The main aim of this research is to examine the post-purchase action of the consumers who are experienced with cognitive dissonance because of un-chosen competitive products once they have purchased a product so that the organizations will be better in a position to make competitive strategies and outclass its competitors by retaining the clients. To be able to verify hypotheses drawn from cognitive dissonance theory in the framework of consumer satisfaction and post-purchase tendencies, data is accumulated through a questionnaire from those consumers who faced cognitive dissonance. Logistic regression research is applied because the based mostly parameters are binary in character. It's been discovered that consumers choose dissonance reducing patterns every time they are confronted with cognitive dissonance once they have purchased a product. Dissonance reducing habit leads towards satisfaction however, not always as it depends upon the power of dissonance. Once the level of cognitive dissonance is high, consumer's attitude towards its purchased product will change and when the strength is low, consumer's frame of mind will be secure. By knowing only the buyer satisfaction or sales expansion, organization is unable to identify whether or not there exist a need to enhance the product's features and quality because even the satisfied consumers may be no more loyal due to fact that they have faced cognitive dissonance. Longitudinal study using the pre-post experimental design will be an improved choice in a way that it takes a direct way of measuring power of cognitive dissonance at right amount of time in point but at the same it'll be more time consuming and tests can also produce unnatural environmental effects specifically in this analysis.
Although there is certainly too much research on consumer satisfaction and also on consumer dissatisfaction but an extremely little research on how consumer reduce his or her anxiety after she or he has purchased a product. Research on consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction explains that how different factors contributes to satisfaction or dissatisfaction however the objective of the research differs from research on consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the sense that it takes into account that how consumers reduce his or her anxiousness or dissatisfaction after they have purchased something.
Objectives of the study are the following:
The main goal of this analysis is to find whether or not, an inverse romantic relationship are present between amount or depth of dissonance and the dissonance minimizing behavior.
Feedback of dissatisfied customers is also important for the organizations in order to eliminate the defaults in the product.
Cognition may be thought of as a bit of knowledge. The knowledge may be about an attitude, an emotion, a habit, a value, and so forth. People hold a variety of cognitions together, and these cognitions form irrelevant, consonant or dissonant connections with one another. Cognitive Irrelevance probably represents the majority of the interactions among persons cognitions. Irrelevance simply means that both cognitions have nothing in connection with the other person (O'Keefe, 1990).
Two cognitions are consonant if one cognition employs from, or will fit with, the other. People like consonance amongst their cognitions. We have no idea whether this stems from the nature of the human organism or whether it's learned through the procedure for socialization, but people appear to choose cognitions that fit collectively to those that do not (O'Keefe, 1990).
Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition employs from the contrary of another (O'Keefe, 1990). What goes on to the people when they discover dissonant cognitions? The answer to this question sorts the essential postulate of Festingers theory. A person who has dissonant or discrepant cognitions is reported to be in circumstances of emotional dissonance, which has experience as unpleasant emotional tension. This stress status has drive like properties that are much like those of craving for food and thirst. Whenever a person has been deprived of food for a number of hours, he/she activities unpleasant tension and is also driven to reduce the unpleasant anxiety declare that results. Minimizing the emotional sate of dissonance is much less simple as eating or taking in however (Festinger, 1957).
Cognitive dissonance is a emotional phenomenon which identifies the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or consider, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to support new ideas, and it could be necessary for it to build up so that we become "open" to them. if someone is named upon to learn something contradicts what they already think they know - especially if they are focused on that preceding knowledge - they are likely to withstand the new learning (Atherton, 2009).
A research is conducted in the framework of decision considered by an trader and the cognitive dissonance theory is empirically analyzed and it is concluded that shareholders have a tendency to bias their perceptions about earlier performance of their investment and anticipated to inertial forces investors have a tendency to justify their investment decisions (GoetzMann & Pelec, 1997). Buyers tend to be positive about forecasted information and they don't give attention and importance to the negative forecast information or they give more importance to the positive forecast information (Toshino & Suto, 2004).
