Accepted Manuscript

Title: Factors influencing Online Shoppers’ Repurchase

Intentions: The Roles of Satisfaction and Regret

Author: Chechen Liao Hong-Nan Lin Margaret Meiling Luo

Sophea Chea

PII: S0378-7206(16)30416-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.12.005
Reference: INFMAN 2963

To appear in: INFMAN

Received date: 30-10-2015

Revised date: 22-11-2016
Accepted date: 18-12-2016

Please cite this article as: Chechen Liao, Hong-Nan Lin, Margaret Meiling
Luo, Sophea Chea, Factors influencing Online Shoppers’ Repurchase
Intentions: The Roles of Satisfaction and Regret, Information and Management
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.12.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
<AT>Factors influencing Online Shoppers’ Repurchase Intentions:
The Roles of Satisfaction and Regret

<AU>Chechen Liao, Ph. D.a ##Email##ccliao@mis.ccu.edu.tw##/Email##, Hong-Nan Lin, Ph. D.b

##Email##hn.lin@mail.toko.edu.tw##/Email##, Margaret Meiling Luo, Ph. D.c
##Email##luo@mis.ccu.edu.tw##/Email##, Sophea Chea, Ph. D.d,*
##Email##Sophea.Chea@delval.edu##/Email##
<AU>
<AFF>aDepartment of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University, No.168, Sec. 1,
University Rd., Min-Hsiung Township, Chia-yi County 621, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886-5-2720411#34601;
Fax: 886-5-2721501
<AFF>bDepartment of Animation and Game Design, Toko University, No.51, Sec. 2, Xuefu Rd., Puzi
City, Chiayi County 61363, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886-5-3622889#606; Fax:886-5-3622899
<AFF>cDepartment of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University, No.168, Sec. 1,
University Rd., Min-Hsiung Township, Chia-yi County 621, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886-5-2720411#34603;
Fax: 886-5-2721501
<AFF>dDepartment of Business and Information Management, Delaware Valley University, 700 E Butler
Ave. Doylestown, PA, USA 18901. Tel.: +215.489.2390

<ABS-HEAD>Abstract
<ABS-P>This study adopts the expectancy confirmation theory and regret theory to investigate the effects
of external reference points on repurchase behaviors and explore how customers’ search effort influences
satisfaction and regret. The model was tested using data from 268 customers of an online store. Partial
least squares analysis results suggest that confirmation of expectation, search effort, and alternative
attractiveness are predictors of regret, which in turn influences satisfaction and repurchase intention;
confirmation of expectation and search effort also exhibited considerable positive effects on satisfaction,
which in turn influenced repurchase intention. In addition, prior loyalty negatively moderates the
relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intention.

<KWD>Keywords: Expectancy confirmation theory; Regret; Alternative attractiveness; Information

search; Repurchase intention; Satisfaction

Introduction
Electronic commerce (e-commerce) has been growing rapidly. Companies open up new niche markets,
promote products, and conduct business in highly efficient ways over the Internet. Forrester research
noted that US online retail sales accounted for almost 9% of the $3.2 trillion total retail market in 2013 and
will continue to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of nearly 10% through 2018. Future
growth in online retail sales will largely be driven by an increase in online spending per buyer, surpassing
$2000 per year by 2018 [26]. Online retail sales in Western Europe are predicted to grow at a CAGR of
11.5% over the next 5 years, with the highest growth coming from southern Europe. Furthermore, online
buyers are not only increasing the amount they spend in particular product categories but also purchasing
from a wider range of product categories than ever before [26].
The growth of online retail industry makes it difficult for online retailers to acquire and retain customers
[87] because the cost of attracting new customers on the Internet is high and online customers often have
low loyalty [21]. High competition prevents many business-to-customer (B2C) firms from making profits.
Therefore, winning customer loyalty is critical to online business success [87]. Understanding why
customers are willing to return for additional purchases at a B2C Website has become an increasingly
important issue for businesses and researchers.
The expectancy confirmation theory (ECT) has been a widely adopted theory to study customer loyalty in
marketing and information systems (IS) to examine factors affecting customer repatronage intention
[67,74]. The ECT posits that customers’ intention to repurchase products or continue service use is
determined primarily by their satisfaction with prior use of the product/service. According to the ECT,
customers create a reference point by comparing the actual and expected performance of a product or
service to determine their satisfaction with the product or service being offered [74]. The level of
satisfaction subsequently influences their repatronage intentions. Satisfied customers remain loyal,
whereas dissatisfied customers defect [74].
However, there is another paradigm in customer loyalty research that uses external reference point
variables such as regret to explain customer retention behavior. In this paradigm, customers’ repatronage
decisions are a process of adjustments and continual assessment [76,57] that are shaped by comparing
multiple reference points along the repurchasing decision process [14]. From the body of literature that we
examine as a motivation for this study (shown in Appendix B), there are several variables including regret,
alternative attractiveness, and search efforts being employed to explain postadoption-dependent variables
such as satisfaction, switching behavior, and repurchase intention. Although there have been some
attempts at extending the ECT in IS [1,78,83], so far, there is a gap in the literature to examine both
paradigms in a single model of customer retention.
This study attempts to bridge this literature gap by developing and testing a model of retention behavior
aiming at explaining the relationships among prepurchase search effort, postpurchase evaluation, affective
response, and repurchase intention in an e-commerce context. In addition, this study examined how prior
loyalty (PL) moderates the relationships between repurchase intention and its antecedents. In short, we
attempted to expand the scope of the ECT and add factors that have been discussed in another paradigm of
customer retention research by examining the decision in online context where searching and looking for
alternatives are fairly easy in comparison with offline shopping.

Therefore, this study aimed to identify crucial decision process variables related to the repurchase

behavior of online shoppers. We propose the following research questions:

Q1. To what extent is prepurchase search effort associated with postpurchase affective reactions

(satisfaction and regret)?

Q2. To what extent are postpurchase evaluation outcomes (confirmation and alternative attractiveness)

associated with postpurchase affective reactions (satisfaction and regret)?

Q3. To what extent do satisfaction, regret, and alternative attractiveness predict repurchase intention?

Q4. To what extent does PL moderate the relationships between repurchase intention and its antecedents?

Literature Review

Expectancy Confirmation Theory

The ECT has been widely adopted to study customer satisfaction and behavioral continuance (e.g.,
repurchase of products, continuance of service use) [67,74]. The ECT posits that customers’ intention to
repurchase products or continuous service use is determined primarily by their satisfaction with prior use
of the product/service. With the ECT, customer satisfaction is conceptualized as a function of expectation
and expectancy confirmation/disconfirmation. Expectation is thought to create a reference point that the
customer can use to make a comparative judgment once the product/service is purchased [74].
Confirmation/disconfirmation is determined jointly by the combination of the expectation and
performance manipulations such as advertisements and word-of-mouth [31].
Confirmation/disconfirmation of beliefs refers to the judgments or evaluations that a person makes
regarding a product, service, or technology artifact. Such evaluations or judgments are made in
comparison with the person’s original expectations. There are three levels of
confirmation/disconfirmation. First, when a product, service, or technology artifact exceeds a person’s
original expectations, the (dis)confirmation is positive, which is posited to increase postpurchase or
postadoption satisfaction. Second, when a product, service, or technology artifact does not meet the
person’s original expectations, the (dis)confirmation is negative, which is posited to reduce postpurchase
or postadoption satisfaction (i.e., to increase dissatisfaction) [75]. Third, when a product, service, or
technology artifact performs at the level of expectations, there is a confirmation of expectation, which is
posited to maintain postpurchase or postadoption satisfaction. The value of disconfirmation can range
from negative disconfirmation to positive disconfirmation with confirmation in the middle. However, in
IS literature, the term disconfirmation and confirmation are used interchangeably in the context of the
ECT studies [1,78]. Therefore, hereafter, we use the term confirmation to refer to the
confirmation/disconfirmation construct in the ECT.

Figure 1 shows key constructs and relationships in the ECT.

The ECT has been successful in explaining customer satisfaction and postconsumption behavior in
customer behavior literature; however, it fails to consider other customer affective reactions after purchase
in addition to satisfaction. For instance, the level of satisfaction does not always convert current customers
into long-term loyal customers nor prevent customers from switching to other stores [55]. This is because
the repeat purchase decision (repatronage intention) from the same retailer is not always only based on
evaluations of the incumbent retailer’s performance but also involves continuous decision-making as
customers choose between the myriad of retailers available with the exception of when repeat purchases
become habit. However, the latter takes times and is not always applicable to all repurchase situations.
When a habit is formed, customers are likely to make decisions unconsciously, and the purchase decisions
become automatic and is performed with cues [8]. However, not all purchase behaviors develop into habit
nor does the condition of inertia constantly occur. Luxury goods, such as high-end jewelry and houses, are
logically high-involvement products [73]. Repurchase decision regarding such goods is scrutinized
intensely and is unlikely to be overcome by habit. This kind of decision requires a person’s elaboration
and relatively more thought, including expectancy value and cognitive response processes [73], which is
similar to the assumption of this study. Customers are assumed to go through a series of prepurchase
stages for need recognition, information searching, and alternative evaluation and then experience positive
or negative affect reactions.
These purchasing stages are even more applicable in online context; customers can easily search for
information, evaluate alternatives, and make choices among multiple e-tailers, with other e-tailers serving
as external reference points that are likely to influence customers’ postconsumption evaluations and
repurchase decisions [14]. As a result, theoretical extensions of the ECT are required when modeling
customers’ repurchase behaviors in the online shopping context, although the ECT offers a rigorous
foundation for explaining the same. We argue that online customer behavior should be re-examined by
adding factors that relate the external referent (i.e., regret and alternative attractiveness) to the ECT.
Existing literature suggests that evaluation of products or services occurs in prepurchasing stage where
customers compare what they know about different products and brands with what they consider most
important to narrow down the field of alternatives before they make the final decision [72, p.80]. Even if
the product works well, customers often ``second-guess'' their purchase decisions, particularly with
relatively expensive items. Cognitive dissonance or postpurchasing regret appears in this stage [72, p.85].
Therefore, the external referent such as alterative attractiveness and regret play crucial roles in the
decision process of customers in repurchasing stages of products or services; adding them to the ECT can
create a model that better explain repurchase behavior. The results can help practitioners to understand the
roles of alternative attractiveness and regret in improving customer satisfaction and ultimately increasing
repurchase patronage.

In the following subsection, we review the regret theory, discuss the roles of satisfaction and regret in

repurchase decisions, and argue how alternative attractiveness fit in the repurchase context.

Regret Theory

In Philosophy, regret is defined as an emotion that is cognitively laden or cognitively determined [91]. An
individual experiences regret when the outcome of the forgone alternative would have been better but
rejoices when the outcome of the forgone alternative would have been worse [65,59]. An individual tends
to avoid negative emotions such as regret and strives for positive emotions such as joy when making
decisions. People will sacrifice monetary gain to ensure that they will not experience subsequent regret.
Though regret and joy are only felt after the outcomes of the decision are known, they are anticipated and
considered when evaluating different options [59]. Thus, the anticipation of future regret affects current
choices [19,29].
In economics, regret is defined as a reaction to the difference between the outcomes of a chosen and
forgone alternatives. Researchers consider the probability of regret when formulating decision theories to
explain many observed violations of the axioms of the expected utility theory [19,29,92]. The expected
utility of an option depends not only on the calculus of pain and pleasure associated with the outcomes of
that option but also on the regret that one may experience by comparing the outcomes of that option to the
outcomes of a rejected option [59].
Economic theories of choice that can be used to model the user behaviors are the regret theory, expected
utility theory, and prospect theory. These theories define behaviors differently such that we can see
consumers as regret minimizers, utility maximizers, and prospect maximizers. The value of understanding
these theories is to capture the ideas of regret aversion, risk aversion, and risk seeking. The choice of
theory depends on which theory is more suitable in modeling consumer behavior in a given context. Table
1 summarizes the economic theories and their application areas.
Although the regret theory suggested by economic theorists has been tested in different contexts [34,51], it
has incurred some criticism. When regret is defined as ``the difference in value between the assets actually
received and the highest level of assets produced by other alternatives'' [19, p.963], the concept becomes
problematic. For example, economic regret theories fail to consider the fact that different decision paths to
the same outcome can induce very different levels of regret [91] and that regret is not believed to be
restricted to those circumstances in which the outcomes of rejected alternatives are known. Some
economic theorists have argued that regret does not arise if the outcomes of the rejected alternatives are
never revealed (e.g., [19]). Similar findings appear in psychology. Psychologists studying counterfactual
thinking (CFT) [66] have suggested that regret should be restricted to those circumstances in which the
outcomes of forgone alternatives are known; otherwise, people may engage in CFT and construct
hypothetical scenarios through mental simulations to provide a comparison standard to reality [58,65]. All
in all, the concept of regret in literature shows that the conceptualization of regret suggested by economic
theorists needs to be revised on the basis of what psychologists have proposed. Having CFT seems to be a
more reasonable explanation for customers in the process of decision-making.
There is often a trade-off between financial return and regret. Customers are prepared to spend more
money to avoid regret because one tends to believe that a more expensive product/service would have
better performance. Therefore, the regret theory can serve as an alternative theory of rational choice under
uncertainty [29]. When decision-makers exhibit some of the behavioral paradoxes that the expected utility
theory fails to predicate [19], the violations of the axioms of rational choice, such as that revealed in
Allais’ paradox and many other axiom violations [16], can be explained by the regret theory. Examples of
paradoxical behavior include the coexistence of insurance and gambling, the reflection effect,
probabilistic insurance, and preference reversals, which are all consistent with a desire to avoid
postdecision regret [19]. These behavioral paradoxes arguably differ from an online shopping setting,
where decision-making can be more direct. However, the risks and uncertainty that are involved in online
shopping are inherent in online purchase decisions; specifically, a person under these behavioral
paradoxes selects a risk-free option, and thus, utility is not the only reason for a choice. In
decision-making, the expected utility of an option depends not only on the calculus of pain and pleasure
associated with the outcomes of that option but also on the regret that one may experience when the
outcomes of that option are compared with the outcomes of a rejected option [59]. Therefore, it is
reasonable to argue that the regret theory complements the utility theory and prospect theory by adding a
crucial factor of decision-making: forgone opportunity.

