The Expectations–Disconfirmation Model

Diagram courtesy of ResearchGateOpens in new window The most common way of operationalizing satisfactionOpens in new window is to compare the customer’s perception of an experience, or some part of it, with their expectations. This is known as the expectations–disconfirmation model of customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction has been defined and measured in numerous ways. For our purpose, we define customer satisfaction as follows:

Customer satisfaction is a pleasurable fulfillment response. Dissatisfaction is an unpleasurable fulfillment response.

The “experience, or some part of it” component of the definition suggests that the satisfaction evaluation can be directed at any or all elements of the customer’s experience. This can include product, service, process and any other components of the customer experience.

The customer might be pleasantly surprised or even delighted. This model assumes that customers have expectations, and that they are able to judge performance. The expectations–disconfirmation model adopts a cognitive perspective on customer satisfaction.

A customer satisfaction paradox has been identified by expectations–disconfirmation researchers. At times customers’ expectations are met but the customer is still not satisfied. This happens when the customer’s expectations are low. “I expected the plane to be late. It was. I’m unhappy!”

Many companies research customer requirements and expectations to find out what is important for customers, and then measure customers’ perceptions of their performance compared to the performance of competitors.

Some experts do not accept that customers make satisfaction judgments by comparing each experience to prior expectations; rather, they form judgments over multiple episodes and across numerous channels — in other words, satisfaction judgments are associated with overall customer experience.

Satisfaction, from this perspective, is an overall assessment or attitude rather than a gap.

Equally, customer satisfaction judgments may have a strong emotional or affective content that is not picked up when the expectations–disconfirmation approach is used.

Customers may simply like or not like their experience, and may be unable or unwilling to articulate why in terms of having specific expectations being met or not.

Some researchers suggest that emotion and cognition interact, and that the interaction effects on customer satisfaction are both complex and dynamic; that is, they change over time.

Affect has a strong influence on satisfaction in the early stages of judgment formation but its role declines as the customer has further experiences. Hence, we should be cautious about viewing customer satisfaction as a simple episodic assessment of performance versus expectations.