IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v59y2021ics0969698920313874.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anticipated firm interaction can bias expressed customer satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • Mukherjee, Ashesh
  • Burnham, Thomas
  • King, Dan

Abstract

Customers sometimes anticipate interacting with firms after completing satisfaction surveys to discuss their survey responses. The purpose of this research is to investigate the potential effect of anticipated firm interaction on expressed satisfaction in surveys. Results of four studies show that anticipated firm interaction can bias expressed satisfaction in surveys, such that expressed satisfaction is a less accurate measure of actual satisfaction when anticipated firm interaction is present. Results also indicate that the bias is driven by a psychological mechanism of conflict avoidance, and the bias is eliminated when customers have extremely low levels of actual satisfaction. These results contribute theoretically to the literature by identifying a new survey-related bias in satisfaction measurement, identifying the underlying mechanism of the bias, and specifying a boundary condition within which the bias operates.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukherjee, Ashesh & Burnham, Thomas & King, Dan, 2021. "Anticipated firm interaction can bias expressed customer satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:59:y:2021:i:c:s0969698920313874
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698920313874
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mummolo, Jonathan & Peterson, Erik, 2019. "Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(2), pages 517-529, May.
    2. Andrew D. Gershoff & Jonathan J. Koehler, 2011. "Safety First? The Role of Emotion in Safety Product Betrayal Aversion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 140-150.
    3. Andrew D. Gershoff & Ashesh Mukherjee & Anirban Mukhopadhyay, 2008. "What's Not to Like? Preference Asymmetry in the False Consensus Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 119-125, November.
    4. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    5. Darley, William K. & Luethge, Denise J. & Thatte, Ashish, 2008. "Exploring the relationship of perceived automotive salesperson attributes, customer satisfaction and intentions to automotive service department patronage: The moderating role of customer gender," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 469-479.
    6. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    7. Söderlund, Magnus & Sagfossen, Sofie, 2017. "The consumer experience: The impact of supplier effort and consumer effort on customer satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 219-229.
    8. Menon, Geeta & Raghubir, Priya & Schwarz, Norbert, 1995. "Behavioral Frequency Judgments: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(2), pages 212-228, September.
    9. Kos Koklic, Mateja & Kukar-Kinney, Monika & Vegelj, Spela, 2017. "An investigation of customer satisfaction with low-cost and full-service airline companies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 188-196.
    10. Adam Duhachek & Shuoyang Zhang & Shanker Krishnan, 2007. "Anticipated Group Interaction: Coping with Valence Asymmetries in Attitude Shift," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(3), pages 395-405, June.
    11. Anatol-Fiete Näher & Ivar Krumpal, 2012. "Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1601-1616, August.
    12. Park, Eunil & Jang, Yeonju & Kim, Jina & Jeong, Nam Jeong & Bae, Kunwoo & del Pobil, Angel P., 2019. "Determinants of customer satisfaction with airline services: An analysis of customer feedback big data," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 186-190.
    13. Schlosser, Ann E & Shavitt, Sharon, 2002. "Anticipating Discussion about a Product: Rehearsing What to Say Can Affect Your Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(1), pages 101-115, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    2. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    3. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    4. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2022. "Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 304-326.
    5. Bjorn Van Campenhout & David J. Spielman & Els Lecoutere, 2021. "Information and Communication Technologies to Provide Agricultural Advice to Smallholder Farmers: Experimental Evidence from Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 317-337, January.
    6. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Earnings information and public preferences for university tuition: Evidence from representative experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    7. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2019. "The Political Economy of Higher Education Finance: How Information and Design Affect Public Preferences for Tuition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 145, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    8. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    9. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    10. Philipp Lergetporer & Marc Piopiunik & Lisa Simon, 2017. "Does the Education Level of Refugees Affect Natives' Attitudes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6832, CESifo.
    11. Martinangeli, Andrea F.M. & Windsteiger, Lisa, 2023. "Immigration vs. poverty: Causal impact on demand for redistribution in a survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Eßer, Jana & Flörchinger, Daniela & Frondel, Manuel & Sommer, Stephan, 2024. "Avoiding cognitive dissonance: Experimental evidence on sustainable online shopping," Ruhr Economic Papers 1063, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    13. Choi, Syngjoo & Choi, Chung-Yoon & Kim, Seonghoon, 2023. "Tackling misperceptions about immigrants with fact-checking interventions: A randomized survey experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    14. Bao, Te & Wei, Lijia & Yu, Yang, 2022. "The impact of information interventions on public opinion on social media regulation: Evidence from a survey on Twitter’s Trump Ban," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Dylong, Patrick & Koenings, Fabian, 2023. "Framing of economic news and policy support during a pandemic: Evidence from a survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Tasoff, Joshua & Letzler, Robert, 2014. "Everyone believes in redemption: Nudges and overoptimism in costly task completion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 107-122.
    17. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    18. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    19. Jason Aimone & Sheryl Ball & Brooks King-Casas, 2015. "The Betrayal Aversion Elicitation Task: An Individual Level Betrayal Aversion Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    20. Maja Adena & Julian Harke, 2022. "COVID-19 and pro-sociality: How do donors respond to local pandemic severity, increased salience, and media coverage?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 824-844, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:59:y:2021:i:c:s0969698920313874. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-retailing-and-consumer-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.