presence or absence of a "take-measure" in the form of a questionnaire regarding expectancies gen-
erated following receipt ol" product information.
CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION: EFFECT OF DISCONFIRMED EXPECTANCY
41
(assimilation effect), while large variances between one's
expectations and actual product performance tend to
be exaggerated (contrast effect) [16]. The theory as-
sumes that individuals have ranges or latitudes of ac-
ceptance, rejection, and neutrality. Whether assimila-
tion or contrast effects develop is a function of the
relative disparity between expectations and actual prod-
uct performance.
Assimilation-contrast theory suggests that promo-
tional messages should create expectations for the prod-
uct as high as possible without creating a level of dis-
parity between expectations and objective performance
which falls outside the consumer's range of acceptance.
In accord with assimilation-contrast theory, consumer
perceptions of product performance would take the
form of the S-shaped curve in Figure 1.
HYPOTHESES
In order to discover which, if any, of the above out-
lined theories best describes the true relationships be-
tween these important consumer variables, five hypoth-
eses were tested, as follows:
1. Null Hypothesisproduct perceptions are not
significantly different for various levels of expecta-
tions.
2. Assimilationproduct perceptions will vary directly
with the level of expectations.
3. Contrastproduct perceptions will vary inversely
with the level of expectations.
4. Generalized Negativityproduct perceptions will
always be negative when there is disparity between
expectations and actual product performance, and
the degree of negativity will vary directly with the
amount of disparity.
5. Assitnilation-Contrastproduct perceptions will
vary directly with expectations over a range around
actual performance, but above and below this
threshold, product perceptions will vary inversely
with the level of expectations.
METHODOLOGY
A 2 X 6 factorial research design was used to test the
five hypotheses. Manipulation of the independent vari-
able (expectations) was accomplished by randomly as-
signing subjects to one of five different levels of per-
suasive product information, or no product information.
As verified in pretesting, condition one (Ci) substantially
understated the product's features, C2 slightly under-
stated the features, C;^ described the product accurately,
C4 slightly overstated the quality of the product's fea-
tures, and Cfl substantially overstated its features. Sub-
jects (Ss) in Co were given no product information, but
instead they received a communication unrelated to the
experiment. In addition, a "take-measure" in the form
of a self-administered questionnaire was given, after
presentation of product information but before seeing
the product, to half the Ss in each condition to ensure
that expectations were being created in the desired di-
rection and intensity. The basic experimental design
and prediction matrix for the experiment hypotheses
are provided in Table 1.
Evaluations of identical, unmarked ballpoint pens
selling at retail for about $1.00 each were obtained in
group administration from 144 students enrolled in an
undergraduate marketing course. To increase involve-
ment, Ss were told that they could keep the particular
pen randomly assigned them for evaluation, whether it
turned out to be one of the expensive pens or not. Ss
were permitted to inspect and test the product for the
same length of time, then record their reactions on a
modified logarithmic product rating scale anchored in
dollars and cents distributed in small ranges from $.04
to $64.00, as illustrated in Figure 2. (To faciUtate anal-
ysis, these ratings were later converted to integers by
sequentially numbering the rows of the product rating
scale.) Ss rated the ballpoint pen on 15 visual features
and performance characteristics. The unweighted mean
of these ratings by each S constituted the first dependent
variable. The second dependent variable consisted of
an overall rating by Ss on the pen's combined charac-
teristics. This was a weighted mean since each S was
able to assign certain product features more weight
Fi gure 2
PRODUCT RATING SCALE
ON THIS PEN,
EACH OF THESE
CHARACTERISTICS
IS ABOUT LIKE
THE ONES OF PENS
COSTING BETWEEN
Si.04/*
.06
.!
.12
.19
.25
.37
.50
.75
$ 1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
.00
e.oo
12.00
16.00
24.00
32.00
46.00
64.00
EXACTLY HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THIS flALlPOINI PEN IS WCWTH7 J
42
than others in determining his overall evaluation. Lastly,
Ss estimated the ballpoint pen's price to obtain the third
dependent variable.
RESULTS
The mean responses by condition and treatment for
the experiment are presented in Table 2. Manipulation
of the independent variable (product information) cre-
ated expectations in the desired direction with signifi-
cant differences of intensity. Mean scores for the de-
pendent variables (product ratings) show product
perceptions are in the direction of expectations until
manipulation at the "very high" level, which caused a
reversal and downturn in product ratings for all three
measurement variables.
