Research Paper No.

1881

The Effect of Stating Expectations on

Customer Satisfaction and Shopping Experience

Chezy Ofir
Itamar Simonson

February 2005

RESEARCH PAPER SERIES

 RESEARCH PAPER NO. 1881

The Effect of Stating Expectations on

Customer Satisfaction and Shopping Experience

Chezy Ofir and Itamar Simonson

February 2005

Chezy Ofir was a visiting Professor of Marketing at the Haas School of Business, University of
California, Berkeley, at various stages of this research. Current address: School of Business
Administration, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel (msofir@mscc.huji.ac.il).
Itamar Simonson is Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing, Graduate School of Business, Stanford
University (Simonson_Itamar@gsb.stanford.edu). The authors acknowledge the support of the Davidson
and Kmart Research Centers at the Hebrew University and the Stanford Graduate School of Business, as
well as the assistance of students who participated in data collection and analysis for this research.
 2

The Effect of Stating Expectations on Customer Satisfaction and Shopping Experience

ABSTRACT

Customers’ expectations are key determinants of their consumption experiences, satisfaction, and

loyalty. Therefore, knowing in advance what customers expect is critical for the success of

marketing strategies. We examine alternative predictions regarding the impact of stating

expectations before purchase on subsequent perceptions of the shopping experience and the firm.

In particular, the present research suggests that asking customers to articulate their expectations

can backfire and lead to more negative evaluations of the shopping and consumption experience.

A series of field experiments indicate that, compared to a control group, stating pre-purchase

expectations leads customers to focus on negative aspects of the shopping experience and

perceive the same performance more negatively. The observed systematic negative bias

produced by stating expectations is inconsistent with confirmation bias as well as assimilation,

contrast, and positivity effects. The last study was designed to examine the seemingly

inconsistent findings of this research and prior findings showing a positive effect of measuring

customer satisfaction, by comparing the impact of stating expectations about the next store

shopping experience with the impact of evaluating the store’s past performance. The results

show that, although (pre-purchase) expectations were indistinguishable from evaluations of the

store’s past performance, the former led to more negative post-purchase evaluations whereas the

latter tended to generate more positive post-purchase evaluations. We discuss the theoretical and

practical implications of this research.

 3
It is now widely accepted that exceeding customer expectations is key to customer

satisfaction, delight, and loyalty (e.g., Kotler 2000, p. 36). Accordingly, it is critical for

marketers to try to find out in advance what their customers’ expectations are, because a failure

to meet or exceed those expectations could lead to dissatisfaction and defection. In some cases,

customers have well-formed expectations, for example, when they have a great deal of

experience with the service or product at issue. Other times, expectations may be ill-defined, in

which case asking customers to state expectations might help formulate or even create them

(e.g., Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998; Schwarz and Bohner 2001). Furthermore, whether or not

the measurement of expectations affects their content and clarity, the need to state expectations

prior to a consumption experience is likely to make them more accessible during the experience.

As discussed subsequently, these and related issues have been examined in the context of

research on the effects of measuring intentions, judgments, and satisfaction (e.g., Dholakia and

Morwitz 2002; Fitzsimons and Williams 2000; Kardes, Allen, and Pontes 1993; Morwitz and

Fitzsimons 2004).

In the present research, we examine the impact of measuring customers’ expectations just

prior to a consumption experience (e.g., before entering a store or a bank) on the subsequent

evaluation of that experience and the firm. Prior research suggests that measuring customers’

satisfaction judgments induces more favorable evaluations of the firm and has a positive effect

on purchase behavior and loyalty (Dholakia and Morwitz 2002). As Dholakia and Morwitz point

out, this finding suggests the intriguing possibility that satisfaction surveys can be used

strategically to strengthen customer relationships. Since evaluations of satisfaction with the

firm’s past performance are likely to provide the basis for expectations regarding future
 4
performance, one might predict that measuring expectations will have a similar effect on

subsequent evaluations and behavior as measuring satisfaction.

However, research also indicates that forewarning customers before a consumption

experience that they would be asked to evaluate the service after the experience leads to more

negative evaluations (Ofir and Simonson 2001). If one assumes that expecting to evaluate a

service or product spontaneously generates expectations (for a related argument, see, e.g.,

Fitzsimons and Williams 2000), then stating expectations before a consumption experience

might actually generate more negative evaluations of the firm following that experience.

In the next section, we explore the different predictions that can be derived from prior

research about the effect of stating expectations on subsequent evaluations. We then present

evidence that measuring expectations tends to generate more negative evaluations. We also

present evidence regarding the evaluation processes triggered by stating expectations, which

indicates that the measurement of expectations causes consumers to pay more attention to

negative aspects and to encode performance characteristics more negatively. In the final study,

we directly contrast the effect of measuring prior satisfaction with the effect of stating

expectations before purchase. Consistent with the evidence presented here as well as the work of

Dholakia and Morwitz (2002), we find that, although stated expectations about future

performance are indistinguishable from judgments of past performance, measuring expectations

generates more negative subsequent evaluations whereas assessing past performance tends to

produce more positive evaluations. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and

practical implications of the results and directions for future research.

 5

INFLUENCES OF STATING EXPECTATIONS:

CONFIRMATION, POSITIVITY, AND/OR NEGATIVITY ENHANCEMENT

As is often the case when analyzing the impact of a particular condition on response, the

difficulty is not in identifying potentially relevant theories, but rather, determining which of

several candidate theories is most applicable. The analysis of the effect of stating expectations

regarding a consumption experience is one such case. Prior research could support predictions

that (a) stating expectations will confirm and reinforce existing beliefs about the firm/experience

being considered, which, in turn, will affect post-experience evaluations in accordance with the

stated expectations, (b) stating expectations will generate more positive post-experience

evaluations, and (c) stating expectations will generate more negative post-experience

evaluations.

One assumption that we can make rather confidently is that the act of stating expectations

for a service (or product) experience, just prior to the consumption experience or service

encounter, makes the stated expectations more accessible and salient during that and possibly

subsequent experiences (for related arguments, see, e.g., Dholakia and Morwitz 2002; Fitzsimons

and Williams 2000; Kardes et al. 1993; Kivetz 2003; Morwitz and Fitzsimons 2004; Tourangeau

and Rasinski 1988). One might also expect that the mere act of stating expectations enhances the

consumer’s involvement with the subsequent shopping experience, leading to more central-route

processing of information (Petty and Cacioppo 1979, 1984, 1986). Furthermore, prior research

suggests that, although stated expectations may be influenced by pre-existing expectations and

other information stored in memory, they are often constructed and become clarified when the

need to articulate them arises (for reviews, see Bettman et al. 1998; Schwarz and Bohner 2001).
 6
However, these prior findings regarding accessibility, involvement, and construction do

not lead to clear predictions with respect to the impact of stating expectations on the valence of

post-experience evaluations. One possible prediction, consistent with the assumption of higher

task involvement and the Elaboration Likelihood Model (e.g., Petty and Cacioppo 1986), is that

stating expectations will simply lead to more accurate evaluations of the service. That is, after

stating their expectations, more involved consumers will pay greater attention to central, relevant

cues, resulting in more accurate assessments. Thus, assuming the “true” performance can be

revealed through careful examination, stating expectations might impact subsequent evaluations

in either positive or negative direction. However, the actual performance of many firms and

stores is likely to be highly ambiguous, in which case the higher involvement created by stating

expectations may not significantly enhance the accuracy of experience evaluations (e.g.,

Dijksterhuis 2004).

