.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.
http://www.jstor.org
476
2004 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 31 September 2004
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2004/3102-0021$10.00
TABLE 1
A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ON ATTRIBUTION AND SATISFACTION
Study/method
Attribution/valence
Variables
Locus (internal/external)
Valence: positive and
negative
Valence: negative
Experiment (study 2,
within subjects)
Stability, controllability
Valence: negative
Stability, controllability,
locus
Valence: negative
Experiment (study 3)
Stability, controllability
Valence: positive
Independent: stability,
controllability
Dependent: expectancy
reactions (expectancy of
future performance), market equity reactions (refund or apology), anger
reaction
Independent: stability, controllability, locus
Dependent: complaint intentions, negative word of
mouth
Independent: stability,
controllability
Dependent: compliment,
positive word of mouth
Independent: dissatisfaction, problem severity
Dependent: complaint behavior, word of mouth
Independent:
Between subjects: type of
failure, (process/outcome),
magnitude of failure (low/
high)
Within subjects: compensation (high/medium/
none), response speed
(immediate/delayed), apology (present/absent), recovery initiation (employee/customer).
Dependent: distributive
justice, procedural justice,
interactional justice, service encounter,
satisfaction
Main findings
Significant main effects. Significant two-way interactions between expectations and performance, disconfirmation, and equity.
Stable and controllable causes predominately lead to
product failure (these two dimensions are highly correlated, r p .94).
Expectancy reactions are influenced by stability. Market equity reactions are influenced by locus. Interaction effects: anger reactions are influenced by a twoway interaction (L # C). Market equity reactions are
influenced by two- and three-way interactions (L # S,
L # C, L # C # S). Apologies and refunds are less
deserved when consumer related than when manufacturer related. Manufacturer-uncontrolled-stable
causes deserve fewer apologies and refunds than (1)
manufacturer-controlled-stable cases and (2) manufacturer-controlled-unstable causes. Consumer-uncontrolled-stable causes deserve more apologies and
refunds than (1) consumer-uncontrolled-unstable
causes and (2) consumer-controlled-stable causes.
Controllability and stability influence anger, which influences complaint and repurchase intentions. Controllability and stability also have a direct effect on
complaint and repurchase intentions.
Locus influences complaint and word of mouth, stability influences word of mouth (same as Folkes
1984).
Found significant main effects.
478
FIGURE 1
PROPOSED MODELS OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS AND
SATISFACTION
DISCONFIRMATION, ATTRIBUTIONS,
AND SATISFACTION: A VALENCEEXPECTANCY APPROACH
Within the valence-expectancy framework people independently gauge two factorsthe objects valence and expectancyto evaluate the object. Valence is the extent to
which someone feels positively or negatively about an event
occurring, and expectancy estimates enable the person to
gauge the likelihood of the event reoccurring. We argue that,
just as the valence-expectancy model has been used to determine factors that lead to motivation (Vroom 1964), it can
be used to consider how attributions and disconfirmation
combine to affect satisfaction. Disconfirmation is evaluative
in nature and should be a contributor to the valence component. Similarly, responsibility should be a contributor to
the consumers evaluation of the event and, thus, related to
the valence component. Finally, stability deals with how
likelyin the futurethe outcome is perceived by the consumer to continue. Thus, it should be a primary contributor
to the expectancy component. As a result, we suggest that
attributions and disconfirmation interact to determine sat-
479
STUDY
Design and Procedure
The design was a two (disconfirmation: positive vs. negative) # two (stability of the cause: stable vs. unstable) #
two (responsibility: company-related vs. company-unrelated) between-subjects design. Respondents were 202 executive MBAs at a midwestern university. Averages were:
age, 29.3 yr.; work experience, over 6 yr. full-time; employees supervised, six or more full-time. Almost half were
involved in purchasing decisions, and one-third had evaluated a partner firms performance.
Decision Scenario
H1: Attributions of stability moderate the effect of responsibility on the disconfirmation-satisfaction re-
480
Stable
Unstable
Measures
Dependent Measure. Satisfaction was measured using
a seven-point scale (1 p strongly disagree, 7 p strongly
agree). The three items are shown in the appendix and loaded
on a single factor (alpha p .95). They were averaged to
create a single measure where high score indicates a high
level of satisfaction.