On each dependent variable, Ss gave the product a
more favorable evaluation when it was accurately de-
scribed in C;i than when no product information was
provided in Cn. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test
[11] revealed that there was a significant difference at
the .01 level between mean scores for C3 and Co- Re-
sults of the one-way analysis of variance (treatment
variable collapsed since Ss were not sensitized by the
"take-measure") indicated that Ss responded with sig-
nificant differences in their evaluations or perceptions
of the product depending upon their level of expecta-
tions, as can be seen in Table 3.
Table 2
MEAN RESPONSE BY CONDITION AND TREATMENT
Manipulation
Expectations
Dependent variable"
A
; B
C
Product ratings
Treatment l^-
A
B
C
Treatment 2''
A
B
C
Combined"
A
B
C
Ci
Very
low
2.97
3.25
3.67
6.43
6.58
7.00
6.22
6.58
6.92
6.33
6.58
6.96
G
Low
4.31
4.25
5.42
7.22
7.83
7.92
6.84
7.17
7.92
7.03
7.50
7.92
Co
None
7.24
8.42
7.50
7.39
8.00
8.17
6.96
7.33
8.50
7.17
7.67
8.33
Cs
Accu-
rate
8.54
8.92
9.58
8.56
9.00
9.58
8.94
9.25
9.58
8.75
9.13
9.58
c,
High
11.70
12.42
12.08
9.21
9.75
10.00
10.05
10.50
10.75
9,63
10.13
10.38
Cs
Very
high
15.92
16.67
17.08
9.00
9.25
9.83
8.38
8.67
10.08
8.69
8.96
9.96
Dependent variable A = Product features, B = Combined
characteristics, C = Price.
^ Treatment 1 = Take-measure; Treatment 2 = No take-
measure.
"Treatment variable collapsed.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1973
Relating Experimental Results to Theoretical Models
Data for each of the three dependent variables were
plotted by each of the six conditions. Inspection of the
plots indicated conformity with assimilation theory un-
til reaching C5, which showed a decline in product rat-
ings for all three dependent variables in accord with the
assimilation-contrast theory of disconfirmation of ex-
pectations.
The tests for linearity in Table 4 showed deviations
from linearity to be highly significant for the relation-
ship between expectations and perceived product per-
formance for each of the dependent variables. Signifi-
cant deviations from linearity discounted both the null
hypothesis and the possibility of assimilation theory de-
scribing the data. The positive slope of the plotted data
ruled out contrast theory which demands a negatively
sloped relationship between expectations and product
perceptions. Finally, the deviation from linearity or
kink in the curve occurred at the wrong point to support
the Carlsmith-Aronson hypothesis of generalized nega-
tivity. Therefore, the data best fit assimilation-contrast
theory, since product ratings were assimilated toward
expectations until the "very high" condition when con-
trast effect began, causing a downturn away from ex-
pectations in evaluations of the product.
CONCLUSIONS
The experiment revealed that there is a point beyond
which consumer will not accept increasing disparity be-
tween product claims and actual performance, at least
for certain relatively simple or easily understood prod-
ucts. When this threshold of rejection is reached, con-
sumers will perceive the product less favorably than at a
slightly lower level of expectations. More complex
products, where there is considerable ambiguity and un-
certainty in making judgments, may yield different re-
sults as consumers may tend to be more dependent on
the information provided them. Olshavsky and Miller
investigated the effects on product evaluations of both
overstatement and understatement of product quality for
a reei-ty[>e tape recorder and found assimilation theory
supported in each case [19].
Product Commitment
Contrast effects did not appear in C,, "very low" ex-
pectations. This result may be partially explained by
"floor effects" which prevented manipulation of expec-
tations far enough below the relatively low cost item (a
dollar ballpoint pen) to cause sufficient surprise or ex-
hilaration upon seeing and trying the product. Due to
insufficient commitment to low-priced products, it sim-
ply may not be possible to obtain contrast effects at
very low expectation levels. Freedman has shown that
personal involvement or commitment to the product is
a determinant of the level of disparity necessary to pro-
duce maximum perceptual change [14]. With strong
CONSUMER DISSATISFACTION; EFFECT OF DISCONFIRMED EXPECTANCY
43
commitment, even a small disparity between expecta-
tions and product performance may fall outside the
consumer's range of acceptance.
