—
—.

 

1—7er

V

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS BUY AGAIN: AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THE IMPACT OF CONSUMER
KNOWLEDGE ON CONSUMER SATISFACTION AND

DELIGHT OF FLOWERING POTTED PLANTS

presented by

JESSICA MARIE HICKS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Horticulture

 

 

fiw9€m

OMajor Professor’s Signature

Algal/c 9605'

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAUED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c2/cFRC/oateoue' '.'Ind_d'-'p' .15‘

 

 

DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS BUY AGAIN: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
IMPACT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE ON CONSUMER SATISFACTION
AND DELIGHT OF FLOWERING POTTED PLANTS
BY

JESSICA MARIE HICKS

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Horticulture

2005

ABSTRACT
DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS BUY AGAIN: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
IMPACT OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE ON CONSUMER SATISFACTION
AND DELIGHT OF FLOWERING POTTED PLANTS
By

JESSICA MARIE HICKS

This research examined the role of moderating variables in satisfaction research.
It tested the role of prior plant knowledge on repurchase intention. Knowledge level was
proposed to be a potential moderating variable of the relationship between satisfaction
and repurchase intention as well as delight and repurchase intention. An Internet survey
was conducted to examine an actual purchase experience, in this case the initial purchase
and the actual performance of the plant following purchase. Structural equation
modeling was used to test hypotheses. The results showed that knowledge level did not
have a moderating effect on the delight to repurchase intention path, nor did it moderate
the satisfaction to repurchase intention path. The delight to repurchase intention path,
however, had a significant impact on repurchase intention. Results were consistent with
existing literature, indicating that greater emphasis should be placed on delighting the

consumer, rather than just satisfying them.

DEDICATION

To my grandfather: Norman E. Maney
Here’s to following your dreams no matter where they may lead.
Proverbs 325,6

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Over the past two years, several individuals have made significant impacts upon
my life both personally and professionally. I would like to take the time to sincerely
thank my committee members for their helpful insight and support throughout this
process. I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Bridget K. Behe for her guidance,
mentorship, friendship, and sense of humor throughout the process. Her encouragement
throughout the more challenging portions of my research pushed me to become a stronger
individual and a better scholar.

I would like to thank Dr. Thomas J. Page Jr. for his patience and willingness to
teach me SEM principles and answer my seemingly unending questions. I would also
like to thank Dr. R. Thomas Fernandez for his helpful insight and encouragement
throughout the process. I would like to thank Dr. Jennifer H. Dennis for paving the way
for me to follow in her footsteps. Her unending support and willingness to help will
always be remembered.

To my parents Bill and Sharla Hicks, and my brothers Jordan and Aaron, thank
you for your continual love and support, and most importantly, thank you for teaching me
that nothing is impossible if you put your mind to it. To Aaron, my fiance and best
friend, thank you for your unending support, love, and patience through this process.

I would like to thank my friends and fellow graduate students for their helpful
insights, encouragement and willingness to listen. Marcus Duck, Sonali Padhye, Cathy
Whitman, Jennifer Sowa, Patrick O’Connor, Kevin Brothers, Jennifer Vandenberg, and

Susie Raker among others have each impacted my life; I’ll never forget my times with

iv

you. Finally, I would like to thank the Lord for his guidance, abundant blessings, and

abundant grace (Jeremiah 29:11).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables ..................................................................................... vii
List of Figures .................................................................................... viii
SECTION I. Introduction ...................................................................... 1
Literature Cited ................................................................................... 8
SECTION 11. Literature Review of Satisfaction, Delight,

and Repurchase Intention ....................................................... 10
References ......................................................................................... 28
SECTION III. Delighted Consumers Buy Again ............................................. 35
Abstract ............................................................................................. 37
Introduction ........................................................................................ 38
Materials and Methods ........................................................................... 44
Results ................ 47
Discussion .......................................................................................... 50
Literature Cited .................................................................................... 58
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 61
Appendix A. Repositioning Syringa meyeri as a profitable, dual-use flowering potted
plant ................................................................................................. 62
Abstract ............................................................................................. 64
Literature Cited .................................................................................... 69
Appendix B. Survey Instrument Used for Satisfaction, Delight, and Repurchase
Intention Survey at Michigan State University 12 July 2004. Title of Survey:
Consumer Perceptions of Indoor Flowering Potted Plants Survey ......................... 70
Appendix C. The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
Approval Letter. Title of Research: Evaluating Consumer Perceptions of
Flowering Potted Plants .......................................................................... 79

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
SECTION III.

1. Standardized Effects (t Values) of Satisfaction and Delight on
Repurchase Intention ................................................................. 54

2. Within Group Estimates of the Constructs Based on the Proposed
Knowledge Level of the Consumer
(Group 1 = Low Knowledge; Group 2 = High Knowledge) .................... 55

3. Between Group Estimates ........................................................... 56

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
SECTION III.

1. Proposed Model of the Moderating Effect of Knowledge on Constructs with
Hypothesized Paths ........................................................................... 57

viii

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Growth in the retail sector of the horticulture industry has increased significantly
in the past twenty years, but has slowed recently. As competition for consumer demand
in horticulture intensifies, so too does competition from mass merchandisers and home
centers. The market share difference between independent garden centers, mass
merchandisers, and home centers has fast been closing over the past six years. In 1998,
32 million households purchased lawn and gardening products from garden centers,
leading both the home centers and mass merchandisers by $3 million and $11 million
respectively (National Gardening Survey, 2003). By 1999, home centers surpassed
garden centers as the top location patronized by households within the US. Home
centers have since remained the leading choice in location for the purchase of lawn and
gardening products. Sales in garden centers have fluctuated, peaking at 39 million
households in 2001, decreasing to 36 million households in 2003 (decrease of 7.7%)
(National Gardening Survey, 2003). Mass merchandisers closely follow garden centers
in sales of lawn and garden products, indicating that their presence will continue to
strongly compete with their market share. As of early 2004, home centers dominated
market share, with garden centers and mass merchandisers following closely behind
(National Gardening Survey, 2003). In this highly competitive market, how can a
traditional garden center compete? Creativity and differentiation in the product mix and
price point that is offered immediately come to mind, but these ideas will not translate
into profitability unless the retailer can quantify why a customer continues to patronize a
specific garden center. As competitive forces continue to increase, so too, will the need

to understand this phenomenon.

Consumer Education. In recent years, there has been a call for improved
marketing strategies within the horticulture industry. In response to this call, retailers
have begun to place more emphasis on consumer education, guarantees, and satisfaction
strategies. Niemiera, Innis-Smith and Leda (1993) suggested that consumer sales are
directly correlated to the ability of the retailer to meet consumer needs. Other authors
have indicated that the many retailers are seeking attractive niches from which to sell
their wares (Behe, Prince and Tayama, 1992a, 1992b; Prince, Tayama, and Grabner,
1990,1991)

Risk. Any time a consumer purchases a product, they take a risk. Product cost
plays a large role in the risk level the consumer feels. It therefore stands to reason that
the consumer will attempt to purchase a product that has more benefits than perceived
risks. A study of Georgia retail garden outlets and mass merchandisers conducted by
Garber and Bondari (1998) details the perceived differences between retail outlets and the
causes of consumer discontent. Consumer complaints were investigated in detail, with
the top three complaints pertaining to price, poor plant quality, and plant death or poor
performance. Dennis, et a1. (2005) examined the impact of regret and satisfaction on
future purchases of horticultural products. When regret occurred, study participants were
more likely to switch products irregardless of their satisfaction level, thus regret drove
switching behavior. The effect of product guarantees was studied. For consumers who
purchased a hanging basket, customer satisfaction increased and regret decreased when
guarantees were provided. This effect was not observed in the purchase of perennials and
potted roses. The authors suggest that guarantees may be seen as necessities, especially

when consumers perceive a higher risk plant. Consumers who buy plants at greater

perceived risk may assume that a guarantee will be present, which can, to an extent,
moderate their level of risk with the purchase.

Consumer Satisfaction. Satisfaction as defined by Hunt (1977), “is not the
pleasurableness of the [consumption] experience. . .it is the evaluation rendered that the
experience was at least as good as it was supposed to be.” Satisfaction is a fundamental
outcome of the marketing concept, providing a link between purchase and consumption
processes and postpurchase phenomena (attitude change, repeat purchase and brand
loyalty). The positive execution of this link generates profits through the fulfillment of
consumers’ wants and needs. In the past, satisfaction was studied abstractly by
researchers in the horticulture industry; findings from these studies gave specific
implications to retailers on how to implement strategies to remain competitive.
Researchers examined why consumers shop at particular retail outlets (Day, 1994; Garber
and Bondari, 1998), how plant quality and health, variety of plants, labeling and signage,
and knowledgeable staff improve marketing efforts (Behe and Barton 2000) and the type
of information customers use in the selection of plant material (N iemiera, et al., 1993).

Prior work on plant guarantees (Behe and Barton, 2000; Dennis et al., 2005)
examined the motivations used by consumers when shopping at retail centers and their
importance. While Dennis et al. (2005) showed that plant guarantees are important, and
in particular cases expected, a gap still exists in regard to why a satisfied customer fails to
repurchase a specific plant from a particular retailer. The satisfied customer may switch
to a different plant or from the retail center altogether. Despite the fact that retail centers

are aware that they must satisfy the customer, this concept has not been quantified in a

manner that determines the outcomes of satisfaction such as repurchase intent, positive
word-Of-mouth, and loyalty.

Knowledge. A review of the satisfaction literature indicates that satisfaction
influences only a small proportion of the variance in repurchase behavior (Bolton, 1998).
While satisfaction is the principal metric used by companies to detect customer defection
rates, it is only a weak predictor of whether or not a customer will defect. Capraro,
Broniarczyk, and Srivastava (2003) suggest that repurchase intention is influenced by
“how much” customers know about the product and its alternatives. Knowledge level
then plays a moderating role between satisfaction and repurchase intention; indicating
that knowledge level has a direct effect on the likelihood of defection, over and above
that of satisfaction. Barton et al. (1996) indicated that in a study of consumer acceptance
in regard to wildflower sod, most homeowners (consumers) preferred information in
writing rather than expressed by the salesclerk. The authors also suggest that many
professionals are incapable of providing all of the knowledge necessary to fully educate
the consumer, which may lead the consumer to purchase a plant that may not perform at
its best.

Delight. “It will not suffice to have customers that are merely satisfied” (Deming,
1986). Recent research in the satisfaction literature has led to the belief that higher levels
of satisfaction exist beyond that of positive disconfirrnation (Oliver et al., 1997). The
principle of customer delight (Schlossberg, 1990) is believed by many researchers to be
the key to customer loyalty. Chandler (1989) describes customer delight as a reaction on
the part of the consumer occurring when a product or service provides unexpected value

or unanticipated satisfaction. The principle of customer delight has been well

documented and accepted among practitioners, however, very little work has been done
in the satisfaction literature to document the impact of customer delight on overall
satisfaction.

Consumer Research. Surveying customers to determine the marketability of new
or repositioned products is a regular practice across multiple industries. One method
used by a variety of industries, which is applicable to horticulture is the e-LITe surveying
technique used by Survey Sampling, Inc. (SSI) (F airfield, CT). This surveying
technique, conducted by SSI allows for the global targeting of customers by lifestyle,
topics of interest, and specific demographic characteristics. Unlike similar surveys, the e-
LITe system is based on predictive techniques, which gives researchers the exact targets
with the specific interests they are looking for. Data is collected principally through a
variety of permission-based marketing sources. Customers are invited to participate in
surveys via email, based on the specific interests and criteria of the researcher. This
surveying technique builds on perceptual mapping techniques by the measurement of
consumer perceptions which in turn helps to determine which plants should be introduced
or repositioned. If consumers are not an integral component of market research, the
success of the product will be jeopardized.

The old adage that “It is five times more expensive to find a new customer than it
is to keep an existing customer happy” is true within many retail segments, and as such
can be applied to the horticulture industry. The application of delighting a customer can
best be summarized by the CEO of the Eastman Kodak Company:

Customer delight is the reaction of customers when they receive a service or

product that not only satisfies, but provides unexpected value or unanticipated

satisfaction. Customer satisfaction, which we have all worked hard to provide, is

largely a static process that focuses on today and deals with known circumstances

and known variables. Providing customer delight is a dynamic, forward-looking
process that takes place primarily in the unknown environment. . .going beyond
satisfaction to customer delight will provide a distinct advantage to the company

that does it first and does it well consistently” (Chandler, 1989).

