fyp-rafia
TRANSCRIPT
FINAL YEAR PROJECT
“FACTORS OF POST-PURCHASE DISSONANCE
IN FEMALES AFTER A HAIRCUT”
Submitted By:
RAFIA ALVI
BBA-SP-06-3197
Supervised By:
MR. RAJA RUB NAWAZ
DATE: 7th May, 2010
PAKISTAN AIR FORCEKARACHI INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS & TECHNOLOGY
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELORS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
FINAL PROJECT
“ FACTORS OF POST-PURCHASE DISSONANCE
IN FEMALES AFTER A HAIRCUT ”
THESIS APPROVAL
Thesis Title: “Factors of post-purchase dissonance in females after a haircut”
By: RAFIA ALVI - 3197
Thesis Supervisor: Mr. Raja Rub Nawaz
Academic Year: 2010
The Board of Advanced Studies at PAF-KIET has approved this thesis, submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of bachelors of Business Administration.
Approval Committee:
______________________ _____________________ Mr. RAJA RUB NAWAZ Mr. TARIQ JALEES
(Supervisor) (Director Academics)
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
May 7th, 2010
RAFIA ALVI
Reg. # 3197
Dear Student,
I am pleased to inform you that you are assigned to conduct a study and prepare a report on
“Factors of post-purchase dissonance in females after a haircut ". In this report you
have to find the major underlying negative factors leading to post-purchase dissonance in
females after having a haircut.
You will get all the assistance, necessary for the information. If you find any difficulty in
your way, please try to overcome those obstacles. I assure you that all possible cooperation
will be offered to enable you to write the report in a good and cooperative environment.
I will appreciate if you submit your findings within given time.
Mr. Raja Rub Nawaz(Supervisor)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
May 7th, 2010
Mr. Raja Rub Nawaz
Faculty Member
College Of Management Sciences
PAF KIET (CITY CAMPUS)
Dear Sir,
I am submitting this report on “Factors of post-purchase dissonance in females after a
haircut”. As per your advice, the report includes objective of the study, a brief literature
review, methodology and the research framework. Altogether, 26 negative factors were
collected and tested from which I was able to draw 6 major latent negative factors leading to
dissatisfaction in females after a haircut.
I am grateful for your guidance and support without which this project could not have been
completed.
Sincerely,
RAFIA ALVI
BBA-SP-06-3197
PAF- Karachi Institute of Economics & Technology
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Allah for being my pillar of strength and for His guidance through the
years of my studies. I would also like to thank Him for making it possible for me to reach
this far, for if it was not for Him this would not have been possible. I would like to
acknowledge the help provided by my supervisor to make this project successful.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Mr. Raja Rub Nawaz, lecturer at PAF- KIET
for his valuable guidance and support, without which this project could not have been
completed.
Finally, I thank PAF- KIET for providing me a truly inspiring and conductive environment
for studies.
RAFIA ALVIBBA-SP-06-3197
DECLARATION
I, Rafia Alvi, hereby declare that the work represented in this dissertation represents my
own work and findings except where indicated and that all references, to the best of my
knowledge are accurately reported.
Rafia Alvi
Introduction..................................................................................................................................01
Objective.......................................................................................................................................03
Literature Review........................................................................................................................04
Methodology.................................................................................................................................45
Research Framework...................................................................................................................48
Data Analysis................................................................................................................................49
Factor Analysis……...……………………………………………………………………………49
Principal Component Analysis…………………………………………………...……49
Total Variance Explained……………………………………………………...………50
Scree Plot…………………………………………………………………………...….51
Factor/Component Matrix…………………………………………………………......52
Rotated Factor Matrix………………………………………………………………….54
Factor Naming…………………………………………………………………………56
Frequency Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….…58
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................84
Annexure I - Questionnaire.........................................................................................................85
Annexure II - References.............................................................................................................88
Table of Contents
1.0.0 INTRODUCTION
A good hairstyle is the most sought after thing in the realm of beauty in these modern days.
Almost every woman wants to flaunt her beauty with a good haircut or a hairstyle. The right
hairstyle can turn out to be the crowning glory of one's beauty or otherwise can turn your
looks down; a testing period until those cut ends gathers to give you a normal look. Your
head is not testing ground to just venture into experimenting with any haircut according to
your whims and fancies.
Hairstyle plays a very important role; it adds oomph to your personality and can instantly
change the look. However, some people get it wrong and end up looking like a fashion
disaster.
Not every woman can be physically beautiful. We women all know, and lament, this fact.
But almost all of us have the ability to grow long, feminine, beautiful hair, something that is
not only rewarded and encouraged as a sensual, beautiful thing by men but also something
that doesn't require genetic good luck or unreasonable effort to attain. With one simple swirl
of our long shiny locks, we can feel attractive, confident, playful, young and vibrant, even if
nature didn't endow us with good looks. We know that beautiful hair makes even the
plainest woman instantly more attractive to men and that one dollop of sweet smelling
shampoo and a loose cascade of touchable, shiny hair over the shoulders makes our men go
weak in the knees.
For females 'Hair is an adornment as much as a necklace or a bracelet'. Once
females are motivated to get a stylish haircut to feel happy they establish certain
expectations and based on certain standards they have established in their own minds, they
evaluate the service provided. If the service does not meet their evaluation criteria, they may
experience cognitive dissonance in the form of post purchase doubt and concern or anxiety
about the wisdom of the purchase of haircut service.
It is most likely to occur among females with a tendency to experience anxiety, after an
irrevocable purchase, when the purchase was important to the consumer, and when it
involved a difficult choice between two or more alternatives. An important role of the hair
dresser is to help females cope with dissonance by reinforcing the wisdom of their purchase
decision.
Cognitive dissonance has been defined as psychological discomfort (Carlsmith & Aronson,
1963; Elliot & Devine, 1994), a psychologically uncomfortable state (Festinger, 1957;
Menasco & Hawkins, 1978), being linked with anxiety, uncertainty or doubt (Menasco «&
Hawkins, 1978; Montgomery & Barnes, 1993; Mowen, 1995) or as synonymous with the
regret or remorse reported in salespeople's anecdotes (Insko & Schopler, 1972). It is
apparent that cognitive dissonance has both cognitive and psychological components.
1.1.0 OBECTIVE
The objective of the research was to find the underlying factors that lead to dissonance in
females after having a haircut to help them recognize the major reasons which result in
dissatisfaction because the emotions a woman feels when things aren't going well are almost
as unpleasant as what she feels when she just can't get her hair to look nice or lie flat or
conform to the style she wants. And conversely, you'll never see confident personality and
buoyant self esteem more magnificently displayed than in a woman who has striking hair
and knows it. A woman's emotions are more closely linked to her hair than to any other part
of her, as any woman who seeks out a wig after chemotherapy will tell you.
The importance of the topic can be deduced from the fact that we spend thousands of rupees
a year on shampoos, conditioners, hair dyes, highlights, trims, perms, hair accessories, and
hair salons for the pleasure it gives us to make ourselves as beautiful as possible, but mostly
to illicit that turning head or that smile of delight on the faces of people who take a glance at
us. But, if dissonance is experienced after a haircut, it has the impact of the biblical figure,
Samson who lost his power when Delilah cut off his hair.
This research study will assist in providing the latent factors and will eventually motivate
females to lookout in future for the factors causing post-purchase dissonance, because hair,
for almost every woman, represents femininity and beauty, and sometimes, therefore, what
she thinks of herself. When you deal with these aspects of a woman, emotions naturally run
high.
2.0.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.0 INTRODUCTION
Once customers or prospects are motivated to satisfy their needs and wants, the purchase
process begins. Based on certain standards they have established in their own minds, they
evaluate various alternative products or services. If none of the alternatives meets their
evaluation criteria, they may experience cognitive dissonance in the form of post purchase
doubt and concern or anxiety about the wisdom of the purchase. This is known as post
purchase dissonance/cognitive dissonance. It is most likely to occur among individuals with
a tendency to experience anxiety, after an irrevocable purchase, when the purchase was
important to the consumer, and when it involved a difficult choice between two or more
alternatives. An important role of marketers is to help people cope with dissonance by
reinforcing the wisdom of their purchase decision.
When customers feel abandoned, cognitive dissonance surfaces and repeat sales decline.
Today this issue is more pertinent than ever because customers are far less loyal to brands
and sellers than in the past, because buyers are more inclined to look for the best deal,
especially in the case of poor after-the-sale follow-up. More and more buyers favor building
a relationship with sellers. The literature review includes the literature on cognitive
dissonance domain, post purchase behavior, post purchase evaluation and the purchase
process for services, cognitive consistency theories and methods of reducing dissonant
cognitions.
How do human beings make decisions? What triggers a person to take action at any given
point? These are all questions that I will attempt to answer with my theoretical research into
Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, as well as many of the other related
theories.
The purpose of this chapter is to consider the theory behind the problem that is being
researched, that is, to investigate the effects of cognitive dissonance on customers. It will
thus serve to identify the theoretical basis of the study.
2.2.0 THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE DOMAIN
Almost half a century ago social psychologist Leon Festinger developed the cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957).
Cognitive dissonance theory is based on three fundamental assumptions (see Figure 1).
1. Humans are sensitive to inconsistencies between actions and beliefs.
According to the theory, we all recognize, at some level, when we are acting in a
way that is inconsistent with our beliefs/attitudes/opinions. In effect, there is a built
in alarm that goes off when we notice such an inconsistency, whether we like it or
not. For example, if you have a belief that it is wrong to cheat, yet you find yourself
cheating on a test, you will notice and be affected by this inconsistency.
2. Recognition of this inconsistency will cause dissonance, and will motivate an
individual to resolve the dissonance.
Once you recognize that you have violated one of your principles, according to this
theory; you won’t just say “oh well”. You will feel some sort of mental anguish
about this. The degree of dissonance, of course, will vary with the importance of
your belief/attitude/principle and with the degree of inconsistency between your
behavior and this belief. In any case, according to the theory, the greater the
dissonance the more you will be motivated to resolve it.
3. Dissonance will be resolved in one of three basic ways:
a) Change beliefs
Perhaps the simplest way to resolve dissonance between actions and beliefs is
simply to change your beliefs. You could, of course, just decide that cheating is
right. This would take care of any dissonance. However, if the belief is fundamental
and important to you such a course of action is unlikely. Moreover, our basic beliefs
and attitudes are pretty stable, and people don’t just go around changing basic
beliefs/attitudes/opinions all the time, since we rely a lot on our world view in
predicting events and organizing our thoughts. Therefore, though this is the simplest
option for resolving dissonance it’s probably not the most common.
b) Change actions
A second option would be to make sure that you never do this action again. Lord
knows that guilt and anxiety can be motivators for changing behavior. So, you may
say to yourself that you will never cheat on a test again, and this may aid in resolving
the dissonance. However, aversive conditioning (i.e. guilt/anxiety) can often be a
pretty poor way of learning, especially if you can train yourself not to feel these
things. Plus, you may really benefit in some way from the action that’s inconsistent
with your beliefs. So, the trick would be to get rid of this feeling without changing
your beliefs or your actions, and this leads us to the third, and probably most
common, method of resolution.
c) Change perception of action
A third and more complex method of resolution is to change the way you
view/remember/perceive your action. In more colloquial terms, you would
“rationalize” your actions. For example, you might decide that the test you cheated
on was for a dumb class that you didn’t need anyway. Or you may say to yourself
that everyone cheats so why not you? In other words, you think about your action in
a different manner or context so that it no longer appears to be inconsistent with your
actions. If you reflect on this series of mental gymnastics for a moment you will
probably recognize why cognitive dissonance has come to be so popular. If you’re
like me, you notice such post-hoc reconceptualiztions (rationalizations) of behavior
on the part of others all the time, though it’s not so common to see it in one’s self.
Figure 1 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Festinger's early explanation of dissonance did not clearly identify whether dissonance is
cognitive or emotional. The cognitive view is supported by his suggestion that "the obverse
of one element follows from the other" (Festinger, 1957, p. 261). Festinger described a
person as being in a dissonant state if two elements in his cognition, that is, in his
knowledge of himself, his behavior, his feelings, desires, or in his knowledge of the world,
are inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance may result when an opinion is formed or a decision is
taken when cognition and opinions direct us in different directions. Yet Festinger (1957, p.
266) also seems to have intended an emotional conceptualization, suggesting that, "for some
people, dissonance is an extremely painful and intolerable thing."
Cooper and Fazio (1984) considered that dissonance has less to do with an inconsistency
among cognitions per se, but rather with expectations of undesirable consequences. Oliver
(1997) also believes dissonance includes concern about unknown outcomes, in terms of
anticipated regret, and a feeling of apprehension on the consumer's part.
Cognitive dissonance has been defined as psychological discomfort (Carlsmith & Aronson,
1963; Elliot & Devine, 1994), a psychologically uncomfortable state (Festinger, 1957;
Menasco & Hawkins, 1978), being linked with anxiety, uncertainty or doubt (Menasco «&
Hawkins, 1978; Montgomery & Barnes, 1993; Mowen, 1995) or as synonymous with the
regret or remorse reported in salespeople's anecdotes (Insko & Schopler, 1972). It is
apparent that cognitive dissonance has both cognitive and psychological components.
