Marketing is said to revolve around the customer with delivering satisfaction as its main objective. Emphasis in the recent years, however, has shifted from mere satisfaction to ‘higher’ (or complete) satisfaction. Observations in the automobile industry in the US (General Motors) and elsewhere (Toyota) that it were generally, only the ‘completely’ satisfied customers who returned for repeat purchases, came as a revelation for business. Some organisations in other industries like Xerox and Saturn also reported similar behaviour (Reicheld 1993, Jones & Sasser 1995). In response, industry began to shift its focus from satisfaction to complete satisfaction.

It is widely accepted among both researchers and practitioners that satisfaction occurs when the performance matches with (or exceeds) consumer expectations but not when performance falls short of expectations. Thus, for a satisfaction response to take place, there should either not be any discrepancy between expectations and performance, at all, or only of a positive nature (when expectations are surpassed). If the discrepancy (or disconfirmation) is of a negative nature then dissatisfaction is likely. Numerous studies seem to support the expectations-disconfirmation-dis/satisfaction paradigm (Yi 1990, Tse et al. 1990, Ervelles & Leavitt 1992 etc.).

However, the term complete satisfaction or higher states of satisfaction, alternately called ‘total’ satisfaction in various (satisfaction) researches, has not really been discussed anywhere in the literature, hence, the same needs to be defined.

The meaning of the word ‘complete’ has been provided in the Oxford dictionary (Hornby 1974), as well as, in the Chambers New English Dictionary (Macdonald 1970) as — “having all its parts”, “whole”, “finish”, “make perfect”, etc. And the word ‘total’ has been explained in the (two) dictionary(s) as — “whole”, “complete”, and “entire". The two, therefore, appear to be synonyms. In the consumption context, ‘complete’ could be taken to represent a situation where all expectations from the product have been met with, all that was in the mind with respect to the product had been fulfilled; a “perfect” consumption. Perhaps, even that which was not imagined by the customer (nor existed in his mind) may have been provided by the product. That is, the expectations that the customer had from the product were not merely met but, probably, exceeded by performance. Thus, ‘complete’ satisfaction levels may include both types of experiences — when expectations were simply met, as well as, when they were surpassed by performance.

Hence, complete satisfaction can be said to be a state that a consumer finds himself in, after a consumption experience relating to a product (or service), when all his expectations and needs from the same, whether conscious or unconscious, have been met and he desires nothing more from the product. Perhaps, he may express it as a form of ‘joy’. This (complete) state of satisfaction is certainly higher than that obtained when a consumer is just satisfied, and, is likely to lead to repeat buying and possibly loyalty.

While it is commonly believed that complete satisfaction may be more likely when consumer expectations are exceeded than when they are simply met, it is surprising that no information is available on how the relationship between the two actually works; how positive disconfirmation would actually relate to complete satisfaction responses. Whether merely surpassing expectations is enough, or is there a need to bring about a certain ‘minimum’ degree of (positive) difference between expectations and performance in order to obtain complete satisfaction? That is, a ‘threshold’ to complete satisfaction.

'Dissatisfaction' caught the attention of researchers much earlier than did ‘satisfaction’ behaviour. And it is in the ‘dissatisfaction’ context that initial work into threshold levels was once carried out. Results of an experiment conducted by Anderson during the seventies revealed that “there is a point beyond which consumers will not accept increasing disparity…". Anderson (1973) concluded that when “this threshold of rejection is reached, consumers will perceive the product less favorably" than the performance would actually justify.

But owing to certain methodological shortcomings in assimilation-contrast researches during that period, which were revealed later (Oliver 1997), no firm conclusions could be drawn from it. Nonetheless, considering that the (Expectancy-disconfirmation) paradigm has found strong support in studies, Anderson's proposition of a (possible) threshold of rejection deserves to be studied further. However, since the subject has not been addressed in subsequent researches, no additional information is available on it.