Our goal through this research was to evaluate the moderating effect of plant
knowledge (high or low) on the satisfaction to repurchase intention path as well as the
delight to repurchase intention path. Through this research we hope to give traditional
retail garden centers as well as national chains an in-depth view of consumer needs and

wants that will help them to differentiate themselves from their competition.

Literature Cited

Barton, 8.8., J. Mercer, and OJ. Molnar. 1996. Using Focus Groups to Determine Market
Potential for Wildflower Sod. HortTechnology. 62271-76.

Behe, B.K. and S. Barton. 2000. Consumer Perceptions of Product and Service Quality
Attributes in Six US. States. J. Environ. Hort. 18:71-78.

Behe, B.K., T.A. Prince, and H. K. Tayama. 1992a. Analysis of Consumer Purchases of
Floral Products in Supermarkets. HortScience 27:455-59.

Behe, B.K., T.A. Prince, and H.K. Tayama. 1992b. Market Segmentation of Supermarket
Floral Customers. HortScience 27:459-62.

Bolton, RN. 1998. A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s
Relationship with a Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction.
Marketing Science 17(1): 45-65.

Capraro, A.J., S. Broniarczyk, and R.K. Srivastava. 2003. Factors Influencing the
Likelihood of Customer Defection: The Role of Consumer Knowledge. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science. 3 1(2): 164-175.

Chandler, CH. 1989. Quality; Beyond Customer Satisfaction. Quality Progress. 22:30-
32.

Day, E. 1994. An Exploratory Study of Garden Center Selection For Landscape Plants. J.
Environ. Hort. 12:142-46.

Deming, W.E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Venter for Advanced Engineering Study.

Dennis, J.H., B.K. Behe, R.T. Fernandez, and R. Schutzki. 2005. Do Plant Guarantees
Matter?: Understanding the Role of Satisfaction and Regret When Guarantees are
Present. HortScience: Submitted for Publication, March 16, 2004 (accepted).

Garber, MP. and K. Bondari. 1998. Retail Garden Outlets: Business Characteristics and
Factors Affecting Industry Performance. J. Environ. Hort. 16: 15-19.

Hunt, H.K. 1977. CS/D—Overview and Future Directions. in Conceptualization and
Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, H. Keith Hunt, ed.
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

National Gardening Association. 2002-2003. National Gardening Survey. Burlington,
VT.

Niemiera, A.X., J. Innis-Smith, and CE. Leda. 1993. Survey of Garden Center Customer
Informational and Marketing Needs. J. Environ. Hort. 1 l(1):25-27.

Oliver, R.L., R.T. Rust, and S. Varki. 1997. Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings,
and Managerial Insight. Journal of Retailing. 73(3):311-36.

Prince, T.L., H.K. Tayama, and JR. Grabner. 1990b. Floral Supplier Service Levels to
Retail Florist and Mass Market Customers. HortScience 25:689-92.

Prince, T. L., H.K. Tayama, and JR. Grabner. 1991. Description of Florist’s Cognitive
Structure and Perceived Performance of Supplier Services Through Second-Order Factor
Analysis. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 116:161-65.

Schlossberg, H. 1990. Satisfying Customers is a Minimum; You Really Have to ‘Delight’
Them. Marketing News. 24: 10-1 1.

SECTION II

LITERATURE REVIEW OF SATISFACTION, DELIGHT, AND
REPURCHASE INTENTION

10

 

Literature Review of Satisfaction, Delight, and Repurchase Intention

Consumer satisfaction over the past two decades has rapidly become one of the
most central components of marketing practice. Abundant literature exists regarding this
concept; however, multiple authors deviate in their measure of satisfaction. This chapter
provides a review of existing research on consumer satisfaction and its components in
three areas: 1) the definition of consumer satisfaction as well as its components, 2) the
emotion of delight, and 3) postpurchase intention.
Introduction

Satisfaction as defined by Hunt (1977), “is not the pleasurableness of the
[consumption] experience. . .it is the evaluation rendered that the experience was at least
as good as it was supposed to be.” Satisfaction is a fimdamental outcome of the
marketing concept, providing a link between purchase and consumption processes and
postpurchase phenomena (attitude change, repeat purchase and brand loyalty). The
positive execution of this link generates profits through the fulfillment of consumers’
wants and needs. Satisfaction as a measurable component of the marketing concept was
for a long period of time merely a philosophical statement. Early researchers began to
search for methods in which to translate the early foundations of satisfaction research into
operational guidelines (Anderson, 1973; Cardozo, 1964; Olshavsky and Miller, 1972; and
Pfaff, 1972). Out of this research came the fundamentals of theoretical testing and
empirical research based on consumer satisfaction.

In the past 30 years, the consumerist movement has gained momentum, raising
legitimate concerns based on the fairness of business practices in relation to consumer

purchases. In lieu of this perceived unfairness, consumers have adopted an organized

11

movement, placing pressure on government agencies to strengthen the rights of buyers in
relation to sellers. The progression of this movement has led to consumerism, which
places emphasis on the consumer through the formulation of policies, (i.e. how to handle
consumer complaints) (Kotler, 1997). The result of increased consumer dissatisfaction
with products, services, and marketing practices led to an increased interest in the causes
of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (LaTour and Peat, 1979). Consumer satisfaction
places a strong emphasis on delivering satisfaction to the consumer (additional benefits
added to the product) which in turn leads to increased profit margins (Yi, 1990).
Consumer satisfaction is linked to various needs of the consumer; fulfillment of these
needs leads to satisfaction and increases the possibility of repurchase or even loyalty.
Thus, researchers have found the need to study consumer satisfaction very imperative.

The definition of CS varies widely depending on the researcher. Yi (1990)
suggests that there are two types of definitions, outcome based (supported by Howard and
Sheth, 1969; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983; Oliver, 1981), or process related (Hunt, 1977;
Engel and Blackwell, 1982; Tse and Wilton, 1988). Outcome based CS focuses on the
consumer’s emotional response to a consumption experience. Process related CS is
based on an evaluative process, which measures the divergence between actual
performance and expectations. Yi (1990) proposes that the benefit of using a process
related approach rather than an outcome based approach is significant. The process
related approach spans the entire consumption experience, and is composed of multiple
measures, which when combined produce CS. Oliver (1980a), Bearden and Teel (1983),
and Day (1984) concur with this thought, using process related approaches in their

studies.

12

Disconfirmation of Expectations Theory

Significant prior research on the topic of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction
(CS/D) (Day 1977, 1980; Swan and Combs, 1976; LaTour and Peat, 1979a; Oliver,
1980a; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982) has led to a broadly accepted CS/D paradigm
based on the notion that CS/D results from a type of comparison process. Evaluation and
expectation play a large role in this comparison process. Oliver (1980) and Woodruff et
a1. (1983, 1987) posit that evaluation is in reality a comparison of actual performance
versus that of a particular standard. Evaluations are composed of the expectations and
performance of the specific product. Expectations create a frame of reference whereby
comparative judgment occurs based on the performance of the product. Consumers have
certain expectations of performance of the product prior to purchase based on their
evoked set. The perceived expectations held by the consumer are indicative of what they
expect to receive when purchasing the product. Upon use or consumption, the consumer
measures the actual performance of the product versus the perceived performance of the
product. This cognitive comparison is called disconfirmation. If expectations and
perceived performance are equal, confirmation occurs. Positive disconfirmation occurs
when perceived performance exceeds expectations, leading to satisfaction on the part of
the consumer. Conversely, negative disconfirmation occurs when expectations are
greater than actual performance leading to dissatisfaction on the part of the consumer.
The gap between performance and expectations has been shown by multiple authors to be
a predictor of satisfaction (Yi, 1990). This thought process as a whole is known as the

disconfirmation paradigm. However, differences in opinion occur based upon standards

13

and interrelationships among key variables (LaTour and Peat, 1979; Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983; Spreng et al., 1996).
Expectations.

Expectations, as defined by Oliver (1980a,b), Olson and Dover (1979), LaTour
and Peat (1979), and Spreng et al., (1996) are beliefs with reference to the product’s
desired attributes or performance at some point in the future. Cadotte et al., (1987)
further expand on this definition in their study of experience-based norms. They suggest
that norms held by consumers are composed of two characteristics; 1) the reflection of
desired performance in meeting needs/wants and 2) the performance consumers believe is
possible. It is extensively modeled (disconfirmation of expectations theory) that
expectations are central to the satisfaction formation process. Researchers, however,
differ in their definition of the expectations construct.

Oliver (1980b) suggests that expectations are actually composed of adaptation
levels created by the consumer based on their existing knowledge. This follows prior
work by Cardozo (1965) and Howard and Sheth (1969), who also used the adaptation
level theory to compare actual performance of a product versus expectations regarding
performance. This stream of research is modeled after Helson’s (1948, 1959) adaptation
level theory. Oliver (1980b) expanded on Helson’s work, suggesting that satisfaction
responses are not only related to disconfirmation of expectations, but are also related
independently to pre-choice expectations. The summation of the expectation level and
ensuing disconfirmation are thought to result in satisfaction (Westbrook and Reilly,

1983)

14

The formation of expectation on the part of the consumer arises from three
sources; prior experience with the product itself or with a similar product, post-use
performance evaluation, and/or comparison standards (Woodruff et al., 1983). The level
of prior experience a consmner has with a product is related directly to the satisfaction
process. Consumers transport beliefs regarding the particular product from their evoked
set. The more prominent the belief, the greater the feeling or expectation the consumer
has in regard to product performance. Beliefs result from experiences the consumer has
drawn from personal use, word-of-mouth referrals/criticisms, and marketing efforts of
companies (Woodruff et al., 1983). Afier product consumption or use, the consumer
evaluates the actual performance; i.e. did the detergent actually remove stains? The
measurement of performance in relation to prior expectations will determine the level of
disconfirmation regarding the product. Expectations regarding the product are also
impacted by specific attributes or benefits that are desired by the consumer. The use
occasion for the product will determine which attributes and benefits are significant as
well as how the consumer expects the product to perform. Therefore, it stands to reason
that products which are used or purchased less frequently (high dollar or high risk items)
have greater significance to the consumer.

Woodruff et al., (1983) suggest that a multi-attribute model could be used to
determine performance. A multi-attn'bute model is the summation of the beliefs about,
and evaluations of associated attributes and/or expected consequences of using the brand
(Peter and Olson, 2002). Product norms are used as a flame of reference, whereby
consumers evaluate performance, which relates to confirmation/disconfirmation relative

to the norm. There are a variety of performance norms, each of which is dependent on

15

the product or brand experiences of the consumer (Woodruff et al., 1 983; LaTour and
Peat, 1979). Assimilation theory is applied to the concept of performance norms to
describe the confirmation/disconfirmation of the product. Perceptions of performance
that are acceptable to the consumer (positive) are assimilated towards the norm.
Perceptions that differ significantly from expectations do not match performance norms,
causing disconfirmation on the part of the consumer (Woodruff et al., 1983). Deviations
from the initial adaptation level are based on the ability of the product to meet, fall short,
or exceed initial expectations (disconfirmation levels) (Oliver, 1980b; Howard and Sheth,
1969; Spreng and Page, 2001). Only large deviations from the standard position have the
ability to change the final evaluation of the product. Oliver (1980b) states, “Satisfaction,
then, can be seen as an additive combination of the expectation level and the resulting
disconfirmation.”
Alternatives to the Disconfirmation of Expectations Theory

Several authors have questioned using the disconfirmation of expectations theory
as the only measure of satisfaction. Westbrook and Reilly (1983) suggest that
satisfaction, under various conditions, is not defrned clearly, leaving room for questions.
LaTour and Peat (1979a) point out several inconsistencies in using expectations as a
comparison standard, as is done in the disconfirmation of expectations model. For
example, a new product is introduced to the market that possesses specific attributes that
the consumer desires more than any other product currently on the market. If
expectations are elevated by the marketer, and the product does not perform as well as
expected, negative disconfirmation will occur. The question asked by researchers is

whether or not satisfaction would occur under these circumstances. LaTour and Peat

16

(1979a) suggest that while disconfirmation occurs, the consumer will not be dissatisfied,
because the product contains more attributes than any other product within its category.
They hypothesize that while the disconfirrnation of expectations model may predict
satisfaction in certain cases, it does not apply in this example. The consumer’s evaluation
of product attributes is hypothesized to account for more variability in post-purchase
satisfaction than that of confirmation/disconfirmation of expectations of the attributes
(LaTour and Peat, 1979a).