Cooper and Fazio (1984) distinguished between the two psychological components of
"dissonance arousal" and "dissonance as a psychologically uncomfortable state." They
suggested that arousal is a necessary condition for dissonance to occur and that, if labeled
negatively and an attribution is made internally (free choice, "it was my decision"), then
psychological discomfort will arise. This psychological discomfort then motivates
dissonance reduction, as predicted by dissonance theory. Elliot and Devine (1994) claimed
that the latter element has received far less empirical attention than dissonance arousal and
urged a systematic attempt to validate the psychological discomfort component of
dissonance. However, they concluded that the distinct affect experienced by an individual in
a given situation is closely related to the individual's cognitive appraisal of the situation and,
hence, that the cognitive and affective components are not independent.
There are parallels in the conceptualization of dissonance and satisfaction. Satisfaction has
been described as the "emotional response to the judgmental disparity between product
performance and a corresponding normative standard" (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991, p. 85).
Hence satisfaction, while described as emotional in nature, is based on a response to a
cognitive judgment, and the construct is said to comprise cognitive as well as affective,
components (Dabholkar, 1995; Oliver, 1994). Dissonance similarly comprises cognitive and
emotional components. As Festinger describes, it is a psychologically uncomfortable state,
but generated by inconsistent cognitions. However, there are two important differences
between the concepts. First, dissonance is recognized as immediately post decisional (e.g.,
Festinger, 1957; Insko & Schopler, 1972). Satisfaction, in contrast, is assessed post purchase
and post use, when performance is compared to expectations. Second, satisfaction is based
on a comparison of known performance and expectations, whereas dissonance concerns
unknown outcomes, generating apprehension that may continue after use of the product or
service, when satisfaction judgments are made (Oliver, 1997).
Oliver (1997) takes a wider view of cognitive dissonance, examining the concept over the
entire purchase decision process. Originating in a pre-purchase phase, the construct is
labeled apprehension and increases over the decision process. These same cognitions and
feelings mutate into true dissonance after the decision is made, when consideration of
foregone alternatives becomes relevant. With use and experience, dissonance dissipates and
yields to dissatisfaction.
The concept of dissonance addressed in the present research best fits the period that
immediately follows the purchase decision but precedes use or experience with the result of
the purchase decision. At this stage, labeled the "gamma" stage by Oliver (1997),
dissonance is maximized and precedes satisfaction formation.
2.3.0 POSTPURCHASE BEHAVIOUR
According to Strydom et al. (2000: 79), after purchasing the product, the buyer will
experience some level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The marketer’s job does not end
when the product is bought but continues into the post purchase period. Marketers must
monitor post purchase satisfaction, post purchase actions and cognitive dissonance. The
buyer’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction will influence future behavior. A satisfied buyer will
purchase the product again and recommend it to others. Dissatisfied buyers will respond
differently. They may stop using the product, return it, or take some form of public action.
In support, Lamb et al. (2004: 77) state that when buying products, consumers expect
certain outcomes or benefits to accrue from the purchase. How well these expectations are
met determines whether the consumer is satisfied or dissatisfied with the purchase.
Figure 1-1 illustrates the relationships among the post purchase processes. As the figure
indicates, some purchases are followed by a phenomenon called post purchase dissonance.
This occurs when a consumer doubts the wisdom of a purchase he or she has made. Other
purchases are followed by non-use. The consumer keeps or returns the product without
using it. Most purchases are followed by product use, even if post purchase dissonance is
present (Hill and O Sullivan, 1999: 96). Product use often requires the disposal of the
product package and/or the product itself. During and after use, the consumer evaluates the
purchase process and the product.
Figure 2 A Framework for Post purchase Behavior
Source: Singh (2003: 2)
Unsatisfactory evaluations may produce complaints by those consumers. Appropriate
responses by the firm may reverse the initial dissatisfaction among those who complained.
The result of all these processes is a final level of satisfaction, which in turn can result in a
loyal, committed customer: one who is willing to repurchase, or a customer who switches
brands or discontinues using the product category (Singh, 2003: 4).
Hasty and Reardon (1997: 154) believe that when people recognize inconsistency between
their values or opinions and their behavior, they tend to feel an inner tension or anxiety
called cognitive dissonance (post purchase doubt). For example, suppose a consumer spends
half his monthly salary on a new high-tech stereo system. If he stops to think how much he
has spent, he will probably feel dissonance. Weitz et al. (2001: 363) point out that customers
like to believe they have chosen intelligently when they make a decision. After important
decisions, they may feel a little insecure about whether the sacrifice is worth it. Such
feelings are called buyer’s remorse or post purchase dissonance.
Hawkins et al. (2001: 629) highlight that the probability of a consumer experiencing post
purchase dissonance, as well as the magnitude of such dissonance, is a function of 1.) The
degree of commitment or irrevocability of the decision. The easier it is to alter the decision,
the less likely the consumer is to experience dissonance. 2.) The importance of the
decision to the consumer. The more important the decision, the more likely dissonance will
result. 3.) The difficulty of choosing among the alternatives. The more difficult it is to
select from among the alternatives, the more likely the experience and magnitude of
dissonance. Decision difficulty is a function of the number of alternatives considered, the
number of relevant attributes associated with each alternative, and the extent to which each
alternative offers attributes not available with the other alternatives. 4.) The individual’s
tendency to experience anxiety. Some individuals have a higher tendency to experience
anxiety than do others. The higher the tendency to experience anxiety, the more likely the
individual will experience post purchase dissonance.
2.3.1 Causes of Cognitive Dissonance
Strydom et al. (2000: 79) furthermore state that some of the alternatives not chosen may
have attractive features, so that the correctness of the choice is not obvious. Cognitive
dissonance is most likely to occur for major purchases that are difficult to select and undo.
People tend to resolve the discomfort or buyer’s remorse by seeking information to support
their decision and by becoming more critical of the alternatives they rejected. Marketers can
help consumers feel good about major purchases by providing reassurance after the sale is
complete. In addition, Singh (2003: 4) points out that because consumers are uncertain of
the wisdom of their decisions, they rethink their decisions in the post purchase phase. This
stage serves several functions; it serves to broaden the consumers set of experiences stored
in memory, it provides a check on how well the consumer is doing in selecting products, the
feedback received from this stage helps the consumer to make adjustments in future
purchasing strategies.
Etzel et al. (2001: 100) state that cognitive dissonance is a state of anxiety brought on by the
difficulty of choosing from among alternatives. Unfortunately for marketers, dissonance is
quite common, and if the anxiety is not relieved, the consumer may be unhappy with the
chosen product even if it performs as expected. Post purchase cognitive dissonance occurs
when each of the alternatives seriously considered by the consumer has both attractive and
unattractive features. Czinkota et al. (2000: 164) point out that after purchase is made, the
unattractive features of the product purchased grow in importance in the consumers mind, as
do the attractive features offered by the rejected alternatives. As a result, we begin to doubt
the wisdom of the choice and experience anxiety over the decision. Dissonance typically
increases the greater the importance of the purchase decision and the greater the similarity
between the items selected and item(s) rejected.
According to Singh (2003: 13), it appears that dissonance is likely to occur under certain
conditions. 1.) A minimum threshold of dissonance tolerance is passed. That is, consumers
may tolerate a certain level of inconsistency in their lives until this point is reached. 2) The
action is irrevocable. For instance, when a consumer purchases a new car, there is little
likelihood of reversing this decision and getting the money back. 3.) There are several
desirable alternatives. Today’s car buyer, for example, has an abundance of choices among
similar attractive models. In fact, research indicates that those consumers who experience
greater difficulty in making purchase decisions, or who consider a wider range of store and
brand options, are more likely to experience greater magnitudes of post purchase
dissonance. 4.) Available alternatives are quite dissimilar in their qualities (there is little
„cognitive overlap). For instance, although there are many automobile models, each one
may have some unique characteristics. 5.) The buyer is committed to a decision because it
has psychological significance. A large and important living-room-furniture purchase is
likely to have great psychological significance to the buyer because of its dramatic reflection
of the buyer’s decorating tastes, philosophy and lifestyle. Ego involvement will be quite
high. 6.) There is no pressure applied to the consumer to make the decision. If consumers
are subject to outside pressure, they will do what they are forced to do without letting their
own viewpoints or preferences really be challenged. In other words, when pressure is
applied, consumers will externalize the source of their dissatisfaction rather than allow any
mental unease or discomfort regarding their own cognition.
According to Berman and Evans (1998: 222), cognitive dissonance occurs because making a
relatively permanent commitment to a chosen alternative requires one to give up the
attractive features of the un-chosen alternatives. This is inconsistent with the desire for those
features. Thus, nominal and most limited decision making will not produce post purchase
dissonance, since these decisions do not consider attractive features in an un-chosen brand
that do not also exist in the chosen brand. In addition, Hill and O Sullivan (1999: 96) point
out that because most high-involvement purchase decisions involve one or more of the
factors that lead to post purchase dissonance, these decisions often are accompanied by
dissonance. And, since dissonance is unpleasant, consumers generally attempt to avoid or
reduce it. Avoiding dissonance involves actions taken before the purchase is made by either
avoiding/delaying the decision or using a purchase decision rule that will minimize regret.
In making a final choice the buyer not only had to forgo other attractive options but also had
to part with (perhaps a great deal of) money, which could have been used for other purposes.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the buyer often begins to doubt the wisdom of the decision
(Foxall et al. 2001: 130). This negative feeling of doubt and uncertainty in the post purchase
period is referred to as cognitive dissonance, a negative emotion stemming from a
psychological inconsistency in the cognition (the things that a person knows). Dissonant
buyers will try to correct these psychological inconsistencies by attempting to convince
themselves that the original decision was correct and very judicious. In order to do so, they
may rationalize by putting forward logical reasons for decisions taken and may also turn to
others for approval and reassurance (Strydom et al. 2000: 80).
Cognitive dissonance occurs because the person knows the purchased product has some
disadvantages as well as advantages. In the case of the stereo, the disadvantage of cost
battles the advantage of technological superiority. In other words, dissonance is post
purchase uncertainty or anxiety (Etzel et al. 2001: 528). Consumers try to reduce dissonance
by justifying their decision. They might seek new information that reinforces positive ideas
about the purchase (confirming that it was the right decision), avoid information that
contradicts their decision, or revoke the original decision by returning the product (Czinkota
et al. 2000: 163).
People who have just bought new cars often read more advertisements of the car they have
just bought than of other cars in order to reduce dissonance and reinforce the correctness of
the decision. In some instances, people deliberately seek contrary information in order to
refute it and reduce dissonance. Dissatisfied customers sometimes rely on word-of-mouth to
reduce cognitive dissonance by letting friends and family knows they are displeased (Lamb
et al. 2004:78).
People usually experience cognitive dissonance only when buying high involvement
products. Cognitive dissonance is the inner tension that a consumer experiences after
recognizing a purchased product’s disadvantages. When a purchase creates cognitive
dissonance, consumers tend to react by seeking positive reinforcement for the purchase
decision, avoiding negative information about the purchase decision, or revoking the
purchase decision by returning the product (Kinicki and Williams, 2003: 350).
Dissonance theory began by postulating that pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge)
can be relevant or irrelevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant. Two
cognitions are consonant if one follows from the other, and they are dissonant if the opposite
of one cognition follows from the other. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically
uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of
information likely to increase the dissonance. The greater the magnitude of the dissonance,
the greater is the pressure to reduce dissonance (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 2003: 1).
Festinger (2003: 1) notes that the magnitude of dissonance between one cognitive element
and the remainder of the person’s cognitions depends on the number and importance of
cognitions that are consonant and dissonant with the one in question. Formally speaking, the
magnitude of dissonance equals the number of dissonant cognitions divided by the number
of consonant cognitions plus the number of dissonant cognitions. This is referred to as the
dissonance ratio. Harmon-Jones and Mills (2003: 7) add that holding the number and
importance of consonant cognitions constant, as the number or importance of dissonant
cognitions increases, increases the magnitude of dissonance. Holding the number and
importance of dissonant cognitions constant, as the number or importance of consonant
cognitions increases, decreases the magnitude of dissonance.
Jones and Ince (2001: 5) argue that the thrust of cognitive dissonance theory is that
dissonance is likely to occur after a choice has been made, and will reflect a natural
occurrence because the choice has been made. In terms of post purchase processes, it is the
total amount of dissonance that we experience that is important. The more dissonant
cognitions we have about a decision, and the more important these are to us, the higher our
dissonance will be. And, since dissonance produces unpleasant feelings, we will be
motivated to act to reduce the amount of dissonance we are experiencing.
2.3.2 Results of Cognitive Dissonance
Wells and Prensky (1996: 320) comment that a person will experience feelings of
discomfort, known as cognitive dissonance, when he or she has knowledge, holds attitudes,
or takes actions that conflict with one another. When dissonance occurs the individual will
seek to reduce it by changing the inconsistent cognitive elements. Dylan (2003: 1) shows
that cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is
psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that
dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or
behavior.
