The issue of disconfirmation is related to the comparisons (1-3) presented in figure 6. Although the disconfirmation paradigm has been used mainly in marketing related to studies concerning consumer markets (i.e.. service quality and customer satisfaction), the same kind of comparison between comparison standards and performance has also been used in some studies which concern business markets (e.g. Frazier 1983; Andersson and Narus 1984, 1990; Frazier, Spekman and O’Neil 1988; Hart 1993; Kotsalo- Mustonen 1996). In the service quality and satisfaction literature, the comparison between experiences and comparison standard follows the lines of the disconfirmation paradigm (e.g. Thibault and Kelley 1959; Oliver and DeSarbo 1988; Bolton and Drew 1991; Liljander 1995). In the social exchange theory based interaction approach, the comparison is done between outcomes (rewards and losses) and comparison standard (CL) (Andersson and Narus 1984, p. 66; Frazier, Spekman and O’Neil 1988, p. 62; Andersson and Narus 1990, p. 46). Presented as such, the comparison inherently includes two comparisons, i.e. the comparison between rewards and losses, and the comparison between outcomes and the comparison standard. However, the result of this comparison is not discussed in this theory, in the same manner as in the disconfirmation paradigm (i.e. what if comparison level is met, not met or exceeded). Thus, these comparisons cannot be regarded as strictly following the disconfirmation paradigm.
In studies concerning business relationships, the comparison is not the major approach when studying the outcomes of relationships. The more extensively used ones are: 1) outcomes as disadvantages or advantages (strategic alliance literature), 2) outcomes defined as performance35 or success36 (joint venture literature and partly marketing channel literature), and 3) outcomes as a part of the co-operation process (IMP-literature and partly marketing channel literature) (see Hovi 1995, p. 25). Consequently, the following discussion concerning the usefulness of disconfirmation paradigm in relationship quality evaluation is mainly based on the service quality and customer satisfaction literature.
The disconfirmation paradigm actually consists of two processes, which are linked together. The first process includes the formation of expectations, and the second process the disconfirmation of those expectations (Oliver and DeSarbo 1988, p. 495). In customer satisfaction tradition (based on the disconfirmation paradigm) customers are assumed to form their expectations by using product characteristics which can be evaluated prior
35 See more about performance in joint ventures in e.g. Geringer and Hebert 1989. 36 Success can be evaluated as comparison (e.g. Kotsalo-Mustonen 1996, p. 57).
to purchase (e.g. Oliver 1980; Oliver and DeSarbo 1988). After the purchase and use, the actual performance level is compared against the expectations. Negative disconfirmation results if the performance is less than expected, and accordingly positive disconfirmation results if the performance is better than expected. This traditional form of disconfirmation has its roots in Helson's (1964) adaptation level theory (see also Blau 1964; Thibault and Kelley 1959).
Although the disconfirmation paradigm presents the main stream of customer satisfaction research, and is often also used in service quality research, it has also been criticized. The criticisms mainly concerns the expectations component. The both the need for, and nature of the expectations, are questioned. For example, Churchill and Surprenant (1982) have found that performance alone was the only predictor of customer satisfaction. Some service quality researchers have found same kind of results (e.g. Bolton and Drew 1991; Grönroos 1993). It seems to be, for consumer products and services, which are continually used, performance alone is the best predictor of satisfaction (or service quality).
Traditionally, expectations in customer satisfaction research have been predictive expectations, and in service quality research normative expectations. However, expectations in customer satisfaction literature have been measured by using numerous different standards like ideal and experience based norms (e.g. Swan and Trawick 1980; Woodruff, Cadotte and Jenkins 1983; Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins 1987; Olshavsky and Spreng 1989). The need for different kinds of standards also has been acknowledged in service quality research (Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman 1991; Liljander 1995). In both traditions, it has been suggested that consumers may use numerous different standards in evaluating products and services (LaTour and Peat 1978; Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins 1987; Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman 1991; Uusitalo 1993; Boulding, Kalra, Staehlin and Zeithaml 1993; Liljander 1995).37 In social exchange theory based interaction approach, the comparison standard used, is solely based on prior experiences (CL) (Andersson and Narus 1984, 1990; Frazier, Spekman and O’Neil 1988). Thus, the need for developing other kinds of comparison standards is obvious in this tradition.
In addition, to need for and nature of, expectations, the basic logic of disconfirmation paradigm has been challenged. LaTour and Peat (1978) question disconfirmation because it is unlikely that people who have low expectations would be satisfied if the expectations are met. This seems to be logical if we consider the way we evaluate things in every day life. For example, if we have low expectations concerning public health care services, and these expectations are met, we will not be satisfied, but dissatisfied and next time our expectations can be even lower.
Boulding, Kalra, Staehlin and Zeithaml (1993) present the same kind of thoughts when developing a process model of service quality evaluation.