The second inconsistency relates to poor product performance. A consruner may
purchase a product even if it is expected to perform poorly because the product is the
only alternative on the market. If the product does in fact perform poorly, the consumer’s
expectations will be confirmed. The discontinuation of expectations model predicts that
this disconfirmation would lead to either confirmation (neutral feelings) or positive
disconfrrrnation (satisfaction). Naturally, most consumers would be dissatisfied with the
product because it performed poorly, regardless of its positive disconfirmation. The
ability of a product to meet initial expectations through performance in this case
illustrates that satisfaction cannot be solely determined through the disconfirmation of
expectations. Yi (1990) proposes that raising consumer expectations may cause both an
increase (the perception of enhanced product performance) and a decrease (increase in
the level of disconfirmation) in CS. Westbrook and Reilly (1983) also suggest that
expectations may not be a good indicator of satisfaction. They hypothesize that
consumers may be satisfied or dissatisfied with a particular aspect of the product in which

no previous knowledge or expectations were formed. If this is in fact true, and no

17

previous expectations existed prior to purchase, the disconfirmation of expectations
theory can be disproved as the only indicator of satisfaction.

Multiple authors have suggested that there has been a failure on the part of past
researchers to consider other components which make up the overall feeling of
satisfaction (Cadotte et al., 1987; Olshavsky and Spreng, 1989; Spreng et al., 1996; Tse
and Wilton, 1988; Westbrook, 1987; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983). LaTour and Peat
(1979a) suggest that prior experience on the part of the consumer may play the most
important role in the determination of satisfaction. Expectations, therefore, may be a
determinant of satisfaction; however consumers often categorize products based on
familiar attributes within their evoked set. Other components such as desires and
perceptions have also been suggested to play an interconnected role in the satisfaction
process.

Desires

Desire is often thought of synonymously in relation to wants or needs.
Researchers, however, argue that desires, wants, and needs are separate entities, each
conveying a different emotion on the part of the consumer. Freund (1971, translated by
Belk et al., 2003) suggests that needs are very specific—only certain criteria can meet a
specific need. A consumer that “needs” a specific product uses a detailed categorization
process; only instrumental products within the category are used to fulfill the specific
need (Belk et al., 2003). Categorization is a mental process used to separate stimuli into
manageable units. This allows the consumer to measure a certain amount of stimuli

which are within their capacity to handle (Gutrnan, 1982).

18

Non-identical stimuli that are not contained within the specific category will not be used
by the consumer to fulfill their specific need. Wants are generally defined as a personal
preference structure. Belk et al. (2003) hypothesized that wants are controlled very
closely by the mind; therefore, they are not impacted by the same passionate criteria that
cause desire.

Desires, unlike needs and wants, encompass thought processes and emotions of
the consumer in great detail. Belk et al. (2003) posit that desires address the direct
interrelation between society and the individual. Consumer desire, then, is thought to be
the passion connecting consumption fantasies on the part of the consumer and societal
norms. Consumers are not limited in their desires; however, specific desires are
generally impacted by societal norms. Girard (1987) also supports a similar thought
process in his fundamental views of mimetic desire. Mimetic desire on the part of the
consumer is based on societal acceptance. Consumers will purchase a product simply
because it is looked upon very favorably by society. As societal norms begin to change,
the specific product is no longer looked upon favorably causing the consumer to desire a
product that their peers within society deem to be acceptable (Girard, 1977).

Spreng et al., (1996) also hypothesize that CS is not only determined by the
disconfirmation of expectations theory, but also through the basic desires of the consumer
(built on the previous work of Swan and Trawick, 1980; Westbrook and Reilly, 1983; and
Spreng and Olshavsky, 1989, 1992). The desires-as-standard model developed by Spreng
and Olshavsky (1989) provides the basis for the authors’ use Of desires as the evaluative
standard used to measure product performance. This model suggests that the consumer

not only evaluates the perception of performance of the product against their

19

expectations, but also against their desires. Consumer desires are based on the outcome
and consequences they want to receive when purchasing a particular product. Upon
consumption of a product, the consumer is able to determine whether or not their desire
for the product produced a pleasing consequence.

Expectations are beliefs that a product will contain certain attributes or benefits,
while desires are an evaluation that these beliefs will in turn lead to a realization of the
consumer’s values (Spreng et al., 1996). Desires congruency was shown by Spreng et al.
(1996) to have a more significant affect on overall satisfaction than the expectations
congruency. The study empirically showed that the impact of desires congruency was as
important as that of expectations congruency when determining overall satisfaction.

Desires can often be separated fiom expectations as shown above, but in certain
situations, desires and expectations can be highly correlated. Westbrook and Reilly
(1983) characterize expectations in reference to beliefs. Consumer expectations in regard
to a product may conflict with what they desire in the product. On occasion, however,
expectations and desires overlap, because the consumer wishes to acquire a product or
service that meets all of their needs. Frequently, products contain either desires or
expectations singly, which is why desires and expectations have been separated.
Westbrook and Reilly (1983) suggest that when desires and expectations are separated,
values are the determinant of satisfaction—“in other words, success in relation to
aspirations——not to expectations——seems primarily responsible for the positive affective

response of satisfaction.”

20

A fleet

Westbrook and Reilly (1987) proposed that satisfaction judgments should be
composed of not only cognitive/semantic beliefs, but also product/consumption-related
affective responses. Research has shown that affective processes have a large impact on
human motivations, as well as information processing and choice (Hoffman, 1986; Isen,
1984). Affect, which is composed of subjective feelings, has been studied primarily in
the pre-purchase area of consumer behavior. Westbrook (1987) suggests that affect
should in fact be looked at primarily after purchase. This would give the consumer the
ability to select, use and/or consume the product, thereby giving them the ability to form
various feelings in regard to the product. Emotion theories in the literature have
addressed positive affect, and in some cases delight. Plutchik (1980) hypothesized that
eight basic emotions compose affect (joy, acceptance, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust,
anger and anticipation). Delight in this framework is composed of a mixture of joy and
surprise. Westbrook and Oliver (1991) do not directly use delight as an emotion, but the
dimension of pleasant surprise (made up of pleasure and surprise) very closely resembles
delight as defined by Plutchik. Russell (1979,1980) used the axis of
pleasantness/unpleasantness to determine valence properties. Delight in this framework
is portrayed by elevated levels of pleasantness. Clore et al.,(1988) removed from their
model of emotion nonvalenced emotions such as surprise and interest which were used
by Plutchik (1980). Other authors have suggested that the emotion scale used by Plutchik
(1980) and Izard (1977) focused too heavily on negative emotion (Oliver, 1992; Mano
and Oliver, 1993). Richins (1997) concurs with Oliver and Mano in her review of

emotion measures.

21

Delight

Recent research in the satisfaction literature has led to the belief that “higher
levels” of satisfaction exist beyond that of positive disconfrrmation (Oliver et al., 1997).
The principle of customer delight (Schlossberg, 1990) is believed by many researchers
within the industry to be the key to customer loyalty. Chandler (1989) describes
customer delight as a reaction on the part of the consumer occurring when a product or
service provides unexpected value or unanticipated satisfaction. The principle of
customer delight has been well documented and accepted among practitioners, however,
very little work has been done in the satisfaction literature to document the impact of
customer delight on overall satisfaction.

Prior work by Woodruff et al. (1983, 1987) on experience-based norms led to the
theory that satisfaction is an emotional response to the discrepancy between performance
and a corresponding normative standard. Oliver (1989), based on his disconfirmation of
expectations theory, suggested that categories of emotion may partially play a role in the
judgment process leading to satisfaction. In an automobile study, Oliver and Westbrook
(1993) have shown that there is indeed a separate state of delight that occurs, which is
composed of high levels of joy and surprise. Delight as studied by Oliver et al. (1997)
was shown to be a function of surprising consumption, arousal and positive affect.
Delight was strongly correlated to positive affect; however, Oliver et al. (1997) suggest
that while delight and satisfaction are correlated, they are in fact separate conceptual
entities. The relation of satisfaction and delight can be directly associated with affect and
arousal as described by Plutchik (1980), as well as Oliver et al. (1997). Oliver et a1.

(1997), however, convey the disclaimer that delight measures may have been overstated

22

in relation to affect. Swan and Trawick (1999) conducted a follow-up study based on
Oliver et al.’s (1997) model of the antecedents of delight. Employing an ethnographic
approach, the authors’ were able to show that participant characteristics and situational
factors played a role in the formation of delight. The limited knowledge held by
participants prior to the study provided an Opportunity for surprise to occur. Because
interest creates a method in which arousal occurs, a stronger emotion such as delight can
be felt.
Repurchase intentions

The occurrence of delight is directly related to positive affect in relation to
consumption-based experiences on the part of the consumer. Oliver et al. (1997) suggest
that the occurrence of delight within the consumption process may cause the consumer to
strive for reoccurrences of this affective state. It therefore stands to reason that if delight
and/or satisfaction are achieved, the consumer will be more likely to repurchase the
product offering. Repurchase intentions are impacted by a variety of causes such as
brand loyalty (Howard and Sheth, 1969; Fomell, 1976; Fomell and Westbrook, 1979),
word-of-mouth communication (Richins, 1983; Westbrook, 1987), complaining behavior
(Day and Landon, 1977; Bearden and Teel, 1983; Day, 1984), satisfaction/dissatisfaction
with a brand (Oliver 1980b) and performance norms (Woodruff et al., 1983). Early
studies in consumer behavior provided the conceptual framework used to show the
relationship between repurchase intentions and the level of satisfaction attained by the
consumer (Howard and Sheth, 1969). Further studies expanded on this framework,

illustrating the positive association between repurchase intentions and satisfaction

23

(Halstead and Page, 1992; LaBarbera and Mazurski, 1983; Oliver, 1980, 1987) as well as
the impact of dissatisfaction on repurchase intentions (Bearden and Teel, 1983).
Complaining behavior

The purchase of any product or service by the consumer gives rise to a certain risk
of dissatisfaction. Andreasen and Best (1977) in looking at complaining behavior
demonstrated that one in five purchase experiences result in dissatisfaction of some form.
The failure of a consumer to utilize complaining behavior in a consumption situation
thwarts the process of redress (Halstead and Page, 1992). Complaining, as suggested by
various researchers may lead to greater possibilities of repurchase intention dependent
upon the ease, speed, and acceptability of redress (Bearden and Oliver, 1985; Oliver,
1987; Gilly, 1987). Consumers that complain and receive sufficient redress have been
shown to hold higher repurchase intentions than those who have not (Blodgett et al.,
1993). In a study of large ticket items, repurchase intentions of complainers were lower
than that of non-complainers (Halstead and Page 1992). This contradicts the work
completed by Bearden and Oliver (1985) and Oliver (1987) on the increase of repurchase
intentions based upon the satisfaction with the timeliness and level of redress.
Word-of-mouth

Resultant satisfaction after use of the good or service in addition to repurchase is
the end result that is sought after by product/service providers. Researchers have
modeled a direct link between satisfaction and repurchase intention (Halstead and Page,
1992; Kolodinsky, 1992). Word-of-mouth transmission is directly related to this
principle. Organizational response to a voiced complaint has been shown to determine

the amount of negative word-of-mouth transmission that occurs (Bearden and Oliver,

24

1985; Oliver and Swan, 1989). Consumers who feel that they have truly been wronged
have no compunction regarding retaliation against the service provider. Negative word
of mouth is often a common form of retaliation, used by the consumer. Andreasen
(1988) and Richins (1980) have also shown that the speed and frequency of redress
impacts negative word of mouth transmission. If a consumer has to continually complain
to achieve redress, the probability of repurchase is very slim.
Regret

There is a certain level of risk associated with any consumption experience.
Consumers in a consumption situation attempt to maximize gains and reduce losses
through a careful selection process. If product failure does in fact occur, the consumer
may regret their purchase. The emotion of regret is measured by the consumer based on
the performance of the product in relation to a standard. Therefore, the evaluation of a
purchase is dependent not only on the product purchased, but also on that which is not
purchased (Cooke et al., 2001). The consumer will then measure satisfaction based on a
comparison of what was received, versus what may have been attained had another
product been purchased (Boles and Messick, 1995; Landman, 1987, Zeelenberg et al.,
1998). Roese and Olson (1995b) have compiled a review of regret, documenting the
association between regret and satisfaction; namely the inverse relationship between the
two.