A second possible effect of stating expectations is based on assimilation and confirmation

bias (e.g., Nisbett and Ross 1980; Sanbonmatsu et al. 1998). Specifically, stating expectations

may reinforce prior beliefs and lead to post-purchase evaluations that confirm and are even more

polarized than prior expectations (e.g., Tesser 1978). Alternatively, although it is inconsistent

with the tendency for confirmation bias, we might observe a contrast effect or regression to the

mean, such that those with positive priors will become less positive and those stating more

negative expectations will become more positive.

Alternatively, if we assume that the measurement of satisfaction with past performance is

equivalent to the measurement of expectations regarding future performance, then we might

observe a positive effect of stating expectations on subsequent evaluations. Specifically, as

Dholakia and Morwitz (2002) argue, users of a firm’s service (e.g., a store or a bank) are likely
 7
to include a relatively high proportion of satisfied customers, which is often the reason they are

that firm’s customers in the first place. Accordingly, asking those consumers to state their

expectations for the firm causes them to articulate their favorable evaluations and thus further

reinforces their positive attitude, leading to more positive post-experience evaluations. It is

noteworthy that participants in the Dholakia and Morwitz studies were aware that the satisfaction

study was conducted on behalf of the firm being evaluated, which might have contributed to the

positive impact of the survey on subsequent customer behavior. However, recent research by

Williams, Fitzsimons, and Block (2004) suggests that such mere measurement effects occur, and

might even be more pronounced, when the organization sponsoring or conducting the research is

not identified.

Yet another possible effect of stating expectations is to generate more negative post-

experience evaluations. Ofir and Simonson (2001) showed that customers who expect to

evaluate a service before the actual experience tend subsequently to evaluate that service more

negatively than customers who find out about the need to evaluate only after the experience.

Their primary explanation for this effect was referred to as negativity enhancement, whereby the

knowledge that evaluation will have to be provided sensitizes consumers to negative aspects of

the service that deviate from the typical mildly positive expectations. This effect builds on and

extends prior work regarding negativity bias and loss aversion (e.g., Fiske 1980; Kanouse 1984;

Tversky and Kahneman 1991). Consistent with this account, an explicit need to form and state

performance expectations before a service encounter might have a similar negative effect on

subsequent evaluations. That is, if we assume that forewarning customers about a forthcoming

evaluation task spontaneously generates expectations that are used to assess actual performance

in real time, then an explicit need to state expectations might have a similar effect on customers’
 8
evaluations. Furthermore, in their Study 1, Ofir and Simonson (2001) showed that stating

expectations about a service also had an independent negative effect on subsequent evaluations

of the service. However, they did not pursue that finding and focused instead on the effect of

expecting to evaluate. Thus, the work of Ofir and Simonson leads to the prediction that stating

expectations before a service/product encounter, like expecting to evaluate, will generate more

negative evaluations of the experience.

In summary, prior research could be used to support very different predictions regarding

the impact of stating expectations prior to a service encounter on post-experience evaluations of

that service. Specifically, (a) the ELM suggests that involvement will be enhanced and could

generate more accurate evaluations, which might be either more positive or more negative; (b) an

assimilation effect and confirmation bias suggest that the (positive or negative) expectations

stated prior to the experience will largely determine the post-experience evaluations, which

might become even more polarized; (c) a contrast effect suggests that those stating positive

(negative) expectations will tend to evaluate the service more negatively (positively) after the

experience; (d) if measuring expectations is equivalent to measuring satisfaction with past

performance, then stating expectations could lead to more positive evaluations; and (e) negativity

enhancement suggests that stating expectations will produce more negative subsequent

evaluations. These rival predictions are examined in the studies described next.

STUDY 1

In Study 1, we contrast the post-purchase evaluations of two consumer groups: shoppers

who had stated their expectations for a supermarket shopping experience before entering the

store and a control group of shoppers who were interviewed only when exiting the supermarket.
 9
As discussed above, given conflicting theoretical accounts, we used this study as an exploratory

investigation.

Method

The participants were 80 shoppers who were interviewed at the entrance to a supermarket

and received no compensation. Those randomly assigned to the stated expectations group (n=40)

were interviewed both before and after shopping at the store, whereas the control group (n=40)

was interviewed only after they completed their supermarket visit. When first interviewed,

respondents were informed that the survey was part of a university research project and were

assured of confidentiality.

Those in the stated expectations group were asked to indicate their expectations regarding

the service they would receive at the supermarket on that day. Specifically, they stated their

expectations for the store on nine dimensions, all on a 7-point scale. Six items were designed to

assess specific dimensions of service quality, including politeness of store employees,

employees’ willingness to assist shoppers, employees’ professionalism, length of wait at the

checkout, convenience of product display, and level of service. Two items measured directly

expected satisfaction: overall satisfaction with the service and overall satisfaction with the

shopping visit. Finally, participants were asked about the likelihood that they would recommend

the store to friends.

Upon existing the store, both those in the stated expectations group and those assigned to

the control group were unexpectedly asked to evaluate their actual experience and the store,

based on the visit they had just completed. Respondents were asked to rate the store using the

exact same items as those used in the stated expectations group before entering the store.

However, two additional (7-point) items were included: (a) while shopping at the store, whether
 10
respondents paid more attention to positive (7) or negative (1) aspects; (b) the degree to which

they had expected that they would be interviewed after completing their shopping at the store.

Results

Neither the stated expectations group (M=2.0, on a 7-point scale) nor the control group

(M=1.7) had expected to be interviewed about their store experience following the visit

(F(1,78)=1.25, p>.1). As shown in Table 1, the average pre-visit service expectations in the

stated expectations group, across the six specific service items (α=.91), was 5.41 on a 7-point

scale. The average of the two satisfaction items (α=.98) was 5.90, and the average rating of the

likelihood of recommending the store was 5.95.

Following the shopping visit, those in the stated expectations group evaluated the

supermarket more negatively than those in the control group: for the combined service measure,

MAfter=3.95 versus MControl=4.54 (F(1,78)= 6.25, p<.01); for the combined satisfaction measure,

MAfter=4.05 versus MControl=4.80 (F(1,78)=6.23, p<.01); and for the Recommendation measure,

MAfter=3.70 versus MControl=4.70 (F(1,78)=5.26, p<.01). A median-split based on stated

expectations (see Table 1) further shows that, after the shopping experience, those with higher

prior expectations (n=17) were as negative as those with more negative priors (n=23) (all

F(1,77)<1, p>.1).1 Moreover, the post-purchase evaluations of those in the stated expectations

group were statistically significantly lower than their pre-shopping expectations on all

dimensions (at the p<.01 level). Finally, when asked during the post-purchase survey whether

they had paid more attention to positive (7) or negative (1) aspects of their visit, the ratings of

consumers in the stated expectations group indicated that they had paid significantly more

1
We performed similar median-split analyses in the studies described subsequently and obtained similar
results.
 11
attention than those in the control group to negative aspects of their shopping visit: MStated

Exp=4.35 versus MControl=5.23 (F(1,78)=9.95, p < .01).

Discussion

The main finding of Study 1 was that stating expectations just prior to a shopping

experience led to more negative evaluations of the service and store following that experience,

relative to both a control group that evaluated the store only after the shopping experience and

relative to the pre-experience expectations. All expectations/evaluations, both before and after

the experience, were on the same dimensions.

These findings are inconsistent with some of the possible predictions outlined earlier.

The notion that stating expectations leads to higher involvement and, thus, more accurate

evaluations (e.g., Petty and Cacioppo 1986) does not appear to be supported, though without

knowing the true “quality” of the store, this account cannot be rejected by a single study.