Manipulation Checks. One-tailed t-tests were used to
assess the manipulations. Participants rated disconfirmation
using a seven-point scale (7 p much better than expected,
1 p much worse than expected). The positive disconfirmation group had higher ratings than the negative disconfirmation group (5.83 vs. 2.92, p ! .01). For responsibility,
participants rated their agreement (7 p strongly agree, 1 p
strongly disagree) with the statement Company Alpha is
responsible for the recent level of performance. The mean
was higher for the high than the low-responsibility condition
(5.49 vs. 2.58, p ! .01). For stability, participants rated their
agreement (7 p strongly agree, 1 p strongly disagree) with
the statement The cause of Alphas performance is stable.
The mean was higher for the stable-attribution group than
the unstable-attribution group (5.69 vs. 2.93, p ! .01). Thus,
all three manipulations were successful.
Orthogonality Check. The correlations between the
manipulation checks were statistically nonsignificant for
positive (r p .12, p p .15) and negative (r p .04, p p
.69) disconfirmation. Thus the manipulations were orthogonal.
Results
Table 2 shows the ANOVA, and figure 2 shows the means.
Hypothesis 1 posits a three-way interaction among discon-
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Source
Disconfirmation (D)
Responsibility (R)
Stability (S)
D#R
D#S
R#S
D#R#S
Error
df
Mean square
F-value
P-value
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
193
371.79
2.07
.41
20.85
.80
2.26
6.12
1.13
329.02
1.83
.359
18.45
.71
2.00
5.42
.001
.178
.550
.001
.405
.159
.020
481
DISCUSSION
These results were replicated in two additional studies.
The first consisted of a survey of 109 business managers
who evaluated an actual business partner rather than a fictitious business partner used in the current study. In the
second study, 250 undergraduates evaluated a recent purchase they had made. In both these studies we found an
identical pattern to the one reported here. Thus, we are
comfortable about the generalizability of the claims made
here. Replication in these other studies also attests to the
context invariance of the results, effectively demonstrating
that attributional responses are important in both business
and consumer environments. Finally, we note that in the
study of managers, we used a performance measure, rather
than disconfirmation, with identical results. This is reassuring, since other research (e.g., Churchill and Suprenant
1982; Mittal, Ross, and Baldasare 1998; Tse and Wilton
1988) has shown performance to have an independent effect
on satisfaction beyond disconfirmation. Thus, both performance and disconfirmation can be subsumed within the valence component of the model.
The key theoretical contribution of this research is in
providing the valence-expectancy framework as a basis for
understanding the way in which disconfirmation and attributions affect satisfaction (model C in fig. 1). Responsibility
attributions and disconfirmation jointly form the valence
component. More importantly, as per the expectancy component, stability attributions moderate the extent to which
the valence component (disconfirmation and responsibility
attributions) affects satisfaction. Such a conceptualization
best accounts for the observed pattern of results. A simple
main-effects model (model A in fig. 1), or a model examining only the two-way interactions (model B in fig. 1), is
unable to account for the complex pattern of results observed. Yet, it is these two types of models that underlie
most of the research examining attributions and satisfaction.
These results have several theoretical implications. First,
the dimensional view of attributions taken by previous studies is appropriate, though the impact of these dimensions
on satisfaction is better interpreted within the context of the
valence-expectancy framework. This being the case, future
studies should conceptually determine if an attribution dimension affects the valence and/or the expectancy part. Only
those dimensions affecting the valence part should theoretically interact with disconfirmation, while those affecting
expectancies should be more relevant to the higher-order
interactions. Thus the two-way interaction model (panel B
in fig. 1) may only be appropriate if the researcher believes
that the attribution dimensions are part of the valence component. For attribution dimensions that may constitute the
expectancy component, a three-way interaction is appropriate. When researchers have no a priori notions in this
regard, it is not advisable simply to add two-way interactions among disconfirmation and attribution dimensions
but rather to include higher order interactions as well. Such
a theory-driven approach can guide researchers in deter-
482
APPENDIX
Imagine you are the Sales Vice President of BestTools,
Inc., an electronics equipment manufacturer that supplies
companies with a wide selection of industrial machinery.
Your company has been in business for the past 30 years
and you have been at your current position since 1986.
BestTools hires independent distribution companies to sell
its products. These companies, however, carry similar equipment from several of your competitors.
One of the companies that you currently employ is Alpha
Inc. Recently, however, you have been approached by other
distribution companies. Although these other distribution
companies provided attractive offers, you decided to go with
company Alpha, since hooking up with them would include
some additional investment and their superior performance
was questionable.
Tomorrow, you have to provide an estimate of the predicted sales figures for the next year to your superiors. This
estimate is crucial because it determines the amount of resources that your department will be given to achieve its
LOOKING BACK
Ability. Company Alphas performance has been consistent during the last several years. Their sales representatives are (are not) being continuously trained and educated
on the latest changes in technology and on the products that
they carry. They also have several years of (very little) work
experience in this business. Their performance, therefore, is
mainly due to their high (low) level of ability.