The Roles of Satisfaction and Regret in Repurchase Decisions

Customer satisfaction is considered to be one of the most critical aspects of business success because it is
closely associated with firms’ competitiveness and profit making. Customer satisfaction may lead to many
benefits such as improvement of the firm’s reputation and image, reduction of customer turnover,
increased attention to customer needs in total quality management planning, reduction of marketing costs,
transaction costs, and costs related to product/service failures, and, finally, increased satisfaction among
personnel and greater stability of the workforce [12].
Satisfaction and loyalty are inextricably linked, and this relation is asymmetric. Although loyal customers
are typically satisfied, satisfaction does not universally translate into loyalty [74,88]. In other words,
satisfaction is an incomplete precursor to loyalty. Moreover, satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty
formation but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set in through other mechanisms. One of these
mechanisms include other affective reaction constructs such as regret.
The regret theory posits that a comparison between the chosen and forgone alternative may influence
customer behaviors. It is a powerful influence and, in contrast to rejoicing, can more easily explain
repatronage decisions [76]. First, anticipated regret is likely to influence a customer’s choice to purchase a
particular product/service [59]. After purchase, customers will experience either regret or rejoicing,
depending on whether the forgone alternative performs better than the chosen alternative [58]. Customers
who experience regret may switch to the forgone alternative even when they are satisfied with the chosen
alternative [58] because alternative choices are re-evaluated during the postpurchase phase. This indicates
that repurchase intention may not be solely determined by satisfaction with the product/service.
The regret theory challenges customer satisfaction research, which suggests that satisfaction solely
depends on the quality of the product/service that is actually consumed [2]. Previous findings with regret
and purchasing decision inform us that postpurchase evaluations can be predicted by both regret and
satisfaction [76], which are the outcomes of postpurchase evaluations of actual performance relative to
customers’ prepurchase expectations and relative to the best competing alternative.
Although both satisfaction and regret represent a response of postchoice evaluations, the reference points
for these two concepts are different. Satisfaction entails comparisons between actual performance and
expected performance (internal reference points), whereas regret entails comparisons of attributes across
competing alternatives (external reference points). Moreover, satisfaction is related to outcomes, whereas
regret is specifically related to choices [58].

External Information Search

Information search is a key stage in the customer decision-making process [71]. Before making a purchase
decision, customers may engage in both internal and external information search. Internal search involves
scanning and retrieving decision-relevant knowledge stored in memory, whereas external search involves
collecting information from the environment [71]. A substantial external search may lead customers to
obtain cost savings and thus increase their satisfaction with the purchase decision [33]. Search effort is
positively related to product satisfaction [32]. Dissatisfaction declines with amount of external search
[32].
With the growth the World Wide Web, customers can efficiently and effectively access vast amounts of
product/service information. Some factors such as ease of search, availability of extensive information,
and low cost of searching may motivate customers to engage in online prepurchase search more
extensively [79]. The greater the number of alternatives that meet a customer’s needs and financial
constraints, the more likely the customer is to conduct an extensive external search [33]. In general,
customers can easily find more alternatives on the Internet and thus are more likely to engage in extensive
external search when shopping online.
Information search is an important component of the decision-making process when shopping online;
however, little is known regarding how the amount of search influences other salient decision process
constructs [68 p. 353]. Customers may take advantage of low search costs and availability of ample
information to more extensively and deeply engage in prepurchase information search on the Internet to
make better purchase decisions.

Alternative Attractiveness

Alternative attractiveness refers to customer perceptions regarding the extent to which viable competing
alternatives are available in the marketplace [61]. An alternative acts as a reference point when
determining relationship continuity; this has been supported by empirical evidence across disciplines such
as interpersonal relationships and employee turnover [44]. Because the perceived benefits of defecting are
low, customers may stay in the relationship when viable alternatives are lacking or when they are unaware
of viable alternatives [61]. Even if customers are not satisfied with their current service providers, they
may also stay when the current service providers are better than other alternatives [56]. Conversely,
customers may switch when acceptable alternatives become available.
Customers’ perception of alternative attractiveness can be a strong factor that attracts, or ``pulls,''
customers away from their current service providers [28,56,76,100]. Once viable alternatives are
available, customers will compare them with current service providers. If the latter is believed to be able to
better satisfy the customers’ needs, it will be chosen for the next purchase. Alternative attractiveness may
therefore play a role in customers’ repurchase decisions.
Customers’ perceptions of alternative e-stores can be expected to influence their intentions to repurchase
from the current e-tailer. When there is a lack of competition in the e-marketplace, some customers may
come to depend on a particular e-tailer [42]. However, the motivation to continue an unsatisfactory
relationship diminishes in the presence of a highly attractive alternative [64]. Even if customers are
satisfied with current e-tailer, they may still intend to switch to the alternate e-tailer when they find a more
attractive alternative [17,89]. An alternative can act as an external reference point when determining
relationship continuity. When customers perceive that viable competing alternatives are available in the
e-marketplace, they may consider that the chosen alternative was not the optimal choice and feel regret for
not having chosen the best alternative [14]. In this sense, alternative attractiveness relates to the regret
theory discussed earlier because it has something to do with choice. Although satisfaction entails
comparisons between actual performance and expected performance (internal reference point), regret
entails comparisons of attributes across competing alternatives (external reference points). Regret is
specifically related to choices, whereas satisfaction is about the outcome of current choice [58]. Therefore,
alternative attractiveness is an antecedent of regret because a person must have choice first before they can
experience regret.

Loyalty

In the field of marketing, researchers have called for a paradigm shift, placing a greater emphasis on the
pursuit of customer loyalty as opposed to customer satisfaction [7,49,74]. Customer loyalty is a major
driver of success in e-commerce [25]. Loyal customers tend to show special preference, attachment, and
commitment to their chosen vendor. They also spread positive word-of-mouth endorsements, have a low
tendency to switch to competitive brands, maintain a high tolerance to service failure, and display a
willingness to pay premium price [4,60]. As a result, customer loyalty can be a major source of sustained
growth and profit and a valuable asset for firms [23].
From a behavioral perspective, brand loyalty is conceptualized in terms of repeated purchases [94].
Repeated purchase behavior is operationalized as repurchase intention in the ECT theoretical framework
[67, 74]. Behavioral brand loyalty is regarded as the frequency level of purchases made by a customer for
the same product/service in a specific category compared to the total number of purchases made by the
customers in that category [94]. Accordingly, real customer loyalty is a behavior and can be measured as a
frequency level of patronage. From an attitudinal perspective, customer loyalty is viewed as a specific
desire to continue a relationship with a service provider [41]. In practice, most researchers have used both
attitudinal and behavioral measures to define and assess loyalty (e.g., [93]). For example, loyalty is
defined as ``a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in
the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior'' [75, p. 392].
PL might act as a moderator of repurchase intention and its antecedents because highly loyal customers
use different mechanisms in evaluating consumption experiences in comparison with less loyal customers
[99]. For instance, attributes important to loyal customers are not the ones that are important to new
customers [90]. Satisfaction does not affect future intentions of loyal customers; however, for nonloyal
customers, satisfaction is an important indicator of repurchase intention [25].
Research Model and Hypotheses
Research Model

In this section, we formulate the research model to investigate the repurchase behavior (a measure of
loyalty) of online shoppers by extending the ECT. Under the ECT framework, the proposed model
incorporates the effects of external reference points (alternative attractiveness and regret) from the regret
theory, search effort, and PL into the ECT to develop a comprehensive model of customer retention.
Although the ECT bases its explanation of repurchase intention (postadoption behavior) on satisfaction,
we argue that adding regret construct from the regret theory helps improve our understanding of
repurchase intention from another perspective. This is because satisfaction involves the internal reference
point of comparison between actual performance and expected performance of a product/service, whereas
regret involves external reference points in comparing product/service attributes across competing
alternatives. For instance, when customers perceive that viable competing alternatives are available
(external reference point), they may switch to the new alternative even if they are satisfied (internal
reference point) with current e-tailer as long as they believe that they will get a better deal from the
alternative. To further explain regret, we add alternative attractiveness to the model. Regret is specifically
related to choices [58]. Along the line of our example above, after switching to another alternative e-tailer,
customers might experience regret (external reference point) if the new e-tailer performs at a lower level
than either their previous e-tailer or another alterative. Therefore, alternative attractiveness is an
antecedent of regret because a person must have choice first for regret to happen. In another construct,
search effort rooted in the contrast theory and dissonance theory [77] is also incorporated into the model to
help explain satisfaction and regret. In addition to theoretical argument, another basis that we use to
include these constructs and theories in the extension of the ECT is the evidence of their inclusion and
being tested in previous studies in similar contexts. Figure 2 depicts the research model.

<ENUN>Hypotheses

<ENUN-P>ECT posits that customer satisfaction is determined by expectation confirmation [80]. The
confirmation-satisfaction association is well established in marketing literature and verified empirically in
the context of e-commerce service/web portal continuance [1,83]. Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis:

H1. Confirmation is positively associated with customer satisfaction.

Positive relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions is attested in marketing literature
[53,74]. Numerous IS research also found a positive relationship between satisfaction and intention to
continue IT usage [1,35,97]. Accordingly, we propose the following:

H2. Satisfaction is positively associated with customers’ repurchase intention.

People often maximize feeling of satisfaction or utility by choosing an option that protects them from
feeling negatively [45,80]. When realizing or imagining that a different option would have led to a better
outcome, a customer regrets his/her decisions and thus may very well intend to switch to the alternate
retailer at the next purchase occasion even if he/she is highly satisfied with the current alternative [58].
Once, a customer experiences regret, he/she is likely to opt for the better alternative when he/she is again
confronted with a similar situation [60]. We therefore can infer that a customer’s repurchase intention will
depend on his/her postconsumption assessments of the retailer’s performance that is related not only to
his/her expectations but also to the best competing alternative. Thus, both satisfaction and regret may
predict repurchase intention and switching intention [35,39,48]. The third hypothesis is as follows:

H3. Regret is negatively associated with repurchase intention.

Regret has a direct negative effect on overall satisfaction [60,82]. Although negative emotions will lead to
more dissatisfaction [63], analysis of the impact of emotions on satisfaction and subsequent customer
behaviors [60] suggests that regret may play a more important role in explaining repatronage behavior
than satisfaction [76]. To cope with the negative emotions, the customer may adjust his/her level of
satisfaction with the chosen outcome depending on how this outcome compares against the forgone
outcome [54,58]. Adjusting the level of satisfaction is a mental process because satisfaction is more of a
hybrid of cognition-emotion. Both cognitive processing and emotional perception resulting from
experience should be factored into account during the satisfaction formation process. In the process of
postconsumption, the customer will attempt to reduce anticipate negative emotions (e.g., regret) and
increase anticipated positive emotions (e.g., satisfaction) [91]. As a result, regret and satisfaction are
emotions that are negatively correlated [62]. The reasons for conceptualizing regret as the antecedent of
satisfaction (but not the other way around) is two-fold. First, the effect of regret on satisfaction is well
established in previous studies (e.g., [75],[58],[101]). For example, Oliver [75] views regret as an
antecedent of satisfaction and argues for the conceptual difference between satisfaction and regret. Inman,
James and Jianmin [101] used an explicit measure of regret (comparison between the chosen and forgone
outcome) and found that the level of regret influences satisfaction. Second, regret is a construct that
represents emotional and cognitive reactions toward a choice, whereas satisfaction is an attitudinal
construct; in the context of postadoption literature, emotional and cognitive reactions are theoretically
argued to have temporal precedent over attitudinal construct-like satisfaction [1,74,78]. In brief, one may
have a feeling of regret for the choice that has been made, and this leads to dissatisfaction and
consequently triggers repurchase behaviors. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H4. Regret is negatively associated with customer satisfaction.