As is generally found in the literature, satisfaction is measured on a differential scale with one end representing high or complete satisfaction and the other, high or complete dissatisfaction. While Anderson considered only one extreme response of the consumer viz. rejection, which may represent the (−ve) negative end of the satisfaction continuum (i.e. total dissatisfaction), one could also look at the opposite end, viz. repeat buy, which must represent total (or complete) satisfaction from the same standpoint. And just as different levels of negative gaps were held to reveal the threshold to total dissatisfaction, those for (+ve) positive gaps should help unveil the threshold to total satisfaction.

But is it possible to locate an exact point in the disconfirmation continuum at which high satisfaction is fetched, in general? There is no information yet on the degree of positive disconfirmation which would be required to achieve a high satisfaction score. In other words, a ‘threshold’ beyond which, (positive) disconfirmation would generally, result in ‘higher’ levels of satisfaction. Further, if such a threshold does exist, is the change in consumer response a gradual process where the turnaround from moderate to high satisfaction is gentle and apparent?. It will be useful for business, especially from the standpoint of strategy, to know more about this threshold. A higher threshold level implies that the consumer expectations need to be exceeded to greater degrees in order to fetch higher satisfaction, thus, would require more effort on the part of the organisation, while, a lower threshold level indicates that smaller degrees of positive disconfirmation are sufficient to bring about higher satisfaction which would not be too taxing for the marketer.

It was considering the above, that data on two wheeler buyers were analysed with the objective to locate the threshold to high (complete) satisfaction.

The survey among over 200 Bajaj Chetak scooter buyers was carried out in a city (Dehradun) in northern India. (Bajaj has been the popular scooter brand having the highest market share in the two-wheeler market, in the country. Bajaj had a 66% share [followed by LML 20%, and Kinetic Honda 9%] towards the end of 1997. Of late, however, with the entry of newer brands into the market, its share has been going down [to 60% in mid-1999]. Nevertheless, it is still the leading manufacturer in the scooter market, today).

Information on prior expectations was collected from the two wheeler buyers at the time of purchase in the dealer's showroom, and that on post use performance, after an interval of three months at their place of residence (on a 7 point differential scale ranging from very good to very bad on pre-selected [28] attributes, in two phases — 262 in first phase and 219 in the follow up survey, during the second phase). Ten attributes found to be correlated (r >.35, p < .05) with satisfaction (key drivers) were retained for further analyses as follows.

1. Price

2. Fuel efficiency

3. Pick up

4. Body strength

5. Body design

6. Body weight

7. Foot brake power

8. Foot brake life

9. Head light life

10. Overall Functioning

Satisfaction was measured on one item on a 7 point scale ranging from completely satisfied to completely dissatisfied. (See appendix for questionnaire). Data were skewed towards high performance where expectations have generally been exceeded and instances of dissatisfaction virtually non-existent, as could be expected with a leading brand (Table 1). Thus the other [dissatisfaction] categories were collapsed and satisfaction limited to three levels) with score of 1 for “low” satisfaction, 2 for “moderate” satisfaction and 3 for “high” (complete) satisfaction (Table 2). Disconfirmation was classified under five categories — all cases where expectations were negatively disconfirmed were coded as 1 or 2 (1 for wider negative disconfirmation — < mean negative disconfirmation, and 2 for smaller negative disconfirmation >mean negative disconfirmation), where they were confirmed (zero disconfirmation) the code given was 3, and cases where they were positively disconfirmed were coded as 4 (< mean positive disconfirmation), or 5 (>mean positive disconfirmation).

On cross tabulating disconfirmation against incidence of satisfaction (Table 3) it was observed that the number of respondents in the high satisfaction category grew very sharply (from 23% to 79%) as disconfirmation rose from negative to positive. The mean satisfaction scores in these categories also gained from 1.70 to 2.73 (Table 4).

With a view to studying the ‘subtle’ effects of disconfirmation on satisfaction (for locating the threshold), disconfirmation scores were reclassified, this time under 11 categories (very high -ve disconfirmation to very high +ve disconfirmation). The two variables (disconfirmation and satisfaction) were then cross-tabulated once again (Table 5).