Cognitive appraisal theories have been studied in great detail such as emotion and
its motivational basis (Roseman 1979), combination of dimensions that differentiate
among emotions (Smith and Ellsworth 1985), five functionally defined subsystems of

emotions (Scherer 1984a,) and emotion resulting from events and outcomes (Weiner

25

1982). The cognitive appraisal theory elucidates the relationship between cognitive
processing and information and their impact on emotional states. Clore et al. (1987)
classify emotions as valenced reactions of perceptions in regard to the specific situation
in which the consumer is participating. Clore et al., (1988) reveal that emotions are
directly related to cognitive processes. Attention, then, is focused on one of three things:
events, agents, or objects in relation to goal attainment. Valenced reactions are used by
the consumer to determine the relevance to self, versus relevance to others. Because
humans are very goal-oriented, emotion eliciting stimuli such as satisfaction or regret are
very relevant. Cognitive appraisals occur in one of three ways; expectations
disconfirmation, desires congruency, and surprise. Surprise, however, is not an emotion,
due to its inability to be valenced or measured.

Future Research

This review focused on articles pertaining to satisfaction, delight, and repurchase
intention. It has long been understood that satisfaction has an impact on repurchase
intention, but satisfaction is not fully responsible for future purchase intentions. Delight
in combination with satisfaction has been found to be strongly related to pleasure and
disconfirmation (Oliver et al., 1997). Our goal through this research was to evaluate the
moderating effect of plant knowledge (high or low) on the satisfaction to repurchase
intention path as well as the delight to repurchase intention path. Research on the impact
of knowledge as a moderating variable has been shown to impact the likelihood of
consumer defection and inadvertently repurchase intention (Capraro et al., 2003). While
the effects of knowledge as a moderating variable have been studied, researchers have yet

to study the impact of knowledge on the direct effects of satisfaction and delight on

26

repurchase intention. Relationships between these constructs present a possible avenue

for research that may have significant impacts on the consumption experience.

27

Literature Cited

Anderson, Rolph E. (1973), “Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed
Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10
(February), 38-44.

Andreasen, Alan R. and Arthur Best (1977), "Consumers Complain--Does Business
Respond," Harvard Business Review, 55, (July-August), 93-101.

Andreasen, Alan R. (1988), "Consumer Complaints and Redress: What We Know and
What We Don’t Know," The Frontier of Research in the Consumer Interest, E. Scott
Maynes and the ACCI Research Committee, (eds.), American Council on Consumer
Interests, 675-722.

Bearden, William O. and Jesse B. Teel (1983), "Selected Determinants of Consumer
Satisfaction and Complaint Reports," Journal of Marketing, 20, (February), 21-8.

Bearden, William O. and Richard L. Oliver (1985), "The Role of Public and Private
Complaining in Satisfaction with Complaint Resolution," Journal of Consumer Aflairs,
19, (Winter), 222-40.

Belk, Russell W., Gtiliz Ger and Soren Askegaard (2003), “The Fire of Desire: A
Multisited Inquiry into Consumer Passion, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30
(December), 326-51.

Blodgett, Jeffrey 6., Donald H. Granbois and Rockney G. Walters (1993), "Toward An
Integrated Conceptual Model of Consumer Complaining Behavior," Journal of Retailing,
69, (Winter), 399-428.

Boles, Terry L. and David M. Messick (1995), “A Reverse Outcome Bias: The Influence
of Multiple Reference Points on the Evaluation of Outcomes and Decisions,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61 (March), 262-275.

Cadotte, Ernest R., Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger L. Jenkins (1987), “Expectations and
Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24,
(August), 305-14.

Capraro, Anthony J., Susan Broniarczyk, and Raj endra K. Srivastava (2003), “Factors
Influencing the Likelihood of Customer Defection: The Role of Consumer Knowledge,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 164-175.

Cardozo, Richard (1964), “Customer Satisfaction Laboratory Study and Marketing
Action," Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (August), 244-49.

Chandler, Colby H. (1989), “Quality; Beyond Customer Satisfaction,” Quality Progress,
22 (February), 30-32.

28

Churchill, Gilbert A. and Carol Surprenant (1982), “An Investigation into the
Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19
(November), 491-504.

Cooke, Alan D.J., Tom Meyvis, and Alan Schwartz. (2001). “Avoiding Future Regret in
Purchase-Timing Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27, (March),
447-459.

Clore, Gerald L., Andrew Ortony, and Mark A. Foss (1987), “The Psychological
Foundations of the Affective Lexicon,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53
(October), 751-755.

Day, Ralph L. and E. Laird Landon, Jr. (1977), "Toward a Theory of Consumer
Complaining Behavior," in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Arch G.
Woodside, J agdish Sheth, and Peter Bennett, eds. Elsevier North-Holland, Inc., 425-37.

Day, Ralph L. (1980), “How Satisfactory is Research on Consumer Satisfaction?”, in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Jerry C. Olsen, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research, 593-97.

Day, Ralph L. (1984), “Modeling Choices Among Alternative Responses to
Dissatisfaction,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed.
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 469-9.

Engel, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behavior. New York:
Rinehard and Winston.

Fornell, Claes (1976), Consumer Input for Marketing Decisions: A Stuajz of Corporate
Departments for Consumer Aflairs, New York: Praeger Publishers, 57-73.

F omell, Claes and Robert A. Westbrook (1979), “An Exploratory Study of Assertiveness,
Aggressiveness, and Consumer Complaining Behavior,” in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 6, ed. W.L. Wilkie, Miami: Association for Consumer Research, 105-110.

Freund, Julien (1971), “Théorie de besoin,” in L ’année sociologique, Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 13-64.

Gilly, Mary C. (1987), "Postcomplaint Processes: From Organizational Response to
Repurchase Behavior," Journal of Consumer Aflairs, 21, (Winter), 293-311.

Girard, Rene’ (1977), Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns-Hopkins University
Press.

Girard, René (1987), Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

29

Gutrnan, Jonathan (1982), “A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer
Categorization Processes,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 (Spring), 60-72.

Halstead, Diane and Thomas J. Page, Jr. (1992), “The Effects of Satisfaction and
Complaining Behavior on Consumer Repurchase Intentions,” Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 45, 1-11.

Helson, Harry (1948), “Adaptation-Level as a Basis for a Quantitative Theory of Frames
of Reference,” Psychological Review, 55 (November), 297-313.

Helson, Harry (1959), “Adaptation Level Theory,” in Psychology: A Study of Science,
Vol. 1, Sigmund Koch, ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hoffman, Martin L. (1986), “Affect, Cognition, and Motivation,” in Handbook of
Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, R.M. Sorrentino and ET.
Higgins, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 244-80.

Howard, John A. and J agdish N. Sheth (1969), The theory of Buyer Behavior. New York:
Wiley.

Hunt, H. Keith (1977), “CS/D—Overview and Future Directions,” in Conceptualization
and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, H. Keith Hunt, ed.
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Isen, Alice M. (1984), “Toward Understanding the Role of Affect in Cognition,” in
Handbook of Social Cognition, R. Wyer and T. Srull, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 179-236.

Izard, Carroll E. (1977), Human Emotions, New York: Plenum.
Kolodinsky, Jane (1992), "A System for Estimating Complaints, Complaint Resolution
and Subsequent Purchases of Professional and Personal Services," Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5, 36-44.

Kotler, Philip (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and
Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Landman, Janet (1987), “Regret: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis,” Journal of
Theory of Social Behavior, 17 (June), 135-160.

Landman, Janet (1993), Regret: The Persistence of the Possible. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Landon, E. Laird (1977), “A Model of Consumer Complaint Behavior,” in Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, ed. Ralph L. Day,
Bloomington: Indiana University, 31-5.

30

LaTour, Steven A. and Nancy C. Peat (1979a), “Conceptual and Methodological Issues in
Consumer Satisfaction Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, 431-37.

LaBarbera, Priscilla A. and David Mazursky (1983), "A Longitudinal Assessment of
Consumer Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the Cognitive Process,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 20, (November), 393-404.

Mano, Hairn and Richard L. Oliver (1993), “Assessing the Dirnensionality and Structure
of the Consumption Experience: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 20 (December), 451-66.

Oliver, Richard L. (1980a), “Theoretical Bases of Consumer Satisfaction Research:
Review, Critique, and Future Direction,” paper presented at the American Marketing
Association Second Special Conference on Marketing Theory.

Oliver, Richard L. (1980b), “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-69.

Oliver, Richard L. (1981), “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in
Retail Settings, Journal of Retailing, 57 (Fall), 25-48.

Oliver, Richard L. (1987), "An Investigation of the Interrelationship Between Consmner
(Dis)satisfaction and Complaint Reports," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,
Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 218-22.

Oliver, Richard L. (1989), “Processing of the Satisfaction Response in Consumption: A
Suggested Framework and Research Propositions,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 2, 1-16.

Oliver, Richard L. and John E. Swan (1989), "Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal
Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach," Journal of
Marketing, 53, (April), 21-35.

Oliver, Richard L. (1992), “An Investigation of the Attribute Basis of Emotion and
Related Affects in Consumption,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, ed. John
F. Sherry, Jr. and Brian Stemthal, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 237-
44.

Oliver, Richard L. and Robert A. Westbrook (1993), “Profiles of Consumer Emotions
and Satisfaction in Ownership and Usage,” Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol. 6, 12-27.

Oliver, Richard L., Roland T. Rust, and Sajeev Varki (1997), “Customer Delight:
Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73(3), 311-36.

31

Olshavsky, Richard and John A. Miller (1972), “Consumer Expectations, Product
Performance, and Perceived Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9

(February) 19-21.

Olshavsky, Richard and Richard A. Spreng (1989), “A ‘Desires as Standard’ Model of
Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol. 2, 49-54.

Olson, Jerry C. and Philip Dover (1976), “Effects of Expectations, Product Performance,
and Disconfirrnation on Belief Elements of Cognitive Structures,” in Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research.

Olson, Jerry C. and Philip Dover (1979), “Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations
Through Product Trial,” Journal of Applied Psycholog, 64 (April), 179-89.

Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins (1988), The Cognitive Structure of
Emotions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peter, J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson (2002). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy.
Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Pfaff, Anita B. (1972), “An Index of Consumer Satisfaction,” Proceedings of the Third
Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research (November), 713-37.

Plutchik, Robert (1980), Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis, New York: Harper &
Row.

Richins, Marsha L. (1980), "Consumer Perspectives of Costs and Benefits Associated
With Complaining," in Refining Concepts and Measures of Consumer Satisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, H. Keith Hunt and Ralph L. Day, (eds.), Bloomington, IN:
Bureau of Business Research, 50-53.

Richins, Marsha L. (1983), "Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A
Pilot Study," Journal of Marketing, 47, (Winter), 68-78.

Richins, Marsha L. (1997), “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience,”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, (September), 127-46.

Roese, Neal J. and James M. Olson (1995), “Outcome Controllability and Counterfactual
Thinking,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21, (June), 620-28.

Roseman, Ira J ., Cynthia Wiest, and Tamara Swartz (1994), “Phenomenology, Behaviors,
and Goals Differentiate Discrete Emotions,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67 (2), 206-211.

32

Russell, James A. (1980), “A Circumplex Model of Affect,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39 (December), 1161-1178.

Scherer, Klaus R. (1984), “Emotion as a Multicomponent Process,” in Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 5, ed. Phillip Shaver, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
37-63.

Schlossberg, Howard (1990), “Satisfying Customers is a Minimtun; You Really Have to
‘Delight’ Them,” Marketing News, 24, (May 28), 10-11.

Spreng, Richard A. and Richard W. Olshavsky (1992), “A Desires-as-Standard Model of
Consumer Satisfaction: Implications for Measuring Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 5, 45-54.

Spreng, Richard A. and Richard W. Olshavsky (1993), “A Desires Congruency Model
of Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
21 (Summer), 169-77.

Spreng, Richard A., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Richard W. Olshavsky (1996), “A
Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 60 (July)15-33.

Spreng, Richard A. and Thomas J. Page Jr. (2001), “The Impact of Confidence in
Expectations on Consumer Satisfaction,” Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 (11).