However, a systematic tendency (demonstrated further below) of stating expectations to produce

more negative evaluations is inconsistent with the ELM account. The results are also

inconsistent with the existence of confirmation bias or assimilation effect, which would imply

that stating positive expectations before entering a store would make subsequent evaluations

more positive, rather than more negative. Furthermore, the results of Study 1 indicate that,

unlike satisfaction surveys, stating expectations does not appear to create more favorable

attitudes towards the firm or store.

The results of Study 1 do not allow us to distinguish between the negative effect of

stating expectations suggested by negativity enhancement (Ofir and Simonson 2001) and a

contrast effect. That is, although a median-split analysis showed that both the relatively “high”

and “low” stated expectations groups expressed more negative evaluations after the shopping
 12
experience, a contrast effect could have still contributed to the obtained results. This issue is

addressed further below.

STUDY 2

Method

We selected for Study 2 a supermarket that, based on an informal pilot survey, had a

rather negative reputation, due to past service problems, and was thus associated with low

customer expectations. Study 2 differed from Study 1 in three other respects. First, we used a

recall measure, taken following the shopping experience but before evaluating the store, to gain

insights into the effect of stating expectations on the participants’ focus of attention while

shopping. Specifically, after exiting the store, participants were first asked: “What do you

remember from today’s visit to the supermarket?” Second, unlike Study 1 in which stated

expectations and post-purchase evaluations were on the exact same dimensions, in Study 2

participants stated their expectations regarding just three general items (using 7-point scales):

overall service quality, overall satisfaction with the service, and overall satisfaction with the

shopping visit. However, the post-purchase interviews with participants in both the stated

expectations and control groups examined the same (more detailed) dimensions as used in Study

1.

A final difference in Study 2 was the inclusion of a third experimental group (hereafter,

“expectations only group”), which stated expectations before entering the store, but not after

shopping. These respondents first answered an open-ended question regarding their

expectations: “What are your expectations for today’s shopping visit at this supermarket?”

Answers to this question were designed to provide insights into the spontaneous expectations of

shoppers that were not influenced by the provided closed-ended items. These respondents also
 13
rated the supermarket on the same three items as the stated expectations group. The 90 Study 2

participants were randomly assigned into one of the three experimental groups.

Results

Again, neither the stated expectations group nor the control group had expected that they

would be asked about their store/visit evaluation (M=2.1 for both, on a 7-point scale). Table 2

summarizes the key findings of Study 2. Consistent with the pilot survey, the stated expectations

for the supermarket, both in the stated expectations and expectations only groups, were rather

low (between 4.0 and 4.3 on a 7-point scale; differences between the two groups were not

statistically significant; p>.1). As in Study 1, a comparison of the post-experience evaluations in

the stated expectations and control groups revealed that the evaluations in the former group were

significantly more negative: M=3.99 versus M=4.86 on the combined service measure

(F(1,58)=25.01, p<.01); M=3.80 versus M=5.20 on the satisfaction measure (F(1,58)=39.11,

p<.01); and M=4.00 versus M=5.00 on the recommendation measure (F(1,58)=10.12, p<.01). As

indicated, the post-visit evaluations were more detailed than the stated expectation items, making

a direct comparison more difficult. However, an examination of the comparable items suggests

that the decrease in the stated expectations group in terms of post-visit store evaluations relative

to these participants’ stated expectations was only marginally significant (e.g., for the combined

satisfaction measure, paired-t(29)=1.72, p<.1).

Of particular interest were the open-ended responses, including the stated expectations in

the expectations only group and the post-purchase recall in the stated expectations and control

groups. All open-end responses (in this and later studies) were coded by two independent

judges, who were blind to the (rival) hypotheses and the purpose of the study. The judges coded

recall items as “positive,” “negative,” or “neutral” with respect to the store and the just
 14
completed visit. The analysis of the open-ended expectations in the expectations only group

revealed an average of 1.63 positive thoughts, 0.90 negative thoughts, and 0.60 neutral thoughts;

the difference between the average number of positive and negative thoughts was statistically

significant (t(29)=2.03, p<.05). Thus, despite the rather negative reputation of this supermarket,

as reflected in the numerical ratings, the stated open-ended expectations regarding the store visit

included more positive than negative statements.

As indicated, those in the stated expectations and control groups, upon existing the store,

were asked, “What do you remember from today’s visit to the supermarket?” As shown in Table

2, those in the control group remembered, on average, more positive aspects (1.93 positive vs.

1.10 negative), whereas those in the stated expectations group recalled more negative aspects

(2.23 negative vs. 0.80 positive). Examples of responses coded as positive include “short wait at

the checkout” and “good variety of vegetables;” examples of negative evaluations include “too

expensive” and “no fresh bread later in the day.” The differences between the groups in terms of

the average number of positive aspects (F(1,78)=12.55; p<.01) and negative aspects

(F(1,87)=12.26, p<.01) were statistically significant. These results were consistent with the

participants’ own ratings of their focus of attention: on a 7-point scale (where 1=paid attention

more to negative aspects), the average rating in the control group was 4.93 compared to 3.43 in

the stated expectations group (F(1,58)=12.34, p<.01). These results further indicate that stating

expectations caused participants to focus on and recall more negative aspects of the store and

shopping experience.

Discussion

Study 2 was conducted in a supermarket that was known to be associated with relatively

low expectations. The results again indicated that, compared to a control group, stating
 15
expectations led to more negative evaluations of the store and shopping experience. Also,

although the differences between expectations and post-visit evaluations were small, they were

still skewed in the negative direction. Thus, a simple symmetric contrast effect does not appear

to account for the effect of stated expectations, which has a systematic negative bias.

Furthermore, recall measures showed that those in the stated expectations group paid more

attention to negative aspects of the store’s service, consistent with the notion that the act of

stating expectations before entering the store made shoppers particularly attuned to negative

aspects (e.g., Ofir and Simonson 2001).

In addition to the impact of stating expectations on the focus of attention, it is possible

that stating expectations changes how consumers interpret the valence of their experiences and

available information. That is, stating expectations might affect how ambiguous information is

encoded, which might reflect a case of motivated reasoning (Kunda 1990) that favors negative

interpretations of ambiguous evidence. We examined that possibility in Study 3. As described

next, in this test we also attempted to have tighter control over the actual content of the

considered information.

STUDY 3

Method

The respondents were 60 Israeli consumers, who were interviewed at their homes or (in

some cases) offices. They were asked to evaluate a new drugstore (referred to as “Pharm”) chain

that was being established, based on a newspaper review of that chain’s first store. Respondents

were randomly assigned to the stated expectations (n=30) or control group (n=30) and were

informed that the research was part of a university study. Those in the stated expectations group

were told in advance that they would be shown a newspaper review of the first store of the new
 16
“Pharm” chain. They were also informed that they were randomly selected for the survey, in

order to learn from their reactions to the store’s description about other consumers’ evaluations

of the new chain. Before reading the article, those respondents stated their expectations with

respect to the service of the store and the overall evaluation of the store (both on a 7-point scale).

It should be noted that, although respondents had no real basis for stating expectations, the use of

the English term “Pharm” and the existence of a popular drugstore chain called “SuperPharm”

were likely to produce relatively high expectations (compared to typical Israeli pharmacies,

which tend to offer less variety and poorer service). Respondents in the control group were

given the same introduction, but they were not asked to state their expectations for the store.

The translated text of the article appears in Appendix A. We designed the store review

such that it contained thirty characteristics of a drugstore, with the same number of positive,

negative, and neutral characteristics. Specifically, 18 pretest respondents from the same

population that participated in Study 3 were asked to rate characteristics of a “Pharm” store on a

1(negative) to 7 (positive) scale. Items with an average rating of over 4.75 were classified as

“positive” characteristics, items with ratings between 4.75 and 3.25 were classified as “neutral,”

and items with average ratings of less than 3.25 were considered “negative.”