If dissonance has experience as an unpleasant drive state, the average person is motivated to reduce it (Festinger, 1957). Now that the factors that impact the magnitude of this unpleasantness have been discovered, it should be possible to predict that which we can do to reduce it:
Changing Cognitions: If two cognitions are discrepant, we can simply change one to make it regular with the other. Or we can transform each cognition in the direction of the other (O'Keefe, 1990). This is exactly in agreement with the Freud psychoanalytical theory. Sigmund Freud (1991) advised that people tend to refuse and refuse the information that might make contradiction. Freud named this defense system as "Denial".
Adding Cognitions: If two cognitions result in a certain magnitude of dissonance, that magnitude can be reduced with the addition of one or more consonant cognitions (Barker, 2003).
Altering importance: Since the discrepant and consonant cognitions must be weighed by importance, it could be advantageous to adjust the importance of the many cognitions (O'Keefe, 1990).
Selective publicity: People have a tendency to avoid information which is inconsistent using their beliefs and could cause dissonance. People will choose only that information which is consistent with their values. In this manner dissonance will be reduced (Griffin, 1997). This is exactly relative to Freud's psychoanalytical theory. Sigmund Freud has described in his theory that folks tend prevent undesirable thoughts and information from getting into mindful surface of awareness. Freud called this protection device as "Repression".
Selective distortion: People tend to interpret the information so that will support their values and hence staying away from dissonance. It is empirically proven in the study that individuals distort the information in the favour of the chosen substitute (Russo et al, 1996). Selective distortion is strictly in agreement with defense system of "Rationalization" which is explained in the Freud's psychoanalytic theory. Freud (1991) said that people explained the unacceptable behavior giving wrong reasons.
Selective retention: People tend to recall the info that will support their beliefs and hence staying away from dissonance (Lauden & Albert 2002).
Changing Behavior: It isn't always easy to justify one's own action. When the quantity of cognitive dissonance is high than it probably will be difficult to justify the habit and in such context people have the tendency to reduce the cognitive dissonance by making a persistence of not repeating the action again in future (Festinger 1957).
To understand the alternatives open to an individual in a state of dissonance, we should first understand the factors that have an effect on the magnitude of dissonance arousal. First, in its simplest form, dissonance raises as the degree of discrepancy among cognitions boosts. Second, dissonance raises as the number of discrepant cognitions rises. Third, dissonance is inversely proportional to the number of consonant cognitions organised by a person (Rudolph, 2006).
Post decision dissonance creates a dependence on reassurance. If the dissonance happened in your brain of a person after his decision then he certainly want to reevaluate his decision. Decision can make large amount of internal anxiety following the decision has been made. Three conditions heighten the post decision dissonance (Griffin, 1997):
The more important the issue (Griffin, 1997).
The larger a person delays in choosing between two equally attractive options (Griffin, 1997).
The greater the difficulty involved with reversing the decision once it's been made (Griffin, 1997).
An attitude is a learned predisposition to react to an object or to class of subject in a consistently beneficial or unfavorable way. Frame of mind itself is cognition. In consumer buying decision process modal, frame of mind plays a major role in the analysis of alternatives (Kotler & Armstrong 2005).
All attitudes have the next characteristics.
Attitudes are learned. They are produced because of this of direct experiences with a product or an idea, indirect activities or relationship with society. For instance opinion indicated by a friend about diet food plus consumer advantageous or unfavorable as consequence of using diet food will donate to an frame of mind towards diet on the whole (Kotler & Armstrong 2005).
Attitude has an object. By explanation we can take frame of mind only towards an subject. Subject can be general or specific. It can be abstract or concrete (Kotler & Armstrong 2005).
Attitudes have way and intensity. They are really either beneficial or unfavorable. They can never be neutral. In addition they have strength (Kotler & Armstrong 2005).
Attitudes tend to be stable. Once they are formed they'll resist if a person feel dissonance (Kotler & Armstrong 2005).
Some times marketers must change the attitude of the consumers. Because purchasing behavior of the buyer depend after the attitude of the buyer towards specific product. But changing consumer habit is much difficult or simply impossible. Therefore marketer changes the product instead of frame of mind of the consumer (Kotler & Armstrong 2005).
Kotler & Armstrong (2005) described 6 stages in consumer buying habit.
Problem Reputation (awareness of need)--difference between the desired state and the genuine condition. Deficit in assortment of products. Hunger--Food. Hunger stimulates your need to consume.