Dissonance and consonance are relations among cognitions, that is, among options; beliefs,
knowledge of the environment, and knowledge of ones own actions and feelings. Two
opinions, or beliefs, or items of knowledge are dissonant with each other if they do not fit
together; that is, if they are inconsistent, or if, considering only the particular two items, one
does not follow from the other (Jones and Ince, 2001: 10).
Czinkota et al. (2000: 163) believe that the consumer’s decision process does not end with
the purchase. Rather, the experience of buying and using the product provides information
that the consumer will use in future decision making. In some cases, the consumer will be
pleased with the experience and will buy the same product from the same supplier again. In
other cases, the consumer will be disappointed and may even return or exchange the
product. In general, the post purchase process includes four steps: decision confirmation,
experience evaluation, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and future response (exit, voice, or
loyalty).
After a consumer makes an important choice decision, he or she experiences an intense need
to confirm the wisdom of that decision. The flip side is that he or she wants to avoid the
disconfirmation. One of the processes that occur at this stage is cognitive dissonance: a post
purchase doubt the buyer experiences about the wisdom of the choice. Methods of reducing
dissonance and confirming the soundness of ones decision are seeking further positive
information about the chosen alternative and avoiding negative information about the
chosen alternative (Phipps and Simmons, 2000: 152).
Hawkins et al. (2001: 312) state that the occurrence of post decision dissonance is related to
the concept of cognitive dissonance. This theory states that there is often a lack of
consistency or harmony among an individual’s various cognitions, or attitudes and beliefs,
after a decision has been made – that is, the individual has doubts and second thoughts about
the choice made. Further, it is more likely that the intensity of the anxiety will be greater
when 1.) The decision is an important one psychologically or financially, or both. 2.)
There are a number of forgone alternatives. 3.) The forgone alternatives have many
favorable features.
The decision process does not end with the purchase - not for the buyer at least! A product,
once purchased, yields certain levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Purchase satisfaction
comes from receiving benefits expected, or greater than expected, from a product. If buyers
experiences from the use of a product exceed expectations, they are satisfied, but if
experiences are below expectations, customers are dissatisfied (Futrell, 2004: 126).
Gilbert (2003: 60) shows that the buyer can experience purchase dissonance after the
product’s purchase. Dissonance causes tension over whether the right decision was made in
buying the product. Some people refer to this as buyer’s remorse. Dissonance increases with
the importance of the decision and the difficulty of choosing between products. If
dissonance occurs, buyers may get rid of a product by returning it or by selling it to
someone else. Alternatively, they may seek assurance from the salesperson or friends that
the product is a good one and that they made the correct purchase decision (positively
reinforcing themselves).
2.3.3 Motivational Nature of Cognitive Dissonance
Dylan (2003: 1) notes that post purchase behavior/cognitive dissonance is a theory of human
motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory
cognitions. The theory is that post purchase doubt, being unpleasant, motivates a person to
change his belief/cognition, attitude, or behavior. In support, Schiffman and Kanuk (2000:
219) state that post purchase behavior is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the
fact that people seek out information which supports their currently held views, and seek to
avoid information which challenges them. If they cannot avoid doubtful viewpoints, they
tend to hear selectively only that part of the information that supports them and/or
reinterpret what they are hearing, so that it does match their current opinions.
According to Fuller (1999: 329), for a customer to want to repeat a purchase or recommend
one to someone else, he or she has to have a positive experience the first time around. In the
decision process model, the positive/negative influence of customer satisfaction is shown as
a feedback loop that fuels or aborts repeat purchase behaviors. When a purchase is less than
satisfactory for whatever reason(s), it creates a state of tension called post purchase
dissonance. The author describes this as a form of behavior that occurs because of a
discrepancy between benefits expected and benefits actually delivered by a product.
Boyd et al. (2002: 119) argue that whether a particular consumer feels adequately rewarded
following a purchase depends on two things: the person’s aspiration or expectation level –
how well the product was expected to perform (delivery of a quality pizza while it is hot) –
and the consumers evaluation of how well the product actually did perform (the pizza
arrived cold). Consumer’s expectations about a product’s performance are influenced by
several factors. These include the strength and importance of each person’s need and the
information collected during the decision-making process. Even with services there is a
danger for marketers in using exaggerated claims in product advertising. Such claims can
produce inflated expectations the product cannot live up to – resulting in dissatisfied
customers.
Because purchase decisions often require some amount of compromise, post purchase
dissonance is quite normal. Nevertheless, it is likely to leave consumers with an uneasy
feeling about their prior beliefs or actions – a feeling that they tend to resolve by changing
their attitudes to conform to their behavior. Thus in the case of post purchase dissonance,
attitude change is frequently an outcome of an action or behavior. The conflicting thoughts
or dissonant information that follows a purchase are prime factors that induce consumers to
change their attitudes so that they will be consonant with their actual purchase behavior
(Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000: 220).
People try to make sense of the world they encounter. In effect, they do this by looking for
some consistency amongst their own experiences and memories and by turning to other
people for comparison and confirmation. If all factors check out, then all is well and good,
but what if there is some inconsistency and supposing the inconsistency is amongst the
person’s own experiences, beliefs or actions (Rudolph, 2003: 1). Many social psychologists
believe that this will trigger some general trend to restore cognitive consistency: to
reinterpret the situation so as to minimize whatever inconsistency there may be. This is
because any perceived inconsistency amongst various aspects of knowledge, feelings and
behaviors brings up an unpleasant internal state (post purchase dissonance) which people try
to reduce whenever possible (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 2003:10).
Zikmund and d’Amico (2002: 148) state that consumption naturally follows the purchase. If
the decision maker is also the user, the matter of purchase satisfaction (or dissatisfaction)
remains. In some cases, satisfaction is immediate, as when the buyer chews the just-bought
gum or feels pleased that the decision-making process is over. We are telling ourselves that
we are pleased with the purchase because our expectations have been confirmed. In this
case, marketing has achieved its goal of consumer satisfaction.
Czinkota and Kotabe (2000: 31) point out that the opposite can occur – a consumer can feel
uneasy about a purchase. Second thoughts can create an uneasy feeling, a sensation that the
decision-making process may have yielded the wrong decision. These feelings of
uncertainty can be analyzed in terms of the theory of cognitive dissonance. In the context of
consumer behavior, cognitive dissonance is a psychologically uncomfortable post purchase
feeling. More specifically, it refers to the negative feelings, or buyer’s remorse, that can
follow a commitment to purchase. Hill and O Sullivan (1999: 97) point out that cognitive
dissonance results from the fact that people do not like to hold two or more conflicting
beliefs or ideas at the same time. Dissonance theory describes such feelings as a sense of
psychic tension, which the individual will seek to relieve. Each alternative has some
advantages and some disadvantages.
According to Gilbert et al. (1997: 147), buyers reduce cognitive dissonance by focusing on
the advantages of the purchase – by carrying out post purchase evaluation in a way that
supports the choice made. Buyers may seek reinforcement from friends or from the seller.
They may mentally downgrade the unselected alternatives and play up the advantages of the
selected brand to convince themselves that they made the right choice. In addition, Sheth et
al. (1999: 405) state that effective marketers do not want dissatisfied customers. Zikmund
and d’Amico, (2002: 148) report that when marketers understand that any choice can create
cognitive dissonance, they can seek to support their customer’s choices. Fulfilling customer
expectations, which leads to satisfaction, is the purpose of many marketing activities
2.4.0 POST-PURCHASE EVALUATION
After buying a product, consumers formally or informally evaluate the outcome of the
purchase. In particular, they consider whether they are satisfied with the experience of
making the purchase and with the good or service they bought. A consumer who repeatedly
has favorable experiences may develop loyalty to the brand purchased. Also, consumers
may tell their family, friends, and acquaintances about their experiences with buying and
using products. Cognitive dissonance/post purchase dissonance may result because of the
difficulty or even impossibility of fully considering every possible alternative course of
action (Gilbert et al. 1997: 147).
Moreover, Schiffman and Kanuk (2004: 570) show that as consumers use a product,
particularly during a trial purchase, they evaluate its performance in light of their own
expectations. There are three possible outcomes of these evaluations as shown in Figure 1.2:
actual performance matches expectations, leading to a neutral feeling; performance exceeds
expectations, causing what is known as positive disconfirmation of expectations (which
leads to satisfaction); and performance is below expectations, causing negative
disconfirmation of expectations and dissatisfaction. For each of these three outcomes,
consumer’s expectations and satisfaction are closely linked; that is, consumers tend to judge
their experience against their expectations when performing a post purchase evaluation.
Cant et al. (2002: 182) report that post-buying assessment involves a customer’s evaluation
of the performance of the product or service, in relation to the criteria, once it has been
bought, i.e. it is the customer’s perception of the outcome of the consumption process. The
post-buying phase involves different forms of psychological processes that customers can
experience after buying something. After buying something, the customer discovers
something about a product or service, stores this new knowledge in long-term memory,
modifies relevant attitudes, and is ready for the next decision process with an improved base
of knowledge.
Kurtz and Clow (1998: 418) point out that an important component of post purchase
evaluation is the reduction of any uncertainty or doubt that the consumer might have had
about the selection. As part of their post purchase analysis, consumers try to reassure
themselves that their choice was a wise one; that is they attempt to reduce post purchase
cognitive dissonance.
Peter and Donnelly (2004: 52) believe that the degree of post purchase analysis that
consumers undertake depends on the importance of the product decision and the experience
acquired in using the product. When the product lives up to expectations, they probably will
buy it again. When the product’s performance is disappointing or does not meet
expectations, however, they will search for more suitable alternatives. Thus, the consumers
post purchase evaluation “feeds back” as experience to the consumer’s psychological field
and serves to influence future related decisions.
According to Arens (2004: 164), the customer’s decision process does not end with the
purchase. Rather, the experience of buying and using the product provides information that
the customer will use in future decision making. In some cases, the customer will be pleased
with the experience and will buy the same product from the same supplier again. In other
cases, the customer will be disappointed and may even return or exchange the product. In
general, as shown in Figure 1.2, the post purchase process includes four steps: decision
confirmation, experience evaluation, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and future response
(exit, voice, or loyalty).
Figure 1.2 The Purchase Evaluation Process
Source: Singh (1988:102)
2.4.1 Decision Confirmation
Schiffman and Kanuk, (2000: 220) point out that after a customer makes an important
choice decision, he or she experiences an intense need to confirm the wisdom of that
decision. The flip side is that he or she wants to avoid the disconfirmation. One of the
processes that occur at this stage is cognitive dissonance.
Figure 1.3 A Model of Consumer Post acquisition Process
Source: Singh (1988:104)
2.4.2 Experience Evaluation
Sheth et al. (2000: 548) narrates that following purchase, the product or service is actually
consumed. Marketers need to know whether customers consume it routinely or while
consciously evaluating it. This depends on the level of enduring involvement in the product
or service and the finality of the preference that caused this purchase.
2.4.3 Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
According to Cant et al. (2002: 183), a positive assessment of the purchase decision results
in post-buying satisfaction. Satisfaction occurs when the outcome, which may be a product,
brand or store, and the conditions surrounding its purchase, are matched with the customer’s
expectations. Lee et al. (2000: 217) found that perceived quality determines satisfaction,
rather than vice versa. During shopping, customers reach their final choices with quite
different decision goals in mind. Shiv and Huber (2000: 203) believe that while some
customers goals could be choice oriented (deciding on which alternative to buy from a set of
choices), the goal of others may be value oriented (evaluating each alternative with the aim
of obtaining good value for money), and the goal of a third category may be anticipated
satisfaction (where customers assess the likely satisfaction with each alternative before
making the final choice).
From Figure 1.3, it is clear that providing a quality product or service is all about meeting or
exceeding customer expectations. Where expectations are met then the customer is satisfied.
If expectations are not met then the customer experiences dissatisfaction. This logic is even
more applicable to service provision where there are fewer tangibles. The customer has
certain expectations of the level of service that they will receive based, perhaps, on
advertising, past experiences or hearsay. When the customers actually consume the service,
they will consciously or unconsciously, evaluate the performance of the company against
their expectations. If their expectations and evaluations do not match then there will be a
gap leading to satisfaction or dissatisfaction depending on the direction and extent of the
gap. Dissatisfaction, so the theory goes, will lead to a perception of poor quality and vice
versa.
Whether or not they actively evaluate a product during product use or consumption, users do
experience the usage outcome. This outcome is characterized as satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. What is more challenging is to understand why consumers feel the way they
do (Griffin, 1997: 25). Research indicates that consumers do not evaluate the performance
of a product on an absolute basis, but compare it to the expected performance. Thus, if the
product fulfils pre purchase expectations, then satisfaction results. On the other hand, if the
pre purchase expectations are not met, dissatisfaction results. This makes intuitive sense in
our everyday experience (Sheth et al. 1999: 549).
Kerin et al. (2006: 122) indicate that following the experience of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction, consumers have three possible responses: exit, voice, or loyalty. If
consumers are dissatisfied with their experience with a brand, they may decide never again
to buy the brand. This place them back to the start of the decision process the next time the
problem recognition arises.