Regret may occur through CFT following negative outcomes. CFT is a process of mentally undoing the
outcome of an event by imagining how things could have turned out differently [3]. It includes thoughts in
which current reality is changed into what might, could, would, or should have been [59].
Every time an individual, as a result of a purchase decision, imagines outcomes other than those actually
experienced, he/she engages in CFT [84]. People spontaneously engage in more CFT after negative
outcomes than they do after positive outcomes [24,58]. In addition, it is notable that the upward
counterfactuals are more frequent after failure, whereas downward counterfactuals are more frequent after
success [5].
CFT is the cognitive mechanism by which regret occurs [84]. Experiments confirm that the level of regret
is significantly higher in the negative outcome condition than in the neutral or positive outcome condition.
When the chosen outcome is negative (e.g., perceived performance falls below expectations), people will
experience regret regardless of the availability of information on a better-forgone outcome [58]. This is
because the negative outcome may cause people to generate more upward counterfactuals, thereby
triggering regret [22,38]. Accordingly, the failure to meet customers’ initial expectations (low
confirmation) has a negative impact not only on satisfaction but also on regret. Regret increases as
confirmation decreases. Thus, we propose that the following:

H5. Confirmation is negatively associated with regret.

Two branches of psychological theory (the ``contrast'' theory and ``dissonance'' theory) give different
insights into how customers’ effort influences their evaluations [77]. The contrast theory suggests that a
customer who receives a product/service less valuable than he/she expected will magnify the difference
between the product/service received and the product/service expected [13]. Festinger’s theory of
cognitive dissonance [52] posits that a person who expects a high-value product/service and receives a
low-value product/service would recognize the disparity and experience a state of cognitive dissonance.
The existence of dissonance should produce pressures for the customer to reduce the disparity, which
could be accomplished by adjusting the perceived disparity to evaluate the product/service in a more
favorable light [86].
To reconcile the different interpretation made by customers about the mismatch between their expectation
and product/service performance under the contrast theory and dissonance theory, Cardozo [77] included
the concept of effort. When customers obtain a product/service less valuable than they expected, those
who expended little effort to obtain the product/service will rate it lower because contrast processes are
free to operate, whereas those who expended considerable effort will overvalue the product/service to
reduce or eliminate the difference between the received and expected outcome because dissonance has
been aroused or recognized.
Cardozo [77] argued that the expenditure of effort itself may produce a perceived disparity between effort
expended and product/service received, i.e., whether customers obtained what they expected or less than
what they expected. Customers who invest considerable effort obtain the same product/service as do those
who expend little effort are likely to perceive a disparity between effort and reward. One possible method
to alleviate the cognitive dissonance would be to raise the evaluation of the product/service received.
Accordingly, customers who expended high effort will evaluate the product/service more favorably than
those who expended low effort [77]. Because a favorable evaluation may follow the expenditure of high
effort, it can be expected that search effort has a positive impact on satisfaction. Some previous studies
(e.g., [32]) have suggested the relationship between search effort and satisfaction.

H6. Search effort is positively associated with customer satisfaction.

Two lines of research support that higher search effort leads to lower level of regret. First, attribution
perspective posits that a customer will evaluate a product/service less positively than expected when only
a small amount of prepurchase information search is conducted. Those who put less search effort in
prepurchase stage generate higher perceived personal responsibility for the undesirable outcome than
those who expended considerable effort. The more an individual perceives him/herself to be responsible
for a negative outcome, the more regret he or she experiences [62]. Thus, we can infer that increased
search effort would result in less regret because regret is associated with a feeling of responsibility for the
choice that has been made.
Second, postpurchase assessment will determine the presence of regret [45]. Having good reasons for a
choice should inoculate a customer against regret, whereas having bad reasons for a choice should amplify
the customer’s regret. Even if the subsequent outcome of the decision ultimately turns out to be negative,
a customer may experience less regret if he/she can rationalize that the choice was the best one to be made
at that time. In general, when a customer devotes considerable time and effort to engage in prepurchase
search, they will have good reasons to justify their choice. Therefore, more search effort is expected to
produce less regret because a good reason for a decision will subsequently lead to lower regret [45].

H7. Search effort is negatively associated with regret.

When gauging their satisfaction with product/service purchased, customers will consider competing
alternatives that they did not purchase [2,100]. Therefore, the attractiveness of alternatives is likely to
influence satisfaction [70]. The underlying reason is that increased alternative attractiveness through
contact with an alternative supplier should be dissonant with the current supplier [70].
Drawing from the cognitive dissonance theory [52], when there is inconsistency or a conflict with past
experience that causes an individual to become distressed, he/she searches for the simplest method to
regain consistency. The tension of dissonance motivates an individual to change his/her belief, attitude,
and behavior to avoid feeling distressed. Online customers may experience cognitive dissonance when
they perceive that better competing alternatives are available in the e-marketplace. Empirical studies have
shown that the greater the attractiveness of the rejected options, the higher the likelihood that cognitive
dissonance will occur [47]. Rational customers may try to remedy this dissonance by modifying their
satisfaction to be more consistent with reality or to cope with their postpurchase dissonance [20].
Accordingly, customers may lower their appraisal of a product/service once they are aware of a highly
attractive alternative.

H8. Attractiveness of competing alternatives is negatively associated with satisfaction.

High attractiveness of alternatives may induce regret because regret results from the comparison of actual
performance against an external reference point (e.g., an alternative). Regret may arise when individuals
appear, after the fact, to have made the wrong decision even if the decision appeared to be the right one at
the time it was made [58]. Similarly, ``after making a decision under uncertainty, a person may discover,
on learning the relevant outcomes, that another alternative would have been preferable; this knowledge
may impart a sense of loss, or regret'' [19, p. 961]. A customer’s perception of alternative attractiveness
may increase over time, for example, because of reduced switching costs, other people’s
recommendations, or direct contact with the competition [17]. Therefore, when customers are aware of a
highly attractive alternative, they may consider that the chosen alternative is not the optimal choice and
thus suffer regret [22,27]. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H9. Attractiveness of competing alternatives is positively associated with customers’ regret.

When viable alternatives are lacking, the probability of terminating an existing relationship decreases
[61]. Therefore, repeat purchase behavior may not indicate loyalty from customers but merely a lack of
alternatives or no perceived differences between alternatives [56]. If clients are unaware of a more
attractive alternative than the current supplier, then they may well stay in a relationship even when it is
perceived as less than satisfactory [64]. Accordingly, the presence of attractive alternatives may decrease a
customer’s dependence on an incumbent e-tailer and increase the likelihood of switching. Conversely,
lacking viable competing alternatives in the e-marketplace will lead to a dependence on the incumbent
e-tailer. Attractiveness of alternatives is an antecedent of relational benefits that enforces repurchase
intention and satisfaction [18]. We therefore hypothesize that the following:

H10. Attractiveness of competing alternatives is negatively associated with repurchase intention.

Moderating Role of Prior Loyalty

PL may have a moderating effect between repurchase intention and its antecedents [98] because PL
involves attitudinal and emotional commitment to the e-tailer so that a customer systematically chooses
one specific e-tailer over others [25]. With an established emotional bond developed over time, a customer
may have a strong intention to repurchase merchandise from his/her favorite e-tailer even if that e-tailer
does not provide the most satisfactory experiences to the customer. In addition, a strong emotional bond
often dilutes the negative effects of relationship transgressions by fostering accommodation,
tolerance/forgiveness, and biased attributions of blame [25]. Because of a strong emotional bond, loyal
customers tend to repurchase merchandise from their preferred e-tailer, even when the e-tailer may no
longer be perceived to be the best one. In addition, because characteristics such as ``accommodation,''
``tolerance/forgiveness,'' and ``attribution biases'' can be found in loyal customers’ attitudes and behaviors
[25], it can be expected that these characteristics may mitigate the negative effect of regret on repurchase
intention. Loyal customers have higher levels of resistance against better alternatives [14]. Having built an
emotional attachment to an e-tailer, loyal customers often tend to resist any inducements (e.g.,
competitors’ persuasive attempts or price cuts) and are more unwilling to switch to an alternative [14].
Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H11. Prior loyalty negatively moderates the relationship between satisfaction and repurchase

intention.

H12. Prior loyalty negatively moderates the relationship between regret and repurchase intention.

H13. Prior loyalty negatively moderates the relationship between alternative attractiveness and

repurchase intention.

Research Methodology

Instrument Development
The research constructs were developed based on prevalidated measures. All scale items were rephrased
to relate specifically to the context of online shopping (see Table 2 for sources and operational definitions
of the measures). All items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale with anchors of strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), except for confirmation, which was measured on a seven-point semantic
differential scale. Appendix A lists the scale items.
PL is operationalized in this study as the frequency level at which a customer chooses to purchase a
product or service in a specific category from a particular e-store compared to the frequency level of
purchases made from other e-stores under the condition that other acceptable products or services are
conveniently available in that category. This construct operationalization is based on instruments used in
previous study by Yi and La [99]. We adopted a behavioral perspective because customers’ attitudes may
change over time; measuring PL from an attitudinal perspective is not practicable.
To ensure precision and clarity, a preliminary version of the instrument was reviewed by three doctoral
students and one expert in the e-commerce field. Subsequently, the instrument was pretested and
administered to 10 selected respondents of different ages, sexes, and levels of education to verify
appropriateness and comprehensiveness. Each respondent has more than 3 years of experience in online
shopping. In this way, the content validity of the instruments was assessed. None of these phases revealed
any major problems.

Sample and Procedures

Subjects for this study were experienced online shoppers who have purchased physical (i.e., nondigital)
products online. To better target the desired subjects, a Web-based survey was used to collect data from
volunteers. The online version of the questionnaire was set up on a survey portal (My3q.com).
In the pilot study, we tested the instrument and administration procedures. A message that stated the
purpose of the study and provided a hyperlink to the survey form was posted on a popular forum
(http://www.eyny.com/index.php) in Taiwan. As an incentive, we offered respondents an opportunity to
participate in a draw for several prizes.
In total, 48 responses were collected in 1 week. After removing responses with duplicate IP addresses and
those with identical values for each item of the questionnaire, 43 valid questionnaires remained. Statistical
analysis shows that the Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients of all constructs were above 0.89 and therefore
acceptable [43].
Data collection was conducted using the same procedures as in the pilot test. A call for participation
message was posted on some popular forums, messages boards, and a popular bulletin board system in
Taiwan, including Jkforum (http://www.jkforum.net/), Wefong (http://bbs.wefong.com/), Failforum
(http://www.failforum.net/forum/index.php), youthwant (http://topic.youthwant.com.
tw/list.php?cls=bbs&sno=4), and PTT (telnet://ptt.cc). A total of 884 complete questionnaires were
collected in 1 month. On the basis of the responses, the top four online retailing sites purchased from were
buy.yahoo.com.tw (36%), books.com.tw (21%), shopping.pchome.com.tw (11%), and kingstone.com.tw
(4%). For data analysis, this study used the 322 responses collected from the customers of
buy.yahoo.com.tw to ensure that the shopping environment studied is identical. After removing responses
with duplicate IP addresses and those with identical values in all items from the collected samples, 268
complete and valid responses were obtained and used for data analysis. A total of 268 participants
completed the survey: 100 males (37.3%) and 168 females (62.7%). The participants were between 19 and
51 years old. The majority (76.1%) were between 20 and 29 years old. Fifty-six percent were college
students, and 39% reported using Internet for shopping over 6 years. Appendix C contains the
demographic information of respondents.

Data Analysis and Results

Partial least squares (PLS, SmartPLS Version 2.0) was used to assess both the measurement model and the
structural model. We chose PLS to analyze the data and test the model because it is suitable for
theory-building research that emphasizes the predictive power of a model which is what we intend to do in
this study [95,96]. First, the measurement model was developed and evaluated to establish the convergent
and discriminant validity of the constructs with a confirmatory factor analysis. Next, the structural model
was tested to assess the hypothesized relationships in the proposed research model.

Measurement Model

All constructs in the model exhibited good internal consistency as evidenced by their composite reliability
(CR) scores. The CR values ranged from 0.899 (alternative attractiveness) to 0.957 (satisfaction), which
were greater than 0.7 and thus demonstrated an acceptable level of reliability (Appendix C). The AVE
values ranged from 0.690 (alternative attractiveness) to 0.848 (satisfaction). All AVE values exceeded the
0.5 benchmark (Appendix C). In addition, as expected, all items exhibited a loading higher than 0.7 on
their respective construct and were significant at p < 0.001. To evaluate discriminant validity, the square
roots of average variance extracted were compared with the correlations among the latent variables. As
shown in Table 3, the square root of each construct’s average variance extracted (diagonal elements) is
larger than its correlations with other constructs, thereby indicating adequate discriminant validity [9].
This study further verified discriminant validity by examining the cross-loading matrix to ensure that no
item loads higher on another construct than it does on the construct it is supposed to measure [96]. Item
loadings ranged from 0.804 to 0.941 and all the items loaded higher on the construct that they were
supposed to measure than on any other constructs, showing that all items complied with the heuristics
(Appendix C).