After respondents finished reading the article, it was removed from sight. They were

then given four minutes to list as many of the characteristics of the drugstore as they could

remember from the article. Next, respondents indicated for the 30 characteristics of the

drugstore that had been mentioned in the article the degree to which each characteristic was

negative (1) or positive (7). The pre-designated positive, negative, and neutral characteristics

appeared in a mixed order on the list. Respondents then rated the service of the reviewed store

on four (7-point) items (cleanliness, professionalism of employees, product variety, and service
 17
quality), the overall store evaluation on two general items (negative/positive and bad/good), and

whether they would recommend the store to friends. Finally, respondents indicated whether they

paid more attention to positive (7) or negative (1) aspects.

Results

As expected, based solely on the mention of a new ‘Pharm” chain, respondents in the

stated expectations group had relatively high expectations: 5.30 on service and 5.63 for the

store’s overall score. After reading the store review, respondents in both the stated expectations

and control groups listed in four minutes all the store characteristics they could recall. Those in

the control group remembered an average of 4.10 (pre-designated) positive features, 2.90

negative features, and 2.90 neutral features. Conversely, the average number of positive,

negative, and neutral recalled characteristics in the stated expectations group was 1.73, 3.93, and

1.77, respectively. Thus, the control group remembered significantly more positive (and neutral)

features and significantly fewer negative features ( F(1,58)=41.80, p<.01, and F(1,58)=6.09,

p<.01, respectively); negative features represented 53% of the features recalled in the stated

expectations group, compared to just 29% in the control group. These results were consistent

with the participants’ own rating regarding their focus of attention, which indicated that those in

the stated expectation group focused more on negative aspects (M=3.33, when 7= paid attention

more to positive aspects) than those in the control group (M=5.57, F(1,58)=77.44, p<.01).

Next, respondents rated each of the 30 store characteristics mentioned in the review on a

negative (1) to positive (7) scale. In all cases, the characteristics were rated more negatively in

the stated expectations group, and all differences between the two groups were statistically

significant (at the p<.01 level). For example, (a) the statement “a store membership card can be

purchased for a small fee” received a rating of 2.57 in the stated expectations group and 6.07 in
 18
the control group; (b) the statement, “the store manager has an academic degree” received an

average rating of 4.33 in the stated expectations group and 6.57 in the control group; and (c) the

statement “the store does not accept checks” received an average rating of 2.37 in the stated

expectations group and 4.23 in the control group. Thus, the same store features were rated

systematically more negatively in the stated expectations group. Furthermore, the average

ratings on the provided service items (α=.95), store overall (α= .94) and recommendation items

followed a similar pattern. The average service (M=3.24 vs. M=5.74; F(1,58)=127.95, p<.01),

store overall (M=3.18 vs. 5.87; F(1,58)=161.83, p<.01), and likelihood of recommendation

(M=3.10 vs. M=5.93; F(1,58)=156.71, p<.01) ratings were all significantly lower in the stated

expectations group.

Finally, a median split, based on the two overall store expectation items, further showed

that the post-evaluation store ratings were more negative in both the “high” (n=16) and “low”

(n=14) expectations groups. In particular, both sub-groups recalled virtually the same number of

negative aspects MLow=3.94 versus MHigh= 3.93, representing 53%-56% of the total number of

recalled aspects. In contrast, control respondents recalled 2.90 negative aspects, representing

only 29%, on average, of the total number of aspects they recalled (F, 57)=5.97, p<.05). This

negative focus is also reflected in consumers own ratings of their focus of attention (on a 7-point

scale): MLow=3.31 and MHigh=3.36, compared to MControl=5.57 (F(1,57)=75.86, p<.01).

Furthermore, ratings of each of the thirty store characteristics (positive-negative) showed

that both high and low prior expectations groups rated all characteristics significantly more

negatively than the control group respondents (all at p<.0001 level). Similarly, the post

experience evaluations in both the “high” and “low” expectations groups were significantly

lower than the control: for service, MHigh expectation =2.87, MLow expectation =3.66 versus MControl=5.74
 19
(F(1,57)=137.80, p<.01), for overall evaluation, MHigh expectation =2.91, MLow expectation =3.50 versus

MControl=5.87 (F(1,57)=167.75, p<.01); and for recommendation, MHigh expectation =2.88, MLow

expectation =3.36 versus MControl=5.93 (F(1,57)=158.10, p<.001). Thus, the negative bias produced

by stating expectations is observed both among those with high expectations and those with low

expectations, which is inconsistent with a simple contrast effect of stated expectations on

subsequent evaluations.

Discussion

The results of Study 3 provide further insights into the negative bias in evaluations of

consumers who had first stated their expectations. Specifically, the results show that, not only do

stated expectations lead to a focus on more negative aspects of the available information, but

stating expectations also affects the encoding and interpretation of the same pieces of

information. That is, in addition to remembering more negative features mentioned in the store

review, those who had stated expectations about the store subsequently rated the same store

features as more negative, compared to the control group. Thus, stating expectations evidently

triggers a critical, negatively skewed evaluation mode and focus of attention.

A question that arises in view of the negative impact of stating expectations on

subsequent evaluations is whether the mere act of stating expectations, even if those expectations

refer to an unrelated entity, triggers the same negative bias. To test this possibility, we examined

in Study 4 the impact of stating expectations about unrelated firms, one that was known to be

associated with favorable expectations and another known to be associated with unfavorable

expectations.
 20

STUDY 4

Method

Study 4 included four experimental groups, consisting of a control and three different

stated expectations groups. The respondents were 160 supermarket shoppers, who were

randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (n=40 per group). In addition to the standard

stated expectations group, the other two groups stated expectations (also before entering the

supermarket), either about the duty-free shop in Israel’s main airport or about a service center of

the largest Israeli communication company (“Bezek”). The duty-free shop was known to have

favorable associations even among those who had not shopped at that store, whereas the

communication company was involved at that time in a severe labor dispute (related to the

privatization of the company) and was generally associated with rather poor consumer

evaluations.

We reasoned that, if the mere act of stating expectations creates a negative bias in

subsequent evaluations even when the stated expectations refer to an unrelated target, then all

three stated expectations groups should evaluate the supermarket equally negatively after

shopping at that store. An alternative prediction is that stating expectations about the

subsequently evaluated target (i.e., the supermarket) has a robust negative bias, whereas

expectations about other entities merely serve as reference points and lead to a corresponding

contrast effect. According to the latter account, those who state expectations about the

subsequently evaluated target will be more negative than the control group, whereas the sign of

the difference between the other stated expectations groups and the control will depend on

whether the evaluated supermarket is perceived more or less favorably than the salient reference

point.
 21
All three stated expectations groups indicated their expectations (regarding the

supermarket, the duty-free shop, or the communication company’s service center) using virtually

the same items that were used in Study 1; there were just two slight changes with respect to the

telephone company’s service center: length of wait at the checkout was changed to length of wait

at the service desk, and convenience of product display was changed to product availability. The

measures, referring to service, satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending the store, were also

used to evaluate the supermarket after participants completed their shopping. Before evaluating

the supermarket, they answered an open-ended question regarding what they could recall from

the just completed shopping experience. Finally, respondents indicated (on a 7-point scale)

whether they had expected to be asked about their shopping experience at the supermarket and

indicated whether they paid more attention to positive (7) or negative (1) aspects while shopping

at the supermarket.

Results

All four groups had not expected to be questioned about their supermarket shopping

experience (the average ratings in all groups were under 2.0 on a 7-point scale in all cases).