Figure 1.4 The Formation of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Model
Source: Singh (2003: 4)
Some dissatisfied consumers may complain, and then decide either to give the brand or
marketer another chance, or simply to exit (Wilkie, 2000: 621). According to Kotler and
Keller (2006: 199), dissatisfied consumers may abandon or return the product. They may
take public action by complaining to the company, going to a lawyer, or complain to other
groups. Private actions include making decisions to stop buying (exit option) the product or
warning (voice option) friends.
2.4.4 Customer expectations and future expectations
According to Cant et al. (2002: 239), customer expectations serve as a benchmark against
which present and future service encounters are compared. Customer expectations are what
customers think they will receive in the service encounter, and they can be divided into at
least three levels:
The predicted service level is the customer’s anticipated level of performance
The desired service level reflects the ideal level of service that the customer wants or
hopes to receive compared to the predicted service level
The adequate level represents the minimum level of service that the customer will still
tolerate and accept without being dissatisfied.
Factors that could influence customer’s expectation levels, as well as their zone of tolerance,
include personal needs, self-perceived service roles, implicit service promises, word-of-
mouth communication and past experiences. For this reason, it is extremely important to
ensure that the organization’s promises to its customers reflect what the organization is
actually able to deliver (Van Birgelen et al. 2002: 44).
Snipes et al. (2005: 1336) believe that customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is the end result
of the service experience. In cases where customer’s expectations exceed the perceived
service delivery they will be dissatisfied, and where the perceived service exceeds their
expectations they will be satisfied. Total satisfaction can therefore be seen as consistently
exceeding customer expectations. Achieving this demands some basic prerequisites, such as
1.) Allowing customers to define service value 2.) Exceeding customer’s expectations in key
areas, not all areas 3.) Differentiating the customer base and investing in serving profitable
customers 4.) Investing in training, education and systems, because quality service may be
defined by customers, but it is delivered by employees.
Customer satisfaction is created through a combination of responsiveness to customer’s
expectations and views, continuous improvement of the organization’s offering, as well as
the continuous improvement of the overall customer relationship. The cornerstone is that
quality is a fundamental customer requirement, and if customers are not satisfied, the
opportunities for creating loyalty will cease to exist (Keh and Lee, 2006: 129).
2.4.5 Exit, voice, or loyalty
What happens when consumers experience dissatisfaction? Consumers may exhibit
unfavorable word-of-mouth communication, that is, they tell others about their problem.
Consumers may also not repurchase the brand. Another course of action is to complain.
Following the complaint, negative word-of-mouth is less likely, and repatriate more likely,
if the complaint is successfully redressed (Levine, 2003: 202). If the complaint is not
successfully redressed, the negative word-of-mouth might in fact be further intensified
beyond what it would have been had the consumer not made the complaint in the first place.
Research has found that consumer complaints may actually be good for marketers-
complainers care enough to complain. Non-complainers simply walk out, taking their
patronage to a competitor (Baker, 2000: 55).
The third response is, of course, loyalty. Consumer loyalty means the consumer buys the
same brand repeatedly. It is reasonable to assume that loyal consumers are more likely to be
satisfied. However the converse is not necessarily true, as some researchers have found that
not all satisfied consumers are loyal. Some consumers will still exhibit a switching behavior
despite being satisfied with the current brand (Czinkota et al. 2000: 164).
Belch and Belch (2001: 152) state that this theory of satisfaction has important implications
for shaping expectations. If marketing communications and other elements of the marketing
mix (e.g., advertising, salespersons, price, appearance of the store, and so on) promise too
much, they may create expectations that the product or service would almost surely fail to
fulfill, thus risking customer dissatisfaction. Of course, if the expectations are too low, the
sale may not result. The right strategy therefore ought to be to create realistic expectations
and not over-promise, and to design the product or service so that the realistic expectations
imply a performance level that the target market finds attractive enough to select the brand.
Post purchase evaluation focuses on whether customers have received good value.
Customers may weigh the benefits received by purchasing against the costs of making the
purchase. When the benefits significantly outweigh the costs, customers perceive high value
and are satisfied (Swartz and Iacobucci, 2000: 230). The more satisfied customers are, the
more likely they will become loyal to the brand and the seller, and the more likely the seller
is to establish a long-term relationship with the customer. In other words, customer value
and satisfaction influence future buying decisions (Arens, 2002: 235).
According to Arens (2004: 164), a key feature of the post purchase evaluation is cognitive
dissonance. During the post purchase period, the consumer may enjoy the satisfaction of the
purchase and thereby receive reinforcement for the decision. Or the purchase may turn out
to be unsatisfactory for some reason. In either case, feedback from the post purchase
evaluation updates the consumer’s mental files, affecting perceptions of the brand and
similar purchase decisions in the future.
An important component of post purchase evaluation is the reduction of any uncertainty or
doubt that the consumer might have had about the selection. As part of their post purchase
analyses, consumers try to reassure themselves that their choice was a wise one; that is, they
attempt to reduce post purchase cognitive dissonance (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000: 457).
Dissonance also poses problems for those trying to assess customer satisfaction post-
purchase – as occurs during the measurement of service quality. Dissonance theory would
suggest that post-purchase dissonance might affect the size of the customer satisfaction gap
because of the positive attitude that arises from the desire to reduce dissonance (Phipps and
Simmons, 2000: 237).
Lamb et al. (2000: 353) highlight that almost all major purchases result in cognitive
dissonance, or discomfort caused by post purchase conflict. After the purchase, consumers
are satisfied with the benefits of the chosen brand and are glad to avoid the drawbacks of the
brands not bought. However, every purchase involves compromise. Consumers feel uneasy
about acquiring the drawbacks of the chosen brand and about losing the benefits of the
brands not purchased. Thus, consumers feel at least some post purchase dissonance for
every purchase.
Although post-buying assessment is the final stage in the customer decision-making process,
it is not necessarily the end of the process. The information gained as a result of buying and
post-buying evaluation is stored in individual’s memories as part of their experience.
Customers remember this information when starting another buying decision-making
process. In other words, regardless of the outcome, post purchase evaluation is a learning
process that provides feedback to the customer and is stored as information for future
reference (Cant et al. 2000: 185).
2.5.0 THE PURCHASE PROCESS FOR SERVICES
When customers decide to buy a service to meet an unfilled need, they go through what is
often a complex purchase process. This process has three separate stages: the pre purchase
stage, the service encounter stage, and the post purchase stage, each containing two or more
steps (Lovelock and Wright, 2002:88).
Bateson and Hoffman (1999: 170) point out that buyers form their expectations on the basis
of messages received from sellers, friends, and other information sources. If the seller
exaggerates the benefits, the buyer’s expectations will be disconfirmed; this leads to
dissatisfaction. The larger the gap between expectations and performance, the greater the
buyer’s dissatisfaction. Here the buyer’s coping style comes into play. Some buyers magnify
the gap when the product is not perfect, and they are highly dissatisfied. Other buyers
minimize the gap and are less dissatisfied.
2.5.1 Pre-purchase Stage
According to Bateson and Hoffman (1999: 34), the decision to buy and use a service is
made in the pre purchase stage. Individual needs and expectations are very important here
because they influence what alternatives customers will consider. If the purchase is routine
and relatively low risk, customers may move quickly to selecting and using a specific
service provider. In addition, Futrell (2004: 126) states that when more is at stake or a
service is about to be used for the first time, they may conduct an intensive information
search (contrast how one approaches the process of applying to college versus buying a
pizza or a hamburger!). The next step is to identify potential suppliers and then weigh the
benefits and risks of each option before making a final decision.
Gilbert (2003: 60) indicates that this element of perceived risk is especially relevant for
services that are high in experience or credence attributes and thus difficult to evaluate prior
to purchase and consumption. Perceived risk is defined as the uncertainty that consumers
face when they cannot foresee the consequences of their purchase decisions. First-time users
are especially likely to face greater uncertainty. Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2004: 135)
point out that risk perceptions reflect customer’s judgments of the probability of a negative
outcome. The worse the possible outcome and the more likely it is to occur, the higher the
perception of risk. One strategy to help reduce the risk perceived by customers is to educate
them about the features of the service, describe the types of users who can most benefit from
it, and offer advice on how to obtain the best results.
The degree of risk that consumers perceive and their own tolerance of risk taking are factors
that influence their purchase strategies. It should be stressed that consumers are influenced
by risks that they perceived, no matter how real or how dangerous would not influence
consumer behavior (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004: 197).
According to Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2004: 136), the types of perceived risk are 1.)
Functional risk is the risk that the service or product will not perform as expected. 2.)
Physical risk is the risk to self and others that the product or service may pose. 3.)
Financial risk is the risk that the product will not be worth its cost. 4.) Social risk is the
risk that a poor product or service choice may result in social embarrassment. 5.)
Psychological risk is the risk that a poor product or service choice will bruise the
consumer’s ego. 6.) Time risk is the risk that the time spent in product search may be
wasted if the product does not perform as expected.
2.5.2 Service Encounter Stage
Lovelock and Wright (2002: 89) report that after deciding to purchase a specific service,
customers experience one or more contacts with their chosen service provider. The service
encounter stage often begins with submitting an application, requesting a reservation, or
placing an order. Contacts may take the form of personal exchanges between customers and
service employees, or impersonal interactions with machines or computers. Berman and
Evans (1998: 221) point out that in high contact services, such as restaurants, health care,
hotels, educational institutions, and public transportation, customers may become actively
involved in one or more service processes. Often, they experience a variety of elements
during service delivery, each of which may provide clues to service quality.
The intangibility of services together with other service characteristics, inseparability,
ownership, heterogeneity and perishability, create challenges for retailers, especially to
deliver over time, clear customer expectations and experience of service quality. These can
be used for purposes of organization or store brand differentiation in an intensely
competitive market facing slow growth of the customer base.
Service environments include all of the tangible characteristics to which customers are
exposed. The appearance of building exteriors and interiors, the nature of furnishings and
equipment; the presence or absence of dirt, odor, or noise; and the appearance and behavior
of other customers can all serve to shape expectations and perceptions of service quality
(Hasty and Reardon, 1997: 155).
Service Personnel are the most important factor in most high-contact service encounters,
where they have direct, face-to-face interactions with customers. But they can also affect
service delivery in low-contact situations like telephone-based service delivery.
Knowledgeable customers often expect employees to follow specific scripts during the
service encounter; excessive deviations from these scripts can lead to dissatisfaction.
Handling service encounters effectively on the part of the employee usually combines
learned skills with the right type of personality (Weitz et al. 2001: 362).
Support services are made up of the materials and equipment plus all of the backstage
processes that allow front stage employees to do their work properly. This element is
critical, because many customer-contact employees cannot perform their jobs well without
receiving internal services from support personnel (Kurtz and Clow, 1998: 419).
Bateson and Hoffman (1999: 25) report that consumers evaluate services by comparing the
service they perceive they have received with their expectations. If the perceived service is
equal to or better than the expected service, then the consumer is satisfied. It is crucial to
point out that this entire process takes place in the mind of the consumer. It is perceived
service that matters, not the actual service. Once this simple idea is established, two
subsidiary questions emerge: What is it that drives expectations and what is it that drives
perceptions?
2.5.3 Post-purchase stage
Wilkie (2000: 620) argues that during the post purchase stage, customers continue a process
they began in the service encounter stage – evaluating service quality and their
satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the service experience. The outcome of this process will
affect their future intentions, such as whether or not to remain loyal to the provider that
delivered service and whether to pass on positive or negative recommendations to family
members and other associates.
Lovelock and Wright (2002: 88) indicate that customers evaluate service quality by
comparing what they expected with what they perceive they received. If their expectations
are met or exceeded, they believe they have received high-quality service. If the
price/quality relationship is acceptable and other situational and personal factors are
positive, then these customers are likely to be satisfied. In addition, Futrell (2004: 126)
states that as a result, they are more likely to make repeat purchases and become loyal
customers. However, if the service experience does not meet customer’s expectations, they
may complain about poor service quality, suffer in silence, or switch providers in the future.
The consumer’s evaluation of a purchase feeds back into memory where the information can
be recalled for a similar purchase decision. Stored information about one or more negative
past experiences with a brand or supplier will reduce the odds that the consumer will make
the same purchase again (Cassel et al. 2001: 4). Consistent positive experiences can
ultimately lead to brand loyalty – the routine repurchase of the same brand with little
consideration of any alternatives (Peter and Donnelly, 2004: 53). Some experts argue that
consumers more often develop loyalty to service providers than to physical products
because of the difficulty of evaluating alternatives before actually experiencing the service.
Also, repeated patronage can bring additional benefits, such as discounts, or more
customized service as the provider gains more insights into the customer’s preferences
(Burnett, 2002: 81).
Direct experience of the product is an important part of the decision process. Feedback from
use helps learning and attitude development and is the main contributor to long-run
behavior. Communication activity must continue to provide satisfaction and prevent the
onset of cognitive dissonance. Marketing communications, at this stage, should be aimed at
reinforcing past decisions by stressing the positive features of the product or by providing
more information to assist its use and application (Fill, 2002: 92).