Common Method Bias

To rule out the issue of common method bias, we used Harman’s one-factor test [36] and conducted an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with all the items of the research model. The EFA showed that the first
six eigenvalues were greater than 1. The combined variance of the six factors was 77.69%. The first factor
accounted for 37.84% of the variance, whereas the remaining five factors accounted for 39.85% of the
variance. Because more than one factor was identified and because no single factor explained a majority of
the variance [36], potential common method bias was not a serious threat to this study.

Structural Model
To test the hypotheses, the bootstrapping technique was used to produce the t-value and test the

significance of the path coefficients.

Direct Effect

Figure 3 presents the results of the main effect model and the standardized path coefficients with

nonsignificant paths represented as dotted lines. The variance explained for each dependent variable is

also shown in Figure 3. The significance of all paths was assessed with 500 bootstrap runs using Smart

PLS Version 2.0.

As shown in Figure 3, all specified paths were statistically significant except for the direct paths from
alternative attractiveness to satisfaction and from alternative attractiveness to repurchase intention, which
were not significant. Repurchase intention was predicted by satisfaction (β = 0.457, p < 0.01) and regret (β
= -0.382, p < 0.01), rendering support for H2 and H3. Confirmation (β = 0.334, P < 0.01), search effort (β
= 0.159, p < 0.01), and regret (β = -0.455, P < 0.01) were significant predictors of satisfaction, thus
validating H1, H6, and H4. Confirmation (β = -0.378, P < 0.01), search effort (β = -0.121, P < 0.05), and
alternative attractiveness (β = 0.290, P < 0.01) were significant predictors of regret. Thus, H5, H7, and H9
were supported. However, alternative attractiveness had no significant effects on satisfaction (β = 0.016)
and repurchase intention (β = −0.066). Thus, H8 and H10 were not supported. The explained variance of
repurchase intention was 61.0%, that of satisfaction was 52.8%, and that of regret was 30.0%.

Moderating Effect

This study adopted a four-step approach to test the moderating effect of PL toward repurchase intention
and its antecedents. First, the main effect model was tested without incorporating the PL construct.
Second, the alternative model (as shown in Figure 4) with PL that has a direct effect on repurchase
intention was tested. Third, the interaction effect model with PL as a moderator was tested (as shown in
Figure 5). Fourth, a hierarchical difference test was conducted to compare the explanatory power of the
three models described above.
The results of the alternative model (Figures 4) illustrate that PL has a direct effect on repurchase
intention. Standardized beta for PL, satisfaction, regret, and alternative attractiveness are 0.244, 0.412,
−0.374, and 0.031 respectively, with an R2 of 0.654 for repurchase intention.
Figure 5 illustrates the interaction effect model with PL as a moderator. The model accounts for 67.6% of

the variance in repurchase intention, 52.8% of the variance in satisfaction, and 30.0% of the variance in

regret.

To test the moderating effect of PL using PLS, this study applied the procedure recommended by Chin et
al. [95] and followed a hierarchical process similar to multiple regression where the results of the two
models were compared (i.e., one with and one without the interaction construct). This study compared the
difference in R2 among the main effect model, alternative model, and interaction effect model to assess the
overall effect size f2 for the interaction where 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 have been suggested to be considered as
small, moderate, and large effects, respectively [40].

The effect sizes were calculated by formula (1) as suggested by Chin [96]:

R2
R2
f 
2 included
excluded

1
R2
(1)
included

2
where f2 is the effect size of an independent construct, Rincluded is the R-square value of a dependent

2
construct when the tested independent construct is included in the model, and Rexcluded is the R-square

value of a dependent construct when the tested independent construct is excluded from the model.
As indicated in Table 4, the interaction effect model in which PL is proposed to moderate the links
between repurchase intention and its antecedents possesses a significantly higher explanatory power than
the other two models. The inclusion of the interaction effects (see Figure 5) increases the R2 for repurchase
intention to 0.676. On the basis of the hierarchical difference test, the interaction effect was found to have
an effect size (f2) of 0.068, which represents a small to moderate effect size. The results of this study
showed that PL negatively moderated the relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intention (β =
-0.159, P < 0.05), rendering support for H11. However, the moderating effects of PL on the relationships
between regret and repurchase intention (β = −0.051) and between alternative attractiveness and
repurchase intention (β = 0.052) were found to be not significant. Thus, H11 and H12 were not supported.
In brief, all the hypotheses were supported, except H 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Impact of Regret on the Model

To estimate the effect of the regret construct, we further performed model estimation with regret omitted
from the model. After removing regret, we re-estimated the model; the results show that the R2 values of
repurchase intention and satisfaction drop from 0.676 to 0.600 and from 0.528 to 0.385, respectively; the
relationship between alternative attractiveness and satisfaction is significant (β = −0.121, P < 0.05). This
result suggests that regret has a considerable effect on satisfaction and repurchase intention. Alternative
attractiveness contributes negatively to the variance of satisfaction, suggesting that when other choices are
viable to a customer, he or she is more likely to feel less satisfied with the purchase.
When regret is not considered, the explanatory power of the precursors decreases for both repurchase
intention and satisfaction, indicating the importance of regret in purchase decisions and affect reactions.
However, when regret is not present, alternative attractiveness acts as a weak precursor of satisfaction; its
impact cannot be overlooked.
Discussion

The results support the ECT’s assumption that confirmation has an influence on satisfaction, which in turn
influences repurchase intention. The results also indicate that regret has an impact on repurchase intention
and mediates the effects alternative attractiveness have on satisfaction and repurchase intention. The
results show that repurchase intention is influenced primarily by satisfaction and secondarily by regret.
Therefore, satisfied customers are more likely to repurchase from the same e-tailer, and customers who
experienced regret have lower intention to repurchase from the same e-tailer. When regret was not
factored into account, explaining power of the precursors decreases for both repurchase intention and
satisfaction, which indicates the importance of regret in purchase decision and affective reactions.
Confirmation was found to have a greater effect on regret, suggesting that failure to meet customers’
expectations would not only decrease their satisfaction but lead them to experience regret.
Alternative attractiveness had a significant positive effect on regret, suggesting that high attractiveness of
alternatives may induce regret. In contrast, alternative attractiveness had no significant effect on
satisfaction and repurchasing intention, suggesting that the causal path from alternative attractiveness to
satisfaction and from alternative attractiveness to repurchase intention should be eliminated. The findings
that alternative attractiveness had a nonsignificant influence on satisfaction and repurchase intention are
inconsistent with the results of earlier studies suggesting that alternative attractiveness is a direct
antecedent of satisfaction [100] and loyalty [12]. A possible explanation for the inconsistency is that
partial examinations of the simple bivariate links between alternative attractiveness and either of the two
constructs (satisfaction and repurchase intention) may mask or overstate their true relationship because of
omitted variable bias. The insignificant relationship between alternative attractiveness and satisfaction
was also found in Yim et al.’s [14] study. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that alternative
attractiveness influences satisfaction and repurchase intention indirectly through regret. However, when
regret is not present, alternative attractiveness displays a weak precursor of satisfaction; its impact cannot
be overlooked. This suggests that alternative attractiveness has a stronger theoretical tie to the regret
theory (external reference point) than to the ECT (internal reference point).
This study found that prepurchase search effort is associated with satisfaction and regret. This result is
consistent with previous studies (e.g., [32]), which found a positive relationship between search effort and
satisfaction, and is in accordance with experimental findings [77], which suggested that a favorable
evaluation follows the expenditure of high effort. Search effort had also a significant negative influence on
regret, suggesting that prepurchase search effort not only contributes to postpurchase satisfaction but also
decreases postpurchase regret.
Most previous e-commerce researches neglected the role of PL in repurchase decisions. This study
examined the moderating effect of PL on the relationships between repurchase intention and its
antecedents in online shopping context. The empirical examination of the moderating effect of PL
revealed that the moderating effect was significant in relation to satisfaction. That is, the effect of
satisfaction on repurchase intention decreases as loyalty to a particular e-tailer increases. However, this
study found that PL had no moderating effect on the relationship between regret and repurchase intention.
These results indicate that although high loyalty is likely to intensify the influence of positive emotion
(e.g., satisfaction) toward repurchasing, it may be unable to alleviate the influence of negative emotion
(e.g., regret) toward repurchasing. Accordingly, regret may be a more reliable predictor of repurchase
intention than PL. In addition, this study found that alternative attractiveness did not exert a significant
influence on repurchase intention and that the relationship between alternative attractiveness and
repurchase intention was also not moderated by PL.

Theoretical Implications

The results of this study suggest that regret entails comparisons of attributes across competing
alternatives. With postconsumption evaluations, customers determine whether the actual performance
surpasses competing alternatives; this can be based on customers’ actual experience with alternatives,
information about alternatives from other sources, or imagining another alternative through mental
simulations. These postconsumption evaluations will lead to a decrease in satisfaction when the actual
performance falls below expectations. At the same time, the negative outcome may also drive customers
to engage in CFT, thereby stimulating occurs. Accordingly, postconsumption affective responses such as
regret may have been overlooked by prior ECT-based studies. Failure to meet customers’ preconsumption
expectations will not only decrease their satisfaction but also increase their level of regret.
This study found that both search effort and confirmation of expectations influenced satisfaction. The
results imply that customer satisfaction may depend not only upon the product/service itself but also upon
the experience surrounding acquisition of the product/service [49,77,81]. Similarly, customers’ level of
regret also depends upon the experience surrounding the acquisition of the product/service in addition to
its dependence on the confirmation of expectations and attractiveness of alternatives. Despite the
important role prepurchase information search plays in the decision process of online customers’
purchasing, little research has explored its impact on other decision process variables. This study
investigated the repurchase behavior of online customers in a wider perspective by incorporating a search
effort construct into the research model, enriching the understanding of online customer behavior.
In brief, our research expands the scope of the ECT and adds to it factors that have been discussed in
consumer research literature. With a large sample size, we found the pattern of relationships of constructs
in the regret theory and ECT hold well. This informs us that consumers are actually performing
evaluations before and after purchasing. This also informs us that the snapshot view of the ECT may not fit
well in the reality where consumers go through multiple stages of decision process and thus can be
enriched by the regret theory. Our model integration takes a step further to examine the decision process in
online context where searching and looking for alternatives are fairly easy compares to offline shopping;
therefore, we extend the ECT with the theory of consumer choice in online context. Our model considers
external reference-point factors such as regret from the regret theory to enhance the understanding of
repurchasing behavior of online shoppers. Although satisfaction involves internal reference point of
comparison between actual performance and expected performance of a product or service, regret is a
postpurchase affective response variable that entails comparisons of attributes across competing
alternatives, thus creating an external reference point for postpurchase decision. The results of this study
show that using both factors increases the explaining power for repurchase intention in the model. As a
result, we bridge one of the gaps in the postadoption literature. Another theoretical implication of this
study is to incorporate search effort from the contrast theory and dissonance theory and alternative
attractiveness into a unified postadoption model to help explain satisfaction and regret. More research
efforts should be made to test the robustness of our theoretical framework so the process of online
shopping experience can be fully understood.

Managerial Implications

The present research has several managerial implications for e-tailers. First, this study showed that
satisfaction is the strongest predictor of repurchase intention, so customer satisfaction should remain the
primary strategic focus of e-tailers. Satisfying customer with superior customer service and customer
relationship management is the key to maintain competitive advantage. Moreover, the negative influence
of regret should not be neglected. E-tailers’ customer retention strategy should prevent customers from
experiencing regret after making their purchase. This can be achieved by offering superior product and
quality service with innovative features through differentiation strategy.
Second, e-tailers should not solely focus on improving their own performance while neglecting the effect
of external referents because alternative attractiveness was found to have an indirect effect on satisfaction
through regret. E-tailers may stress their own strengths and distinctive features in comparative advertising
and promotional messages to reduce customers’ positive perceptions of the attractiveness of alternatives
and avoid postconsumption regret. These messages may also help attract new customers by inducing
regret in them to convert them to loyal customer. It is especially necessary to create benchmark with the
closest competitors in every product/service offering and continuously monitor customers’ perceptions of
the attractiveness of those competitors. This will ensure excellent performance and high-quality service
over and above the competitors to effectively retain customer in the long run. On the defensive end, it is
important that managers should value and develop regret aversion strategy, avoid or minimize customer
churn or attrition, and encourage customer loyalty, thus maintaining or increasing transactions with the
firm. In other words, identifying the factors that determine negative reactions such as regret and positive
affective responses such as satisfaction will allow managers to, on the one hand, retain potential switchers,
and, on the other hand, develop strategies to attract the competition’s potential switchers.
Third, prepurchase search effort has an impact on postpurchase emotional/affective reactions, so
expenditure of higher effort produces higher satisfaction and lower regret. An e-tailer should strive to
establish and maintain excellent word-of-mouth endorsements on the Internet and ensure the information
quality and system quality to facilitate searching because positive word-of-mouth advertizing about
e-tailers is a strong predictor of intention to purchase [15]. Finally, e-tailers should develop strategies to
deal with different levels of customer loyalty. High-loyalty customers become less sensitive to their
satisfaction when making repurchase decisions. Therefore, e-tailers should allocate much more customer
retention resources to enhance customer satisfaction for low-loyalty customers as opposed to high-loyalty
customers.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study has some limitations. First, the samples of this study may not be fully representative of
the entire population. Caution must be employed when generalizing the results. Second, the samples are
experienced online shoppers; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to inexperienced shoppers.
Third, the results might not be generalizable to other e-tailers because samples were collected from
customers of a specific e-tailer. Fourth, the cross-sectional design of this study did not present an
opportunity to examine the long-term trend of these hypothesized relationships. Future research could take
a longitudinal perspective to test the proposed model. Finally, despite careful design and pretest, the
retrospective nature of this survey may introduce potential response biases (e.g., memory recall errors).
Regret is only one of negative emotions under investigation, but other negative emotions (such as
disappointment, frustration, anxiety, and so forth) may be a promising avenue of future research.
Moreover, confirmation and alternative attractiveness were found to be significant predictors of regret,
implying that negative emotion may emerge when actual performance is lower than the internal
(preconsumption expectations) and/or external (perceived performance of alternatives) reference points.
This study has provided a preliminary investigation of the antecedents of regret, so future research could
explore other potential predictors of regret. This will provide insight into understanding how and why
regret can be experienced. In addition, it would be also interesting to conduct an in-depth study
investigating how low-loyalty and high-loyalty customers vary in their postconsumption evaluations.