Swan, John E. and Linda Jones Combs (1976), “Product Performance and Consumer
Dissatisfaction: A New Concept,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (April), 25-33.

Swan, John E. and I. Fredrick Trawick (1980), “Inferred and Perceived Disconfirmation
in Consumer Satisfaction,” in Marketing in the 80’s, Proceedings of the AMA Educators
Conference, Chicago, 97-101.

9

Swan, John E. and I. Fredrick Trawick (1999), “Delight on the Nile: An Ethnography of
Experiences That Produce Delight,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction,
and Complaining Behavior, 12, 64-70.

Tse, David K. and Peter C. Wilton (1988), “Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation:
An Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 204-12.

Westbrook, Robert A. and Michael D. Reilly (1983), “Value-Percept Disparity: An
Alternative to the Disconfirmation of Expectations Theory of Consumer Satisfaction,” in
Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 10, 256-61.

Westbrook, Robert A. (1987), “Product/Consumption-based Affective Responses and
Postpurchase Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 258-70.

33

Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1991), “The Dimensionality of
Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18 (June), 84-91.

Woodruff, Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte and Roger L. Jenkins (1983), “Modeling
Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 20 (August), 296-304.

Yi, Youjae (1990), “A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction,” in Review of
Marketing 1990, ed. Valarie A. Zeithaml, Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 68-123.

Zeelenbberg, Marcel, Wilco W. van Dijk, Joop van der Pligt, Antony S.R. Manstead,
Pepijn van Empelen, and Dimitri Reinderrnan (1998), “Emotional Reactions to the
Outcomes of Decisions: The Role of Counterfactual Thought in the Experience of Regret
and Disappointment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75

(August), 117-141.

34

SECTION III
DELIGHTED CONSUMERS BUY AGAIN

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER SATISFACTION, DISSATISFACTION, AND
COMPLAINING BEHAVIOR

Submitted for Publication: April 6, 2005

35

Jessica M. Hicks, Thomas J. Page J r., Bridget K. Behe, Jennifer H. Dennis, and
R. Thomas Fernandez

Delighted Consumers Buy Again

 

‘ Jessica M. Hicks is a master’s candidate, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355-5191 ext. 345, (517) 353-0890 fax, hicksjes@msu.edu. Bridget K.
Behe is a Professor in the Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI
48824 (517) 355-5191 ext. 346, (517) 353-0890 fax, behegagmsuedu. R. Thomas Fernandez is an
Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824
(517) 355-5191 ext. 336, (517) 353-0890 fax, fernan15@msu.edu. Thomas J. Page, Jr. is an Associate
Professor, Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michigan State University,
(517)353-6381 ext. 249, (tpage@msu.edu). Jennifer H. Dennis is an Assistant Professor,
Departments of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture and Agricultural Economics, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (765) 494-1352, (765) 494-0391 fax, ihdennis_@purdue.edu. The
authors would like to thank R. Daniel Lineberger at Texas A&M University for helping coordinate
and collect data for the internet survey and Dr. Edward E. Rigdon, Department of Marketing,
Georgia State University for his insightful answers in regard to the structural model.

36

Delighted Consumers Buy Again

This paper extends the current research on the role of moderating variables in
satisfaction research. Our research tests the role of prior plant knowledge on repurchase
intention. Knowledge level is proposed to be a potential moderating variable of the
relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intention as well as delight and
repurchase intention. An Internet survey was conducted to examine an actual purchase
experience, in this case the initial purchase and the actual performance of the plant
following purchase. Our results show that knowledge level did not have a moderating
effect on the delight to repurchase intention path, nor did it moderate the satisfaction to
repurchase intention path. The delight to repurchase intention path, however, had a
significant impact on repurchase intention. Results were consistent with existing
literature, indicating that greater emphasis should be placed on delighting the consumer,

rather than merely satisfying them.

37

INTRODUCTION

The consumption cycle has been studied in detail by various researchers, from
prepurchase deliberation, to choice, consumption, and finally evaluation. Several
researchers have suggested that knowledge about a particular product or product category
affects specific decision processes that in turn influence the amount of information that is
searched for in prepurchase deliberations (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Brucks 1985;
Huffinan and Houston 1993). Knowledge level has also been proposed to affect
decision-making behaviors (Brucks 1985), the formation of loyalty (Chiou et al. 2002),
the evaluation of alternatives through information-processing (Bettman 1979; Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975), and the level or likelihood of customer defection (Capraro et al. 2003).
Knowledge in regard to a specific product may also play a role in the formation of
satisfaction, specifically when expectancy disconfirmation is used to measure satisfaction
level. Mittal and Kamakura (2001) argue that a link between satisfaction and repurchase
intention exists, but this link varies according to consumer characteristics and is based on
satisfaction thresholds and response bias. Although empirical research has been
conducted on the link between satisfaction and repurchase intention on durable goods
(Mittal and Kamakura 2001; Reichheld and Teal 1996) and the moderating role of
knowledge on these constructs (Capraro et al. 2003), research is still lacking with regard
to the role that these constructs play in the consumption cycle of non-durable goods. The
link between delight and behavioral intention has been studied primarily in the service
context rather than in a product consumption context because the moderating role of
services can be measured more easily based on consumer patronization (Oliver et al.

1997).

38

In this article, we develop and test a model that examines the level of knowledge
(high or low) of the consumer, and its moderating effect on satisfaction, delight, and
repurchase intention. Capraro et al. (2003) posit in their study of the moderating role of
knowledge that the level of knowledge directly affects defection rates above that of
satisfaction. We hypothesize, similarly, that the level of knowledge the consumer
possesses, when coupled with feelings of satisfaction and delight, moderates further
repurchase intention. This article attempts to filrther our understanding of the moderating
role of knowledge in the consumption cycle and its impact on postpurchase deliberations.
Product Knowledge

Early research into the area of consumer knowledge indicated that the knowledge
construct was composed of a single independent measure. However, as researchers
began investigating the knowledge construct, it became apparent that knowledge was
comprised of several independent measures, which led researchers to hypothesize that
multi-dirnensional accounts of the knowledge variable are needed (Alba and Hutchinson
1987; Bettrnan 1986; Brucks 1986). Alba and Hutchinson (1987) proposed, based on
work by Jacoby et al. (1986), that knowledge is comprised of two components:
familiarity and expertise. Familiarity is commonly defined as the number of experiences
the consumer has undergone within a purchase situation; while expertise is the ability to
execute these product-related experiences effectively. For the purpose of brevity, we will
look primarily at familiarity and its impact upon satisfaction and future intentions.

It is commonly asserted by researchers that as familiarity increases, so too does
consumer expertise (SOderlund 2002). This assertion becomes important when we begin

to look at postpurchase responses in regard to evaluation and behavioral intentions such

39

as repurchase intent. Measurement of consumer evaluation with regard to postpurchase
criteria is critical because of the positive relationship between postpurchase evaluations
and future behavior. Consumers who purchase durable goods have an extended time
frame in which they form postpurchase evaluations based on the long-term performance
of the product. Non-durable or perishable goods, however, have a shorter time frame in
which judgments and evaluations can be based. Several researchers suggest that as the
number of purchase-related experiences or familiarity with a product increases,
knowledge does as well. This would indicate that consumers who purchase non-durable
goods may in fact have comparable amounts of time in which to form their evaluations
and judgments (SOderlund 2002). When looking at postpurchase evaluations, researchers
naturally move to the impact of high or low knowledge on these evaluations. Knowledge
has been assessed primarily by the correspondence between subjective (self-reported
expertise) and objective (factual tests) knowledge (Park et al. 1994; Capraro et al. 2003).
In this study, we hypothesize that in relation to a plant product, the consumer uses
objective knowledge that they possess to guide prepurchase search. Upon purchase, a
cognitive evaluation process occurs in which post-consumption beliefs in regard to
attributes or outcomes realized are measured against the preconceived notions or
expectations held by the consumer. The appraisal of the belief structure prior to and after
consumption yields expectancy disconfirmation. If the performance of the plant product
exceeds expectation, satisfaction may result, yielding a positive expectancy
disconfirmation. From a sales standpoint, it is important for management to understand

the integral role of knowledge on postpurchase evaluation made by the consumer. The

40

information that is disseminated to the consumer can influence knowledge levels, and in
turn impact repurchase intention.
Delight

Satisfaction has been found to be a basic foundation for customer retention, but
recently researchers have begun to address the importance of delighting the customer in
addition to satisfying them (Oliver et a1. 1997; Williams and Anderson 1999). Research
in the area of consumer satisfaction has long focused on the relationship with service
quality (Bolton and Drew 1991b). Through the studies of the interrelationships between
customer satisfaction and service quality, behavioral results emerged indicating the
existence of “higher levels” of satisfaction known as “customer delight” (Oliver et al.
1997). Customer delight has been defined as “the reaction of customers when they
receive a service or product that not only satisfies, but provides unexpected value or
unanticipated satisfaction” (Chandler 1989), the combination of j oy and surprise
(Plutchik 1980), a sense of relatedness between the customer and the firm that evokes
feelings of joy (Kumar et al. 2001), and the key to customer loyalty (Schlossberg 1990).
The formation of delight as theorized by Oliver et al. (1997) occurs through the following
sequence: high levels of performance initiate arousal, which leads to pleasure, and
ultimately delight. These findings, based upon Plutchik’s “psycho-evolutionary”
framework, indicate that the highest levels of joy and surprise led to scores which
corresponded with the label “delighted” in the study. Kumar et al. (2001), however,
suggest that delight may occur under two different circumstances. Delight may occur as
a result of joy and surprise (arousal) as suggested by Plutchik (1980) and Oliver et al.

(1997), or simply as a result of joy (Kumar et al. 2001).

41

The study of delight is primarily rooted in the study of consumer loyalty.
Satisfaction has often been considered the antecedent to consumer loyalty. However,
Reichheld (1996) showed that while consumers may state that they are satisfied, they
may not be loyal. Loyalty in Reichheld’s study occurred only when consumers were
completely satisfied; these consumers were labeled “delighted consumers.” Varying
levels of satisfaction occur, indicating that only when satisfaction is complete does
delight occur. Delight as studied by Oliver et al. (1997) was shown to be a fimction of
surprising consumption, arousal and positive affect. Delight in this study was strongly
correlated with positive affect; however, the authors suggest that while delight and
satisfaction are correlated, they are in fact separate conceptual entities. The relationship
between satisfaction and delight can be directly associated with affect and arousal as
described by Plutchik (1980) and Oliver et al. (1997).

Repurchase intention

The occurrence of delight is directly related to positive affect in relation to
consumption-based experiences on the part of the consumer. Oliver et al. (1997) suggest
that the occurrence of delight within the consumption process may cause the consumer to
strive for reoccurrences of this affective state. Thus, if delight and/or satisfaction are
achieved, the consumer will be more likely to repurchase the product. We hypothesize
from these studies that the satisfaction and delight constructs will both have a positive
impact on repurchase intention; however, delight will have a greater impact than
satisfaction because it is an emotion, which is more strongly held by the consumer than

the feeling of satisfaction.

42

H1: Satisfaction and delight with both have a positive effect on repurchase
intention.

H2: Delight will have a greater impact on repurchase intention than will
satisfaction.

All businesses are, or should be interested in the consumers’ evaluation, and in
turn retention of their customer base. While businesses are intrinsically interested in
consumer retention, there is often a gap between the perception of consumer satisfaction
on the part of long-term consumers, and their actual level of satisfaction. A study
compiled by Reinartz and Kumar (2000) indicates that contradictory to Bolton (1998),
long-term consumers do not pay higher prices for products than do short-term consumers.
The overhead cost, when comparing groups was nonsignificant. SOderlund (2002)
suggests that high familiarity may lead to a more demanding consumer who does not
react to stimuli in the same manner as that of a low familiarity consumer. We
hypothesize, therefore, that consumers who are more knowledgeable in regard to plant
products prior to purchase will have higher expectations and beliefs in regard to
performance levels. This higher level of knowledge will make them more difficult to
satisfy, resulting in lower intention to repurchase.

H3a: Satisfaction will have a greater effect on repurchase intention for consumers
with low levels of knowledge and a lesser effect for those with high levels of
knowledge.

H3b: A consumer with high levels of knowledge with regard to a plant product will

be harder to delight than a consumer with lower levels of knowledge.