The failure of an upturn to occur in Ci at the low
end of the range of expectations is not sufficiently rele-
vant to marketers to merit much discussion since no
advertiser would drastically disparage his product if he
wished to stimulate a high volume of sales. Though re-
peat purchasing rates might be high, once consumers
tried the product, no such negative promotional strategy
would be likely to achieve the desired initial trial rate.
A tnount of Information
Ratings in C3 were consistently higher than ratings
in Co, thus another important conclusion from the ex-
periment is that a more favorable evaluation is obtained
when a product is accurately described than when little
or no product information is provided. This finding sup-
ports Cardozo's suggestion that the mere processing of
information may lead to a more favorable evaluation of
the product, not only because customers have greater
knowledge on which to base evaluation, but also because
the processing of information about products constitutes
a form of commitment to the products [6]. It would
appear that marketers who provide more relevant in-
formation about their products will generate higher
evaluations and customer satisfaction for their products
than those marketers who depend on persuasive mes-
sage content that provides only minimal information.
Of course, the amount of information customers may
willingly process without boredom or confusion no
doubt varies widely among individuals and products.
But, since consumers perceive selectively in some or-
ganized fashion, it is probably better to provide too
much product information than too little. One study
found that when marketers provide insufficient product
information for consumers, they merely encourage or
force consumers to seek information about the product
from other sources, such as friends, associates, inde-
pendent rating organizations, consumer groups, govern-
ment agencies, and competitors [18].
IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING
Results of the experiment have important implica-
tions for positioning the level of promotional claims.
Assuming that consumer dissatisfaction is a function of
the disparity between expectations and perceived prod-
uct performance, unrealistic consumer expectations gen-
erated by excessive promotional exaggeration can result
in consumer dissatisfaction. Since consumer expectations
apparently affect satisfaction with a product, the mar-
keter who wishes to understand and favorably influence
customer satisfaction with his ofTcring may be able to do
so by understanding and influencing customer expecta-
tions. That is, if consumer expectations are a function
of promotion, and customer satisfaction is a function of
Table 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: PRODUCT PERCEPTIONS
(TREATMENT VARIABLE COLLAPSED)
Sources
Product features
Between conditions
Within conditions
Combined characteristics
Between conditions
Within conditions
Price
Between conditions
Within conditions
d.f.
5
138
5
138
5
138
Mean
Squares
38.77
3.85
40.46
4.34
42.28
3.82
F-ratio
10.06^
9.31
n.08
p < .01.
expectations, then satisfaction may be considered a func-
tion of promotion.
Some consumers may have unrealisticaDy high ex-
pectations for product performance even without the
added boost of promotional claims. Distribution of un-
realistic expectancies among consumers may stem partly
from widespread faith in the achievements and possi-
bilities of research and technology, resulting in the feel-
ing that products can and should be made to perform
flawlessly. As history demonstrates, standards and per-
formance expectations for all categories of products
(from automobiles to clothing) tend to steadily rise and
people become increasingly less tolerant of product de-
ficiencies.
Enlightened company executives might profitably re-
assess the often implicit sales-oriented view that the
higher the level of consumer product expectations stim-
ulated by promotion the better because the primary ob-
jective of the promotional mix is to sell the product.
This attitude can be contagious among competing com-
panies. However, the accumulation of consumer dissat-
isfaction may eventually erupt in a demand for more
consumer protection legislation, resulting in a more re-
strictive marketing environment.
EUTURE RESEARCH
As indicated by the Olshavsky and Miller findings, the
applicability of the different theories of expectations
may vary across product classes [19]. More research
needs to be conducted with a variety of products and
services. Disconfirmation of expectations for products
for which consumers make deep personal and financial
commitments may have substantially different effects on
consumer perceptions of performance than less personal,
lower cost, and less ego-related goods. A logical exten-
sion of the present study and previously reported ex-
periments is consideration of time. Does the consumer
become more objective in evaluating products he has
purchased as he gathers information and feedback from
various sources, or does he become more committed to
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1973
Table 4
DEVIATION FROM LINEARITY: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EXPECTATIONS AND PRODUCT PERCEPTIONS
6.