Conclusion

The primary contribution of this study is the integration of variables associated with external referents
(alternative attractiveness and regret) and prepurchase information search activity (search effort) with the
ECT’s constructs (confirmation, satisfaction, and repurchase intention) into a parsimonious model that
jointly predicts the customers’ intention to repurchase. ECT-related hypotheses were all confirmed,
verifying that the ECT is effective in explaining the repurchase behavior of online customers. In addition
to ECT-related variables, this study also identified the potential key factors, search effort, alternative
attractiveness, regret, and PL and understood the way they contribute to the repurchase intention of online
customers. Overall, this study presents several new findings that contribute to our understanding of online
customer behavior.

Appendix A

Appendix A. Research Constructs and Scale Items

Confirmation (C)
C1: Did you feel the e-store overprovided/underprovided the quality goods and service compared to your prior
expectations? (much worse than expected/much better than expected).
C2: Did you feel the e-store overprovided/underprovided benefits corresponding to its price compared to your prior
expectations? (much worse than expected/much better than expected).
C3: Did you feel the e-store overfulfilled/underfulfilled your needs and objectives compared to your prior
expectations? (much worse than expected/much better than expected).
C4: Did you feel the e-store was better/worse overall compared to your prior expectations? (much worse than
expected/much better than expected)

Search Effort (SE)

SE1: I visited a lot of e-stores before making the purchase decision. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
SE2: I spent a lot of time collecting relevant shopping information from the Internet before making the purchase
decision. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
SE3: I visited a lot of websites before making the purchase decision. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Alternative Attractiveness (AA)

AA1: If I need to change e-stores, there are other good e-stores to choose from. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
AA2: I would probably be happy with the products and services of another e-store. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
 AA3: Compared to this e-store, there are other e-stores with which I would probably be equally or more satisfied.
(strongly disagree/strongly agree)
AA4: Compared to this e-store, there are not very many other e-stores with which I could be satisfied. (strongly
disagree/strongly agree) (Reverse Coded)

Regret (REG)
REG1: I feel sorry for choosing to shop at the e-store. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
REG2: I regret choosing to shop at the e-store. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
REG3: I should have chosen to shop at another e-store. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Satisfaction (SAT)
SAT 1: The experience that I have had with the e-store has been satisfactory. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
SAT 2: In general terms, I am satisfied with the way that the e-store has carried out transactions. (strongly
disagree/strongly agree)
SAT 3: In general, I am satisfied with the service I have received from the e-store. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
SAT 4: I am happy that I purchased from the e-store. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Repurchase Intention (RI)

RI1: I intend to repurchase products or services from the e-store in the future. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
RI2: I expect my purchases from the e-store to continue in the future. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
RI3: I would not like to purchase products or services from the e-store again. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)
(Reverse Coded)
RI4: The probability that I will repurchase from the e-store is high. (strongly disagree/strongly agree)

Prior Loyalty (PL)

PL1: I purchase from the e-store more frequently than from others of the same category. (strongly disagree/strongly
agree)
PL2: The frequency with which I visit other e-stores that offer similar products and services is much less. (strongly
disagree/strongly agree)
PL3: I do not usually purchase products or services from this category from other e-stores. (strongly disagree/strongly
agree)

Biography

Chechen Liao, Ph.D.

Professor of Management Information Systems
Department of Information Management
National Chung Cheng University
No.168, Sec. 1, University Rd.
Min-Hsiung Township, Chia-yi County 621, Taiwan, ROC
Phone: 886-5-2720411#34601
E-mail: ccliao@mis.ccu.edu.tw

Chechen Liao is a Professor of Management Information Systems in the Department of Information

Management at National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan. He received his Ph.D. in MIS from the
University of Memphis. He currently serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Global Information
Technology Management. His current research interests focus on electronic commerce, Internet
Marketing, and the impacts of information technology on organizations and individuals. His research has
been published in journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, Computer Standards & Interfaces,
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Electronic Markets, Information Systems and e-Business Management, Information Technology and
Management, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, International Journal of Information
Management, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of Database Management, Journal of
Business Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Online Information Review, and Technovation, among
others.
Hong-Nan Lin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Animation and Game Design,
Toko University, No.51, Sec. 2, Xuefu Rd.
Puzi City, Chiayi County, 61363, Taiwan
Phone.: +886 5 3622 889x606; fax: +886 5 3622 899.
E-mail: hn.lin@mail.toko.edu.tw

Hong-Nan Lin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Animation and Game Design at Toko
University in Taiwan. He received his doctoral degree in Information Management from National Chung
Cheng University. His research interests lie in electronic commerce, Internet marketing, and the impacts
of information technology on organizations and individuals. His articles have appeared in International
Journal of Information Management, Electronic Markets, and Journal of Business Ethics.
Margaret Meiling Luo, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Information Management
National Chung Cheng University
No.168, Sec. 1, University Rd., Min-Hsiung Township,
Chia-yi County 621, Taiwan, ROC
Phone: 886-5-2720411#34603
E-maill: luo@mis.ccu.edu.tw

Margaret Meiling Luo is an Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems in the Department of
Information Management at National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in
Communication and Information Sciences from University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her research specialties
include technology adoption, hedonic IS use, social media/networking, e-commerce, e-marketing,
human–computer interaction, and online information seeking behavior collaborations. Her work has been
presented in conferences in Information Systems field such as AMCIS, HICSS, and PACIS. Her research
has appeared in Decision Support Systems and International Journal of E-Commerce, among others. She
also actively engages in Information Systems community of scholars as reviewers, conference track chair,
and conference workshop organizer.
Sophea Chea, Ph. D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Business and Information Management
Delaware Valley University
700 E Butler Ave. Doylestown, PA 18901
Phone: (215).489.2390
E-maill: Sophea.Chea@delval.edu