43

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data Collection

In July 2004, an Internet study was conducted by Survey Sampling, Int. (F airfield,
CT.), a professional survey company specializing in Internet survey procedures. Survey
Sampling, Int. randomly selected 15,000 individuals from their eLITe database which is
composed of thousands of individual respondents who are collected through a variety of
permission-based marketing sources. Potential respondents were screened prior to survey
implementation through a series of questions regarding their plant purchases and use
characteristics of those plants in the past year. Respondents who qualified were invited
to participate in the survey if they had (a) purchased at least one indoor flowering potted
plant for their home or office, and if they were (b) at least 18 years of age. Qualified
respondents were monitored by Survey Sampling using a FilemakerPro database (Santa
Clara, CA). Individuals meeting the qualifying criteria were automatically sent an email
invitation with an active link to a web site to complete the survey. To ensure survey
validity, cookies were placed on the respondent’s browser which inhibited multiple
submissions by qualified respondents, as well as resubmissions by respondents who
received qualification denials. A $5 honorarium from Amazon.com Inc., was used as an
incentive for those qualified individuals to fully complete the survey. If multiple sections
were left blank within the survey, an error message appeared, indicating that insufficient
information was given by the respondent. Upon completion of the survey, a text box
appeared asking respondents to supply a valid email account to which the honorarium
could be sent. Respondents were assured that the email address supplied would be

secure, and that correspondence would pertain to the honorarium only. Approval from

44

the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects was obtained prior to
data collection.

On the predetermined date, 15,000 invitations were sent out to prescreened
members of the eLITe database. In a seven hour period, 659 qualified respondents
completed the survey. The survey was terminated after yielding what was considered an
acceptable number of respondents by the researchers. Incomplete and unusable surveys
were removed, yielding a total of 629 acceptable surveys.

Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 87 years, with a mean age of 40 years
(2.9%) and a mode of 39 years (4.0%). Respondents were primarily female (79%),
approximately 82% had completed some form of formal education beyond that of high
school, 36% held a Bachelor’s degree or higher; 73% of respondents had a 2003
household income level ranging fi'om $25,001-$100,000. The mode household income
level ranged from 825,001-350,000 (34%). Among the participating households
surveyed, 63% were comprised of 2 adults and 45% of the participants had no
dependents. Participants represented a significant cross section of the US. population:
while 44 states were represented in the survey, a majority of respondents were from the
Midwest region (54%).

Measurement

The attributes measured for each construct were satisfaction, delight, knowledge
level, and repurchase intention. Knowledge level was used as the moderating variable to
determine whether or not satisfaction and/or delight have a significant impact on

repurchase intention. All constructs were measured using multiple-item scales.

45

Overall satisfaction measures

The satisfaction construct was measured using four seven-point multi-item scales
adapted from a prior study (Spreng et al. 1996). The measures created by Spreng et al.
(1996) reflect the valence characteristics as suggested by Oliver (1989). Multiple-item
measures have been used extensively throughout the satisfaction literature to capture the
various dimensions of the satisfaction construct (Yi 1990). Satisfaction measures were
introduced to the respondents in the following manner: “Choose a number that most
closely reflects how you felt about the performance of the indoor flowering plant.” Four
questions ensued, with scales anchored as “Very satisfied/Very dissatisfied,” “Very
pleased/Very displeased,” “Contented/Frustrated”, and “Delighted/Terrible.” The scale
containing the “Delighted/Terrible” anchors was dropped, because the authors felt that
this measure conflicted with the measures of the delight construct.
Delight measures

The delight construct was measured using two seven-point scales, followed by a
question measuring consumer perceptions. Delight was measured by asking respondents
to “Please answer the following questions based on the outcome of your purchase.” The
first question asked, “I am content with the purchase of my indoor flowering potted
plant” followed by a scale anchored by “Strongly disagree/Strongly agree.” Desirability
of the outcome was measured with a scale anchored by “Very undesirable/Very
desirable,” and feelings toward the product were measured using a set of descriptors that
represent the range of emotions commonly experienced in consumption situations. Our
scale included descriptors from Richins’ (1997) Consumption Emotion Set: anger,

frustration, contentment, delight, and disappointment. Richins (1997) did not include

46

delight as a descriptive component within her study, however joy and surprise (Plutchik
1980) were both present indicating that delight was also an emotion felt within a
consumption experience.
Knowledge Level

Knowledge level was measured using three seven-point scales based on
consumer’s perceived knowledge of plants. Knowledge level was measured by asking
respondents to “Choose a number that most closely reflects how you feel about your
knowledge pertaining to plants.” The first question asked, “How would you rate your
knowledge about caring for flowering shrubs?” The question was anchored by a “Very
little/Very much” scale. The second question asked, “In comparison to the average
person, how would you rate your level of knowledge with flowering plants?” Knowledge
level was measured using a scale of “No prior plant knowledge/Large amount of plant
knowledge.” The final question asked, “What level of maintenance do you feel the
indoor flowering potted plant required inside the home?” Knowledge of maintenance
level was measured using a “Low/High” scale.
Repurchase Intention

Repurchase intentions were measured based upon the probability that the
consumer would buy the same or similar plant product again when their prior experiences
with a similar plant product were taken into account. Repurchase intentions were
measured with four seven-point scales determining the probability and likelihood of
repurchase intent. The likelihood of repurchase of a specific plant and probability of
repurchase of .a similar plant scales were anchored by, “Very low/Very high” categories,

with a neutral response as the midpoint. The definitive statement, “I will purchase a

47

flowering potted plant the next time I need a gift/something for myself’ was anchored
with a Disagree/Agree scale. The final question pertained to the consumer’s views on
gardening; “Based on your experience this spring, how likely are you to continue to
garden?” The scale ranged from “Very unlikely” to “Very likely.”
RESULTS

The hypotheses were tested by estimating a two-group structural model (Figure 1)
for satisfaction, delight, and repurchase intention. The groups were defined by the
respondent’s answer in regard to their perceived knowledge of plants. Knowledge of
plants was used as a moderating variable, thereby determining responses to each question
for the specific attributes. Those above the median were classified as high in knowledge
(25 on a 7-point scale) (Group 2), while those below the median were classified as low in
knowledge (53 on a 7-point scale) (Group 1). The remaining subjects (n= 211) at the
median (4) were dropped from each analysis to more clearly differentiate subjects with
low and high knowledge. Satisfaction and delight were operationalized as multi-item
latent constructs. Repurchase intention was operationalized as a latent construct with
four indicators. Satisfaction was operationalized with three indicators, while delight was
operationalized with two indicators.
Measurement Results

Measurement properties were assessed using confu'matory factor analysis (CF A)
and Cronbach’s alpha to determine validity and reliability of each multiple-measure
construct. The fits of these models were acceptable based upon accepted fit statistics
(Table 1). Satisfaction, delight, and repurchase intention are composed of multiple

measures, allowing squared multiple correlations to be calculated for each of the

48

constructs. Reliabilities ranged from 0.80 to 0.96, exceeding the lower limit of 0.70 set
by Nunnally (1978) for such scales.

Reliability and validity were tested using CFA estimates compiled by LISREL
8.54 (JOreskog and SOrbom 2003). Model fit was estimated using global goodness of fit
statistics such as normed fit index (NFI) = 0.97, comparative fit index (CF I) = 0.97,
goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.93, and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.12. The chi-square estimate of 181.44 (d.f. = 48) in this model indicates
poor fit. However, Bollen (1989) has suggested that several other fit measures such as
the NFI, GP], and AGFI supplement the chi-square statistic, providing alternative
estimates of the overall fit of the model. In this case, our goodness of fit measures fall
within the acceptable levels within the literature (Hu and Bentler 1999).

Discriminant validity was tested using correlations between the constructs.
Correlations were constrained individually to be equal to 1 to determine the distinctness
of the constructs both within and between groups. In this study, all tests indicated
acceptable discriminant validity.

Hypothesis Tests

A tvvo-group model (high and low knowledge) was estimated for each of the
construct paths. The constructs were comprised of multiple item measures; satisfaction
was comprised of 3 indicators, delight was comprised of 2 indicators, and repurchase
intention was comprised of 4 indicators. Initially, a model was constructed in which the
gammas for repurchase intention were free across groups. A second model was then
constructed in which the gammas were constrained to be invariant across groups. The

freeing/constraining of parameters was applied to the model specifically to test the impact

49

of knowledge level as a moderating variable between satisfaction and repurchase
intention as well as delight and repurchase intention. There was a significant increase in
chi-square within groups, indicating that the satisfaction to repurchase intention and
delight to repurchase intention paths are not equal (Table 2).

Hypothesis 1 stated that repurchase intention will be positively impacted by
satisfaction and delight. Table 1 shows that satisfaction does not impact repurchase
intention; since the path is not significant in either group. Conversely, delight has a
significant positive impact on repurchase intention. The results show partial support for
hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 stated that delight will have a greater impact on repurchase intention
than will satisfaction. As shown in Table 1, delight had a significant impact on
repurchase intention in both the high and low knowledge groups, while the satisfaction to
repurchase intention path was not significant in either group. Thus hypothesis 2 is
supported.

Hypothesis 3a predicted that a consumer who possesses higher levels of
knowledge is harder to satisfy than a consumer who possesses lower levels of knowledge.
Table 2 shows the differences in chi-square and the degrees-of-freedom measures for
each of the path estimates in both groups. The satisfaction and delight constructs are
significantly different from each other within each group, allowing us to estimate the
paths from these constructs individually (Table 2). The path from satisfaction to
repurchase intention is not significant in either the high or the low knowledge group, and
the chi-square difference test showed the paths were equal in both groups. Thus,

hypothesis 3a is not supported.

50

Hypothesis 3b predicted that consumers with higher levels of knowledge are
harder to delight than those with lower levels of knowledge. The path from delight to
repurchase intention is significant in both the high and low knowledge group (Table 1).
However, the moderating effect of knowledge level upon both groups was found.
Knowledge level does not impact the formation of delight, thus support for hypothesis 3b
was not found.

DISCUSSION

Overall there was support for our hypothesis that delight impacts the formation of
repurchase intent. Various authors have suggested that satisfaction research would be
furthered if moderating variables were studied in greater detail (Oliver and Bearden
1983). Spreng and Page (2001) suggested that consumer knowledge may be one such
moderating variable that should be studied in greater detail. Prior studies have looked at
the satisfaction-knowledge-likelihood of defection link (Capraro et al. 2003) as well as
the moderating effect of high and low levels of knowledge between satisfaction and
loyalty formation (Chiou et al. 2002). In the case of the former (Capraro et al. 2003),
little of the effect of satisfaction on likelihood of defection was mediated by level of
knowledge in regard to alternatives. Our findings show similar results, specifically that
the moderating role of knowledge level does not have a significant impact on the
satisfaction-repurchase intention path, or the delight-repurchase intention path. The
findings from our study indicate that delight plays an integral role in repurchase intention.
Our results are similar to Oliver et al. (1997) in that satisfaction and delight are shown to

be separate conceptual entities.

51

Clearly, businesses need to focus on more than customer satisfaction. While
satisfaction metrics are important in decisions for products and services, customer
retention and loyalty need additional metrics. For plants, product knowledge
significantly impacted delight and repurchase intentions. This means that for businesses
selling plants, they need to go beyond ordinary customer satisfaction and create a “wow”
effect in customer delight. In this manner, they may be more able or better prepared to
retain customers. It also implies that businesses may need additional metrics for the more
knowledgeable customer, to measure his/her satisfaction and delight.

Directions for fixture research

The relationships between satisfaction, delight, and repurchase intention have been
explored in relation to knowledge level as a moderator between the constructs. This
study investigated a limited component of the knowledge framework and its role as a
moderating variable. Future researchers may want to explore the moderating effect of
knowledge on a single, specific plant, rather than on a general houseplant category.
While a consumer may possess considerable knowledge in regard to a specific plant or
plant categories, it can be argued that this knowledge is not homogeneous across all plant
categories. Therefore, the moderating effect of plant knowledge on satisfaction and
repurchase intention may not have been an accurate measure of the true impact of
knowledge on post-consurnptive responses.

The cost of the plant product may also have an impact on post-consumptive
processes. A certain level of risk is associated with any consumption experience. This
level of risk can be compounded when price sensitivity becomes an issue. Zaichkowsky

(1985) demonstrated the integration between information search and product

52

involvement. The more involved the consumer is with a product, the greater their
propensity to search for information across product groups. Thus, the level of
involvement determines how concerned a consumer is with price. Those consumers
highly involved with a product may be less sensitive to price, while consumers who are
not as involved with a product, (e. g. a Christmas poinsettia), may be more concerned with
price. Future research into the impact of cost on the post-consumptive processes a

consumer undergoes while purchasing plant products may also be merited.

