Scribd
Upload
124 views10 pages

12 Hausknecht Et Al 1998

Uploaded by

Priya selvi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
124 views10 pages

12 Hausknecht Et Al 1998

Uploaded by

Priya selvi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10
"AFTER I HAD MADE THE DECISION, I...:" TOWARD A SCALE TO MEASURE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Douglas R. Hausknecht, University of Akron “ilan C. Sweeney, University of Western Australia Geoffrey N. Soutar, ith Cowan University ‘Lester W. Johnson, Monash University ABSTRACT The objective of the preset research study is to begin the development ofa sale to measure cognitive dissonance that arses from fee cesce in consumer purchase decisions. This represents an Advance in de measurement of cognitive fissonance. Cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspects ofthe dissonance consruc are slated and desenbed, as are relaionshins with other post purchase variables, In particlar, i is noted that the reduction of copetive dissonance is 2 recesiry condition for the cccurrence of fausietion, Multiple tems, developed from focus groups, were evaluate by a series of independent judges (consumer behavior resarchers). A oul of Si measurement items are offered for further refinement, INTRODUCTION One hopes tht the contrition, vliaion ‘and dissemination of comprehensive. dissonance ‘cals will be forthcoming." (Over 1997, p- 261) ‘Wiens plea, Oliver conciadd hie chap length feview of ssonance research as part of landmark treatise on consumer satisfaction, Since Leon Festinger coined. the term “cognitive dissonance" in 1957, the concept has been fnterprete, debate, ad re-iterpreted with some frequency and ferocity. Many ofthe ealy ential Iswoes, however, romain at the center of disagreements. Underying these conned debates fe attempts to ft the se concept into 2 act of ‘volving theories and paradigns ‘Vaous concepaualization: have been used in sempts 10 identify the relationships. between ognitve dissonance and consumer satisfaction! Aissasstction [CS/D]. Some authors ive discussed bow dissonance genealy fits theories of consumer behavior (e-g., Cummings and Venkatesan 1976; Schewe 1973), while others hve made explicit disinsions among. the consis and’ their relationships (8. Montgomery and Barnes 1993; Olver 1997), To de, however, no one has sted convincingly the ‘conflict tht have been rated. Whereas the siisfaton construct has been widely discussed, and measures and models developed ound it (@g., Churhil and ‘Supremant 1982; Johnson and Fornell 1991; Oliver 1980), fewer measurement studies have examined the concep of dissonance. Some early Aisonance studies have been ertized a Lapping related consracis, such as anxiety, rater than Gissonance itself” (Cummings and) Venkatesan 1976). Other earlier studies did not measure dissonance but, rather, inferred the occurence of tlissonance from evidence of dissonance reducing behaviors. For example, Engl (1963) asessed the tention paid to advertising of a brand after purchasing that brand (Bagel 1963), while Lsuito and Perloff (1967) measured atitude changes towards seleced and nonselected products. Both are examples of how people strive Toachineecrmerence song atinides, knowledge and behavior Schewe 1973) Despite four decades of discussion, an agreed ‘upon and measurable construct continues to clude fal selmi. Tt bas been suggested recently that, "disonance, a least as presealy measured, may noc have discriminant validity when compared to ofier post purchase consructs™ (Sweeney. Soutar and Johnson 1996, p. 138), Over (1997) discusses the relationships among these constructs ‘with an acknowledgment ofthe nee for improved ‘measures consistent wih theoeetcal modes "THE DISSONANCE CONCEPT Festinger’ early explanation of the dissonance construct doesnot ientify clearly whether “alssonance" is cognitive or emotional. The cognitive view is supported by his definition tht “he obverse of one element follows from the other” (Festinger 1957, p, 261). Yet, he seems flo to have intended’ an emotional Cconcepmalizaton, suggesting tat “for” some 20. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behave people, dissonance is an enremely painful and Intolerable thing" (Festinger 1957, p. 266). In a recent social psychology treatment, Gilovih, Medvec and Chen (1995, appest (© teat dissonance ia a tration cognitive. sense. Conversely, Harmon-Jones el, (1996) sem t0 ‘be more concerned with te emotions aroused by ‘he “aversive consequences” of an individuals action. Infact, they subseibe to the theory that it is these consequences that are necessary and sufficient to create the emotion, rather than mere cognitions. However, they vere working within the" induced-compitance” paradigm and thet conclusions may not have diet relevance wo the “fee-choice” paradigm thal is most often of intrest to consumer reseacbes (Oliver (1997) revived thr fre-choice version ‘of dissonance, which he characterized as having Ini dormint for some time. in Oliver's model of satisfaction, the dissonance soncept is stretched ‘across wo-thids of the satisfaction process ‘Ocginting in a presprchase phat, the construct is laeled “apprehension,” These seme copaitions and felings mutate into er dissonance ater the ‘decison is made. With ue and experience, lissonance dissipates and yes to dissatisfaction (as can be seen in Oliver's igure 1-3, 1997, p 2) ‘wile Ouver (1997) argues tat dissonance ‘eeurs at various stages of the consumption roots, it is generally reegnized a a post ecisional, but pre-use phenomenon (e. Festinger, 1957: Insko and Schopler, 1972) Indeed, Otiver (1997, p. 24), in 9 subsequent ‘esi, views dissonance a resulting “from 2 personal decision or acon” He termed. this hartower window the "Ganma™ phase (Ohver 1997, p. 242). The concept of dissonance aeessed in the present research best fis tis period that immediately fellows the purchase ‘Secision but precedes use or experience with the result of the purchase decision. ‘This rstionsip is made explicit in Figure 1, in which the horizontal axe represents changes ‘over a purchase and consumption proces, but docs ot presume causality. Dissmance constructs aise ‘only after the decison ie made and in response to ‘a mimber of faeors, Tes important to note tit the presentation of ‘atisfacton models and dissonance models isnot meant to pre-suppose tat every purchase results in the arousal of elter or oth of these processes For example, ic has been argued that satisfaction andor dlsatisfacion may not aise in. low Involvement situations (Hauskneche 1988; Oliver 1997). Using Oliver's (1997, p. 13) conepe of satisfaction a 2 flillment respons, its apparent ‘hat ether te cognitive or emotional components ‘may not be aroused in given situations Bell (1967) suggested long ago that some individuals simply may not experince dissonance ‘The literature has established well the necessary conditions for dissonance arousal (Oliver 1997), although there is sme confusion caused by mixing paradigms (Le, forced compliance versus free choice). A physiological state, arousal, hus been ‘suggested as another necessary condition (Eot and Devine 1994), but no one has demonstrated ‘ficient conditions to force the process, The forced compliance paradigm has been used mest fofien in diasonance studies 10 ensure having something to measure, but has been assailed as not Tikely, or even rare, in consumption situations ‘Cummings sad Venkatesan, 1976; Olver 1997). “The previously mentioned controversy’ ab 1 te tetment of dissonance as cognitive or ‘motional is similar to that which exists ia the atiudelerature between proponents of the (parte ate mogel and those wao favor the attde--affect version. To clarity the ature of ‘he constructs, the present” model “induces Aiscintions overtime and separates cognitive from emotional concepis. The frst of these, decision config, i not usually presented as part of the consumer decision process. Davidson and Kiesler (1968). cied Festinger's distinction between eciion conflict, pre-dcision concept, and Gissonance, a post-dcision concep. The” same authors also presenta contrary view, "Janis (1959) fon the other hand, thinking in terms of ‘confit ‘resolution’, implied that there is litle or 0 Aiscintion between pre-and pst decision behavior fand that systematic reevaluation occurs both ‘before and afte the decision” (Davidson and ‘Keder 1964, p10). Even if the two concepts are similar structurally, they ae divided inte by the act (behavior) of having made 2 decision. In any as, they describe decision conic asa cognitive Jmbolance that is resolved by the decison ‘Whatever the relationship of dissonance with Volume 11, 1998 nt Figure 1 ‘Temporal Relations Among Dissonance Concepts pre-decsion variables may be, there is consensus hac etic dat are tacondnent with © decision may persist after a purchase. For clarity of txponton, Figure bels this “decison fissonance’. If decision conflict exist up 10 the ‘moment of decision, its decision dissonance that follows immediatly. Insko and Schopler (1972p. 105) reasoned smiley, suggesting that “dissonance is thus postecisional conflict.” Further, they suggested. tat there may be a “spreading” of the evalstion of the decision ltematives 25 part of the conflict or the Gissonnnce. Oshawa (1972, p. 65) agreed with the temporal positioning of dissonance but labeled it's only, "an intervening variable: afer & decison is made and before stempts at dissonance redveton.” ‘More substantially, tht period in a decision process hat boen characionzed as represeating 2 ange in confidence (Knoe and Inkster 1968), ‘motivation to solve a puzzle regarding one's ov, betavir (Greenwald and Ronis 1978) ora wonder about the wisdom of the decision (Lowe and Steiner 1968). All ofthese conceps appear 1 be ‘Sevoid of feling, evaluation, emotion. Thur ‘ecision dissonance appeat o be the same kindof imental enity a8 cognitions apd éecision confit. ‘Cognitive disonance is most -commoaly ‘efi a psychological discomfort ( Carismih ‘and Aronson. 1963, Eliot and Devine 1996; Festinger 1957), a peychologically uncomfortable sine (Menasco and Hawkins 1978), linked with tmxity and uncerainy or doubt ( Monigomery tint Barnes 1993; Mowen 1995; Oshikawa 1972) ‘or synonymous with the repre or remorse eponed in falespeople's aneedotes (Insko and Schopler 1972; Mowen 1995). Thus, the fr-year history of the Iieratue appears 10 have created & theoretical oxymoron in which an essentially finotionsl construct tears the burden of Cognitive" in ie mame, Nevertheless, "to date there have been no systematic atempts to dietly mpinially validate the prycholgieal dscomfor: Component of dissonance” (Elli and. Devine 10994, p. 383) The emotional aspect of dissonance, represeting the pryeboloical discomfort Ba Journal of Consumer Saifction, Dissatisfaction and Complain eseribed above, stemmed “dissonance ~ ‘emotional component” in Figure 1. Subsequent to ‘he arousal of cognitive disonance, dissonance ‘eduction behaviors may arise and these have often ‘been used as surrogate measres for dissonance in prior work. Finally, satisfacion is assessed pos Purchase. and postuse, when performance is Compared 10 expectations. Satisfaction has been

You might also like