Table 3 summarizes the key results. As in the previous studies, in the standard stated

expectations group, expectations regarding the supermarket were significantly higher than the

subsequent post-purchase ratings by the same consumers: for service, MBefore=5.79 versus

MAfter=4.30 (paired-t(39)=12.18, p<.01); for satisfaction, MBefore=5.90 versus MAfter=3.74

(paired-t(39)=11.6, p<.01); and for recommendation, MBefore =5.80 versus MAfter=3.48 (paired-

t(39)=14.0, p<.01). The post-visit evaluations were also significantly lower than those provided

in the control group: for service, M=4.30 versus MControl=5.48 (F(1,156=161.0, p<.01); for
 22
satisfaction, M=3.74 versus MControl=5.58 (F(1,156)=136.2, p<.01); and for recommendation,

M=3.48 versus MControl=5.55 (F(1,156)=159.1, p<.01).

As predicted, the stated expectations regarding the duty-free shop were the highest (over

6 on a 7-point scale), followed by the supermarket (between 5.7 and 5.9), with the

communication company receiving substantially lower expectation ratings (2.0-2.3). The post-

visit evaluations showed that those in the telephone company group rated their supermarket visit

most favorably, followed by the control group, duty-free group, and finally, the supermarket

stated expectations group, which was the most negative. These results suggest that both a

contrast effect and a negative effect of stating expectations regarding the target (i.e., the

supermarket) contributed to the pattern of findings. The following is a more detailed analysis of

these results.

Omnibus one-way ANOVAs applied to all post supermarket visit responses (i.e., service,

satisfaction, and recommendation measures) were significant at the p<.01 level. A set of

contrasts supported the conclusions regarding the differences between groups. Specifically,

consumers who had stated expectations regarding the (poorly perceived) communication

company rated the supermarket after their shopping trip higher than the control group: for

service, MCommunication=5.85 versus MControl=5.48 (F(1,156)=16.04, p<.01); for satisfaction,

MCommunication=6.02 versus MControl=5.58 (F(1,156)=8.17, p<.01); and for recommendation,

MCommunication=6.10 versus MControl=5.55 (F(1,156)=11.18, p<.01). Further, those who had stated

expectations regarding the (highly perceived) duty-free shop rated the supermarket significantly

lower than consumers in the control group: for service, MDuty Free=4.49 versus MControl=5.48

(F(1,156)=113.74, p<.01); for satisfaction, MDuty Free=4.15 versus MControl=5.58 (F(1,156)=81.92,

p<.01); and for recommendation, MDuty Free=4.03 versus MControl=5.55 (F(1,156)=85.91, p<.01).
 23
An analysis of the content of participants’ recall from the supermarket visit revealed a

similar pattern. Those in the supermarket stated expectations group remembered the highest

proportion of negative aspects, with an average of 2.35 aspects coded by the judges as negative,

1.05 coded as positive, and 0.33 coded as neutral. By contrast, in the control group, respondents

recalled an average of 0.57 negative aspects, 1.80 positive aspects, and 0.33 neutral aspects. The

other two groups were between the control and supermarket stated expectations groups.

Respondents in the duty-free shop group remembered an average of 1.18 positive aspects from

their supermarket shopping experience, 1.78 negative aspects, and 0.40 neutral aspects. In the

communication company group, respondents recalled 1.83 positive aspects, 0.6 negative aspects,

and 0.43 neutral aspects. Again, these results show that both a contrast effect relative to a

reference point and the negative impact of stating expectations about the subsequently evaluated

target contribute to the large negative effect of stating expectations. These results can be

summarized by a difference measure (negative minus positive number of recall aspects of the

shopping visit). Respondents in the control (MDifference= -1.23) and the communication company

groups (MDifference= -1.23) recalled more positive aspects, indicated by a negative difference

measure, whereas the respondents in the (supermarket) stated expectation (MDifference=1.30) and

the duty-free (MDifference=0.60) groups recalled more negative aspects. All four measures were

significantly different from zero (p<.05). Finally, similar to previous studies, a similar pattern of

results was observed in the participants’ own reports (on a 7-point scale) regarding their focus of

attention while shopping. Specifically, those in the (supermarket) stated expectation group were

most focused on negative aspects (M=2.53), followed by the duty-free group (M=3.15), the

control group (M=4.78), and the communication company group (M=5.45).

 24
Discussion

Consistent with the earlier findings of Studies 2 and 3, the results of Study 4 indicate that,

although a contrast effect relative to a reference point can affect evaluations of the target

experience, a contrast effect cannot account for the robust negative effect of stating expectations

about the target on post-experience evaluations. For example, the relative proportion of recalled

negative aspects was the highest in the supermarket stated expectations group and was

significantly higher than in the duty-free shop group, despite the very positive stated expectations

from that shop. This finding is also consistent with the results of Study 2, in which even a

supermarket associated with relatively negative expectations was evaluated significantly lower

among shoppers who had stated their expectations. Furthermore, consistent with the earlier

studies, the results of Study 4 show that stating expectations does not produce a confirmation

bias.

The finding that stating expectations about a service provider before a service encounter

generates more negative post-experience evaluations may appear inconsistent with prior findings

indicating that asking customers to evaluate their satisfaction with a firm’s past performance has

a positive effect on their relationship with the firm (Dholakia and Morwitz 2002). That is, if one

makes the assumption that expectations from a service encounter are based on prior experience

with the service provider, then a task requiring customers to state their expectations should have

a similar effect to a task involving evaluations of the firm’s past performance. Thus, the question

that naturally arises is whether the seemingly conflicting effects of considering future versus past

performance can occur within the same study. This question was examined in Study 5.
 25

STUDY 5

Method

The respondents in Study 5 were 201 supermarket shoppers, who received no

compensation for their participation. They were told that the study was part of the research of

university graduate students and were assured that their responses would remain anonymous.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups, including a control (n=52), a

stated expectations group (n=49), and two groups in which respondents evaluated (before

shopping) the supermarket’s past performance. Those in the stated expectations group were

asked to “indicate your expectations regarding the service that you will receive during your visit

today at the supermarket.” They then provided ratings (using 7-point scales) on nine dimensions,

including: (a) the politeness of the checkout employees, (b) the willingness of employees to

assist shoppers, (c) the professionalism of employees, (d) the length of wait at the checkout, (e)

the display arrangement, (f) the level of service, (g) overall satisfaction from the service, (h)

overall satisfaction from the store visit, and (i) whether, after the visit to the supermarket, they

would recommend to others to shop at that store.

As indicated, there were two groups in which respondents evaluated the store’s past

performance, before entering the store. Respondents in one of these two groups (“complete past

evaluation;” n=52) provided ratings on essentially the same nine items used in the stated

expectations group. For each of the first seven (service-focused) items, these respondents were

simply asked, “Please evaluate this supermarket with respect to …” They were next asked “What

was your level of satisfaction in previous visits to this supermarket?” Regarding the last item,

respondents were asked, “Would you recommend to your friends to shop at this supermarket?”

The final group (“partial past evaluation;” n=48) evaluated the supermarket’s past performance
 26
(before entering the store) on just three general items: (a) the level of service, (b) satisfaction

with service, and (c) overall satisfaction in previous visits to that store.