53

Table 1. Standardized Effects (t Values) of Satisfaction and Delight on Repurchase Intention.

Group Scores
Unconstrained

 

Path Model Group 1 Group 2
Satisfaction —- repurchase intention -0.10 (-0.59) 0.08 (0.82)
Delight -> repurchase intention 0.78 (5.44) 0.90 (10.15)
Chi-square 181.44 61.82 119.62
Degrees-of-freedom 48 24 24
NFI 0.97 0.94 0.97
CFI 0.97 0.96 0.98
GFI 0.93 0.86 0.93
AGFI --- 0.75 0.86
SRMR 0.04 0.05 0.04
RMSEA 0.12 0.13 0.11

 

54

Table 2. Within Group Estimates of the Constructs Based on the Proposed Knowledge Level of
the Consumer (Group 1 = Low Knowledge; Group 2 = High Knowledge).

 

 

 

 

 

 

x2 df )(2 df
Group 1 Constrained 74.04 25 Group 2 Constrained 139.44 25
Group 1 Unconstrained 61.82 24 Group 2 Unconstrained 119.62 24
Difference 12.22 1 Difference 19.82 1

55

Table 3. Between Group Constraints.

Satisfaction —» Repurchase

Delight —- Repurchase

 

 

 

 

Intention Intention
x2 df x’ df
2 Group Constrained 184.02 49 179.1 1 49
2 Group Unconstrained 181.44 48 178.62 48
Difference 2.58 1 0.49 1

56

Figure 1: Proposed repurchase intention model with knowledge as a moderating variable.

 

     
 

Knowledge
Level

Satisfaction

Repurchase

Intention

 

Delight

 

 

 

57

Literature Cited

Alba, Joseph W. and Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 41 1-454.

Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bettman, James R. (1986), “Consumer Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 37,
257-89.

Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991b), “A Multistage Model of Customers’
Assessments of Service Quality and Value,” Journal of Consumer Research,
17(4), 375-84.

Bolton, Ruth N. (1998), “A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s
Relationship with a Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction,”
Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65.

Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), “A New Incremental Fit Index for General Structural
Equation Models,” Sociological Methods and Research, 17(3), 303-16.

Brucks, Merrie (1985), “The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search
Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12,1-16.

Brucks, Merrie (1986), “A Typology of Consumer Knowledge Content,” Advances in
Consumer Research, 13, 58-63.

Capraro, Anthony J ., Susan Broniarczyk, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2003), “Factors
Influencing the Likelihood of Customer Defection: The role of Consumer
Knowledge,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 164-176.

Chandler, Colby H. (1989), “Quality: Beyond Customer Satisfaction,” Quality Progress,
22(2), 30-32.

Chiou, Jyh-Shen, Cornelia Droge, and Sangphet Hanvanich (2002), “Does Customer
Knowledge Affect How Loyalty is Formed?” Journal of Service Research,
5(2), 113-125.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hu, Li-tze and Peter M. Bentler (1999), “Cutoff Criteria For Fit Indexes in Covariance

Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives,” Structural
Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

58

Huffman, Cynthia and Michael J. Houston (1993), “Goal-Oriented Experiences and the
Development of Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2),
190-207.

J acoby, Jacob, Tracy Troutrnan, Alfred Kuss and David Mazursky (1986), “Experience
and Expertise in Complex Decision Making,” Advances in Consumer Research
13, 469-472.

JOreskog, Karl G. and Dag SOrbom (2003), LISREL 8.5: User’s Reference Guide.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kumar, Anand, Richard W. Olshavsky and Maryon F. King (2001), “Exploring
Alternative Antecedents of Customer Delight,” Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 14, 14-26.

Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura (2001), “Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and
Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer
Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-143.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden (1983), “The Role of Involvement in
Satisfaction Processes,” Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 250-55.

Oliver, Richard L. (1989), “Processing of the Satisfaction Response in Consumption: A
Suggested Framework and Research Propositions,” Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2, 1-16.

Oliver, Richard L., Roland T. Rust, and Sajeev Varki (1997), “Customer Delight:
Foundations, Foundations, and Managerial Insight,” Journal of Retailing, 73(3),
311-34.

Park, C. Whan, David L. Mothersbaugh, and Lawrence F eick (1994), “Consumer
Knowledge Assessment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 71 -82.

Plutchik, Robert (1980), Emotion, A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis, New York: Harper
and Row.

Reichheld, Frederick F. and Thomas Teal (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force
Force Behind Growth, Profits and Lasting Value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.

Reinartz, Werner J. and V. Kumar (2000), “On the Profitability of Long-life Customers

In A Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical Investigation and Implications for
Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 17-35.

59

Richins, Marsha L. (1997), “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127-146.

Schlossberg, Howard (1990), “Satisfying Customers Is a Minimum; You Really Have to
‘Delight’ Them,” Marketing News, 24(11), 10-11.

SOderlund, Magnus (2002), “Customer Familiarity and Its Effects On Satisfaction and
Behavioral Intentions,” Psychology & Marketing, 19(10): 861-79.

Spreng, Richard A., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Richard W. Olshavsky (1996), “A
Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction,” Journal of
Marketing, 60(3), 15-32.

Spreng, Richard A. and Thomas J. Page Jr. (2001), “The Impact of Confidence in
Expectations on Consumer Satisfaction,” Psychology & Marketing, 18(11),
1187-1204. ,

Williams, Jacqueline A. and Helen H. Anderson (1999), “Customer Delight: The Beat of
A Different Drummer,” Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining
Behavior, 12, 44-52.

Yi, Youjae (1990), “A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction,” Review of Markfethg
1990, Valerie A. Zeithaml ed., Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association,
68-123.

Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985). “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-52.

60

APPENDICES

61

Appendix A
Repositioning Syringa meyeri as a Profitable Dual-Use Flowering Potted Plant

HortScience
Submitted for publication: January 27, 2005

62

Repositioning Syringa meyeri as a Profitable Dual-Use Flowering Plant

Jessica Hicks', Bridget Behez, R. Thomas F ernandez’, Kevin Brothersl

Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, M148824-1325
Thomas J. Page Jr.3

Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management, Michigan State University, East

Lansing, MI 48824-1325

 

Received for publication . Accepted for publication . Research
conducted at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. The authors thank
Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association and Michigan State University Center for
Product Agriculture for funding of this project and R. Daniel Lineberger at Texas A&M
University for coordinating and collecting data for the Internet survey.

' Graduate Student

2 Professor
3Associate Professor

63

Note

Additional Index Words. consumer, dual-use, dwarf Korean lilac, marketing

Abstract. Flowering potted plants have reached a mature stage in the product life cycle.
In this stage, sales are flat and relative profits are marginal. Perceptual mapping studies
conducted at Michigan State University indicated that of 15 species studied, Syringa
meyeri (L.) was viewed by consumers as a favorite landscape plant. It also exhibited
some characteristics that may make it suitable for forcing for indoor enjoyment,
establishing its potential as a dual-use (indoor and outdoor) plant, if repositioned to help
improve flowering plant sales. Two-hundred-fifty dormant cuttings were forced to
flower on 5 May 2004, when plants and point-of-purchase materials were transported to
two volunteer retail outlets for Mother’s Day sales. More than half of the lilac plants
were sold from all retail outlets (n=135), but very few (n=] 7) consumers completed the
on-line survey. Sales of >50% of the product in the first time on the market is an
indication of consumer acceptability, but more research would be helpful to determine

important product attributes and plant performance.

64

Plants, similar to durable goods, undergo a progression through the stages of the
product life cycle. Flowering potted plants ($857 million in wholesale sales in 2003), a
subdivision of floriculture ($5.15 billion), have reached a mature stage in the product life
cycle (USDA, 2004). In this stage, sales are flat and relative profits are marginal.
Perceptual mapping studies conducted at Michigan State University indicated that of 15
species studied, Syringa meyeri (L.) was viewed by consumers as a favorite landscape
plant. It also exhibited some characteristics that may make it suitable for forcing for
indoor enjoyment, establishing its potential as a dual-use (indoor and outdoor) plant.

The dwarf Korean lilac (S. meyeri ‘Palibin’) was programmed to flower in prior
studies as a dual-use, container-grown florist crop. The moderately-dwarf size and early
flowering on young wood makes this cultivar an ideal candidate for dual-use (Green,
1984). Repositioning a flowering shrub, such as the dwarf Korean lilac as a dual-use
plant, can benefit both the grower and the consumer. For the grower, repositioning a
woody perennial as an indoor flowering potted plant creates a product that is potentially
disposable. For the consumer it creates a way to have a plant, which is normally too
large, in their home. Added benefits are seen by the consumer if the lilac is planted
outdoors, thus serving a dual use.

The objective of this study was to characterize and quantify potential flowering
shrub consumers by conducting an Internet study of consumers who purchased a
flowering lilac. Purchasers of hardy lilacs were profiled to determine their demographic
(age, education, etc.) and behavioral (gardening habits) characteristics. These

characteristics determine the potential size of the consumer group and market potential.

65

This study was conducted at the Michigan State University research greenhouses,
East Lansing, MI. On 5 November 2003, 250 dormant S. meyeri ‘Palibin’ cuttings were
placed in a cooler at 5 °C under approximately 9 h of supplemental light for five weeks,
to ensure that all plants were developmentally at the same physiological state upon
forcing. On 15 December 2003, plants were removed from the cooler and transplanted
from 5.6 cm liners to 15 cm azalea pots. Plants were then placed in the greenhouse at 20
°C under a 16 h photoperiod for 12 weeks, which is sufficient to induce flowering. First
vegetative bud break occurred on 24 December 2003. Average bud break occurred 8-10
d after forcing began. Two applications of darninozide at 2500 mg-L" were applied
during the trial at 3 and 6 weeks for height control.

On 1 March 2004, lilacs were moved to a 5 °C cooler under approximately 9 h of
supplemental light for five weeks. Remaining foliage was removed by hand after three
weeks in the cooler. Lilacs were removed from the cooler after five weeks and placed in
the greenhouse under 20 °C and a 16 h photoperiod for 4 weeks. On average, first bloom
Opened in 30 d. On 5 May 2004, lilacs were transported to test sites to target Mother’s
Day sales. Mother’s Day ranks second in terms of flowering potted plant sales, behind
Christmas, and accounts for over 20% of all sales (Soc. Amer. Flor., 2004).

The flowering lilacs were test-marketed in five free-standing Detroit, MI garden
centers and retail greenhouses that volunteered to participate in the study. Individual care
tags were inserted in each container; a second tag requested that the customer participate
in an on-line survey. On the front of the “request tag” purchasers were invited to log-on
to the website using the unique code affixed to the back of the “request tag.” The unique

code enabled researchers to control who had access to the survey (only purchasers of the

66

lilacs) and enabled those purchasers to complete the survey one time only. This
methodology was successfully used in studies regarding flowering plant purchases in the
past (Dennis et al., 2005; Behe et al. 2005; Sirnonne et al., 2005).

The survey was comprised of questions determining whether or not consumers
were aware of the dual-use characteristics of the lilac plants, their expectations of plant
performance, and their plant knowledge. Upon completion of the first survey, consumers
were invited to participate in a second survey three weeks later. This survey was
composed of questions to determine consumer satisfaction with the lilac and flowering
time, the importance of a guarantee, the importance of dual-use characteristics, and
whether or not the consumer regretted the purchase.

Results showed that while more than half of the lilac plants were sold from all
retail outlets (n=135), very few (n=l7) consumers completed the on-line survey, even
with a $5 incentive. If each plant was sold to a different customer, this would yield a
12.6% response rate. Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 81 years with a mean age of
43 years. Respondents were predominantly female (88%) and had completed some
college (mean of 14 years of education). Seventy-six percent of the participants had a
2003 household income of $25,001 to $100,000 with a mode of $25,001 to $50,000
(41%). The demographic profiles of these consumers indicate that purchaser’s income
level and education was similar to the US. population on average. Fifty-two percent of
the American population over age 25 had completed some college or more (Census,
2004) and median household income in the Midwest was $43,622 in 2002 (DeNavas et
al., 2002). A larger number of plants may have improved the number of responses.