Information search-- A successful information search leaves a buyer with possible alternatives, the evoked collection.
Evaluation of Alternatives--need to establish criteria for evaluation, features the customer wants or does not want. List/weight alternatives or job application search.
Purchase decision--Choose buying choice, includes product, bundle, store, approach to purchase etc.
Purchase-when consumer implants his decision.
Post-Purchase Evaluation--outcome: Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction. Cognitive Dissonance, have you made the right decision.
Kotler & Armstrong (2005) discussed four different situations can be in consumer buying tendencies:
When the consumer engagement is high and significant difference between brands can be found.
When the buyer engagement is low and factor between brands can be found.
When the consumer participation is high but there is no significant difference between brands.
When the consumer participation is low and there is no significant difference between brands.
In the first situation there will be more likelihood of cognitive dissonance as compared to other three situations.
Cognitive dissonance is the motivating declare that occurs when a person is in conflict. Ordinary resources of dissonance are incompatibilities between tendencies and private opinion or between two items of information. Dissonance theory holds that these claims lead to a behavior that is intended to lessen the conflict and it is reflective of the amount of conflict which exist. Rotter argues that folks will not feel personal responsibility unless in addition they feel personal responsibility for their action. In more current psychological jorgan, cognitive dissonance is a primary function of the causes to which behavior is attributed (Rotter, 1996).
Rotter was among the first to suggest that people can be differentiated on the basis of their propensity to ascribe their success or failing to external or internal causes.
Some people are interior focused who take personal responsibility for his or her success or failing. But some people are external oriented who don't take personal responsibility for his or her success or failing. The partnership between attribution theory and dissonance is implicit in the observation that dissonance reflects how responsible the person feels for the results of the tendencies. By classification those who feature outcomes to exterior causes do not allow personal responsibility and they're not at the mercy of cognitive dissonance. However the people, who are internally focused, feel take great pride in when they be successful and feel pity when they failed (Rotter 1996).
This cognitive view of desire is dependant on the assumption that folks continually examine their behavior, look for reasons behind their success or failing, anticipate the probable future results of intended actions and react emotionally with the success or inability (Rotter 1996).
This can be an empirical research relating one independent adjustable and one dependent variable. Several research questions arises which are to be answered such as the most elementary research question is if, consumers have inclination to justify their purchase decision (Which they have taken) in order to reduce nervousness? The next research question is what can be the several ways to justify their purchase decision (Which they have taken) to be able to reduce nervousness? Lastly and most importantly it is usually to be find if, the tendency to justify the purchase decision (Which one person has taken) in order to reduce anxiousness has a poor relation with the amount or depth of cognitive dissonance? The main hypotheses which are to be tested are the following:
Greater the intensity of cognitive dissonance, less would be the probability of justifying the performed action (Purchase action).
Consumers having trend to justify their performed behavior are more likely to reduce their cognitive dissonance as compared to the consumers having no trend to justify their performed behavior.
To acquire data a questionnaire is developed and respondents are asked to rate different items referred to in the questionnaire. Difficulty experienced by respondents in understanding the things in questionnaire is triumph over by in person discourse with the respondents. Context or scenario of every respondent can vary greatly just a bit because of different nature of cognitions performed by the consumers. So items in the questionnaire are elaborated in line with the mother nature of cognitions placed by each respondent.
Amount or level of dissonance is the sole independent variable and it is measured straight as well as indirectly also. Components of direct way of measuring cognitive dissonance in questionnaire (CCD1, CCD2 & CCD3) represent the depth of cognitive dissonance at the moment. Indirect way of measuring cognitive dissonance can be determined by first measuring discrepant and consonance cognitions related to the purchase decision through questionnaire. Discrepant and consonance cognitions are measured along an interval rating level with lower limit of just one 1 and top limit of 5. Vallerand and Thill, (1993) Proposed an index by to analyze the cognitive dissonance is applied and that index is marginally modified in such a way so that amount of cognitive dissonance determined by this index will also give the values that lie between 1 and 5.
Difference between this indirect way of measuring cognitive dissonance and immediate methods of cognitive dissonance is known as reduction in cognitive dissonance.