Respondents in all four groups were asked the same questions after existing the

supermarket. First, they were asked to indicate everything they could recall from their just

completed visit to the supermarket. Next, they evaluated the supermarket based on the service

they received during their shopping visit on that day, using the exact same items as those used

before entering the store in the stated expectations and complete past evaluation groups

(including the three general items used in the partial past evaluation group). In addition,

respondents indicated (on 7-point scales): (a) the degree to which they had paid attention to

positive or negative things while shopping; and (b) the degree to which they had expected to be

interviewed after completing the store visit; (c) the percentage of their household’s supermarket

purchases that were done at that supermarket (response options: <10%, 11%-40%, 41%-60%,

61%-80%, 81%-100%); and (d) the frequency of shopping at that supermarket (response options:

less than once a month, 1-3 times per month, once a week, twice a week, more than twice a

week).

Results

Again, respondents in all four conditions indicated that they did not expect to be

interviewed after completing their supermarket shopping (average ratings of 1.15-1.42 on a 7-

point scale). We next compared the stated expectations and the past evaluations (in the complete

past evaluations group) before entering the store, which involved the same items and scales (see

Table 4). This comparison revealed that the expectations were statistically indistinguishable

from the past evaluations. Specifically, for the combined service measure (for expected service,

α=.95; for past service, α=.89), the average ratings were MExpected=5.24 and MPast=5.24
 27
(F(1,99)<1, p>.1); for the combined satisfaction measure (for expected satisfaction, α=.86; for

past satisfaction, α=.89), the average ratings were MExpected=5.17 and MPast=5.33 (F(1,99)<1,

p>.1); and for the recommendation measure, the average ratings were MExpected=5.16 and

MPast=5.10 (F(1,99)<1, p>.1). These findings are consistent with the assumption that a firm’s

past performance provides the basis for expectations regarding its future performance. Also, on

the comparable items, the complete past evaluations and partial past evaluations of the store were

similar: the service evaluations (t(98)=1.08, p>.1) and satisfaction evaluations (t(98)=1.01, p>.1)

in the two groups were not significantly different. Similarly, post-purchase evaluations of

respondents in the complete and partial past evaluation groups were similar (see Table 4;

F(1,197)<1, p>.1).

Consistent with the earlier studies, the post-purchase evaluations in the stated

expectations group were significantly lower than their expectations: for the combined service

measure, MBefore=5.24 versus MAfter=4.33 (paired-t(48)=4.21, p<.01); for the combined

satisfaction measure, MBefore=5.17 versus MAfter=4.15 (paired-t(48)=3.69, p<.01); and for the

recommendation measure, MBefore=5.16 versus MAfter=4.08 (paired-t(48)=3.79, p<.01). Also, the

post-visit evaluations were significantly lower than the corresponding evaluations in the control

group: for the combined service measure, MStated=4.33 versus MControl=5.15 (F(1,197)=11.05,

p<.01); for the combined satisfaction measure, MStated=4.15 versus MControl=5.08

(F(1,197)=10.89, p<.01); and for the recommendation measure, MStated=4.08 versus MControl=4.75

(F(1,197)=3.69, p<.06).

Remarkably, however, although the measured (pre-purchase) past evaluations were

indistinguishable from the stated expectations, the former task had a very different effect on

post-purchase evaluations. Specifically, unlike the replicated (negative) effect of stating

 28
expectations, providing past evaluations of the store tended to produce more positive post-

purchase evaluations. In the partial past evaluation condition, both the service and satisfaction

post-purchase ratings were significantly more positive than the corresponding pre-purchase

(past) evaluations (paired-t(47)=1.98, p<.05 and paired-t(47)=2.66, p<.05, respectively). In the

complete past evaluation group, post-visit service was rated higher than (pre-visit) service past

evaluations (paired-t(51)=1.86, p<.07). For the satisfaction and recommendation measures, the

differences were in the same direction but did not reach statistical significance (paired-t

(51)=1.38, p>.1, using a two-tailed test; and paired-t (51) =1.03, p>.1, respectively).

Furthermore, post-visit evaluations in both the partial and complete past evaluation

groups were significantly higher than the post-visit evaluations of the stated expectation group.

The contrasts between the stated expectation group with the average of the two past evaluation

groups were all statistically significant (for service, F(1,197)=25.1, p<.01; for satisfaction,

F(1,197)=32.46, p<.01; and for recommendation, (F(1,197)=12.4, p<.01). In addition, across

both past-evaluation groups, satisfaction ratings were significantly higher than in the control

condition (F(1,197)=3.88, p<.05). For service and recommendation, these contrasts had the

same sign but were not statistically significant (F(1, 197)=1.55, p>.1 and F(1,197)=1.84, p>.1).

We next examined the recall data from the shopping visit. As shown in table 4, the

control and two past performance evaluation groups were statistically indistinguishable, with a

greater number of recalled positive than negative aspects, whereas the stated expectations

respondents remembered statistically significantly more negative and fewer positive aspects.

The responses to the closed-ended item regarding the focus of attention on negative (1) or

positive (7) aspects during the visit led to a similar conclusion. The average rating in the stated

expectations group was 4.43, compared to 5.23 in the control, 5.21 in the complete past
 29
evaluation group, and 5.29 in the partial past performance evaluation group; a contrast of the

average of the control and the two past evaluation groups with the stated expectations group is

statistically significant (F(1,197)=7.10, p<.01).

Discussion

There are cases in which results that confirm and replicate seemingly conflicting prior

results are surprising nonetheless, and Study 5 illustrates such a case. Although the present

research has shown that stating expectations tend to produce more negative post-purchase

evaluations whereas prior research by Dholakia and Morwitz (2002) suggested that evaluating

satisfaction has the opposite effect, we were skeptical that both effects can be demonstrated in

the same study. However, Study 5 showed exactly that pattern, while also confirming the

assumption that (pre-purchase) past performance evaluations were indistinguishable from the

stated expectations. Process data confirmed that the two tasks trigger different evaluation

processes, perhaps reflecting the forward-looking perspective of stated expectations and

backward-looking focus of past performance evaluations. Thus, although we still do not fully

understand the factors that trigger these process and outcome differences, the evidence suggests

that evaluating past performance and stating expectations about future performance create

different mindsets.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Customers’ expectations are key determinants of their consumption experiences,

satisfaction, and loyalty. Therefore, knowing in advance what customers expect is critical for the

success of marketing strategies. The present research, however, suggests that measuring

expectations can backfire, particularly if the stated expectations are still accessible during the

consumption experience. Specifically, contrary to the standard assumption that expectations are
 30
either confirmed or disconfirmed based on any discrepancy between expectations and actual

experience, the present research reveals a negative bias in disconfirmation of stated expectations.

In this section, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

Review of Findings and Theoretical Implications

The conclusion that stating expectations before a consumption experience leads to more

negative evaluations of that experience appears quite robust. In the studies described above,

those who had first stated their expectations subsequently reported more negative evaluations of

their experiences, relative to both a control group and their own expectations. As shown in

Study 2, this result occurred even in the case of a supermarket associated with negative

expectations, which is a somewhat unusual situation since customers tend to shop at

establishments they prefer. Thus, the findings of this research suggest that stated expectations

tend not to be met, and in all likelihood, the mere fact that expectations were explicitly stated

almost guarantees that post-experience evaluations would be more negative than they would

have been had expectations not been articulated.

As discussed earlier, different theories could be potentially relied upon to predict and

explain the effect of stating expectations on subsequent evaluations. The Elaboration Likelihood

Model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986) alone cannot account for the observed finding, because even if

we assume that stating expectations enhances task involvement, that could not explain a

systematic negative bias in subsequent evaluations. Confirmation bias is also clearly rejected,

because confirmed and thus highly accessible positive stated expectations should have resulted in

more positive post-experience evaluations, not more negative ones. And, there is obviously no

positivity effect associated with measuring expectations. This conclusion is, in all likelihood, not

due to the fact that our studies were presented to respondents as part of a university study that is
 31
not affiliated with the store being evaluated. Specifically, Williams, Fitzsimons, and Block

(2004) showed that the mere measurement effect of intent questions might actually be stronger

without the mention of any sponsor (including an objective one). The impact of stating

expectations observed in the present research is different from that of stating intentions and

evaluating past performance, as discussed below. However, the Williams et al. findings suggest

that the direction of our results would not be different if both the pre-experience expectations and

post-experience evaluations were identified as being sponsored by the evaluated firm. Still, the

impact of the study’s sponsor can be examined further in future research.

