• No results found

Chapter 4: Anticipation and Expectation

4.3 Expectation Disconfirmation

Users often have expectations of a new product’s characteristics and of their experiences with that product. O nce they actually interact with the product, however, their expectations may be exceeded, met, or disappointed. How these expectations are fulfilled shapes the users’ perceptions of, and their holistic experiences with, the product.

There has been extensive research on the effects of expectation disconfirmation on perceived product quality and users’ satisfaction (e.g. Anderson, 1973; Oliver, 1976, 1977; Olshavsky and Miller, 1972; Scharf and Volkmer, 2000). Oliver (1977) concisely expresses the central meaning of expectation disconfirmation: “one’s expectations will be negatively disconfirmed if the product performs more poorly than expected, confirmed if the product performs as expected, and positively disconfirmed if performance is better than anticipated” (p. 480). O lshavsky and Miller (1972) found that individuals’ evaluations of product performance tend to be assimilated into their expectations, regardless of whether they are positively or negatively disconfirmed. In other words, people with a high expectation will perceive the quality of the product in question to be higher than will people with a realistic or no prior expectation. Equally, people with a low expectation will rate the product quality lower than will those with a realistic or no expectation (O lshavsky and Miller, 1972). However, contradictory findings do exist. For instance, Cardozo (1965) reports that a negative disconfirmation of one’s expectation results in an unfavourable product rating.

To resolve these conflicting results, four psychological theories explaining the impacts of disconfirmed expectations on perceived product quality and users’

satisfaction have been proposed (Anderson, 1973; Scharf and Volkmer, 2000):

1. The assimilation (cognitive dissonance) theory suggests that people will minimise the disparity between expected and experienced product performance by altering their product perception in order for it to coincide with their expectations. It is assumed that individuals seek cognitive consonance, and that a disconfirmed expectation produces cognitive dissonance (psychological discomfort) (Festinger, as cited in Anderson, 1973). The undesirable state of cognitive dissonance is reduced by using the assimilation strategy. This can explain why the confirmation of expected outcomes usually evokes a positive emotional reaction, even if the expected outcome is not favourable (Huron, 2006).

2. The contrast theory posits that the difference between expected and actual outcomes of product performance will be augmented by users: if the product performs worse (better) than expected, the users will evaluate the product as less satisfying (more satisfying) than they would if they had no prior expectations.

3. The generalised negativity theory supposes that any difference (regardless of the direction of the discrepancy) between the product received and the product expected will generate a generalised more negative judgment than if user expectations are confirmed.

4. The assimilation-contrast theory assumes that people have latitudes or ranges of acceptance and rejection within their perception. A slight discrepancy between actual product performance and users’ expectations that is within the range of acceptance will create a tendency for users to assimilate their evaluation into their expectations. In contrast, if the disparity is so high that it is within the range of rejection, users will tend to exaggerate the difference between their product perception and prior expectations (contrast effect).

Hence, it can be seen that Olshavsky and Miller’s (1972) study illustrates the assimilation theory, whereas Cardozo’s (1965) finding demonstrates the contrast theory. In comparison, Anderson’s (1973) experiment (using a ballpoint pen) supports the assimilation-contrast theory to some extent. Participants in this study assimilated their product evaluations into their expectations until a high expectancy extreme when the contrast effect occurred (Anderson, 1973). In addition, Scharf and Volkmer’s (2000) study of the effect of olfactory product expectations on the olfactory product experience also established evidence for the validity of the assimilation-contrast theory. However, it may be difficult to determine which theory is most valid. The effects of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance may vary, depending on ego involvement and attitudinal commitment to the product, as well as on the type, complexity, and value of the product.

Thayer and Dugan (2009) acknowledge the value of expectation disconfirmation theory in user experience design by claiming that it can be applied in assessing not only user satisfaction, but also specific components of user experience. They

recommend the collection and analysis of comparative data on users’ expectations and real experiences, which can then be related to the specific experience goals of the product being designed. This is to determine if the users’ expectations are confirmed, positively disconfirmed, or negatively disconfirmed. Positive disconfirmation can provide insights into specific user experience elements that can evoke users’

unexpected pleasure, whereas negative disconfirmation can identify product attributes that need to be improved to enhance the overall user experience (Thayer and Dugan, 2009). Based on the results, trade-offs and decisions can be made by product designers when designing each user experience element for the product (Thayer and Dugan, 2009). To collect useful data on users’ real experiences, nonetheless, a satisfactory experience prototype is required to accurately represent the intended product performance and experience. This can be a challenging requisite during the early stages of the design process, as information and resources to build such a prototype may be insufficient.

4.4 SUMMARY

From the literature, it can be inferred that anticipation is an influential aspect of human experience. It affects current behaviour (Baumeister, et al., 2007; Butz, et al., 2003a), current emotion (Huron, 2006; van Boven and Ashworth, 2007), and present well-being (Elster and Loewenstein, 1992; MacLeod and Conway, 2005). Thus, through anticipation, people are capable of both vividly envisaging and presently feeling their future experiences. In relation to user experience, this capability can considerably influence users’ anticipation of their future experiences with interactive products. It has also been suggested that users’ anticipation, along with their past experiences, shapes their actual experiences with products by determining their perceptions of and interactions with the products, as well as their overall satisfaction judgments (Hiltunen, et al., 2002; Mäkelä and Fulton Suri, 2001; Roto, 2007;

Wright, et al., 2003).

The users’ extensive mental simulation of future experiences and felt anticipatory emotions provide an approximation of user experience before actual interaction with the product. Hence, this anticipated experience offers advantageous opportunities to assess user experience in the early stages of the design process when functional

prototypes are usually unavailable. Moreover, it can provide useful information to serve as a foundation for the successful development of products with high quality user experience (O lsson, et al., 2009). However, research that focuses on anticipated user experience is lacking. More and deeper studies in this area will increase the prospect of gaining new knowledge to support design for experience from the outset of the product design and development process.

Users have expectations of future experiences with a particular product, which can be confirmed, positively disconfirmed, or negatively disconfirmed when the actual experience unfolds. The disconfirmed expectations affect the users’ appraisal of the product, and shape their satisfaction and perceived experience. The effects of expectation disconfirmation on product perceptions can be explained by four psychological theories: assimilation, contrast, generalised negativity, and assimilation-contrast (Anderson, 1973; Scharf and Volkmer, 2000). In experience-centred design, data on users’ disconfirmed expectations could help designers in making the right decisions and trade-offs with respect to the user experience attributes of the product being designed (Thayer and Dugan, 2009).

This chapter concludes the series of literature review chapters that identify the knowledge gap and provide theoretical foundations for this research. The following chapter outlines the research design, encompassing the research approach and methods, the research plan, the research participants, and the data analysis procedure.