Dr. Chea received his Ph.D. in Communication and Information Sciences from University of Hawaii at
Manoa. He has joined the faculty of business and information management at Delaware Valley University
after teaching at Delaware County Community College and the University of Maryland, University
College. Prior to his current position, Dr. Chea was on the faculty of the Bloomsburg University of
Pennsylvania and at the Fox School of Business at Temple University where he taught courses at both
graduate and undergraduate levels.
Dr. Chea has an active research agenda. His recent research interest is in Online Customer Retention and
Web 2.0 uses for education. His work has been presented in leading conferences and academic journal
such as Decision Support Systems and International Journal of E-Commerce.
<REF>References
<BIBL>
[1] A. Bhattacherjee,;1; Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation
model, MIS Quarterly 25 (3), 2001, pp. 351-370.
[2] A. Herrmann, F. Huber, C. Braunstein,;1; A regret theory approach to assessing customer satisfaction
when alternatives are considered, in: B. Dubois, T.M. Lowrey, L.J. Shrum, M. Vanhuele (Eds.), European
Advances in Consumer Research 4, Association for Consumer Research, <PL>Provo, UT</PL>, 1999,
pp. 82-88.
[3] A. Tversky, D. Kahneman,;1; The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science 221
(4481), 1981, pp. 453-461.
[4] A.H. Wien, S.O. Olsen,;1; Understanding the relationship between individualism and word of mouth: a
self-enhancement explanation, Psychology & Marketing 31 (6), 2014, pp.416-425.
[5] A.L. Myers, S.M. McCrea, M.P. Tyser,;1;The role of thought-content and mood in the preparative
benefits of upward counterfactual thinking, Motivation and Emotion 38 (1), 2014, pp. 166-182.
[6] A.R.D. Liang, C.L. Lee, W. Tung,;1;The role of sunk costs in online consumer decision-making,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 13 (1), 2014, pp. 56-68.
[7] B. Piyathasanan, C. Mathies, M. Wetzels, P.G. Patterson, K.D. Ruyter,;1; A hierarchical model of
virtual experience and its influences on the perceived value and loyalty of customers, International Journal
of Electronic Commerce 19 (2), 2015, pp. 126-158.
[8] B. Verplanken, and H. Aarts,;1; (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: is habit an empty
construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European review of social psychology 10
(1), 1999, pp. 101-134.
[9] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker;1;, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 1981, pp. 39-50.
[10] C.B. Gabler, K.E. Reynolds,;1; Buy now or buy later: the effects of scarcity and discounts on
purchase decisions, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 21 (4), 2013, pp. 441-456.
[11] C.C. Chang, A.H. Tseng,;1; The post-purchase communication strategies for supporting online
impulse buying, Computers in Human Behavior 39, 2014, pp. 393-403.
[12] C.E. Rusbult, D. Farrell, G. Rogers, A.G. Mainous III,;1; Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice,
loyalty, and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job status satisfaction, Academy of
ManagementJournal 31 (3), 1988, pp. 599-627.
[13] C.I. Hovland, M. Sherif, O.J. Harvey,;1; Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to
communication and attitude change, Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology 55 (2), 1957, pp. 244-252.
[14] C.K.B. Yim, K.W. Chan, K. Hung,;1;Multiple reference effects in service evaluations: roles of
alternative attractiveness and self-image congruity, Journal of Retailing 83 (1), 2007, pp. 147-157.
[15] C.M.K. Cheung, D.R. Thadani;1;, The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a
literature analysis and integrative model, Decision Support Systems 54 (1), 2012, pp. 461-470.
[16] D. Kahneman, A. Tversky,;1; Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47
(2), 1979, pp. 263-291.
[17] D. Pick, M. Eisend,;1; Buyers’ perceived switching costs and switching: a meta-analytic assessment
of their antecedents, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 42 (2), 2014, pp. 186-204.
[18] D.D. Gremler, K.P. Gwinner,;1; Relational benefits research: a synthesis, in: R.M. Morgan, J.T
Parish, G. Deitz (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Relationship Marketing, <PN>Edward Elgar
Publishing</PN>, <PL>Northampton, MA</PL>, 2015, pp. 32-74.
[19] D.E. Bell,;1; Regret in decision making under uncertainty, Operations Research 30 (5), 1982, pp.
961-981.
[20] D.W. Lee,;1; An alternative explanation of consumer product returns from the postpurchase
dissonance and ecological marketing perspectives, Psychology & Marketing 32 (1), 2015, pp. 49-64.
[21] E. Turban, J. Lee, D. King, H.M. Chung,;1; Electronic Commerce: A Managerial Perspective,
<PL>Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ</PL>, 2000.
[22] E. van Dijk, M. Zeelenberg,;1; On the psychology of ‘if only’: regret and the comparison between
factual and counterfactual outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97 (2),
2005, pp. 152-160.
[23] E.W. Anderson, V. Mittal,;1;Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain, Journal of Service Research
3 (2), 2000, pp. 107-120.
[24] F. Kokkinaki, N. Sevdalis,;1; Effect of motivational goals on the causal realism of counterfactual
thoughts, The Journal of Psychology 0 (0), 2014, pp. 1-22, <DOI>
10.1080/00223980.2014.954512.</DOI>
[25] F.F. Reichheld, P. Schefter,;1; E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web, <PL>Harvard</PL>
Business Review 78 (4), 2000, pp. 105-113.
[26] Forrester Research, Forrester Research eCommerce Forecast, 2014 To 2019 (US): Online Retail Tops
$300 Billion In 2015, Forrester Forecast, 2015, Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://
https://www.forrester.com/report/Forrester+Research+eCommerce+Forecast+2014+To+2019+US/-/E-R
ES116713#figure1
[27] G. Caspar, C.G. Chorus,;1;Benefit of adding an alternative to one’s choice set: a regret minimization
perspective, Journal of Choice Modelling 13, 2014, pp. 49-59.
[28] G. Kim, B. Shin, H.G. Lee,;1; A study of factors that affect user intentions toward email service
switching, Information & Management 43(7), 2006, pp. 884-893.
[29] G. Loomes, R. Sugden,;1; Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty,
Economic Journal 92, 1982, pp. 805-824.
[30] G. M. Ramos, W. Daamen, S. Hoogendoorn,;1;A State-of-the-Art Review: Developments in Utility
Theory, Prospect Theory and Regret Theory to Investigate Travellers' Behaviour in Situations Involving
Travel Time Uncertainty, Transport Reviews 34 (1), 2014, pp. 46-67.
[31] G.A. Churchill, C. Surprenant,;1; An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction,
Journal of Marketing Research 19 (4), 1982, pp. 491-504.
[32] G.J. Biehal,;1;Consumers’ prior experiences and perceptions in auto repair choice, Journal of
Marketing 47 (3), 1983, pp. 82-91.
[33] G.N. Punj, R. Staelin,;1;A model of consumer information search behavior for new automobiles,
Journal of Consumer Research 9 (4), 1983, pp. 366-380.
[34] H. Bleichrodt, P.P. Wakker,;1; Regret theory: a bold alternative to the alternatives, Economic
Journal, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12200.
[35] H. Li, Y. Liu,;1;Understanding post-adoption behaviors of e-service users in the context of online
travel services, Information & Management 51(8), 2014, pp. 1043-1052.
[36] H.H. Harmon,;1;Modern Factor Analysis, <PN>University of</PN> Chicago <PN>Press</PN>,
<PL>Chicago, IL</PL>, 1967.
[37] H.W. Kim, Y. Xu, S. Gupta, Which is more important in Internet shopping, perceived price or trust?
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11, 2012, pp. 241-252.
[38] I. Barreda-Tarrazona, A. Jaramillo-Gutierrez, D. Navarro-Martinez, G. Sabater-Grande,;1;The role
of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 49 (2), 2014, pp.
167-188.
[39] I.C. Chang, C.C. Liu, K. Chen,;1;The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social
networking sites, Information Systems Journal 24 (4), 2014, pp. 323-346.
[40] J. Cohen;1;, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., <PL>Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, New Jersey</PL>, 1988.
[41] J. Wieseke, S. Alavi, J. Habel,;1;Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: the Role of Customer
Loyalty in Price Negotiations, Journal of Marketing 78 (6), 2014, pp. 17-37.
[42] J.C. Anderson, J.A. Narus,;1;A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships, Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 1990, PP. 42-58.
[43] J.C. Nunnally,;1; Psychometric Theory, <PL>McGraw-Hill, New York</PL>, 1978.
[44] J.D. Foster, K. Peter, P.K. Jonason, I. Shrira, W.K. Campbell, L.K. Shiverdecker, S.C.
Varner,;1;What do you get when you make somebody else’s partner your own? an analysis of
relationships formed via mate poaching, Journal of Research in Personality 52, 2014, pp. 78-90.
[45] J.J. Inman, M. Zeelenberg,;1; Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: the attenuating
role of decision justifiability, Journal of Consumer Research 29 (1), 2002, pp. 116-128.
[46] J.J. Kim, K.Y. Shim, M.S. Kim, M.K. Youn,;1; Prospect theory analysis of the effects of consumer
marketing promoting factor for revisiting, Journal of Convergence Information Technology 8 (14), 2013,
pp. 256-265.
[47] J.P. Peter, J.C. Olson,;1; Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 2nd ed., <PN>Irwin</PN>,
<PL>Homewood, IL</PL>, 1990.
[48] J.P. Shim, Y.B. Shin, L. Nottingham,;1; Retailer web site influence on customer shopping: an
exploratory study on key factors of customer satisfaction, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 3(1), 2002, pp. 53-76.
[49] J.W. Kim, F. Lee, Y.G. Suh,;1;Satisfaction and loyalty from shopping mall experience and brand
personality, Services Marketing Quarterly 36 (1), 2015, pp. 62-76.
[50] J.Y. Tsai, S. Egelman, L. Cranor, A. Acquisti,;1; The effect of online privacy information on
purchasing behavior: an experimental study, Information Systems Research 22 (2), 2010, pp. 254-268.
[51] K.P. Wong,;1; Regret theory and the competitive firm, Economic Modeling 36 (1), 2014, pp.
172-175.
[52] L. Festinger,;1; A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, <PL>Stanford </PL> <PN>University
Press</PN>, 1957.
[53] L. Nagengast, H. Evanschitzky, M. Blut, T. Rudolph,;1;New insights in the moderating effect of
switching costs on the satisfaction: repurchase behavior Link, Journal of Retailing 90 (3), 2014, pp.
408-427
[54] L. Ozer, B. Gultekin,;1; Pre- and post-purchase stage in impulse buying: the role of mood and
satisfaction, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 22, 2015, pp. 71-76.
[55] M. Blut, S.E. Beatty, H. Evanschitzky, C. Brock,;1; The impact of service characteristics on the
switching costs-customer loyalty link, Journal of Retailing 90 (2), 2014, pp. 275-290.
[56] M. Colgate,B. Lang,;1; Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the financial
services industry, Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (4), 2001, pp. 332-347.
[57] M. Tate, J. Evermann, G. Gable,;1; An integrated framework for theories of individual attitudes
toward technology, Information & Management 52 (6), 2015, pp. 710-727.
[58] M. Tsiros, V. Mittal,;1;Regret: a model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer decision
making, Journal of Consumer Research 26 (4), 2000, pp. 401-417.
[59] M. Zeelenberg,;1; Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making, Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making 12 (2), 1999, pp. 93-106.
[60] M. Zeelenberg, R. Pieters,;1; Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review and new findings
on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services, Journal of Business Research 57
(4), 2004, pp.445-455.
[61] M.A. Jones, D.L Mothersbaugh, S.E. Beatty,;1;Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in
services, Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 2000, pp. 259-274.
[62] M.G. Kim, C.H. Lee, A.S. Mattila,;1; Determinants of customer complaint behavior in a restaurant
context: the role of culture, price level, and customer loyalty, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 23 (8), 2014, pp. 885-906.
[63] N. Koenig-Lewis, A. Palmer;1;, The effects of anticipatory emotions on service satisfaction and
behavioral intention, Journal of Services Marketing 28 (6), 2014, pp. 437-451.
[64] N. Sharma, P.G. Patterson,;1; Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as
moderators of relationship commitment in professional, consumer services, International Journal of
Service Industry 11 (5), 2000, pp. 470-490.
[65] N. van de Ven, M. Zeelenberg,;1;On the counterfactual nature of envy: ‘It could have been me’,
Cognition and Emotion 28 (7), 2014, pp. 1-18.
[66] N.J. Roese,;1; Counterfactual thinking, Psychological Bulletin 121 (1), 1997, pp. 133-148.
[67] P. Aurier, G. Guintcheva,;1; Using affect-expectations theory to explain the direction of the impacts
of experiential emotions on satisfaction, Psychology & Marketing 31 (10), 2014, pp. 900-913.
[68] P. Jiang, B. Rosenbloom,;1;Consumer knowledge and external pre-purchase information search: a
meta-analysis of the evidence, in: R.W. Belk, L. Price, L. Peñaloza (Eds.), Consumer Culture Theory
(Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2014, pp. 353-389.
[69] P. Mongin,;1; Expected utility theory, in: J. Davis, W. Hands, U. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of
Economic Methodology, <PL>London, </PL> <PN>Edward Elgar</PN>, 1997, pp. 342-350.
[70] R.A.J. Ping,;1; Antecedents of satisfaction in a marketing channel, Journal of Retailing 79 (4), 2003,
pp. 237-248.
[71] R.D. Blackwell, P.W. Miniard, J.F. Engel,;1; Consumer Behavior, 10th ed., <PL>Harcourt College,
California</PL>, 2001.
[72] R.D. Blackwell, P.W. Miniard, J.F. Engel,;1; Consumer Behavior, 11th ed., Cengage Learning,
Singapre, 2012.
[73] R.E. Petty, and J. T. Cacioppo,;1; Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion,
Advances in Consumer Research 11, 1984, pp. 668- 672.
[74] R.L. Oliver,;1; Satisfaction: A behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, 2nd ed.,
<PN>Routledge</PN>, <PL>New York</PL>, 2010.
[75] R.L. Oliver,;1;Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, <PL>McGraw-Hill, New
York</PL>, 1997.
[76] R.N. Bolton, P.K. Kannan, M.D. Bramlett,;1;Implications of loyalty program membership and
service experiences for customer retention and value, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28
(1), 2000, pp. 95-108.
[77] R.N. Cardozo,;1;An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction, Journal of
Marketing Research 2 (3), 1965, pp. 244-249.
[78] S. Chea, M. M. Luo,;1;Post-adoption behaviors of e-service customers: the interplay of cognition and
emotion, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 12(3), 2008, pp. 29-56.
[79] S. Kulviwat, C. Guo, N. Engchanil,;1;Determinants of online information search: a critical review
and assessment, Internet Research 14 (3), 2004, pp. 245-253.
[80] S. Ng, H. Kim, A.R. Rao,;1; Sins of omission versus commission: cross-cultural differences in
brand-switching due to dissatisfaction induced by individual versus group action and inaction, Journal of
Consumer Psychology 25 (1), 2015, pp. 89-100.
[81] S. Rose, M. Clarka, P. Samouel, N. Hairc,;1; Online customer experience in e-retailing: an empirical
model of Antecedents and Outcomes, Journal of Retailing 88 (2), 2012, pp. 308-322.
[82] S. Ruiz-de-Maya, I. Lopez-Lopez, L. Warlop,;1; When sharing consumption emotions with strangers
is more satisfying than sharing them with friends, Journal of Service Research 17 (4), 2014, pp. 475-488.
[83] S.A. Brown, V. Venkatesh, S. Goyal;1;, Expectation confirmation in IS research: a test of six
competing models, MIS Quarterly 38 (3), 2014, pp. 729-756.
[84] S.B. Walchli, J. Landman,;1; Effects of counterfactual thought on postpurchase consumer affect,
Psychology & Marketing 20 (1), 2003, pp. 23-46.
[85] S.E. Beatty, S.M. Smith;1;, External search effort: an investigation across several product categories,
Journal of Consumer Research 14 (1), 1987, pp. 83-95.
[86] S.F. Yap, S.S. Gaura,;1;Consumer dissonance in the context of online consumer behavior: a review
and research agenda, Journal of Internet Commerce 13 (2), 2014, pp. 116-137.
[87] S.I. Swaid, R.T. Wigand,;1;Measuring the quality of e-service: scale development and initial
validation, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 10 (1), 2009, pp. 13-28.
[88] S.K. Roy, G.T. Butaneym,;1; Customer's relative loyalty: an empirical examination, Journal of
Strategic Marketing 22 (3), 2014, pp. 206-221.
[89] S.M. Keaveney,;1;Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory study, Journal
of Marketing 59 (2), 1995, pp. 71-82.
[90] T. Bilgicer, K. Jedidi, D.L. Lehmann, S.A. Neslin,;1;Social contagion and customer adoption of new
sales channels, Journal of Retailing 91 (2), 2015, pp. 254-271.
[91] T. Gilovich, V.H. Medvec,;1; The experience of regret: what, when, and why, Psychological Review
102 (2), 1995, pp. 379-395.
[92] T. McCormack, A. Feeney,;1;The development of the experience and anticipation of regret,
Cognition and Emotion 29 (2), 2015, pp. 266-280.
[93] V. Kumar, I.D. Pozzaa, J. Ganesh,;1; Revisiting the Satisfaction–Loyalty Relationship: empirical
Generalizations and Directions for Future Research, Journal of Retailing 89 (3), 2014, pp. 246-262.
[94] W.D. Neal,;1; Satisfaction is nice, but value drives loyalty, Marketing Research 11 (1), 1999, pp.
20-23.
[95] W.W. Chin, B.L. Marcolin, P.R. Newsted,;1;A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo simulation study and voice mail
emotion/adoption study, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Systems,
1996, pp. 21-41.
[96] W.W. Chin,;1; The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in: G.A.
Marcoulides (Eds.), Modern Methods for Business Research, <PL>Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ</PL>, 1998, pp. 295-336.
[97] Y. Fang, I. Qureshi, H. Sun, P. McCole, E. Ramsey, K.H. Lim;1;, Trust, satisfaction, and online
repurchase intention: the moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-commerce institutional
mechanisms, MIS Quarterly 38 (2), 2014, pp. 407-427.
[98] Y. Kim, Y. Chang, S.F. Wong, M.C. Park,;1;Customer attribution of service failure and its impact in
social commerce environment, International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management 8
(1-3), 2014, pp. 136-158.
[99] Y. Yi, S. La;1;, What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase
intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty, Psychology &
Marketing 21 (5), 2004, pp. 351-373.
[100] Y.W. Ha, M.C. Park,;1;Antecedents of customer satisfaction and customer loyalty for emerging
devices in the initial market of Korea: an equity framework, Psychology & Marketing 30 (8), 2013, pp.
676-689.
[101] J.J. Inman, S. D. James, J. Jianmin,;1; A Generalized Utility Model of Disappointment and Regret
Effects on Post-choice Valuation, Marketing Science, 16 (2), 1997, pp. 97–111.