The theory that appears to account best for the observed findings, including the process

measures, is based on the notion that stating expectations triggers an evaluation process in which

negative aspects receive more attention and ambiguous dimensions are encoded more negatively

than in the absence of salient expectations. This negative bias goes beyond the generalization

that negative aspects receive more attention (e.g., Kanouse 1984) and losses loom larger than

gains (Tversky and Kahneman 1991), which should apply regardless of whether expectations

were stated before experience. Instead, expecting to evaluate appears to generate a more active,

“online” evaluation process, which exacerbates the negative bias of evaluations (for a related

argument, see Ofir and Simonson 2001). That is, after stating their expectations, consumers are

more likely to consider how actual performance compares with those expectations, and this

process is characterized by an emphasis on negative aspects.

The negativity enhancement account can readily explain the finding that stating

expectations leads to better recall of negative aspects and poorer recall of positive aspects of the

consumption experience, under the reasonable assumption that recall reflects the focus of

attention while shopping. However, the finding of Study 3 that stating expectations causes
 32
consumers to view the same features more negatively suggests that the impact of stating

expectations goes beyond focus of attention. In particular, negativity enhancement might

involve a motivational component that is triggered by stating expectations, as if consumers seek

to find negative disconfirmation of their expectations. Although the present research does not

provide much insight regarding such a process, a possible mechanism that can be explored in

future research is that consumers spontaneously or unconsciously use negative disconfirmation

as a means to improve marketers’ performance.

Probably the most surprising finding we observed was that of Study 5, in which stating

expectations about future performance and evaluating past performance had the opposite effects

on subsequent evaluations of a shopping experience. What we find particularly remarkable is

that these conflicting effects were observed despite the fact that the stated expectations and past

evaluations that were measured just prior to entering the supermarket were virtually identical.

Furthermore, although one should always be cautious in drawing strong conclusions based on a

single study, we feel reasonably confident that this pattern was not just an anomaly. First, the

present research shows that the negative effect of stating expectations on post-experience

evaluations is quite robust. Furthermore, although the magnitude of the positive effect of

evaluating past performance on subsequent evaluations was smaller and not statistically

significant in all cases, it seems consistent with the earlier findings of Dholakia and Morwitz

(2002; see also Dholakia, Morwitz, and Westbrook 2004), and it was replicated in two conditions

of Study 5. That is, both participants who evaluated past performance on all items and those

who evaluated just three general dimensions subsequently provided more positive post-purchase

evaluations than the control. Also, because prior evaluations were around 5.2 on a 7-point scale,
 33
the impact of considering past performance might have been limited somewhat by a ceiling

effect.

The fact that the stated expectations were numerically indistinguishable from the past

performance evaluations indicates that the valence of the accessible cognitions cannot account

for the conflicting effects of these conditions on subsequent evaluations. The recall process

measure included in Study 5 shows that, similar to the control, those who evaluate past

performance tended to focus more on positive aspects of their experience, whereas stating

expectations led to a focus on negative aspects. But what underlies this divergence of evaluation

processes and resulting evaluation? We have no answer to that question, which needs to be

addressed in future research. We can only speculate that the two tasks create different mindsets

or primes, one forward-looking on the to-be-evaluated experience and the other backward-

looking, and these conditions fundamentally change the shopping experience and/or the manner

in which it is evaluated. Alternatively, one might conjecture that considering past performance

promotes the assimilation of new information to the stated evaluation, whereas stating

expectations triggers a process of disconfirmation, more akin to a contrast effect.

In any case, the negative effect of stating expectations compared to the positive effect of

evaluating past performance highlights the fact that mere measurement effects can have wide-

ranging influences on judgments and behavior. They could reinforce ambiguous intentions (e.g.,

Morwitz, Johnson, and Schmittlein 1993; Sherman 1980), they could lead to more positive or

more negative experience evaluations, and they might be spontaneous or involve conscious

processing of intentions (e.g., Fitzsimons and Williams 2000; Williams et al. 2004). More

generally, similar to the construction of attitudes and preferences (e.g., Bettman et al. 1998;
 34
Schwarz and Bohner 2001), their impact is contingent on the conscious and unconscious

processes triggered by the act of responding to the measure at issue.

Finally, the present research has not examined the long term impact, if any, of stating

expectations on subsequent behavior, such as the effect on customers’ loyalty to and frequency

of purchase at the evaluated store. Specifically, there are at least two questions that are of

interest with respect to the long term effects of measuring expectations and subsequent

evaluations. First, it would be important to examine if the negative effect of stating expectations

on immediate experience evaluations lasts beyond a relatively short period following the

experience. In addition, it might be interesting to test whether the fact that the (negative) impact

of stating expectations is measured following the consumption experience has a reinforcing

measurement effect, which strengthens and extends the long term consequences of asking

consumers to state their expectations.

Practical Implications

As has been pointed out in articles dealing with mere measurement effects, the observed

impact of measurement on subsequent behavior suggests that marketers can use market research

surveys as a strategic tool to impact customer behavior. For example, Dholakia and Morwitz

(2002) argue that satisfaction surveys can be used to enhance customer loyalty and purchases

from the firm (e.g., opening additional bank accounts). Prior research has also demonstrated that

consumption experiences are susceptible to influence by seemingly minor changes and

distractions (e.g., Nowlis, Mandel, and McCabe 2004). The present research illustrates another

effect of participation in surveys on customer experience, namely, measurement of expectations

that creates more negative evaluations of the consumption experience and the firm about which

expectations are elicited.

 35
Thus, although knowing what customers expect is very important, marketers should be

careful not to create bad experiences by measuring expectations in temporal proximity to the

actual experience. Since many customer experiences are on-going, such as many continuous

relationships between vendors and business customers or between a supermarket or a bank and

its frequent customers, there may not be a good timing for measuring expectations. In such

situations, marketers may be better off avoiding measurement of customer expectations and

relying instead on measures of satisfaction.

At a more general level, customer relationship management (CRM) calls for developing

more intimate knowledge of customers (e.g., Winer 2001). This prescription, in turn, may

suggest a more extensive use of customer surveys. However, although there are significant

differences among specific types of measures used in customer research, marketers should

generally beware of over-reliance on customer surveys, such as measuring service expectations.

In addition to the sometimes questionable data produced by such surveys when responses are

constructed on the spot to comply with the survey demands, the present research shows that

stating expectations can have significant detrimental impact on customer experience and

relationship with the firm.

