IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/custns/v3y2016i3d10.1007_s40547-016-0067-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Satisfaction—Repurchase Intentions Relationship: Exploring the Contingent Roles of Consideration Set Size and Price Consciousness

Author

Listed:
  • Vishal Bindroo

    (Indiana University South Bend)

  • Xin He

    (University of Central Florida)

  • Raj Echambadi

    (University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign)

Abstract

Customer satisfaction has been acknowledged to be a critical driver in enhancing repurchase intentions thereby improving company profits. Despite this prevailing view about the positive satisfaction and repurchase link, however, recent scholarly evidence points to mixed results prompting the examination of various contingent factors in the satisfaction–repurchase intentions relationship. We suggest that consideration set size and price consciousness jointly moderate the satisfaction–repurchase intentions relationship such that large consideration set sizes weaken the satisfaction–repurchase intentions relationship under high, but not low, price consciousness. Robust results from two studies, including a laboratory experiment and analysis of a multi-brand, multi-market secondary dataset, provide consistent support for the joint moderating roles of set size and price consciousness.

Suggested Citation

  • Vishal Bindroo & Xin He & Raj Echambadi, 2016. "Satisfaction—Repurchase Intentions Relationship: Exploring the Contingent Roles of Consideration Set Size and Price Consciousness," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(3), pages 115-125, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:custns:v:3:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40547-016-0067-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40547-016-0067-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40547-016-0067-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40547-016-0067-2?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. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. "Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 17(3), pages 263-276, December.
    3. Jeen-Su Lim & Abdulrahman Al-Aali & John Heinrichs, 2015. "Impact of satisfaction with e-retailers’ touch points on purchase behavior: the moderating effect of search and experience product type," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 225-235, June.
    4. Kumar, V. & Pozza, Ilaria Dalla & Ganesh, Jaishankar, 2013. "Revisiting the Satisfaction–Loyalty Relationship: Empirical Generalizations and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 246-262.
    5. Wayne S. Desarbo & Kamel Jedidi, 1995. "The Spatial Representation of Heterogeneous Consideration Sets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 326-342.
    6. Sunil Gupta & Valarie Zeithaml, 2006. "Customer Metrics and Their Impact on Financial Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 718-739, 11-12.
    7. Eugene W. Anderson & Mary W. Sullivan, 1993. "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143.
    8. Lichtenstein, Donald R & Bloch, Peter H & Black, William C, 1988. "Correlates of Price Acceptability," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 243-252, September.
    9. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Inman, J Jeffrey & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2002. "Regret in Repeat Purchase versus Switching Decisions: The Attenuating Role of Decision Justifiability," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(1), pages 116-128, June.
    11. Homburg, Christian & Stock, Ruth, 2005. "Exploring the Conditions Under Which Salesperson Work Satisfaction Can Lead to Customer Satisfaction," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 35543, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    12. Neil A. Morgan & Lopo Leotte Rego, 2006. "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 426-439, September.
    13. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M, 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 49-68, June.
    14. Blut, Markus & Frennea, Carly M. & Mittal, Vikas & Mothersbaugh, David L., 2015. "How procedural, financial and relational switching costs affect customer satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and repurchase behavior: A meta-analysis," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 226-229.
    15. Keller, Kevin Lane, 1987. "Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(3), pages 316-333, December.
    16. Gilles Laurent & Eric Lapersonne & Jean-Jacques Le Goff, 1995. "Consideration sets of size one: An empirical investigation of automobile purchases," Post-Print hal-00458463, HAL.
    17. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M., 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Research Papers 1610, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Echambadi, Raj & Jindal, Rupinder P. & Blair, Edward A., 2013. "Evaluating and Managing Brand Repurchase Across Multiple Geographic Retail Markets," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 409-422.
    19. Chakravarti, Amitav & Janiszewski, Chris, 2003. "The Influence of Macro-level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 244-258, September.
    20. Sheppard, Blair H & Hartwick, Jon & Warshaw, Paul R, 1988. "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 325-343, December.
    21. Lakshman Krishnamurthi & S. P. Raj, 1991. "An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Brand Loyalty and Consumer Price Elasticity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 172-183.
    22. Johnson, Michael D, 1984. "Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(3), pages 741-753, December.
    23. Jeen-Su Lim & Abdulrahman Al-Aali & John Heinrichs, 2015. "Erratum to: Impact of satisfaction with e-retailers’ touch points on purchase behavior: the moderating effect of search and experience product type," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 727-727, December.
    24. Auh, Seigyoung & Johnson, Michael D., 2005. "Compatibility effects in evaluations of satisfaction and loyalty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 35-57, February.
    25. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    26. Homburg, Christian & Stock, Ruth, 2005. "Exploring the Conditions Under Which Salesperson Work Satisfaction Can Lead to Customer Satisfaction," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 60481, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    27. Desai, Kalpesh Kaushik & Hoyer, Wayne D, 2000. "Descriptive Characteristics of Memory-Based Consideration Sets: Influence of Usage Occasion Frequency and Usage Location Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 309-323, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ganesh Pillai, Rajani & Bindroo, Vishal, 2020. "Supplier cluster characteristics and innovation outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 576-583.