</BIBL>
<Figure>Figure 1. Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory.
Note: t1 = preconsumption variable; t2 = postconsumption variable,

Source: [74]

<Figure>Figure 2. Research Model

<Figure>Figure 3. Main Effect Model (Without Prior Loyalty) (N = 268)
** p<0.01, * p<0.5, dotted line means not significant.
<Figure>Figure 4. Alternative Model (Prior Loyalty as a Direct Effect) (N = 268)
** p<0.01, * p<0.5, dotted line means not significant.
<Figure>Figure 5. Interaction Effect Model (Prior Loyalty as a Moderator) (N = 268)
** p<0.01, * p<0.5, dotted line means not significant.
<Figure>Figure 6. Alternative Model (Estimation without Regret) (N = 268)

** p<0.01, * p<0.5, dotted line means not significant

<Table>Table 1. Economic Theory of Choice

Regret Theory (RT)
(Shopper as regret minimizers)
RT deals with consequences that are assumed to take Chang and Tseng [11], impulsive buyer
the form of monetary payments. Preferences over e-satisfaction, tendency to regret
 outcomes reflect the usual preference for more Liang et al. [6], sunk costs, service quality, regret
money over less and are denoted by the natural order
[29]
Expected Utility Theory (EUT)
(Shoppers as utility maximizers)
EUT states that the decision-maker chooses between Tsai et al. [50], privacy, purchase selections
risky or uncertain prospects by comparing their Gabler and Reynolds [10], discounts, purchase
expected utility values, i.e., the weighted sums decisions
obtained by adding the utility values of outcomes Kim et al. [37], price, trust, Internet shopping
multiplied by their respective probabilities [69]
Prospect Theory (PT)
(Shoppers as prospect maximizers)
PT demonstrated that people tended to avoid risk Wu et al. [4], online auction strategy, bidder
when being confronted with gains, and they satisfaction
preferred risk-taking when being confronted with Nagengast et al. [53], satisfaction and switching
losses [3] cost
Kim et al. [46], sales promotion, retention effect
Source: An extensive review of the three economic models of choice appear in Ramos et al. [30];
Studies on marketing and IS were arranged by the authors of this study.
<Table>Table 2. Operationalization of Constructs
Construct Operational Definition Source/reference
Confirmation Customers’ perceptions of the discrepancy between Oliver [74]
expectations and actual performance.

Search Effort Customer perceptions regarding the degree of Beatty and Smith [85]
attention, perception, and effort directed toward
obtaining environmental data or information related
to the specific purchase under consideration.

Alternative Customer perceptions regarding the extent to which Jones et al. [61]
Attractiveness viable competing alternatives are available in the
e-marketplace.

Satisfaction Customers’ postconsumption evaluation and Oliver [75]

affective response to the overall consumption
experience.

Regret A negative, cognitively based emotion that Zeelenberg [59]

individuals experience when realizing or imagining
that their present situation would have been better
had they decided differently.

Repurchase Customers’ intention to repurchase from the same Yi and La [99]

Intention e-tailer.

Prior Loyalty The frequency level at which a customer chooses to Based on Yi and La [99]
purchase a product or service in a specific category
from a particular e-store compared to the frequency
level of purchases made from other e-stores under
the condition that other acceptable products or
services are conveniently available in that category.
<Table>Table 3. Inter-Construct Correlations
C SE AA REG SAT RI PL
C 0.869
SE 0.219 0.920
AA −0.186 0.076 0.831
REG −0.456 −0.188 0.332 0.909
SAT 0.571 0.317 −0.174 −0.631 0.921
RI 0.479 0.165 −0.267 −0.689 0.708 0.879
PL 0.232 0.044 −0.452 −0.281 0.273 0.443 0.903
DC = Disconfirmation; SE = Search Effort; AA = Alternative Attractiveness;
REG = Regret; SAT = Satisfaction; RI = Repurchase Intention; PL = Prior LoyaltyDiagonal elements are square roots of the
average variance extracted; off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs.
<Table>Table 4. Hierarchical Test
R2 f-statistics*
Main Effect Model
0.610
(Without Prior Loyalty)
Interaction Effect Model
0.676 0.068
(Prior Loyalty as a Moderator)
Competing Model
0.654 0.204
(Prior Loyalty as a Direct Effect)
*Note: f-statistics tests of two models

Appendix B. Literature on Regret, Search Effort, and Alternative Attractiveness

Author(s) Context/Subjects Variables Outcomes Key Findings
Regret
Bui, Krishen and A purchase Regret, Extent of Extent of satisfaction Regret decreases consumer
Bates (2011) decision scenario negative emotion level, Extent of satisfaction level and increases
rumination, Branding brand-switching intention.
125 undergraduate switching intentions
students
Cho (2011) Online grocery Expectations, Regret on Perceived memory based on
shopping Dissatisfaction, reconstructed prior experience of purchasing
Nonpurchase/purchase expectations sensory goods from channels
680 Respondents decision, Regret that have similar characteristics
(i.e., without presence) affects
next time purchasing behavior.
Cai and Cude Online and direct Relevant information, Consumers’ feeling Subjects felt more regret when
(2011) channel Emotions, Online of regret they had generated an internal
environments Name-Your-Own-Price reference price a priori than
when an external reference price
240 undergraduate was presented.
students
Dutta, Biswas, Postpurchase Choice regret, Search A refund’s effect on Regret persists with consumers
and Grewal discovery of lower regret, Repurchase felt regret because finding a lower price
(2011) market prices on intention, Trust results in a perception of trust
ABC Auto-Mart violation violation.
 Undergrad students
Chen and Jia Consumer repeat Risk preference, Choice intention Consumers change their choice
(2012) choice Length of experience intention for alternatives even
University students when zero confirmation and no
regret are experienced.
Church and Iyer Online web retail Regulatory orientation, Postcheck regret, Two peer endorsement system
(2012) 121 undergraduate Product information, Intentions toward formats show that PES content
and graduate Uncertainty online retailer presentation significantly
college students impacts perceptions of
postchoice regret.
Liu et al. (2012) An e-commerce Search Effort, Regret, Satisfaction, Greater search effort and lower
environment Service-Attribute Repurchase intention evaluations of service. Product
Evaluations, and price lead to greater buyer
422 online Product-Attribute regret and dissatisfaction.
customers evaluations, The consequences of regret
Postpurchase price include reduced satisfaction and
perceptions less intention to repurchase.
M’Barek and Post Regret, Satisfaction, Post purchase Regret has an influence on the
Gharbi (2012) decision-making Complaint, evaluation post purchase evaluation via its
behavior of the Repurchasing impact on satisfaction and has
consumer behavior, various behavioral
Word of mouth consequences such as
15 Subjects communication, Inertia complaint, repurchasing
behavior, word of mouth
communication, return, and
inertia.
Taylor (2012) Decision to be loyal Positive/negative Attitude/behavior Satisfaction is negatively related
to an automobile anticipated emotion, loyalty intention, to anticipated regret (AR);
insurer Desire, Anticipated Fortitude loyalty desire to be loyal is negatively
regret, Satisfaction intention related to AR.
181 university Intention attitudinal/behavior
students loyalty is negatively related to
AR; intention fortitude loyalty is
negatively related to AR.
Kang et al. Social network sites Satisfaction, Regret, Habit, Continuance Regret had negative effects on
(2013) (SNS) Self-image congruity, intention, Continued IS habit formation and
Perceived usefulness, use continuance intention.
349 Korean Perceived enjoyment
undergraduate
students
Chang et al. Switching behavior Regret, Dissatisfaction, Switch intentions Push (i.e., dissatisfaction and
(2014) of SNS users Alternative regret), pull (i.e., alternative
attractiveness, attractiveness), and mooring
218 questionnaires Switching costs (i.e., switching costs) had
varying degrees of effects on
switching intention.
Park, Hill and Online/offline Cognitive effort Regret A higher level of cognitive
Bonds-Raacke shopping exertion effort alleviated postpurchase
(2015) regret.
147 college Consumers may feel higher
students regret shopping online than
shopping offline after finding a
cheaper option on the other
 venue after the fact.
Dhir et al. (2016) Adolescents untag SNS brand Online regret Parents’ perceptions of
photos on Facebook participation, experience problematic Facebook use and
Technology conflict with friends because of
380 adolescent accessibility, Facebook use were significant
Facebook users Problematic Facebook predictors of online regret
use experience.
Kaur et al. (2016) Online regret Demographics, Flow Online regret Older adolescents and those
experience experience experience spending more daily time on
Facebook were more likely to
804 adolescent experience higher online regret
Facebook users than their younger counterparts
and those spending less daily
time on Facebook.
Search effort
Reynolds, Folse Consumer search Search effort, Atypical Obscure product The level of effort exerted
and Jones (2006) behavior search strategy, blame, Store blame, during the search of the product
Negative emotions, Self-blame, Other positively impacts the level of
245 students Search regret blame, active coping regret and was supported.
Keaveney, Luxury automobile Information search, Buyer regret, Overall Higher information search and
Huber, and purchasers Alternative evaluation, satisfaction, alternative evaluation lead to
Herrmann (2007) Product-attribute Intentions to more buyer regret; lower
Of the 742 evaluations, repurchase from the evaluations of service (but not
prepurchase survey Service-attribute same dealership, product) attributes lead to more
participants, 356 evaluations Intentions to regret; and regret’s
postpurchase repurchase the same consequences include reduced
participants brand intentions to repurchase either
the brand or from the dealership.
Shani and Postdecision Responsibility, Seek out postdecision The intensity of regret one
Zeelenberg Information Search Information seeking, information experiences influences the
(2007) Certainty, Regret, decision to acquire information
Students Disappointment, regardless of the potential to use
Rejoicing, Pride it in the future.
Fan et al. (2010) 3C products Experience marketing, Customer satisfaction The word of mouth effect could
Word of mouth effect, positively influence information
238 valid Information search search and consumer
respondents satisfaction, whereas
information search had no
significant effect on consumer
satisfaction.
Korhonen et al. Online Prepurchase Product class Satisfaction, Attitude Level of involvement influences
(2011) Search knowledge, Search toward shopping satisfaction.
effort, Uncertainty, online
639 respondents involvement, Type of Purchase related uncertainties
search process (evaluation uncertainty, choice
uncertainty, and implementation
uncertainty) and iterative search
process are the strongest
determinants of satisfaction.
Doucet, Personal Positive affect, Relations among Positive affect is positively
Thatcher, and information search Information search, positive affect, related to the likelihood of
Thatcher (2012) on outcomes in call Productivity, Quality of Personal information searching for information
centers work, Job satisfaction search, Related through personal sources.
 outcomes
286 employees
Maity, Hsu, and Consumers’ online Self-efficacy, Affinity Search effort, Perceived risk and perceived
Pelton (2012) information Search for technology, Prior Enjoyment, cost do not significantly
experience, Perceived Satisfaction contribute to the consumer
431 undergrad cost, Perceived risk, online information search effort.
students Product involvement
Maity and Prepurchase Search as an expense, Product return A consumer’s investment in
Arnold (2013) information search Search as an intentions search that is viewed as an
experience, Product expense weakens satisfaction
220 undergraduate satisfaction with a product while prompting
students return intentions.
Calvo-Porral and Mobile services: Service value, Customer The search effort is inversely
Lévy-Mangin Analyzing virtual Corporate image, satisfaction, Loyalty, related to customer satisfaction,
(2015) and traditional Attractiveness of Switching intention which is not supported in virtual
operators alternatives, Search and traditional scenario.
costs
406 mobile phone
users
Park, Hill and Online vs. offline Cognitive effort, Store Regret Higher cognitive effort exertion
Bonds-Raacke shopping type, Type of led to less regret after missing
(2015) information out on a lower price.
147 college Benefits of touch information in
students reducing experienced regret, but
cognitive effort moderated this
effect.
Liu et al. (2016) Mobile App Social influence, Trust, Uncertainty Trialability and relative
adoption homophily, (determinants of advantage shows a positive
Trialability, uncertainty reduction relationship with search effort.
448 students Observability, Relative during the adoption Trust and homophily shows a
advantage, Product process) significant negative relationship
popularity, Search with search effort.
effort Search effort is found to have a
positive significant relationship
with uncertainty.
Alternative Attractiveness