2.5.4 Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
Fernie et al. (2004: 119) point out that service quality has been defined as the ability of the
organization to meet and exceed customer expectations. If the main difference between
service quality and customer satisfaction is that the former relates to managing the quality of
the service and the latter to customer’s expectation and experience of the quality of service
delivery, then improving customer service means delivering service quality improvements
which are customer defined.
Customer’s perception of the quality of service provided by firms depends upon the level of
satisfaction they experience in the process of shopping. Their satisfaction is affected by both
their expectations of the shopping experience and the actuality of the experience (Fernie et
al. 2004: 226). In addition Cant et al. (2002:239) state that if customers experience higher
levels of service than expected over time, then they will perceive the company as offering a
high quality service. If the level of service is lower than expected over time, the company
will be perceived as offering a low level service quality.
Dwyer and Tanner (2006: 450) highlight that the main difference between service quality
and customer satisfaction is that the former relates to managing the quality of the service
and the latter to customer’s expectation and experience of the quality of service delivery.
Therefore, improving customer service means delivering service quality improvements
which are customer defined.
2.6.0 COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY THEORIES
According to Sheth and Parvatiyar (2000: 180) the general concept of cognitive consistency
theories is that the various cognitions people hold have to be consistent with one another.
Inconsistency among ideas causes tension or drive, which people are moved to reduce by
bringing the inconsistent cognitions into consistency. Sheth et al. (1999: 405) highlight the
view that people accomplish this by changing one of the cognitions in order to make it
consistent with another. One specific theory based on the cognitive consistency principle is
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory.
Zikmund and d’Amico (2002: 148) point out that cognitive irrelevance probably describes
the bulk of the relationships among a person’s cognitions. Irrelevance simply means that the
two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Two cognitions are consonant if one
cognition follows from, or fits with, the other. Berman and Evans (1998: 222) believe that
people like consonance among their cognitions. We do not know whether this stems from
the nature of the human organism or whether it is learned during the process of
socialization, but people appear to prefer cognitions that fit together to those that do not. It is
this simple observation that gives the theory of cognitive dissonance its interesting form.
Sometimes consumers experience post purchase conflict or discomfort about the wisdom of
a particular purchase decision. They might then hold illogical views about the brand or
service they have bought. In such cases, consumers might wish to reduce such dissonance
through cognitive and attitudinal changes. They will find a balance in their psychological
field by seeking supportive information or distorting contradictory information regarding the
product or service (du Plessis and Rousseau, 2003: 121).
2.7.0 REDUCING COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Boyd et al. (2002: 120) argue that what makes post purchase dissonance relevant to
marketing strategists is the premise that dissonance propels consumers to reduce the
unpleasant feelings created by the rival thoughts. A variety of tactics are open to consumers
to reduce post purchase dissonance. The consumer can rationalize the decision as being
wise, seek out advertisements that support the choice, try to “sell” friends on the positive
features of the brand, or look to known satisfied owners for reassurance.
In addition to such consumer-initiated tactics to reduce post purchase uncertainty, a
marketer can relieve consumer dissonance by including messages in its advertising
specifically aimed at reinforcing consumer’s decisions by “complimenting their wisdom,”
offering stronger guarantees or warranties, increasing the number and effectiveness of its
services, or providing detailed brochures on how to use its products correctly (Elliot and
Devine, 1998: 383). Beyond these dissonance-reducing tactics, marketers increasingly are
developing affinity or relationship programmers designed to reward good customers and to
build customer loyalty and satisfaction (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004: 281).
Consumers try to reduce their post purchase anxieties. They avoid information that is likely
to increase the dissonance. And they seek out information that supports their decision, such
as reassurance from friends. Post sale service reduces the customer’s post purchase
cognitive dissonance – the anxiety that usually occurs after a person makes a buying
decision (Wilkie, 2000: 619). In this final stage of the selling process, a sales person can
minimize the customer’s dissonance by summarizing the product’s benefits after the
purchase, repeating why the product is better than alternatives not chosen, describing how
satisfied other buyers have been with the product, and emphasizing how satisfied the
customer will be with the product (Etzel et al. 2001: 528).
According to du Plessis and Rousseau (2003: 325), the consumer might purchase the
product on the basis of a recommendation by some non-media source and then attempt to
support the decision by developing a positive attitude toward the brand and perhaps negative
feelings toward the rejected alternative(s). This reduces post purchase dissonance and
involves selective learning, whereby the consumer seeks information that supports the
choice made and avoids information that would raise doubts about the decision. In these
situations the main effect of communication is not the promotion of original choice behavior
and attitude change, but rather the reduction of dissonance by reinforcing the wisdom of the
purchase or providing supportive information.
2.6.1 Changing Product Evaluations
One of the ways consumers seek to reduce dissonance is to re-evaluate product alternatives.
This is accomplished by the consumer’s enhancing the attributes of the products selected
while decreasing the importance of the unselected product’s attributes (Aronson et al. 2001:
302). Another approach is for the consumer to re-evaluate product alternatives to view them
as being more alike than was thought at the purchase stage; this is, to establish or imagine
that cognitive overlap exists (Bahk, 2001: 4).
2.6.2 Seeking New Information
Consumers may reduce dissonance by seeking additional information in order to confirm the
wisdom of their product choice (Beauvois and Joul, 1999: 202).
2.6.3 Changing Attitudes
As a result of dissonance, consumers may change their attitudes to make them consonant
with their behavior (Sappenfiled, 2002: 6). By re-evaluating a product and adopting a
positive attitude toward it, attitudes and behavior become consistent and consonance is
achieved (Aronson et al. 2001: 304). Changing Cognitions - if two cognitions are discrepant,
we can simply change one to make it consistent with the other. Or we can change each
cognition in the direction of the other (Kaplan and Krueger, 1999: 196). Adding Cognitions
- if two cognitions cause a certain magnitude of dissonance, adding one or more consonant
cognitions can reduce that magnitude (Baumeister et al. 1999: 127). Altering Importance -
since the discrepant and consonant cognitions must be weighed by importance, it may be
advantageous to alter the importance of the various cognitions (Levine, 2003: 204).
While post purchase dissonance may be reduced by internal re-evaluations, searching for
additional external information that serves to confirm the wisdom of a particular choice is
also a common strategy. Naturally, information that supports the consumer’s choice acts to
bolster confidence in the correctness of the purchase decision (Hawkins et al. 2001: 629).
Peter and Donnelly (2004: 52) define cognitive dissonance as a condition reflecting a
tendency toward mental unease, which occurs when an individual holds two attitudes, ideas,
beliefs (or other cognitions) that are not in harmony with each other. In this situation, the
person tries to reduce dissonance – perhaps by dropping a cognition, perhaps by
strengthening one – in an effort to make beliefs and attitudes consistent. Dissonance may
thus be a factor in motivation because it leads the individual to change an opinion, attitudes
or behavior in order to reach a state of consonance or harmony.
The more effort a person exerts to attain a goal, the more dissonance is aroused if the goal is
less valuable than expected. Dissonance is reduced as the individual increases his liking for
a goal, and therefore it is thought that the higher the price paid by the consumer, the greater
is the tendency to like the brand and become loyal to it (Foxall et al. 2001: 123). There are
several major ways in which consumers strive to reduce dissonance.
According to Harmon-Jones and Mills (2003:2), dissonance can be reduced by removing
dissonant cognitions, adding new consonant cognitions, reducing the importance of
dissonant cognitions, or increasing the importance of consonant cognitions. The likelihood
that a particular cognition will change to reduce dissonance is determined by the resistance
to change of the cognition. Cognitions that are less resistant to change will change more
readily than cognitions that are more resistant to change. Wilkie (2000: 621) indicates that
resistance to change is based on the responsiveness of the cognition to reality and on the
extent to which the cognition is consonant with many other cognitions. Resistance to change
of a behavioral cognitive element depends on the extent of pain or loss that must be endured
and the satisfaction obtained from the behavior.
Festinger (2003: 3) reports that the concept of cognitive dissonance is an important feature
of attitude theory for marketers because of the emphasis it places on consumer’s need to
maintain cognitive consistency. That is, this theory tells marketers that consumers seek to
reduce mental discomfort or dissonance that could arise from the presence of conflicting or
inconsistent attitudes. Consumers do this by changing their behaviors and attitudes, or by
distorting the messages they receive in order to maintain a balance or consistency across the
whole system of beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviors. Marketers have found that
consumers frequently use advertising and the information it contains to justify or reinforce
prior behaviors such as product purchase and that targeted efforts to support consumer
decisions may prove to influence future buying behavior (Foxall et al. 2001:130).
Chow and Thompson (2003: 5) believe that the special contribution of cognitive dissonance
theory rests in its explicit stress on the consumer’s motivation to reduce tension following
an important purchase decision. 1) Attitude Spread. One likely outcome is that consumers
will strive to see their chosen brand as significantly better than the rejected ones. 2)
Selective Information Seeking. Promotional materials and ads provide very favorable
information about a brand, as do satisfied owners of the product. For this reason we would
expect consumers to seek out such information as a means of reducing their dissonance.
Some marketers believe that consumers read more ads (for the brand they’ve chosen) after
they purchase than they had before they bought (Rudolph, 2003: 1). 3) Motivated Opinion
Giving. More acceptances by others can also serve to reduce dissonance. Thus - especially
for innovations, which most consumers haven’t yet accepted – we would expect to see early
adopters wanting to bring about further acceptance. One way to do this is to engage in
favorable influence attempts on their friends (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 2003: 12).
Much of the research in dissonance theory has been conducted on the paradigm of induced
compliance. A person is persuaded to behave in ways contrary to his or her private beliefs.
Research has shown that attitudes are likely to change in order to restore consistency
between attitudes and behavior. Generally, the magnitude of attitude change is inversely
proportional to the amount of justification which is provided to engage in the attitude-
discrepant behavior. Induced compliance leads to dissonance arousal when the behavior is
engaged in freely, the actor feels committed to his attitude-discrepant stance, the behavior
results in unwanted consequences, and the actor feels personally responsible for bringing
about the unwanted consequences.
2.7.0 CHALLENGES TO THE ORIGINAL THEORY
Beginning in the late 1960s, researchers began to propose motivational explanations for
dissonance effects that differed from Festinger’s originally proposed theory. Three revisions
of dissonance theory have been proposed, and their originators have provided evidence to
support these conceptions. These include Aronson’s (1968, 1999) self consistency theory,
Steele’s (1988) self-affirmation theory, and Cooper and Fazio’s (1984) new look at
dissonance.
2.7.1 Self-Consistency
In his self-consistency theory, Aronson proposed that dissonance is not due merely to an
inconsistency between cognitions. Instead, he posited that dissonance occurs when a person
acts in a way that violates his or her self-concept, that is, when a person performs a behavior
inconsistent with his or her sense of self. Since most persons have a positive self-concept,
dissonance is most often experienced when a person behaves negatively, behaving in an
incompetent, irrational, or immoral manner. One of the primary predictions derived from
this revision is that low and high self-esteem individuals should respond with less and more
dissonance reduction (e.g., attitude change), respectively, because in dissonance
experiments high self-esteem individuals are induced to act in ways that are more discrepant
from their positive self-views. Experiments testing this prediction have produced mixed
results.
2.7.2 Self-Affirmation
Steele (1988) proposed a different alternative to Festinger’s dissonance theory. He proposed
that persons possess a motive to maintain an overall self-image of moral and adaptive
adequacy. He stated that dissonance-induced attitude change occurs because dissonance
threatens this positive self-image. While Festinger’s dissonance theory posited that
individuals are motivated to reconcile inconsistent cognitions, Steele proposed that, instead,
individuals are merely motivated to affirm the integrity of the self. In support of this idea,
Steele presented experiments, where, following a dissonance induction, participants either
were, or were not, presented with an opportunity to affirm an important value. When
participants were allowed to affirm an important value, dissonance-related attitude change
did not occur.
However, Simon, Greenberg and Brehm (1995) presented evidence supporting an
alternative explanation for Steele’s findings that was in line with the original theory of
dissonance. Festinger’s original theory proposed that the degree of dissonance experienced
depended upon the importance of the dissonant and consonant cognitions. Simon et al.
hypothesized that making an important value salient could reduce dissonance by reducing
the individual’s perception of the importance of the dissonant act. They conducted an
experiment in which participants who opposed a tuition increase were given high choice to
write essays in support of a tuition increase (a counter-attitudinal statement). After writing
the essay, participants either were given an opportunity to affirm an important value (self-
affirmation condition), were asked to write about a value that was not important to them
personally but was of general importance (value salient condition, e.g., world hunger), or
neither (control condition). Participants were then asked to rate the degree to which they
supported a tuition increase. Participants in the control condition changed their attitudes to
be more favorable toward a tuition increase, as expected. Participants in both the self-
affirmation and value salient conditions did not change their attitudes. They had trivialized,
or reduced the importance of, the tuition increase issue by thinking about other important
values, even when these values were not personally important and thus not self-affirming.
Other evidence has been presented that is difficult to interpret in self-affirmation theory
terms (for review, Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999).