 36

TABLE 1

Study 1: Stated Expectations and Post-Experience Evaluations

Control Stated Stated Expectations

Group Expectations
Low Prior High Prior
Stated
Expectations:
Expected Service
5.41 4.91 6.09
Expected Overall
Satisfaction 5.90 5.48 6.47
Recommendation
5.95 5.65 6.35
Post-Visit
Evaluations:
Service
4.54 3.95 3.93 3.97
Overall Satisfaction
4.80 4.05 4.02 4.09
Average Post
Recommendation 4.70 3.70 3.87 3.47

Note: Entries in the table are average ratings (on 7-point scales).
 37

TABLE 2

Study 2: Stated Expectations and Post-Experience Evaluations

Stated Expectations
Control + Post-Purchase Expectations Only
Evaluations

Stated Expectations:
Expected Service
4.33 4.00
Expected Satisfaction
4.02 4.28
Open-ended
Expectations 1.63 positive
0.90 negative

Post-Visit
Evaluations:
Service
4.86 3.99
Overall Satisfaction
5.20 3.80
Recommendation
5.00 4.00
Post-Visit Recall:
1.98 0.80
Number of Positive
Recalled Aspects
Number of Negative
Recalled Aspects 1.10 2.23

Note: Entries in the table are average ratings (on 7-point scales) or the average number of recalled aspects.
 38

TABLE 3

Study 4: Stated Expectations and Post-Experience Evaluations

Stated Stated Stated

Control Expectation: Expectation: Expectation:
Supermarket Duty-Free Commun.
Company
Stated
Expectations:
Expected Service
5.79 6.13 2.28
Expected
Satisfaction 5.90 6.49 2.05
Recommendation
5.80 6.50 2.00
Post-Visit
Supermarket
Evaluations:
Service
5.48 4.30 4.49 5.85
Overall Satisfaction
5.58 3.74 4.15 6.02
Recommendation
5.55 3.48 4.03 6.10
Post-Visit Recall:
1.80 1.05 1.18 1.83
Number of Positive
Recalled Aspects
Number of
Negative Recalled 0.57 2.35 1.78 0.60
Aspects
Note: Entries in the table are average ratings (on 7-point scales) or the average number of recalled aspects.
 39

TABLE 4

Study 5: Stated Expectations, Past Evaluations, and Post-Experience Evaluations

Control Stated Complete Past Partial Past

Expectations Performance Performance
Evaluation Evaluation

Expectations /
Past Performance:
Service
5.24 5.24 5.10
Satisfaction
5.17 5.33 5.08
Recommendations
5.16 5.10
Post-Visit
Evaluations:
Service
5.15 4.33 5.48 5.35
Overall Satisfaction
5.08 4.15 5.54 5.56
Recommendation
4.75 4.08 5.29 5.02
Post-Visit Recall:
1.21 0.49 1.04 1.21
Number of Positive
Recalled Aspects
Number of Negative
Recalled Aspects 0.63 1.51 0.83 0.71
Average Difference:
Negative-Positive -.58 1.02 -.21 -.50

Note: Entries in the table are average ratings (on 7-point scales) or the average number of recalled aspects.
 40

Appendix A

The Article Read by Participants in Study 3

“Please read carefully the following article, which has appeared in a local newspaper:

BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS, I VISITED A NEW “PHARM” STORE THAT IS PART OF A

NEW CHAIN

The store has a membership program for its regular customers, who pay a small fee to

become members and receive discounts on certain products. Some of the store employees

received training in customer service. The pharmacy employs both certified pharmacies as well

as sales people who are not pharmacists. The store uses an independent company that handles all

deliveries, up to 10 kilometers from the store; customers wait up to four hours for deliveries.

Products are sold at reasonable prices, and customers can use credit cards, but the store does not

accept checks. Customers who make purchases of over 300 shekels can pay in installments.

Typically, the cashier informs customers of products on “sale,” and as a result, the average wait

at the checkout is about five minutes.

The store is not too large or too small, but during rush hours between 10 AM and noon

and between 6 PM and 8 PM the store can be crowded. The store is open till midnight; during
certain times, especially during rush hours, the store is not very clean. The merchandise is

generally well organized, and the variety of products is reasonable and perhaps even more than

reasonable. A customer who wants to exchange purchased items can do it within a week by

going to the customer service department, which is open till 6 PM.

The store manager has an academic degree; the store employs both men and women of

different ages. The store’s location is not central, and there is customer parking about 500

meters from the store; customers can also reach the store using public transportation, which

requires about an 8-minute walk; Handicap access is inconvenient.”

 41

References
Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne (1998), “Constructive Consumer

Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 187-217.

Dhalokia, Utpal M., and Vicki G. Morwitz (2002), “The Scope and Persistence of Mere-

Measurement Effects: Evidence from a Field-Study of Customer Satisfaction Measurement,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September) 159-167.

Dijksterhuis, Ap (2004), “Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference

Development and Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87

(November), 586-598.

Fitzsimons, Gavan J. and Vicki G. Morwitz (1996), “The Effect of Measuring Intent on Brand-

Level Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (June), 1-11.

Fitzsimons, Gavan J. and Patti Williams (2000), “Asking Questions Can Change Choice

Behavior: Does it Do So Automatically or Effortfully?” Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Applied, 6 (September), 195-206.

Fiske, Susan T (1980), “Attention and Weight in Person Perception: The Impact of Negative and

Extreme Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(June), 889-906.

Kardes, Frank. R., Chris. T., Allen and Manuel J. Pontes (1993), “Effects of Multiple

Measurement Operations on Consumer Judgment: Measurement Reliability or Reactivity?”,

in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild,

eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 280-283.

Kanouse, David E. (1984), "Explaining Negativity Biases in Evaluative and Choice Behavior:

Theory and Research," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Thomas Kinnear, ed.

Provo. UT: Association for Consumer Research, 703-708.

 42
Kivetz, Ran. (2003), “The Effects of Effort and Intrinsic Motivation on Risky Choice.”

Marketing Science, 22 (4) 477-502.

Kotler, Philip (2000), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and

Control, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kunda, Ziva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin,108 (3),480-

498.

Morwitz, Vicki G. and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2004), “The Mere-Measurement Effect: Why Does

Measuring Intentions Change Actual Behavior?” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14

(1&2), 64-74.

Morwitz, Vicki G., Eric Johnson, and David Schmittlein (1993), “Does Measuring Intent Change

Behavior?” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 46-61.

Nisbett, Richard E., and Lee Ross (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of

Social Judgment. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Nowlis, Stephan M., Naomi Mandel, and Deborah Brown McCabe (2004), “The Effect of a

Delay between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment” Journal of

Consumer Research, 31 (3), 502-510

Ofir, Chezy, and Itamar Simonson (2001), "In Search of Negative Customer Feedback: The

Effect of Expecting to Evaluate on Satisfaction Evaluations," Journal of Marketing

Research 37 (May), 170-182.

Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1979), "Issue Involvement Can Increase or Decrease

Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses," Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 37 (10), 1915-1926.

 43
______ and John T. Cacioppo (1984), “The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument

Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion,” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology,” 46 (1), 69-81.

______ and John T. Cacioppo (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in L.

Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205, Academic Press.

Sanbonmatsu, David M., and Frank R. Kardes (1988), “The Effects of Physiological Arousal on

Information Processing and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 379-385.

Schwarz, Norbert, and Gerd Bohner (2001), “The Construction of Attitudes” in Blackwell

Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol.1, Abraham. Tesser and Novert Schwarz (Eds).

Oxford UK: Intra-individual processes, 436-457.

Sherman, Steven J. (1980), “On the Self-Erasing Nature of Errors of Prediction,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,” 39 (August), 211-21.

Tesser, Abraham (1978), “Self-generated Attitude Change” Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 11, 289-338.

Tourangeau, Roger, and K.A. Ransinski (1998), “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context

Effects in Attitude Measurement.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 299-314.

Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman (1991), “Loss Aversion in Risky and Riskless Choice: A

Reference Dependent Model”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 1039-1061.

Williams, Patti, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Lauren G. Block (2004), “When Consumers Do Not

Recognize "Benign" Intention Questions as Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 31 (3), 540-550.

Winer, Russell S. (2001), “A framework for Customer Relationship Management,”

California Management Review, 43 (4), 89.