-. "Customer Satisfaction: Laboratory Study and Mar-
' Sources
1
Product features
Between groups
Linear regression
Deviation from lin-
ear regression
(DJ
Error term (E)
D/E
Combined characteristics
Between groups
Linear regression
Deviation from lin-
ear regression
(D)
Error term (E)
D/E
Price
Between groups
Linear regression
Deviation from lin-
ear regression
(D)
Error term (E)
D/E
d.f.
4
1
3
115
4
1
3
115
4
1
3
115
Sums of
sqtiares
177,19
117.65
59,54
189,75
117.17
72.58
203.58
154.70
48.88
Mean
siitiares
19.85
3.88
24,19
4.56
16.29
3.91
5.12"
5,30-
4.17'
p < .01.
products over time and thus more satisfied with extended
usage? It might also be important to determine if signifi-
cant differences between consumer reactions to expec-
tations-performance disparity can be attributed to psy-
chographic variables.
REFERENCES
1. Alderson, Wroe. Dynamic Marketing Behavior. Homewood,
111.: Riehard D. Irwin, 1965.
2. Brehm, Jack W. and Arthur R. Cohen. Explorations in Cog-
nitive Dissonance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962.
3. Buskirk, Richard H. and James T. Rothe. "Consumerism
An Interpretation," Jottrnal of Marketing, 34 (October
1970), 61-5.
4. Cardozo. Richard N. "An Experimental Study of Customer
Effort, Expectation, and Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing
Research, 2 (August 1965), 244-9.
5. . "An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Ex-
pectation, and Satisfaction," unpublished doctoral disserta-
tiewi. University of Minnesota, 1964.
keting Action," Proceedings. Fall Conference, American
Marketing Association, 1964, 283-9.
7. Carlsmith, J. Merrill and Elliot Aronson. "Some Hedonic
Consequences of the Confirmation and Disconfirmation of
Expectancies," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
66(Eebruary 1963), 151-6.
8. Chapanis, Natalia P. and Alphonse Chapanis. "Cognitive
Dissonance: Eive Years Later," Psychological Bulletin, 61
(January 1964), 1-22.
9. Cohen, Joel B. and Marvin E. Goldberg. "The Dissonance
Model in Post-Decision Product Evaluation," Journal of
Marketing Research, 7 (August 1970), 315-21.
10. Diab, Lutfy N. "Some Limitations of Existing Scales in the
Measurement of Social Attitudes," Psychological Reports,
17 (October 1965), 427-30.
11. Duncan, David B. "Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests,"
Biometrics, 11 (March 1955), 1-42.
12. Feldman, Shel, ed. Cognitive Consistency: Motivational
Antecedents and Behavioral Consequences. New York: Aca-
demie Press, 1966.
13. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New
York: Harper & Row, 1957.
14. Freedman, Jonathan L. "Involvement, Discrepancy and
Change," Jottrnal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69
(September 1964), 290-5.
15. HoUoway, Robert J. "An Experiment on Consumer Dis-
sonance,"/ourna/o/Mor^f/i/ig, 31 (January 1967), 39^3.
16. Hovland, Carl L, O. J. Harvey, and Muzafer Sherif. "As-
similation and Contrast Effects in Reactions to Communi-
cation and Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 55 (July 1957), 244-52.
17. Insko, Chester A. Theories of Attitude Change. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
18. Katona, George and Eva Mueller. "A Study of Purchase
Decisions," in Lincoln Clark, ed.. Consumer Behavior: The
Dynamics of Consumer Reaction, I. New York: New York
University Press, 1955, 74-5.
19. Olshavsky, Richard W. and John A. Miller. "Consumer
Expectations, Product Performance, and Perceived Product
Quality," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February
1972). 19-21.
20. Oshikawa, Sadaomi. ' The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
and Experimental Research," Journal of Marketing Re-
search. 5 (November 1968), 429-30.
21. Rosenberg, Milton I. "When Dissonanee Fails: On Elimi-
nating Evaluation Apprehension from Attitude Measure-
ment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1
(January 1965), 28-42.
22. Sherif, Muzafer and Carl I. Hovland. Social Jtidginent:
Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and
Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.
23. Spector, Aaron J. "Expectations, Fulfillment, and Morale,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (January
1956). 51-6.
24. VVhittaker. James O. "Attitude Change and Communication-
Attitude Discrepancy," Jottrnal of Social Psychology, 65
(February 1965), 141-7.