2.7.3 New Look
Cooper and Fazio (1984) proposed the idea that the discomfort experienced in dissonance
experiments was not due to an inconsistency between the individual’s cognitions, but rather
to feeling personally responsible for producing an aversive consequence. They stated,
“Dissonance has precious little to do with the inconsistency among cognitions per se, but
rather with the production of a consequence that is unwanted” (Cooper & Fazio, 1984). In
support of this idea, Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated and extended Festinger and
Carlsmith’s (1959) classic experiment. In addition to the conditions of the original
experiment, Cooper and Worchel added conditions in which, when the participant tells the
confederate that the boring task is interesting, the confederate is not convinced by the lie.
They found that attitude change occurred only in the low-justification condition where the
confederate believed the lie. This result and others have been interpreted as indicating that
dissonance-related attitude change only occurs when individuals feel personally responsible
for producing an aversive consequence. The new look, or aversive consequences, revision of
cognitive dissonance theory was widely accepted (but see Berkowitz & Devine, 1989; Eagly
& Chaiken, 1993).
However, the results obtained in paradigms other than the counter-attitudinal action
paradigm are not consistent with the aversive consequences model. Dissonance research
using a selective-exposure paradigm has demonstrated that persons are more willing to
examine materials that confirm their beliefs than materials that dispute their beliefs (Brock
& Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986). Research using a belief disconfirmation paradigm has shown
that, when persons are exposed to information that challenges their beliefs, they often
strengthen their original belief (Batson, 1975; Burris, Harmon-Jones, & Tarpley, 1997).
Research using a hypocrisy paradigm has shown that persons change their behavior to be
more in line with their beliefs when they are reminded of times when they did not live up to
their beliefs (Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991; Stone et al., 1994). It is difficult to reconcile
any of these lines of dissonance research with a conception of dissonance theory in which
the production of an aversive consequence is the only motivator of dissonance-related
attitude change.
According to the original theory of cognitive dissonance, the production of aversive
consequences would be expected to increase the amount of dissonance produced because an
aversive consequence may be an important dissonant cognition (see Harmon-Jones, 1999).
However, the original theory would deny that an aversive consequence is necessary to
produce dissonance. In the induced-compliance experiments testing the necessity of aversive
consequences, attitude change may have occurred only when participants caused aversive
consequences for a number of reasons. First, the lack of attitude change in the no-aversive-
consequences conditions is a null effect. Null effects are difficult to explain and subject to
multiple alternatives. Second, attitude change may have been produced, but may have been
too slight to be detected with the small sample size of these experiments. Third, not enough
dissonance may have been aroused in these experiments to produce attitude change without
the additional help of an aversive consequence. For example, too much justification for the
counter-attitudinal behavior may have been provided. Fourth, in these experiments,
dissonance may have been produced in the no-aversive consequences conditions, but may
have been reduced by a route other than attitude change.
To examine whether attitude change could occur in an induced compliance setting in which
aversive consequences were not produced, Harmon-Jones and colleagues (Harmon-Jones,
2000d; Harmon-Jones et al., 1996) conducted several experiments. Under the guise of an
experiment on memory, participants were exposed to an attitudinal object. Participants were
assured of privacy and anonymity, and then given high or low choice to write a counter-
attitudinal statement about the object (to manipulate justification). They were asked to
discard the statement in the trash after writing it, so that there was no chance of the
statement causing an aversive consequence. This manipulation was based on Cooper and
Fazio’s (1984) statement, “making a statement contrary to one’s attitude while in solitude
does not have the potential for bringing about an aversive event” (p. 232).
In one experiment (Harmon-Jones et al., 1996), participants were asked to read a boring
passage. They were then given high or low choice to write that they found the boring
passage interesting. Non-specific skin conductance responses (NS-SCRs) were assessed
during the 3 minutes between the writing of the statement and the assessment of the
participants’ attitudes toward the passage. Although no aversive consequences were
produced, persons in the high choice condition changed their attitudes to be more favorable
toward the passage. In addition, NS-SCRs indicated that participants in this condition
experienced more arousal.
In another experiment, participants who liked chocolate were asked to eat a piece of
chocolate and then given high or low choice to write a statement that they disliked the
chocolate (Harmon-Jones, 2000d). Participants in the high choice condition changed their
attitudes to dislike the chocolate. In addition, self-reported negative affect was increased
following dissonance-producing behavior and was reduced following the attitude change.
The results obtained in these and other experiments demonstrate that dissonance affect and
dissonance-related attitude change can occur in situations in which a cognitive inconsistency
is present but the production of aversive consequences is not present. They also demonstrate
that the experience of cognitive dissonance evokes an unpleasant motivational state that
motivates dissonance reduction. These experiments have supported the original conception
of dissonance theory over the revisions. But why does dissonance evoke this negative
motivational state? Why is inconsistency aversive? Festinger proposed no answer to the
question of what underlies dissonance processes.
2.8.0 CONCLUSION ACCORDING TO MY REVIEW
In summary, the cognitive-dissonance theory is a part of our everyday lives, whether we
realize it or not. When we are presented with viewpoints or opinions that differ from our
own often times we feel dissonance. We, as human beings, are always striving to keep our
lives in balance. Often a balance in our psyche requires that we not heed the warnings of
things to come. As I have shown, cognitive-dissonance is utilized to avoid taking actions.
The chapter discussed the effects of cognitive dissonance on consumers. The literature
review shows that when consumers are faced with cognitive dissonance they seek ways in
which to reduce this phenomenon. It also shows that marketers can develop ways in which
they can help reduce the effects of cognitive dissonance as these can also affect their
products. It also shows that consumers will seek advice from friends or family when faced
with cognitive dissonance.
As many theorists have stated cognitive dissonance does create an internal conflict that
causes someone to take action. Apparently no matter how much dissonance is felt and to
what degree it is felt does not matter. Therefore, it may not be possible to get rid of
dissonance or even to reduce it materially by changing one's behavior or feeling.
As any other customers, haircut clients also go through the same experience for many
different reasons. For most clients, selection of a hair salon for a good haircut is a decision
of considerable involvement, which can cause major changes in ones attitude and outlook.
Given the level of involvement of the decision about the hair salon, some clients may feel
this discomfort at some point in their lives. Many hair salons teach their customer-contact
people how to resolve problems and diffuse customer anger. Some hair dressers go to
extremes to see things the customer’s way and to reward complaining, seemingly without
regard for profit impact.
3.0.0 METHODOLOGY
In this section I will discuss the procedure used to gather data and the statistical techniques
used to analyze the data. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 15.0).
3.1.0 Research Design
For the purpose of this study the research design used is the descriptive research method to
collect data and to find latent negative factors leading to post-purchase dissonance in
females after a haircut. The technique proposed to conduct this descriptive research was
through a survey with the assistance of a questionnaire which gave me clear and direct
access to female’s views as to what makes them feel dissatisfied after they get a haircut.
3.2.0 Survey Instrument
Two questionnaires were designed to find the major underlying negative factors leading to
the post-purchase dissonance in females after a haircut.
The first questionnaire was open ended in which 50 female respondents (25 Young females :
15-21 years of age) and (25 Old females : ≤ 27 years of age) were asked to state ten negative
factors/reasons they think, consider or usually discuss with others while talking about their
views after they had gone for a haircut. The results helped compile 26 negative factors in all,
which females think lead to post-purchase dissonance after a haircut.
Using the results of the first questionnaire, second closed-ended questionnaire was
constructed, in which random 130 female respondents were asked to state accuracy or
inaccuracy of the negative factors from their own experience and observation on a five-point
Likert Scale. The respondents indicated their degree of agreement with the factor by giving
a numerical value corresponding with their level of agreement.
Both the questionnaires were designed to provide simplicity, understandability,
comprehensiveness and ease of recording.
3.3.0 Sample Size & Statistical Methods
The sample study used tells the variability and reliability of the data of the respondents.
The selected sample size for the first questionnaire were 50 female respondents (25 Young
females: 15-21 years of age) and (25 Old females: ≤ 27 years of age) and for the second
questionnaire random 130 female respondents were selected.
The statistical methods involved those of inferential (exploratory factor analysis [EFA] and
principal components analysis [PCA]) and descriptive (mean and standard deviation)
statistics. Statistical analysis was performed on the results using SPSS (version 15.0) to
discover the major latent factors resulting in the post-purchase dissonance in females after a
haircut.
3.4.0 Inferential Statistical Tools
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and principal components analysis (PCA) both are
methods that are used to help investigators represent a large number of relationships among
interval-level variables in a simpler (more parsimonious) way. Both of these approaches
allow the computer to determine which, of a fairly large set of items, "hang together" as a
group, or are answered most similarly by the participants.
The primary difference, conceptually, between exploratory factor analysis and principal
components analysis is that in EFA. one postulates that there is a smaller set of unobserved
(latent) variables or constructs that underlie the variables that actually were observed or
measured; whereas, in PCA. one is simply trying to mathematically derive a relatively small
number of variables to use to convey as much of the information in the observed/measured
variables as possible.
In other words, EFA is directed at understanding the relations among variables by
understanding the constructs that underlie them, whereas PCA is simply directed toward
enabling one to use fewer variables to provide the same information that one would obtain
from a larger set of variables. There are actually a number of different ways of computing
factors for factor analysis; but in this research project, I have only used one of these
methods, principal axis factor analysis (PA).
I selected this approach because it is highly similar mathematically to PCA. The primary
difference, computationally, between PCA and PA is that in the former, the analysis
typically is performed on an ordinary correlation matrix, complete with the correlations of
each item or variable with itself, whereas in PA factor analysis, the correlation matrix is
modified such that the correlations of each item with itself are replaced with a
"communality"—a measure of that item's relation to all other items (usually a squared
multiple correlation). Thus, PCA is trying to reproduce all information (variance and
covariance) associated with the set of variables, whereas PA factor analysis is directed at
understanding only the co-variation among variables.
4.0.0 RESARCH FRAMEWORK
The research framework below describes the connection between post purchase dissonance
experienced by females after a haircut and the latent negative factors leading to it. It also
shows the negative impact it has on females to make them dissatisfied.
Six major underlying negative factors that result in post-purchase dissonance in young and
old females are, Inconsistency between actions and beliefs, Irrevocability of Action,
Consciousness, Importance of Decision, Service Dissonance and Covert Actions. My
research focus is on young females (15-21 years of age) and old females (≤ 27 years of age).
Following is the chart given in support of the above described text.
Personal Internal Factors
External Factors
Inconsistency between Actions & Beliefs
Consciousness
Importance of Decision
Irrevocability of Action
Service Dissonance
Covert Actions
PostPurchase
Dissonance
5.0.0 DATA ANALYSIS
5.1.0 FACTOR ANALYSIS
5.1.1 PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
Communalities
1.000 .661
1.000 .814
1.000 .636
1.000 .728
1.000 .610
1.000 .634
1.000 .745
1.000 .683
1.000 .744
1.000 .667
1.000 .636
1.000 .605
1.000 .709
1.000 .734
1.000 .605
1.000 .737
1.000 .553
1.000 .667
1.000 .533
1.000 .493
1.000 .562
1.000 .623
1.000 .595
1.000 .533
1.000 .728
1.000 .698
Uneven haircutIn-expertise of the hairdresserHaircut incompatiblewith personalityPrice paid is not worththe resultHaircut is too shortHairstyling tools are nothygienicHair dresser rushing thehaircut due to lessnumber of staffWrong decision ofhairstyleNobody accompanyingto adviseNegative commentsfrom peopleNew hairstyle is wellsupported only withblow dryPoor cleaning serviceafter the haircutLong hours of waitingNo refund policy after abad haircutVery ExpensiveUnable to experimentwith new hair stylesHaircut does not give anew lookUnable to communicateone's desired hair styleNot getting hair cut fromthe regular stylistHair texture and faceshape does not supportthe new hair styleThe hair cut goesunnoticed by everyoneComments regardinghair's health by the hairdresserHair dresser's constanttalking and gossipprolonging the haircutMisguiding the clientwith calling every style avolume cutComplicated blow dryhides the flaws of thehaircutHair dresser does notlisten to the client'sconcerns
Initial Extraction
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
5.1.2 TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED
INTERPRETATION:
In principal component analysis i.e.
a correlation matrix which is
modified such that the correlations
of each item with itself are replaced
with a "communality"—a measure
of that item's relation to all other
items (usually a squared multiple
correlation), when applied to the
negative factors collected from the
questionnaires showed that all
communalities are closely related
and the data collected is very
strong.
Total Variance Explained
6.905 26.556 26.556 6.905 26.556 26.556 4.1222.623 10.089 36.645 2.623 10.089 36.645 3.2492.315 8.904 45.549 2.315 8.904 45.549 2.9892.182 8.392 53.941 2.182 8.392 53.941 2.8451.540 5.923 59.864 1.540 5.923 59.864 1.9851.367 5.257 65.121 1.367 5.257 65.121 1.741.981 3.772 68.893.917 3.528 72.420.802 3.084 75.504.746 2.867 78.371.683 2.627 80.998.627 2.411 83.409.556 2.137 85.546.530 2.038 87.583.492 1.894 89.478.486 1.869 91.346.397 1.528 92.874.348 1.337 94.211.298 1.146 95.356.291 1.120 96.477.231 .890 97.367.215 .827 98.193.145 .558 98.751.130 .500 99.251.111 .428 99.679.083 .321 100.000
Component1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
INTERPRETATION:
The Total Variance Explained table shows how the variance is divided among the 26
possible factors. Note that 26 factors have eigenvalues (a measure of explained variance)
greater than 1.0, which is a common criterion for a factor to be useful. When the eigenvalue
is less than 1.0, this means that the factor explains less information than a single item would
have explained.