Effort. Company Alphas performance has been inconsistent during the last several years. They have a low (high)
turnover ratio and, therefore, most of their sales representatives have considerable (little) work experience in this
business. In addition, they always (do not always) devote
the same amount of effort and attention to their customers.
Their performance on this task, therefore, is mainly due to
their high (low) level of effort.
Luck. Company Alphas performance has been inconsistent during the last several years. Their performance is
determined mainly by the competitive strategies employed
by your major competitors during a particular period. In
addition, other unpredictable events and specific situations
may play a major role in determining company Alphas
performance in selling your products. Their performance,
therefore, is mainly due to bad (good) luck.
Difficulty. Company Alphas performance has been consistent during the last several years. The geographic area
that they service is (is not) a difficult one and that mainly
determines their level of performance. This is so because
the area that they service has been historically one of the
most (least) difficult in terms of the presence (absence) of
major competition from other manufacturers. Their performance, therefore, is mainly due to the difficulty (lack of
difficulty) of the task.
MEASURES
Manipulation Checks
1. Company Alphas performance was ___ (7, much better
that expected; 1, much worse than expected).
2. Company Alpha is responsible for the recent level of
performance (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree).
3. The cause of Alphas performance is stable (1, strongly
disagree; 7, strongly agree).
Satisfaction (a p .95): (7-point scale: 1, strongly disagree;
7, strongly agree)
1. I feel satisfied with company Alphas performance.
2. I am happy with company Alphas performance.
3. I am pleased with company Alphas performance.
[Dawn Iacobucci served as editor and Kent B. Monroe
served as associate editor for this article.]
REFERENCES
Anderson, Eugene W. and Mary W. Sullivan (1993), The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for
Firms, Marketing Science, 12 (Spring), 12543.
Churchill, Gilbert A. and Carol Suprenant (1982), An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (November), 491504.
Curren, Mary T. and Valerie S. Folkes (1987), Attributional Influences on Consumers Desires to Communicate about Products, Psychology and Marketing, 4 (Spring), 3145.
Folkes, Valerie S. (1984), Consumer Reactions to Product Failure:
An Attributional Approach, Journal of Consumer Research,
10 (March), 398409.
Folkes, Valerie S., Susan Koletsky, and John Graham (1987), A
Field Study of Causal Inferences and Consumer Reaction:
The View from the Airport, Journal of Consumer Research,
13 (March), 53439.
Iacobucci, Dawn and McGill, Ann L. (1990), Analysis of Attribution Data: Theory Testing and Effects Estimation, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (3), 42641.
McGill, Ann L. (1989), Context Effects in Judgment of Causa-
483
tion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2),
189200.
. (1995), American and Thai Managers Explanations for
Poor Company Performance: Role of Perspective and Culture
in Causal Selection, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 61 (January), 1627.
Mittal, Vikas, William T. Ross, Jr., and Patrick M. Baldasare
(1998), The Asymmetric Impact of Negative and Positive
Attribute-Level Performance on Overall Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions, Journal of Marketing, 62 (January),
3347.
Oliver, Richard L. (1974), Expectancy Theory Predictions of
Salesmens Performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 11
(August), 24353.
Oliver, Richard L. and Wayne S. DeSarbo (1988), Response Determinant in Satisfaction Judgments, Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (March), 495507.
Richins, Marsha L. (1983), Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study, Journal of Marketing, 47
(Winter), 6878.
Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999), A
Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure Recovery, Journal of Marketing Research,
36 (August), 35672.
Teas, R. Kenneth (1981) An Empirical Test of Models of Salespersons Job Expectancy and Instrumentality Perceptions,
Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (May), 20926.
Teas, R. Kenneth and James C. McElroy (1986), Causal Attributions and Expectancy Estimates: A Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Salesforce Motivation, Journal of
Marketing, 50 (January), 7586.
Tse, David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1988), Models of Consumer
Satisfaction Formation: An Extension, Journal of Marketing
Research, 25 (May), 20412.
Tsiros, Michael and Vikas Mittal (2000), Regret: A Model of Its
Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), 40117.
Valle, Valerie A. and Irene Hanson Frieze (1976), Stability of
Causal Attributions as a Mediator in Changing Expectations
for Success, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
33 (5), 57987.
Vroom, Victor H. (1964), Work and Motivation, New York: Wiley.
Weiner, Bernard (1985), An Attributional Theory of Achievement
Motivation and Emotion, Psychological Review, 92 (October), 54873.
(2000), Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 38287.