    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. Yan, Huan & Chang, En-Chung & Chou, Ting-Jui & Tang, Xiaofei, 2015. "The over-categorization effect: How the number of categorizations influences shoppers' perceptions of variety and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 631-638.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Terry Connolly & Jochen Reb & Edgar E. Kausel, 2013. "Regret salience and accountability in the decoy effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(2), pages 136-149, March.
    4. Nenycz-Thiel, Magda & Sharp, Byron & Dawes, John & Romaniuk, Jenni, 2010. "Competition for memory retrieval between private label and national brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 1142-1147, November.
    5. Desmichel, Perrine & Kocher, Bruno, 2020. "Luxury Single- versus Multi-Brand Stores: The Effect of Consumers’ Hedonic Goals on Brand Comparisons," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 203-219.
    6. Tammo H.A. Bijmolt & Michel Wedel & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2021. "Adaptive Multidimensional Scaling: Brand Positioning Based on Decision Sets and Dissimilarity Judgments," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, June.
    7. Banelis, Melissa & Riebe, Erica & Rungie, Campbell M., 2013. "Empirical evidence of repertoire size," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 59-65.
    8. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    9. J. Andrew Petersen & V. Kumar & Yolanda Polo & F. Javier Sese, 2018. "Unlocking the power of marketing: understanding the links between customer mindset metrics, behavior, and profitability," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 813-836, September.
    10. Liu, Longzhu & Chen, Rong & He, Feng, 2015. "How to promote purchase of carbon offset products: Labeling vs. calculation?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 942-948.
    11. Christian Hildebrand & Tobias Schlager, 2019. "Focusing on others before you shop: exposure to Facebook promotes conventional product configurations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 291-307, March.
    12. Liang Guo, 2022. "Testing the Role of Contextual Deliberation in the Compromise Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4326-4355, June.
    13. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    14. Claire I. Tsai & Min Zhao & Dilip Soman, 2022. "Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 366-387, March.
    15. Christian Hildebrand & Gerald Häubl & Andreas Herrmann & Jan R. Landwehr, 2013. "When Social Media Can Be Bad for You: Community Feedback Stifles Consumer Creativity and Reduces Satisfaction with Self-Designed Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 14-29, March.
    16. Sven Baehre & Michele O’Dwyer & Lisa O’Malley & Nick Lee, 2022. "The use of Net Promoter Score (NPS) to predict sales growth: insights from an empirical investigation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 67-84, January.
    17. Alexander Dilger & Thomas Gehrig & Marko Sarstedt, 2019. "(Ir)Rationality of decisions in business research and practice: introduction to the special issue," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, April.
    18. Bian, Xuemei & Moutinho, Luiz, 2009. "An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchase consideration," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 368-378, March.
    19. Khan, Kamran & Hameed, Irfan, 2017. "The mediation of customer satisfaction and moderation of Price: Evidence from the generation Y users of cell phones," MPRA Paper 91773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    21. Pinger, Pia & Ruhmer-Krell, Isabel & Schumacher, Heiner, 2016. "The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant's menu," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 14-34.

    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:spr:custns:v:3:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40547-016-0067-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.