5.1.3 SCREE PLOT
Component Number2625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
Eig
enva
lue
6
4
2
0
Scree Plot
INTERPRETATION:
It is the graphical representation of the table Total Variance Explained and visually shows
the number of extracted factors i.e. 6 factors.
5.1.4 FACTOR/COMPONENT MATRIX
Component Matrixa
.730
.714
.678 -.410
.649
.632
.629
.628 .412
.605
.566 .474
.561
.558 -.435
.541 .453
.524 -.470
.522
.461 -.450
.420
.658
.629
.441 -.492 .400
.410 .422
-.607
.436 .547
.488 .585
.533
.416 .589
.444 .487 .501
Price paid is not worththe resultUnable to communicateone's desired hair styleNegative commentsfrom peopleUneven haircutHair texture and faceshape does not supportthe new hair styleHaircut incompatiblewith personalityWrong decision ofhairstyleHaircut is too shortIn-expertise of the hairdresserHaircut does not give anew lookThe hair cut goesunnoticed by everyoneNobody accompanyingto adviseHair dresser rushing thehaircut due to lessnumber of staffMisguiding the clientwith calling every style avolume cutHair dresser's constanttalking and gossipprolonging the haircutHairstyling tools are nothygienicComments regardinghair's health by the hairdresserNew hairstyle is wellsupported only withblow dryUnable to experimentwith new hair stylesNot getting hair cut fromthe regular stylistPoor cleaning serviceafter the haircutComplicated blow dryhides the flaws of thehaircutLong hours of waitingHair dresser does notlisten to the client'sconcernsVery ExpensiveNo refund policy after abad haircut
1 2 3 4 5 6
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
6 components extracted.a.
INTERPRETATION:
For this analysis in this research project, I have used an orthogonal rotation (varimax). This
means that the final factors should be as uncorrelated as possible with each other. As a
result, we can assume that the information explained by one factor is independent of the
information in the other factors. I rotated the factors so that they would be easier to interpret.
Rotation made it possible that different items are now explained or predicted by different
underlying factors, and each factor explained more than one item. This is a condition called
simple structure. One thing to look for in the Rotated Matrix of factor loadings is the
extent to which simple structure is achieved.
5.1.5 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX
Rotated Component Matrixa
.812
.725
.634
.624 .464
.619
.565 .480
.553
.550 .479
.838
.835
.736
.435
.764
.733
.659
.577
.751
.672
.658
.655
.818
.494 .562 .485 .527
.520
.707
-.609
Unable to experimentwith new hair stylesHaircut is too shortNegative commentsfrom peopleNobody accompanyingto adviseHaircut does not give anew lookUnable to communicateone's desired hair styleHair texture and faceshape does not supportthe new hair styleThe hair cut goesunnoticed by everyoneHair dresser rushing thehaircut due to lessnumber of staffIn-expertise of the hairdresserUneven haircutHaircut incompatiblewith personalityNew hairstyle is wellsupported only withblow dryComments regardinghair's health by the hairdresserHairstyling tools are nothygienicPoor cleaning serviceafter the haircutHair dresser does notlisten to the client'sconcernsPrice paid is not worththe resultMisguiding the clientwith calling every style avolume cutWrong decision ofhairstyleNo refund policy after abad haircutLong hours of waitingVery ExpensiveNot getting hair cut fromthe regular stylistComplicated blow dryhides the flaws of thehaircutHair dresser's constanttalking and gossipprolonging the haircut
1 2 3 4 5 6
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 12 iterations.a.
INTERPRETATION:
The Rotated Factor Matrix table, which contains loadings, is a key for understanding the
results of the analysis. Note that the computer has sorted the 26 questions (item 01 to item
26) into 6 overlapping groups of items, each which has a loading of |.40| or higher (|.40|
means the absolute value, or value without considering the sign, is greater than .40).
Actually, every item has some loading from every factor, but there are blanks in the matrix
where weights were less than |.40|. Within each factor, the items are sorted from the one
with the highest factor weight or loading for that factor. Loadings resulting from an
orthogonal rotation are correlation coefficients of each item with the factor, so they range
from -1.0 through 0 to + 1.0. A negative loading just means that the question needs to be
interpreted in the opposite direction from the way it is written for that factor. Usually, factor
loadings lower than |.40| are considered low, which is why I suppressed loadings less than
|.40|.
5.1.6 FACTOR NAMING
Factor 1:
Factor # Factor (Attribute) Description Value Extracted Attribute
16 Unable to experiment with new hair styles .812
Inconsistency between
Actions & Beliefs
5 Haircut is too short .725
10 Negative comments from people .634
9 Nobody accompanying to advise .624
17 Haircut does not give a new look .619
18 Unable to communicate one's desired hair style .565
20 Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style .553
21 The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone .550
Factor 2:
Factor # Factor (Attribute) Description Value Extracted Attribute
7 Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff .838
Irrevocability of Action
2 In-expertise of the hair dresser .835
1 Uneven haircut .736
3 Haircut incompatible with personality .435
Factor 3:
Factor # Factor (Attribute) Description Value Extracted Attribute
11 New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry .764
Consciousness22 Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser .733
6 Hairstyling tools are not hygienic .659
12 Poor cleaning service after the haircut .577
Factor 4:
Factor # Factor (Attribute) Description Value Extracted Attribute
26 Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns .751
Importance of Decision
4 Price paid is not worth the result .672
24 Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut .658
8 Wrong decision of hairstyle .655
Factor 5:
Factor # Factor (Attribute) Description Value Extracted Attribute
14 No refund policy after a bad haircut .818
Service Dissonance
13 Long hours of waiting .562
15 Very Expensive .527
19 Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist .520
Factor 6:
Factor # Factor (Attribute) Description Value Extracted Attribute
25 Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut .707
Covert Actions23 Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip
prolonging the haircut -.609
5.2.0 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
(FACTOR 1) - Uneven haircut
Statistics
Uneven haircut130
04
1.154
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Uneven haircut
4 3.1 3.1 3.122 16.9 16.9 20.022 16.9 16.9 36.944 33.8 33.8 70.838 29.2 29.2 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Uneven haircutVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Uneven haircut
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Uneven haircut had the response as Quite Accurate by 33.8% of the respondents.(FACTOR 2) - In-expertise of the hair dresser
Statistics
In-expertise of the hair dresser130
03
1.087
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
In-expertise of the hair dresser
3 2.3 2.3 2.333 25.4 25.4 27.739 30.0 30.0 57.734 26.2 26.2 83.821 16.2 16.2 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
In-expertise of the hair dresserVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
In-expertise of the hair dresser
INTERPRETATION:
The factor In-expertise of the hair dresser had the response as I am Neutral by 30% of
the respondents.
(FACTOR 3) - Haircut incompatible with personality
Statistics
Haircut incompatible with personality130
04
1.295
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Haircut incompatible with personality
11 8.5 8.5 8.523 17.7 17.7 26.221 16.2 16.2 42.339 30.0 30.0 72.336 27.7 27.7 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Haircut incompatible with personalityVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
Haircut incompatible with personality
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Haircut incompatible with personality had the response as Quite Accurate by
30% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 4) - Price paid is not worth the result
Statistics
Price paid is not worth the result130
04
1.188
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Price paid is not worth the result
9 6.9 6.9 6.925 19.2 19.2 26.230 23.1 23.1 49.242 32.3 32.3 81.524 18.5 18.5 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Price paid is not worth the resultVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Price paid is not worth the result
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Price paid is not worth the result had the response as Quite Accurate by
32.3% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 5) - Haircut is too short
Statistics
Haircut is too short130
04
1.103
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Haircut is too short
4 3.1 3.1 3.116 12.3 12.3 15.418 13.8 13.8 29.250 38.5 38.5 67.742 32.3 32.3 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Haircut is too shortVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Haircut is too short
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Haircut is too short had the response as Quite Accurate by 38.5% of the
respondents.
(FACTOR 6) - Hairstyling tools are not hygienic
Statistics
Hairstyling tools are not hygienic130
04
1.233
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Hairstyling tools are not hygienic
15 11.5 11.5 11.518 13.8 13.8 25.435 26.9 26.9 52.340 30.8 30.8 83.122 16.9 16.9 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Hairstyling tools are not hygienicVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Hairstyling tools are not hygienic
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Hairstyling tools are not hygienic had the response as Quite Accurate by
30.8% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 7) - Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff
Statistics
Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff130
05
1.375
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff
17 13.1 13.1 13.121 16.2 16.2 29.225 19.2 19.2 48.532 24.6 24.6 73.135 26.9 26.9 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staffVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff had the response
as Very Accurate by 26.9% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 8) - Wrong decision of hairstyle
Statistics
Wrong decision of hairstyle130
05
1.228
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Wrong decision of hairstyle
6 4.6 4.6 4.621 16.2 16.2 20.832 24.6 24.6 45.428 21.5 21.5 66.943 33.1 33.1 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Wrong decision of hairstyleVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Wrong decision of hairstyle
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Wrong decision of hairstyle had the response as Very Accurate by 33.1% of
the respondents.
(FACTOR9) - Nobody accompanying to advise
Statistics
Nobody accompanying to advise130
04
1.156
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Nobody accompanying to advise
8 6.2 6.2 6.215 11.5 11.5 17.717 13.1 13.1 30.856 43.1 43.1 73.834 26.2 26.2 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Nobody accompanying to adviseVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nobody accompanying to advise
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Nobody accompanying to advise had the response as Quite Accurate by
43.1% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 10) - Negative comments from people
Statistics
Negative comments from people130
02
1.405
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Negative comments from people
15 11.5 11.5 11.538 29.2 29.2 40.88 6.2 6.2 46.9
37 28.5 28.5 75.432 24.6 24.6 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Negative comments from peopleVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
Negative comments from people
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Negative comments from people had the response as Quite In-Accurate by
29.2% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 11) - New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry
Statistics
New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry130
05
1.417
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry
19 14.6 14.6 14.610 7.7 7.7 22.34 3.1 3.1 25.4
46 35.4 35.4 60.851 39.2 39.2 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dryVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry
INTERPRETATION:
The factor New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry had the response as Very
Accurate by 39.2% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 12) - Poor cleaning service after the haircut
Statistics
Poor cleaning service after the haircut130
05
1.259
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Poor cleaning service after the haircut
7 5.4 5.4 5.424 18.5 18.5 23.834 26.2 26.2 50.024 18.5 18.5 68.541 31.5 31.5 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Poor cleaning service after the haircutVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Poor cleaning service after the haircut
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Poor cleaning service after the haircut had the response as Very Accurate by
31.5% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 13) - Long hours of waiting
Statistics
Long hours of waiting130
04
1.386
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Long hours of waiting
26 20.0 20.0 20.025 19.2 19.2 39.217 13.1 13.1 52.343 33.1 33.1 85.419 14.6 14.6 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Long hours of waitingVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Long hours of waiting
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Long hours of waiting had the response as Quite Accurate by 33.1% of the
respondents.
(FACTOR 14) - No refund policy after a bad haircut
Statistics
No refund policy after a bad haircut130
05
1.501
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
No refund policy after a bad haircut
27 20.8 20.8 20.86 4.6 4.6 25.4
31 23.8 23.8 49.223 17.7 17.7 66.943 33.1 33.1 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
No refund policy after a bad haircutVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
No refund policy after a bad haircut
INTERPRETATION:
The factor No refund policy after a bad haircut had the response as Very Accurate by
33.1% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 15) - Very Expensive
Statistics
Very Expensive130
05
1.295
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Very Expensive
14 10.8 10.8 10.815 11.5 11.5 22.332 24.6 24.6 46.934 26.2 26.2 73.135 26.9 26.9 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Very ExpensiveVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
Very Expensive
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Very Expensive had the response as Very Accurate by 26.9% of the
respondents.