Park, Kim, and Web analytics Satisfaction, Switching Continuous usage Several quality factors were
Koh (2010) services cost, Relative value, intention significantly associated with
Service usage period, client firm satisfaction.
152 firms Alternative Relative value, switching cost,
attractiveness service usage period, and
satisfaction were all
significantly associated with
dependence.
Sung and Choi Consumer-brand Satisfaction, Consumer-brand Greater consumer satisfaction
(2010) Relationship Investment, Quality of relationship and investment and less
commitment alternatives commitment attractive alternatives lead to a
higher level of consumers’
Study1: 172 commitment to their relationship
students Study2: with a brand.
153 students
Jen, Tu, and Lu Passenger Perceived value, Behavioral intentions The perceived value has the
(2011) behavioral intention satisfaction, Switching greatest total effect on the
(coach industry) costs, Alternative behavioral intention, whereas
attractiveness, Service the alternative attractiveness has
747 passengers quality the smallest total effect on the
behavioral intention.
Woisetschläger, A household Habits, Satisfaction, Loyalty intention, Significant positive effects of
Lentz, and sample of Social ties, Economic Word-of-mouth satisfaction, economic switching
Evanschitzky newspaper switching barriers barriers, and social ties on
(2011) subscribers customer loyalty and
word-of-mouth. Economic
440 subscribers of a switching barriers and social ties
regional newspaper interact significantly with
satisfaction and habits act as a
precursor of economic switching
barriers and social ties.
Wu (2011) Mobile Satisfaction, Inertia, Customer loyalty A wider level of the ZOT
telecommunication Zone of tolerance, strengthens the positive effect of
industry Alternative inertia on customer loyalty,
attractiveness while also reducing the positive
529 responses effect of satisfaction.
The negative moderating effect
of the ZOT on the relationship
between satisfaction and
customer loyalty reduces as
alternative attractiveness
increases.
Zhang, Cheung, Bloggers’ Satisfaction, Attractive Intention to switch Satisfaction, attractive
and Lee (2012) switching behavior alternatives, Sunk costs blog services alternatives, and sunk costs can
significantly affect bloggers’
299 responses switching intention.
Khajouei and Mobile phone Inertia, Zone of Loyalty Wider ZOT reduces that of
Nayebzadeh industry tolerance, Alternative strengthen and alternative
(2013) attractiveness attractiveness have no effect on
379 university relationship between inertia with
students loyalty.
Abdullah, Putit, Malaysian mobile Brand reputation, Customer loyalty The impact of RMT’s brand
and Teo (2014) telecommunication Alternative (retention behavior) reputation and alternative
industry Attractiveness, attractiveness on RQ’s—trust
Emotions, Trust impacts customer loyalty in
382 students from terms of retention behavior.
public universities
Picón, Castro, 785 customers from Satisfaction, Perceived Loyalty Perceived switching costs—to a
and Roldán 74 insurance switching costs, greater extent—and the
(2014) companies in the Attractiveness of perceived lack of attractiveness
service sector alternatives of alternative offerings—to a
lesser extent—are significant
mediators in the relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty.
Note: we did not include these references in the main article references list
Regret
A. Dhir, P. Kaur, S. Chen, & K. Lonka, Understanding online regret experience in Facebook use e Effects of brand
participation, accessibility & problematic use, Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 2016, pp. 420-430.
A. Dhir, A. Kaur, K. Lonkaa, & M. Nieminen, Why do adolescents untag photos on Facebook? Computers in
Human Behavior 55, 2016, pp. 1106–1115.
C. C., C. Liao, & I. Chang, An overall purchasing process model of internet buyers: The role of regret in electronic
commerce, AMCIS Proceedings. Paper 1, 2012.
E. M. Church, L. S. Iyer, An experimental investigation of regulatory orientation and post-choice regret in online
product selection, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 13(4), 2012, pp. 289-304.
, Chang, CLiu. C. Liu, & K. Chen, The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social networking
sites, Information Systems Journal 24(4), 2014, pp. 323-346.
J. Park, W. T. Hill, & J. Bonds-Raacke, Exploring the relationship between cognitive effort exertion and regret in
online vs. offline shopping, Computers in Human Behavior 49, 2015, pp. 444-450.
M. B. M'Barek, A. Gharbi, How does regret influence consumer's behavior? Journal of Organizational Management
Studies 1, 2012.
M. Bui, A. S. Krishen, K. Bates, Modeling regret effects on consumer post-purchase decisions, European Journal of
Marketing, 45(7/8), 2011, pp. 1068-1090.
R. Chen, J. Jia, Regret and performance uncertainty in consumer repeat choice, Marketing Letters 23(1), 2012, pp.
353-365.
S. A. Taylor, Satisfaction, regret, and status quo effects on the formation of consumer loyalty, Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 25, 2012, pp. 24-25.
S. Dutta, A. Biswas, & D. Grewal, Regret from postpurchase discovery of lower market prices: Do price refunds
help? Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 2011, pp. 124-138.
Y. Cai1, B. Cude, Reference prices and consumers’ feeling of regret: an investigation of consumers’ use of an
online price-bidding method, International Journal of Consumer Studies 35, 2011, pp. 441–447.
Y. S. Kang, J. Min, & H. Lee, Roles of alternative and self-oriented perspectives in the context of the continued use
of social network sites, International Journal of Information Management 33(3), 2013, pp. 496-511.
Y.C. Cho, Analyzing online customer dissatisfaction toward perishable goods, Journal of Business Research, 64,
2011, pp. 1245–1250.
Search effort
C. Calvo-Porral, J. P. Lévy-Mangin. Switching behavior and customer satisfaction in mobile services: Analyzing
virtual and traditional operators, Computers in Human Behavior 49, 2015, pp. 532-540.
D. Maity, T. J. Arnold, Search: An expense or an experience? Exploring the influence of search on product return
intentions, Psychology & Marketing 30(7), 2013, pp. 576-587.
F. Liu, A. A. Brandyberry, G. Polites, M. Hogue, & T. Wang, A study of the effects of social factors and innovation
characteristics on search effort and uncertainty in mobile app adoption, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE, 2016, pp. 3812-3821.
J. Park, W.T. Hill, & J. Bonds-Raacke, Exploring the relationship between cognitive effort exertion and regret in
online vs. offline shopping, Computers in Human Behavior 49, 2015, pp. 444–450.
K. E. Reynolds, J. A. G. Folse, & M. A. Jones, Search regret: Antecedents and consequences, Journal of Retailing
82(4), 2006, pp. 339-348.
L. Doucet, S. M. Thatcher, & M. E. Thatcher. The effects of positive affect and personal information search on
outcomes in call centers: An empirical study, Decision Support Systems 52(3), 2012, pp. 664-673.
M. Maity, M. K. Hsu, & L. E. Pelton, Consumers' online information search: Gen yers' finding needles in the
Internet haystack, Journal of Marketing Channels 19(1), 2012, pp. 49-76.
P. Korhonen, T. Lauraéus, T. Saarinen, & A. Öörni, Impact of online pre-purchase search on consumer satisfaction.
2011.
S. M. Keaveney, F. Huber, & A. Herrmann, A model of buyer regret: Selected prepurchase and postpurchase
antecedents with consequences for the brand and the channel, Journal of Business Research 60(12), 2007, pp.
1207-1215.
W. S. Fan, C. H. Lan, R. S. Chang, & J. L. Zeng, The measures and structure construct of experience marketing,
Word of Mouth Effect, information search, and customer satisfaction, Journal of Statistics and Management
Systems 13(4), 2010, pp. 793-804.
Y. Shani, M. Zeelenberg, When and why do we want to know? How experienced regret promotes post‐decision
information search, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 20(3), 2007, pp. 207-222.
Alternative Attractiveness
D. M. Woisetschläger, P. Lentz, & H. Evanschitzky, How habits, social ties, and economic switching barriers affect
customer loyalty in contractual service settings, Journal of Business Research 64(8), 2011, pp. 800-808.
F. Khajouei, S. Nayebzadeh, Inertia and customer loyalty in the varying levels of the zone of tolerance and
alternative attractiveness, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 3(7), 2013,
pp. 555-571.
J. Park, J. Kim, & J. Koh, Determinants of continuous usage intention in web analytics services, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 9(1), 2010, pp. 61-72.
K. Z. K. Zhang, C. M. K. Cheung, &M. K. O. Lee, Online service switching behavior: the case of blog service
providers, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 2012, pp. 184-197.
L. -W. Wu, Satisfaction, inertia, and customer loyalty in the varying levels of the zone of tolerance and alternative
attractiveness, Journal of Services Marketing 25(5), 2011, pp. 310-322.
M. F. Abdullah, L. Putit, & B. C. Teo, Impact of relationship marketing tactics (rmt's) &amp; relationship quality on
customer loyalty: A Study within the malaysian mobile telecommunication industry, Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 130, 2014, pp. 371-378.
Picón, A. I. Castro, & J. L. Roldán, The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty: A mediator analysis, Journal
of Business Research 67(5), 2014, pp. 746-751.
W. Jen, R. Tu, & T. Lu, Managing passenger behavioral intention: an integrated framework for service quality,
satisfaction, perceived value, and switching barriers, Transportation 38(2), 2011, pp. 321-342.
Y. Sung, S. M. Choi, I won't leave you although you disappoint me: The interplay between satisfaction, investment,
and alternatives in determining consumer-brand relationship commitment, Psychology & Marketing 27(11) 2010,
pp. 1050-1073.

Appendix C. Demographics of Respondents, Factor Loadings, and Psychometric Properties of

Measurement of the Constructs

Demographics of Respondents (N = 268)

Measure Item Frequency Percentage
Gender Female 168 62.7
Male 100 37.3
Age <20 24 9.0
20–29 204 76.1
30–39 27 10.1
40–49 11 4.1
≥50 2 0.7
Education level High school or less 27 10.1
College 166 61.9
Postgraduate and above 75 28.0
Occupation White-collar or blue-collar worker 79 29.5
Unemployed/Retired 10 3.7
Student 151 56.3
Other 28 10.4
Experience of online Under 1 year 9 3.4
shopping 1–2 years 18 6.7
2–3 years 32 11.9
3–4 years 39 14.6
4–5 years 34 12.7
5–6 years 30 11.2
Over 6 years 106 39.6
The purchased item Apparel/shoes 92 34.3
Books or CDs 12 4.5
3C (Computer, Communication,
69 25.7
Consumer Electronics) products
Beauty/cosmetic products 46 17.2
Other 49 18.3
Factor Loadings
SAT C REG AA SE PL RI
SAT1 0.936 0.582 −0.597 −0.194 0.294 0.233 0.669
SAT2 0.907 0.497 −0.562 −0.149 0.312 0.245 0.606
SAT 3 0.923 0.505 −0.602 −0.180 0.305 0.279 0.683
SAT 4 0.918 0.534 −0.570 −0.222 0.264 0.287 0.662
C1 0.506 0.857 −0.377 −0.152 0.201 0.180 0.399
C2 0.430 0.829 −0.348 −0.127 0.162 0.246 0.388
C3 0.495 0.880 −0.401 −0.174 0.166 0.190 0.425
C4 0.558 0.908 −0.463 −0.215 0.228 0.191 0.453
REG1 −0.608 −0.462 0.908 0.283 −0.164 −0.231 −0.627
REG 2 −0.581 −0.404 0.931 0.332 −0.173 −0.250 −0.673
REG 3 −0.535 −0.390 0.887 0.361 −0.176 −0.289 −0.587
AA1 −0.074 −0.161 0.191 0.804 0.133 −0.359 −0.148
AA2 −0.193 −0.153 0.356 0.861 0.043 −0.347 −0.255
AA3 −0.090 −0.115 0.245 0.824 0.073 −0.395 −0.143
AA4 −0.237 −0.200 0.326 0.833 −0.006 −0.384 −0.342
SE1 0.334 0.217 −0.166 0.046 0.941 0.067 0.185
SE2 0.258 0.212 −0.161 0.077 0.894 −0.009 0.101
SE3 0.282 0.179 −0.191 0.034 0.925 0.092 0.170
PL1 0.326 0.225 −0.270 −0.368 0.099 0.923 0.490
PL3 0.206 0.164 −0.239 −0.391 0.075 0.908 0.362
PL4 0.211 0.230 −0.250 −0.461 −0.040 0.878 0.346
RI1 0.686 0.432 −0.605 −0.234 0.150 0.415 0.930
RI2 0.704 0.466 −0.612 −0.206 0.153 0.402 0.934
RI3 0.522 0.381 −0.704 −0.300 0.145 0.342 0.799
RI4 0.581 0.406 −0.515 −0.307 0.142 0.435 0.847
Eigenvalues 9.460 3.463 2.096 1.801 1.582 1.022 .737
% of Variance
37.841 13.852 8.384 7.203 6.326 4.088 2.950
Explained
AA = Alternative Attractiveness; C = Confirmation; RI = Repurchase Intention;
PL = Prior Loyalty; REG = Regret; SAT = Satisfaction; SE = Search Effort

Psychometric Properties of Measurements

Construct Item Loading t-value CR AVE Cronbach’s
Alpha
Confirmation (C) C1 0.857 46.755 0.925 0.755 0.939
C2 0.829 31.314
C3 0.880 52.635
C4 0.908 94.257

Search Effort (SE) SE1 0.941 90.254 0.943 0.846 0.944

SE2 0.894 40.450
SE3 0.925 60.238
Alternative AA1 0.804 17.359 0.899 0.690 0.908
Attractiveness AA2 0.861 29.444
(AA) AA3 0.824 19.069
AA4 0.833 23.933
 Regret (REG) REG1 0.908 58.476 0.934 0.826 0.918
REG2 0.931 81.060
REG3 0.887 41.699
Satisfaction (SAT) SAT1 0.936 91.854 0.957 0.848 0.944
SAT2 0.907 62.170
SAT3 0.923 91.138
SAT4 0.918 90.927
Repurchase Intention RI1 0.930 96.097 0.931 0.773 0.896
(RI) RI2 0.934 110.101
RI3 0.799 22.760
RI4 0.848 33.120
Prior Loyalty (PL) PL1 0.924 104.944 0.930 0.816 0.895
PL2 0.908 58.569
PL3 0.878 45.688
Note: CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted

TDENDOFDOCTD