It was observed that as “very high" -ve disconfirmation moved towards “very high" +ve disconfirmation, incidence of “complete” satisfaction jumped sharply from 17% to 75% with the mean satisfaction score (mean sat.) increasing from 1.58 to 2.68, nudging towards “complete” satisfaction (that is, towards a score of 3).

It is interesting to note that “high” (complete) states of satisfaction are obtained, among the greater majority, not at the point of confirmation but (only) on “positive” disconfirmation. This supports the common belief that higher satisfaction is more likely when performance exceeds expectations, rather than when it merely equals the same. However, the gap (positive disconfirmation) needs to be “big” enough (4% of expectations in this case; category 8) to be “noticed” and elicit a more favourable response. This is evident from Table 5 where it is seen that less than half of the respondents were completely satisfied when performance just exceeded expectations (gap 2%; category 7) but when the same grew somewhat bigger (gap 4%; category 8) the number rose up to 83%. However, further increases in the gap did not appear to make any major changes in the number; incidence of complete satisfaction hovering around 75 to 80% despite further increases in +ve gap size. Perhaps, this gap size (4% of expectations) can be termed as the threshold which separates high from other (lower) states of satisfaction, in the present study.

In the middle (categories), particularly, just before the point of “confirmation” (category 5), one can see a sudden dip (mean sat. comes down from 2.13 to 1.80 to rise again to 2.44) which is inexplicable considering that the rise is otherwise both sharp and steady. A deeper probe into the background and behaviour of the respondents in this group revealed that they were, in fact, somewhat different from the rest. Foremost, they had the highest degree of involvement in the purchase process (mean information seeking effort prior to purchase 1.55 as against 1.39 of the rest), which has beenfound to have an adverse impact on satisfaction scores both in the present study and in a past research (Babin et al. 1994), also, their mean family size (1.9), which, again, was found to be adversely related with satisfaction in this study, was highest (90% in this group came from larger families against only 66% among the rest; mean 1.66). Thus, they seemed to possess both the characteristics found among low (satisfaction) scoring respondents. Perhaps, this may be an indication of a segment in its own, although tiny, which one could look into, separately.

There does seem to be a threshold which determines the nature of the satisfaction response; once crossed it fetches high satisfaction. It (threshold) indicates by how much the perceived performance should exceed consumer expectations in order to achieve high satisfaction, also demonstrating that going beyond a limit does not fetch additional satisfaction scores. At this point satisfaction, more or less, stops responding to further increases in positive disconfirmation, and thus, may be called the ‘satiation’ point.

While the relationship between gap size and satisfaction is evident, it needs to be noted here, that the gap size discussed here, has been derived from consumer perceptions relating to product performance prior to and subsequent to usage. Further, the derived gap may not always be the same as that intended by the manufacturer; when the organisation believes that it is exceeding expectations the consumer may not necessarily find it so especially because it (the experience) is subject to a certain processing in his mind.

An illustration in this context by Woodruff (1983) and Oliver (1997) would be very relevant here. It has been suggested that consumers will perceive differences between expectations and performance only if the difference is noticeable; that there is a zone within which consumers will not notice any discrepancy (something akin to the jnd described by Weber).

But as yet, there is no information on the width of this zone. As also, whether the zone would be wider in high involvement goods and narrow in low involvement goods; a wide zone would imply that the manufacturer will need to make a greater effort, as compared to when the zone is narrow, to make the difference noticeable. This would be strategically important for marketers. Adequate methodology, therefore, needs to be developed for relating (derived) gap sizes to varying levels of product features from the organisation's point of view, as well as, probing the width of the zone.

Lastly, it is well known that consumers' expectations keep pace with ever improving quality; getting revised all over the time. Thus while it is imperative that products should be upgraded with passing years, it does not really pay to overshoot it by a huge margin at one go, as even the consumer may not be ‘ready’ for it. Hence, instead, gradual but continued improvisations could be introduced in the long run.

References