(FACTOR 16) - Unable to experiment with new hair styles
Statistics
Unable to experiment with new hair styles130
04
1.274
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Unable to experiment with new hair styles
14 10.8 10.8 10.812 9.2 9.2 20.022 16.9 16.9 36.947 36.2 36.2 73.135 26.9 26.9 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Unable to experiment with new hair stylesVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Unable to experiment with new hair styles
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Unable to experiment with new hair styles had the response as Quite Accurate
by 36.2% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 17) - Haircut does not give a new look
Statistics
Haircut does not give a new look130
04
1.471
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Haircut does not give a new look
26 20.0 20.0 20.026 20.0 20.0 40.014 10.8 10.8 50.835 26.9 26.9 77.729 22.3 22.3 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Haircut does not give a new lookVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Perc
en
t
30
20
10
0
Haircut does not give a new look
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Haircut does not give a new look had the response as Quite Accurate by
26.9% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 18) - Unable to communicate one's desired hair style
Statistics
Unable to communicate one's desired hair style130
04
1.278
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Unable to communicate one's desired hair style
13 10.0 10.0 10.024 18.5 18.5 28.528 21.5 21.5 50.037 28.5 28.5 78.528 21.5 21.5 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Unable to communicate one's desired hair styleVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
Unable to communicate one's desired hair style
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Unable to communicate one's desired hair style had the response as Quite
Accurate by 28.5% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 19) - Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist
Statistics
Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist130
04
1.202
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist
9 6.9 6.9 6.913 10.0 10.0 16.928 21.5 21.5 38.541 31.5 31.5 70.039 30.0 30.0 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Not getting hair cut from the regular stylistVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist had the response as Quite
Accurate by 31.5% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 20) - Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style
Statistics
Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style130
04
1.149
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style
8 6.2 6.2 6.216 12.3 12.3 18.532 24.6 24.6 43.145 34.6 34.6 77.729 22.3 22.3 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair styleVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style had the
response as Quite Accurate by 34.6% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 21) - The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone
Statistics
The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone130
04
1.258
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone
13 10.0 10.0 10.020 15.4 15.4 25.421 16.2 16.2 41.549 37.7 37.7 79.227 20.8 20.8 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyoneVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone
INTERPRETATION:
The factor The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone had the response as Quite Accurate
by 37.7% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 22) - Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser
Statistics
Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser130
04
1.240
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser
11 8.5 8.5 8.520 15.4 15.4 23.816 12.3 12.3 36.253 40.8 40.8 76.930 23.1 23.1 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresserVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser had the response as
Quite Accurate by 40.8% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 23) - Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip prolonging the haircut
Statistics
Hair dresser's constant talking and gossipprolonging the haircut
13004
1.244
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip prolonging the haircut
11 8.5 8.5 8.512 9.2 9.2 17.720 15.4 15.4 33.145 34.6 34.6 67.742 32.3 32.3 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip prolonging the haircutVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip prolonging the haircut
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip prolonging the haircut had the
response as Quite Accurate by 34.6% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 24) - Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut
Statistics
Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut130
04
1.384
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut
19 14.6 14.6 14.615 11.5 11.5 26.226 20.0 20.0 46.236 27.7 27.7 73.833 25.4 25.4 99.21 .8 .8 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery Accurate6Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut6Very AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut had the response as
Quite Accurate by 27.7% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 25) - Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut
Statistics
Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut130
04
1.282
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut
11 8.5 8.5 8.521 16.2 16.2 24.618 13.8 13.8 38.544 33.8 33.8 72.336 27.7 27.7 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircutVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut had the response as Quite
Accurate by 33.8% of the respondents.
(FACTOR 26) - Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns
Statistics
Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns130
05
1.380
ValidMissing
N
ModeStd. Deviation
Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns
18 13.8 13.8 13.813 10.0 10.0 23.835 26.9 26.9 50.824 18.5 18.5 69.240 30.8 30.8 100.0
130 100.0 100.0
Very InaccurateQuiet InaccurateI am NeutralQuiet AccurateVery AccurateTotal
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concernsVery AccurateQuiet AccurateI am NeutralQuiet InaccurateVery Inaccurate
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns
INTERPRETATION:
The factor Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns had the response as Very
Accurate by 30.8% of the respondents.
6.0.0 CONCLUSION
The primary objective of the study was to find the key driving factors which lead to post-
purchase dissonance in females after a haircut.
Twenty six different negative factors were tested using (Exploratory factor analysis and
principal components analysis) to elaborate the study. The research concluded that there
are six major latent negative factors 1) Inconsistency between actions and beliefs, 2)
Irrevocability of Action, 3) Consciousness, 4) Importance of Decision, 5) Service
Dissonance, 6) Covert Actions. All of them are closely co-related and tend to create post-
purchase dissonance in females after a haircut.
People are very reluctant to talk openly, but I don’t see any harm in asking for what you
want. And if you are not sure what you want then ask them for a photo album of various
haircuts. Shortlist few of them and find out which one will best suit your facial structure,
your hair texture, length and body of the hair. Getting a good haircut is not that difficult.
You just need to have some presence of mind and preparation and of course a good
hairdresser.
These results support the cognitive dissonance theory of (Leon Festinger, 1957) and of other
theorists mentioned in the literature review because the females surveyed for this research
are sensitive to inconsistencies between their actions and beliefs, irrevocability of their
decision/action, the importance of their decision, and recognition of these inconsistencies
cause dissonance, and will eventually motivate them to resolve the issue.
ANNEXURE I:
Dear Respondent,
Kindly write negative factors / reasons that you think, consider or usually discuss with others while talking about your views AFTER you had gone for a haircut. It simply means post – haircut negative factors that you consider and point to yourself.
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
1. __________________________
2. __________________________
3. __________________________
4. __________________________
5. __________________________
6. __________________________
7. __________________________
8. __________________________
9. __________________________
10. __________________________
Dear Respondent,
Following are the negative factors / attributes that usually are discussed by females AFTER they had gone for a haircut. Please rate each factor that how accurate these factors are to your own experience and observation. Use following scale to rate your accuracy opinion.
Sr. #
Negative Factors Your Rating
1 2 3 4 5
1 Uneven haircut
2 In-expertise of the hair dresser
3 Haircut incompatible with personality
4 Price paid is not worth the result
5 Haircut is too short
6 Hairstyling tools are not hygienic
7 Hair dresser rushing the haircut due to less number of staff
8 Wrong decision of hairstyle
9 Nobody accompanying to advise
10 Negative comments from people
11 New hairstyle is well supported only with blow dry
12 Poor cleaning service after the haircut
13 Long hours of waiting
14 No refund policy after a bad haircut
15 Very Expensive
16 Unable to experiment with new hair styles
17 Haircut does not give a new look
18 Unable to communicate one's desired hair style
19 Not getting hair cut from the regular stylist
20 Hair texture and face shape does not support the new hair style
21 The hair cut goes unnoticed by everyone
22 Comments regarding hair's health by the hair dresser
23 Hair dresser's constant talking and gossip prolonging the haircut
QUESTIONNAIRE 2
Very Inaccurate
Quite Inaccurate
I am not SureQuite
AccurateVery Accurate
1 2 3 4 5
24 Misguiding the client with calling every style a volume cut
25 Complicated blow dry hides the flaws of the haircut
26 Hair dresser does not listen to the client's concerns
ANNEXURE II:
REFERENCES
Jones, E. (1985). “Major Developments in Social Psychology During the Past Five Decades,” Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol I, Theory and Methods, Eds. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 3rd Edition, 47 – 107.
Sweeney, J., Hausknecht, D., & Soutar, G. (2000). “Cognitive Dissonance after Purchase: AMultidimensional Scale,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol 17, No. 5, p. 369-385.
Landman, J. (1993). “Regret: The Persistence of the Possible,” New York, Oxford University Press.
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38 (1), 2007, 7–16
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.
Haber, H., Leach, A., Schudy, S. and Sideleau, B. (1982). Comprehensive Psychiatric Nursing. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., and Day, G.S. 2003. Marketing Research. Eighth Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Arens, W.F. 2004. Contemporary Advertising. Ninth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Arens, W.F. 2002. Marketing and Consumer Behaviour: The Foundations of Advertising. Eighth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Armstrong, G., and Kotler, P. 1999. Marketing. Fifth Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Arnould, E., Price, L., and Zinkhan, G. 2004. Consumers. International Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Aronson, E., Wilson, A., and Akert, B.K. 2001. Dissonance Theory. Psychological Inquiry. 3: 303 – 311.
Bahk, M.E. 2001. Emotional Dissonance. Online. Available On: http//books.nap.edu/books/0309049784/html/99.html/#pagetop. [Accessed On: 05 April 2005].
Baker, K.M. 2000. Expectations of Social Behavior and Cognitive Dissonance. Journal of Psychology. 6(52): 55-57 Bateson, J.E.G., and Hoffman, K.D. 1999. Managing Services Marketing. Fourth Edition. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., and Boden, J.M. 1999. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9: 121 – 127.
Bearden, S., Ingram, L.E., and LaForge, P.J. 2004. Marketing Principles and Perspective.Online.AvailableOn:http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/d1/free/0074709763/117142/13.2002. [Accessed On: 11 May 2005].
Beauvois, J.L., and Joul, R.V. 1999. A Radical Dissonance Theory. London: Taylor & Francis.
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. 2001. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. Fifth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Berman, B. and Evans, J.R. 1998. Retail Management: A Strategic Approach. Seventh Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R., and Schindler, P.S. 2005. Business Research Methods. London: McGraw-Hill.
Boyd, JR. H.W., Walker, JR. O.C., Mullins, J.W., and Larrenche, J. 2002. Marketing Management: A Strategic Decision-Making Approach. Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bozzi, E. 2002. Expectations of Social Behaviour and Cognitive Dissonance among College Freshman. Doctoral Dissertation. New York University. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B.p3876.
Burnes, B. 2004. Managing Change. Fourth Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Burnes, B. 2000. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Burnett, J. 2002. Core Concepts of Marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Burris, C.T., Harmon-Jones, E., and Tarpley, W.R. 1997. By Faith Alone Religious
Agitation and Cognitive Dissonance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 19: 17 - 31.
Cant, M. 2003. Marketing Research. Claremont: New African Books.
Cant, M.C., Brink, A., and Brijball, S. 2002. Customer Behaviour: A Southern African Perspective. Cape Town: Juta.
Cassel, R.N., Chow, P., DeMoulin, D.F., and Reiger, R.C. 2001. The Cognitive DissonanceTest.Online.AvailableOn:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_200110/ai_n8976559. [Accessed On: 26 August 2005].
Chow, P. and Thompson, I.S. 2003. Personal Development and Cognitive Dissonance.Online.AvailableOn:http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl? Url_ver=Z39.88. [Accessed on: 29 October 2004].
Chow, P., Thompson, I.S., Wood, W., Beauchamp, M., and Lebrun, R. 2002.
Comparing the Personality Development of Post-Secondary Students, High School Students, and the Incarcerated Individuals in a Democratic Society. Education. 123(1): 167-179.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. 2003. Business Research Methods. Eighth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Czinkota, M.R., Dickson, P.R., Dunne, P., Griffin, A., and Urbany, J.E. 2000. Marketing: Best Practices. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
Czinkota, M.R. and Kotabe, M. 2000. Marketing Management. Online. Available On: http://www.westga.edu/-mktreal/ch4mktgmgmt.ppt. [Accessed On: 05 April 2005].
Davies, B. and Ward, P. 2002. Managing Retail Consumption. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dehne, G.C. 2004. The New Student Generation: Are we Ready? Do We Care? Online.AvailableOn:http://books.nap.edu/books/0309049784/html/99.html#pagetop. [Accessed On: 25 August 2005].
Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. 2003. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications.
Du Plessis, P.J., and Rousseau, G.G. 2003. Buyer Behaviour. Third Edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Dwyer, F.R. and Tanner, J.F. Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy, Relationship, and Learning. 2006. Third Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Dylan, B. 2003. Cognitive Dissonance: There’s No Success Like Failure. Online. Available on: http://skepdic.con/cognitivedissonance.html. [Accessed on: 18 June 2004].
Elliot, A.J., and Devine, P.G. 1998. On the Motivational Nature of Cognitive Dissonance: Dissonance as Psychological Discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67: 382 – 394.
Etzel, M.J., Walker, B.J., and Stanton, W.J. 2001. Marketing. Twelfth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Festinger, L. 2003. Cognitive Dissonance. Online. Available on: http://www.wsuprof.com/cognitivedissonance.htm. [Accessed on: 18 June 2004].
Fill, C. 2002. Marketing Communications: Contexts, Strategies and Applications. Third Edition. London: Prentice Hall.
Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. 2004. Services Management: Operations, Strategy, and Information Technology. Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Foxall, G.R., Goldsmith, R.E., and Brown, S. 2001. Consumer Psychology for Marketing. Second Edition. London: Thomson Learning.
Fuller, D.A. 1999. Sustainable Marketing: Managerial-Ecological Issues. London: Sage Publications.
Futrell, C.M. 2004. Fundamentals of Selling: Customers for Life through Service. Eighth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, A., Churchill, JR., and Peter, J.P. 1997. Marketing: Creating Value for Customers. Second Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, D. 2003. Retail Marketing Management. Second Edition. London: Prentice Hall. Griffin, E. 1997. A First Look at Communication Theory. Third Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Hair, J.F., Babin, B., Money, A.H., and Samouel, P. 2003. Essentials of Business Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hair, J.F., Bush, R.P., and Ortinau, D.J. 2003. Marketing Research. Second Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Harmon-Jones, E. and Judson, M. 2003. Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. Online. Available On: http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html. [Accessed On: 8 June 2004].
Hasty, R. and Reardon, J. 1997. Retail Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J., and Coney, K. 2001. Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy. Eighth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Hill, E. and O‟Sullivan, T. 1999. Marketing. Second Edition. New York: Longman. Jeroen, J. and Timmers, M. 2002. Emotional Dissonance: When the Experience of Emotions Jeopardizes an Individual‟s Identity. Journal of Theory and Psychology. 79 - 95.