Despite many attempts to measure and explain customer satisfaction, there still does not appear to be a consensus regarding its definition (Geese and Cote, 2000). Customer satisfaction is typically defined as a post consumption evaluative judgment concerning a specific product or service (Gunderson, Hide and Olsson, 1996). It is the result of an evaluative process that contrasts purchases expectations with perceptions of performance during and after the consumption experience (Oliver, 1980).
The most widely accepted conceptualization of the customer satisfaction concept is the expectancy discrimination theory (Iniquity, Finn and Wiley, 2000). The theory was developed by Oliver, who proposed that satisfaction level is a result of the difference between expected and perceived performance. Satisfaction (positive discrimination) secures when product or service is better than expected. On the other hand, a performance worse than expected results Is dissatisfaction (negative discrimination). Studies show that customer satisfaction may have direct and indirect impact on business results.
Lou and Homburg (2007) concluded that customer satisfaction positively affects business profitability. The majority of studies have investigated the relationship with customer behavior patterns (Dimidiates, 2006; Lowering et al. , 2006; Chi and Quo, 2008; Flatulent et al. , 2008). According to these findings, customer satisfaction increases customer loyalty, influences repurchase Intentions and leads to positive word-of- mouth. Given the vital role of customer satisfaction, it is not surprising that a variety of research has been devoted to investigating the determinants of satisfaction.
Satisfaction can be determined by subjective (e. G. Customer needs, emotions) and objective factors (e. G. Reduce and service features). Applying to the hospitality industry, temporary regarding customer satisfaction. Atkinson (1988) found out satisfaction. Knutson (1988) revealed that room cleanliness and comfort, convenience of location, prompt service, safety and security, and friendliness of employees are important. Barky and Labial (1992) stated that employee attitude, location and rooms are likely to influence travelers’ satisfaction.
A study conducted by Akin (1995) showed that the main determinants of hotel guest satisfaction are the behavior of employees, cleanliness and timeliness. Choc and Chug (2001) concluded that staff quality, room qualities and value are the top three hotel factors that determine travelers’ satisfaction . 3 Customer Satisfaction Models Models of customer satisfaction come from a vast literature from the marketing research discipline. This pool of research includes models that integrate the concept of customer satisfaction in a network of related concepts, such as value, quality, complaining behavior, and loyalty.
In this paper, we will label these kinds of models as “macro-models. ” Macro-models have special importance for the policy-level implications of an organization’s research in customer satisfaction. Macro-models give the researcher the strategic context of the design and of the results for a study of customer satisfaction. The marketing research literature extensively covers the elements that make up the concept of customer satisfaction, such as discrimination of expectations, equity, attribution, affect, and regret.
Because these elements explain the composition of the customer satisfaction concept (or “construct”), we will label these kinds of models as “micro-models. ” Micro-models enable an analyst to properly personalize measurements of customer satisfaction, thus helping her/him to achieve construct validity in the eventual satisfaction survey. 3. 1 Macro-models 1 . Perceived performance often differs from objective or technical performance, especially when a product/service is complex, intangible, and when the consumer is unfamiliar with the product/service. 2.
The Expectations Discrimination Model has been the dominant model in satisfaction research. The model has consumers using pre-consumption expectations in a comparison with post-consumption experiences of a product/service to form an attitude of satisfaction or dissatisfaction toward the product/service. In this model, expectations originate from beliefs about the level of performance that a product/ service will provide. This is the predictive meaning of the expectations concept. 2.
The Perceived Performance Model deviates from the above model in that expectations play a less significant role in satisfaction formation. The model performs especially well in situations where a product/service performs so positively that the consumer’s expectations get discounted in her/his post-consumption reaction to the product/service. . Norms Models resemble the Expectations Discrimination Model in that the consumer compares perceived performance with some standard for performance. In this case, however, the standard is not a predictive expectation.
Rather than considering what will happen in the consumption experience, the consumer uses what should happen as the comparison standard. 4. Multiple Process Models characterize the satisfaction formation process as multidimensional. That is, consumers use more than one standard of comparison in forming a (dish)conformation Judgment about an experience with a product/service. 5. Attribution Models integrate the concept of perceived causality for a product/ service performance into the satisfaction process. Consumers use three factors to determine attribution’s effect in satisfaction.
These are locus of causality, stability, and controllability. Processes. In these models, emotion, liking, and mood influence (dish)satisfaction feelings following the consumption experience. 7. Equity Models emphasize the consumer’s attitude about fair treatment in the consumption process. Fair treatment can use the concept of the equity ratio (that is, the amount of her/his return for her/his effort made) or the concept of social imprison (that is, the perceived, relative level of product/service performance that other consumers experience). Conclusion An analyst who plans to do a customer satisfaction study could benefit from consulting the insightful works as well as the works previously cited. The mountain of information that the analyst can review may consume a huge chunk in time and effort, but the benefits of understanding customer satisfaction models may pay commensurate dividends in useful analyses in the future. At the very least, use of the above material will supply a basic footing in any effort to understand customer satisfaction.