They argue that people have two kinds of expectations: ‘will’ and ‘should’ expectations. The logic behind the will expectations is if one has high will expectations, and the other low will expectations, the first one is more satisfied, ceteris paribus. Controversially, they argue that should expectations have a negative influence on perceptions. Therefor, the higher the person's should expectations, the less favorable are the person’s perceptions, ceteris paribus (ibid., pp. 9-10).
This kind of thinking is close to the assimilation-contrast theory (Sherif and Hovland 1961) and to some extent also to psychological consistency theories and theory of generalized negativity (see Uusitalo 1993, p 18; Liljander 1995, p. 43). Assimilation-contrast theory argues that if customer’s experiences fall into the zone of acceptance, the assimilation effect will occur. This means that the customer will assimilate the performance towards expectations. However, if the performance falls out of the zone of acceptance, the contrast effect will occur, and enlarge the difference between performance and expectations.
The psychological consistency theories argue that inconsistency between expectations and perceived performance causes tension, and in order to avoid that tension customers evaluate performance closely according to their expectations. The theory of generalized negativity, in turn, states that if customer’s expectations are not confirmed, he will judge the performance as worse than if he had no previous expectations. (Uusitalo 1993, p. 18; Liljander 1995, p. 43).
Although assimilation-contrast theory and psychological consistency theory are quite contradictionary, they both can be used in analyzing the relationship quality evaluation process. It can be argued that in case the discrepancy exists in evaluation, the assimilation, and also consistency, will be used so, that quality perception gained as a result of evaluation, will be good. In case of large inconsistency, evaluators might be unable to use the consistency theory, and thus a contrast effect will occur and enlarge the difference.
Assimilation-contrast -theory is linked also to the acceptance zones and to the relative importance of expectations and performance in satisfaction judgments. If the perceptions about performance are within the zone of acceptance, the customer will be satisfied and if the perceptions are outside the zone, the difference will be exaggerated. (See more Liljander 1995). Assimilation-contrast -theory has also been linked to the relative importance of expectations and performance in a way that if the performance is in-between the zone of acceptance, expectations are used in satisfaction judgments, and if the performance exceeds the zone of acceptance, performance alone determines satisfaction (Uusitalo 1993, p. 18).
In my opinion, assimilation-contrast -theory can also be used in analyzing the processual development of perceived quality. As the relationship between the buyer and seller evolves, the individuals involved in the relationship also get used to a certain level of performance.
Expectations are to a large extent determined by this normal level, and thus the role of expectations in perceived quality judgments is central. However, if something goes wrong and performance exceeds the zone of acceptance, the role of performance becomes crucial for perceived quality.
The essence of criticism towards the traditional disconfirmation paradigm concerns relation between perceived quality and performance. Disconfirmation paradigm assumes that relationship is linear, but taking into account the discussion presented above, one can ask if this really is the case. Strandvik (1994) argues that the quality function for service does not have to be linear (see also Ojasalo 1999). It is also true that most of the measurement devices used are not able to prevail the possible asymmetric shape of quality function. It is thus important to use also the "soft" measurement devices in order to get the true picture about the quality function.
The traditional disconfirmation paradigm also neglects to large extent the existence of affective reactions by only relaying on evaluative disconfirmation. The reaction caused by a certain episode can be either affective, cognitive or both. Thus, in order to take into account also the purely affective reactions, that free it from conscious evaluation, one should not only concentrate on disconfirmation paradigm, in both the episode and the relationship quality evaluation (see more e.g. Uusitalo 1993). In social exchange theory based interaction approach, the comparison between outcomes and comparison standards is seen as rational. These rational comparisons then affect the satisfaction, which is seen as an affective reaction (e.g. Frazier, Spekman and O’Neil 1988, p. 60). The ordering of these reactions does not seem to be quite rational, and consequently it can be argued that both reactions co-exist.
In business-to-business context, it is logical that a in episode quality evaluation comparison is present in most episodes. In some episodes, however, the performance alone can become a determinant of episode quality. An example of this could be the use of the theory of generalized negativity (Liljander 1995, p. 43), which would mean that if the comparison standard is not met, and the episode quality is based on the experiences. In addition in some episodes the results cannot be perceived during or immediately after the episode. This can also lead to performance based evaluation, and/or to delayed comparison (see Lehtinen and Mittilä 1995; see also Halinen 1997) between goals and results, at the time the results are perceived.
As the goals have a central role in business relationships it can be argued that the evaluation of relationship quality in business relationship is in many cases linked to the disconfirmation of these goals. Consequently, it can be argued that in most episodes, some kind of comparison takes place between comparison standard and episode performance. The nature or form of this comparison can differ from the traditional disconfirmation. This is also the case in the second and especially in the third comparison (see figure 6). In the second comparison, time can fade the importance of the
traditional form of comparison. The evaluator gets used to certain performance, and thus the episode quality perceptions formed also remind to a large extent each other. In this case, only those episode quality perceptions which deviate considerably from the normal, may lead to the comparison in the form of discomfirmation. In the third comparison, the actor decides whether to continue or terminate the relationship. This kind of decision can be regarded as being more complicated than the traditional comparison, although it can include comparison.