Future researchers are also encouraged to examine a broader range of target dates for

67

sales, including the Easter holiday [ranking third with 18% of sales (Soc. of Amer. Flor.,
2004)]. The familiarity of the general public with a lilac plant in addition to the
fragrance of the lilac might be an added value for which some consumers are willing to
pay.

Although most plants were sold, purchasers were not interested in participating in
the consumer survey, even with a sizeable incentive. If consumer acceptability was
measured in terms of sales, the plant could be considered acceptable with >50% sold in
the first market window. However, more consumer research is needed to determine the
product attributes that were important to purchasers and how well the product performed

for them in the home and garden.

68

Literature Cited

Behe, B.K., R.M. Walden, M. Duck, B. Cregg, K. Kelley, and RD. Lineberger. 2005.
Consumer preferences for and cost of production of tabletop Christmas trees.
HortScience (in press).

Dennis, J .H., B.K. Behe, R.T. Fernandez, and R. Schutzki. 2005 (accepted). Do plant
guarantees matter?: Understanding the role of satisfaction and regret when guarantees are
present. HortScience.

DeNavas-Walt, C., R.W. Cleveland, and B.H. Webster, Jr., US. Census Bureau; “Income
in the United States: 2002;” published September 2003,
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-22l .Qfi Accessed 16 Dec. 2004.

Green, J .L. 1984. Lilac. . .Year-round cut flower?...Dual-purpose plant? Oregon State
University Ornamental Northwest Archives, 8(2): 13-19.

Simonne, A.H., B.K. Behe, and M.M. Marshall. 2005 (accepted). Consumers
prefer high lycopene-content and low-priced fresh market tomatoes. Hort
Technology.

Society of American Florists. 2004. Holiday Statistics.
<httn://www.2_tboutflowerscom/press b3d.html.> Accessed 16 Dec. 2004.

USDA. 2004. Floriculture and Nursery Crops, Situation and Outlook Yearbook.
June 2004. FLO-2004. accessed 26 Nov. 2004.
<httn://www.ers.usdagov/publications/flo/Jun04/FLO2004.pdf> Accessed 16
Dec. 2004.

US. Census Bureau; “Educational attainment in the United States: 2003;” published June
2004, <http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/920-550.ndf> Accessed 16 Dec. 2004.

69

Appendix B

Survey instrument used for satisfaction, delight, and repurchase intention survey at
Michigan State University 12 July 2004.

Title of Survey:
Consumer Perceptions of Indoor Flowering Potted Plants Survey

70

Michigan State
University

Department of Horticulture
Consumer Perceptions of Indoor
Flowering Potted Plants Survey

A group of researchers in the Department of Horticulture at Michigan State University is
conducting a survey of customers who purchased certain types of ornamental plants
during the last year. To determine whether you qualify to take the survey, check the
buttons below that indicate the plant purchases you made last year.

Please check all products you purchased during the 2004 spring Season for your mm use

 

and enjoy menl.

Vegetable or herb transplants r“ t“

yes no ,
Hanging Basket r‘ r“

yes no
Flowering Indoor Potted Plant r‘ if

yes no
Outdoor Perennial (any kind) I" 1'“

yes no
Flat of bedding plants r‘ I‘

yes no
Indoor Foliage Plant t“ r‘

yes no

Determine Whether lQualify ‘

71

  

Belou are several questions regarding how satisfied you u ere \\ith the purchase and
enjoyment ofthe indoor llou‘ering potted plant you bought this season (2004
s )ring ’summer) unless otherwise noted.

  
 
 

     
 

How long did you expect the indoor flowering potted plant to flower?
F \
days0-7 ( 8-14 days r" 15-21 days P 22 or more days

How long did your flowers actually last?

{W

daysO-7 F 8-14 days F 15-21 days F 22 or more days

What type of plant did you purchase?

     
 

   
 

Below are
associated

 
 
 

several questions regarding the purchase and Hon ering characteristics
with your indoor [lowering potted plant.

 
 
    

    

    

Satisfaction “ilil indoor flowering potted plant

 

For each row, choose a number that most closely reflects how you felt about the
performance of the indoor flowering potted plant.

Very dissatisfied Neutral

Very satisfied
I" r“ r" r“ r‘ i" t“

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very displeased Neutral Very pleased
I" I” f“ t" F (‘ (”‘

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Frustrated Neutral Contented
F A {7 t" i7 F I"

1 ‘ 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrible Neutral Delighted
" t" f“ t‘ a" F f‘

‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disappointed Neutral Happy
(‘ (7 "' t‘ (7 It“ I"
1 2 ‘ 3 4 5 6 7
72

 

Satislaetion with flow ering time

How satisfied were you with the length of time the plant was in bloom?

Very dissatisfied Neutral Very satisfied
t“ t" r- t“ t“ t“ t"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very displeased Neutral Very pleased
(7 t“ (‘ F f." F ("

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Terrible Neutral Delighted
t“ I" (7 '7 F f" f“

1 2 3 ‘ 4 5 6 7
Disappointed Neutral Happy
"‘ (7 "‘ 1’" t“ t" I“

‘ 1 2 ‘ 3 4 5 6 7

Based on your experience this spring, what are your feelings concemng the decision to
buy this indoor flowering potted plant?

Regrettable decisiOn Neutral Excellent decision
r‘ F r t“ t“ t“ (“

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Many doubts about this choice No doubts about this choice
t“ t“ t‘ r“ t“ t“ I"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sorry I made the Neutral Glad I made the
Mormon decrsron
F I“ (7 ("" I“ t‘ F”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
i should have chosen Neutral My choice was correct
another
:5“ " i" i" (‘ " F

1 ‘ 2 3 4 5 ‘ 6 7

Belou are several questions regarding how satislied you acre with the purchase and

enjoyment of the indoor [lowering potted plant you bought this season (2004
spring/summer) unless otherwise noted.

 

73

For each statement, choose a number that most closely reflects how you feel about
repurchasing the same or similar indoor flowering potted plant next year.

The likelihood that I will purchase this kind of indoor flowering potted plant again is:
Very low Neutral Very high

”1 r2 "3 r4 (‘5 F6 ”7

The probability that I would consider buying another kind of indoor flowering potted
plant again is: »
Very low Neutral _ Very high

‘1 "2 (‘3 (‘4 r5 F6 F7

I will purchase a flowering potted plant the next time I need a gift] something for
myself: .
Disagree Neutral - Agree

(‘1 r"2 F3 (‘4 ‘“5 r'6 r7

Based on your experience this spring, how likely are you to continue to garden? " , » ‘
Very unlikely Some intention to garden again 1 Very likely

(“1 (“2 {“3 (‘4 (‘5 (”‘6 (‘7

_

Did the retail outlet (home center, supermarket, florist, garden center, mass
merchandiser, or retail nursery) have a guarantee on the flowering potted plant you
purchased? (If yes move on to the following question. If no, skip the next two
questions and move to "How much regret did you feel... ")

r Yes F No

How important was the guarantee in deciding to shop at this retail location?

r” Not at all (“

important

r ,
. r‘ . Extremely
Somewhat important Very important impo t

74

If the plant(s) were guaranteed, to what extent was the guarantee a deciding factor in
choosing that specific plant?

Not a factor Neutral ' Definitely a factor

(“1“2 ”3 (4 (‘5 F6 "7.

DCllL‘lll

Please answer the followmg questions, based on your perceptions of the outcome
of your purchase

I am content with the purchase of my indoor flowering potted plant? .

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly agree

r r r (7 r '
1 2 3 F 4 F 5 6 . 7

How desirable was the outcome of the indoor flowering potted plant you purchased
this spring?

Very undesirable Neutral Very desirable

(*1 (*2 (*3 (*4 (*5 (6"(717,

At this point in time, which word best describes your feelings toward the indoor
flowering potted plant? ' ’

r . r‘ r‘ . I, . - . ' .
Anger Frustration Contentment , Delight r‘ Disappomtment -

75

For each statement, choose a number that most closely reflects how you feel
about your knowledge pertaining to plants.

How would you rate your knowledge about caring for flowering. shrubs?
Very little Average amount - .1 Very much
clrz (*3 r4 r5 cap->07

In comparison to the average person, how would you rate your level of knowledge
with flowering plants? .

. V Large amount of

No prior plant
knowledge Average amount of knowledge 4 knowledge
1" F t“ F t" . 1" , - t“

i 2 3 4 ' 5 _r . 6;; ,7

Do you ever use the plant tag or signage for information about care instructions?

 

 

(f never skip the followmg question and move to level of ' ‘ . J 1 )1 .
Never look at care Sometimes ' L Always look at care
Instructions V g _ . - . v - instructions
(r r c“ r c ‘ L i ‘ r 7 - . c

I 2 3 4 5 _ p ‘6 _ -. 7
If you examined the tag, how would you rate the ' f f“ ' I V ‘ '7 _ 1‘ 3.13:"..— g
plant’stag? ' ' “ _ " ’ '

Tag did not contain enough information Contained adequate i

, information
t“ . r I i " ' ‘
Contained excessive information . Did not examine tag

.What level of maintenance do you feel the indoor flowering potted plant required
inside the home?

Low Medium ' ' 7 * High

"irz "3 r4 F5,”63“7

Are there any comments you would like to share regarding your indoor flowering
potted plant from thiispring or plans to buy new products next ear?

 

 

76

 

Informational Questions/l)emogruphics

This past spring and summer, how many hours per week did you spend in the garden?

‘ Select v 1

Approximately how much, in dollars, did you spend on outdoor lawn and garden V
products in 2003 (excluding the purchases of lawn and garden equipment)?

1 Select v I

On a scale of 1-7, in terms of gardening knowledge, how would your friends rate
you?
Not experienced Average Very experienced

("1(‘2 (‘3 (‘4 (‘5 (‘6 ‘F7

On a scale of l-7, how would you rate your level of gardening enjoyment?

. . . A very enjoyable

Not an enjoyable actWity Average activity
r- (" t“ t‘ t“ a”

1 2 3 4 5 6 F 7

How much money did you spend, in dollars, on annuals in 2003? (plants that only
last one season, for example marigolds or irnpatiens)

I Select 'l

In 2003, how much money did you spend, in dollars, on perennials? (plants that are
supposed to come back year after year, for example, hosta or lavender)

| Select VI

Do you own your own residence?

t“ {"

No

Was this purchase:

77

 

I Select :1

Are you male or female?

1” Male F Female

In what year were you born? . ,
Select v

How many years of formal education have you completed?

I Select .:.l

 

What was your household income in 2003? , , , .
t‘ (7 r I (7 U "(7 (" . r
Less than $25,001— $50,001-. $75,001? $100,001- $125,001- $150,001 1 '
$25, 000 50, 000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 or more , -

Including yourself, how many adults (age 18 or higher) live in your household?

I Select vI
How many children (under 18) live in your household? 1 . 7_

I Select VI

What is the name of the retail store used to make this purchaSe? . i

I

 

What is your zip code?

Enter your email address. Since this is the address to which the honorarium will be .
sent, please make certain it is entered correctly. Your email will not be shared, and p
it will only be used to verify and return your honorarium. ,

 

 

EMAIL ADDRESS: l

78

Appendix C
The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approval form.

Research Title: Evaluating Consumer Perceptions of Flowering Potted Plants

79

 

artist or
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
BTANDARDS

y Committee on
match Involving
tuman Subjects

in Stat»: lilil‘rffl'fy
2n;- O'srr; Hat
[3537 Lure-iii“ Mi
48534

5178.55 3130

AI: fit/14.32 $305

314 611; lil'fo’UL',’ 9'15

1 Jr!” ..."(!-
d;,'i'l;3~ylfl:‘u t .lv‘

\‘1

MICHIGAN STATE

17 ”RI ”TV ""611“? T7”?
June 25, 2004

TO; Bridget BEHE
A288 Plant 8. Soil Sci. Bldg
MSU

RE: tRBtt 03-366 CATEGORY: 1-2 EXEMPT

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: June 25, 2004
EXPIRATION DATE: June 25, 2005

TITLE: EVALUATING CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF FLOWERING POTTED PLANTS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRlHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS RENEWAL.

Study Phase 2 revision to include a change to the study title and instruments.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and
referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

lf we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu.

Sincerely,

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

PV‘. jm

cc: R. Thomas FERNANDEZ
A216 Plant and Soil Sciences Bldg.

80

 

ililli‘lgllilgljljlitilt).