Six items are referred to in questionnaire for 6 different justifying behaviours and these are the binary in characteristics. The reasonable function "OR" is applied between these 6 items.
As for as participants of study are worried, judgment sampling strategy is used. Only those individuals are selected who've experienced cognitive dissonance. The common sense about the respondents requires two requisites. First is the fact that respondent should be considered a satisfied consumer. Second is the fact respondent must have felt some fascination towards competitive products which he did not purchased. Sample size depends upon the formulae with taking 95% self-confidence interval and the maximum affordable mistake is used 0. 15. Variance for the test is estimated utilizing the rule of thumb. Rating scale is employed in the questionnaire to look for the constructs involved with research. While using formulae, test size is set to be 120. Therefore 120 consumers are selected who faced the cognitive dissonance.
Logistic regression can be an appropriate statistical analysis because of this research as with this research centered variable is binary in dynamics. In logistic regression terms, independent variable is named "Predictor variable" as the dependent variable is named "Response variable". That is as a result of undeniable fact that predictor variable can predict the probability of specific response event.
Probability (Dissonance Lowering Behavior) = [1 / (1 + e -Z)]
Where Z = Regular + B(x)
In order to check the next hypothesis of this research, t-test (Supposing unequal variances) is employed as variance of inhabitants is not known. There are two groupings which are created based on binary outcome of dependent changing and the difference between your mean worth of independent varying is usually to be tested that whether it's significant or not.
Goodness of model fit can be determined by different statistics. For this function in this research it depends upon -2LL statistic, Cox-Snell and Negelkerk R2 reports, Classification table of observation and predictions and contingency table for Hosmer and Lemeshow test.
-2LL is a statistic gained by multiplying log of probability by -2. It denotes the Badness of Model fit. Its value amounts from 0 to infinity. The perfectly fit model will have -2LL add up to zero. The shortcoming of this statistic is the fact it generally does not have higher limit and hence difficult to interpret.
Cox-Snell R2 statistic can't equal to 1 even if the model is flawlessly fit and the worthiness closer to one is considered good. Negelkerk R2 statistic reflects the percentage variance discussed by the predictor adjustable. Classification table mirror the percentage of responses effectively predicted. Contingency desk for Hosmer and Lemeshow test show the occurrence of appropriate response under different situations. In order to increase the Godness of Modal Fit, Iteration changes are made. Coefficient figures will also change and log likelihood will drop with each following iteration. Iteration will continue until log likelihood decreases by less than 1 percent. Goodness of model fit is shown in the appendix B to E.
Reliability of the three items in the questionnaire is examined using the Cronbach's alpha value and its own value 0. 9226 which very near to one. Therefore the range is reliable to a great amount.
Of 120 respondents 72 reduced their cognitive dissonance by adopting different ways of lowering dissonance as detailed in this newspaper. Consumer might choose a number of ways to lessen dissonance. The way which is most regularly used has ended estimating the competitive advantage of ones purchased product and it used 44 times out of 72 respondents. The next most frequent way utilized by respondents is "Selective Retention" that was adopted by 35 respondents out of 72 respondents.
Statistics shown in the appendix F verify the hypothesis that there surely is a negative link between level of cognitive dissonance and inclination to justify the one's own actions as coefficient of cognitive dissonance is -1. Possibility of adopting the justification patterns will be add up to 50% when cognitive dissonance intensity is equal to 2. 944 about.
Reduction in cognitive dissonance is calculated through 3 various ways as current level of cognitive dissonance is measured with 3 different items (CCD1, CCD2 & CCD3 coded in the questionnaire). It really is found that the mean difference of reduction in cognitive dissonance between 2 communities is insignificant as shown by the appendix G, H & I. The t-statistic is significantly less than the critical value in all the three appendices. So the 2nd hypothesis is rejected. Hence it is figured dissonance reduces with the duration of time irrespective of the actual fact whether or not he adopts the justification behavior to reduce dissonance. So it might be concluded that individuals adopt or do various other thing in order to reduce cognitive dissonance and this is exactly relative to cognitive dissonance theory and in the light of cognitive dissonance, individuals reduce their dissonance either by altering their beliefs or by causing a firm conviction of not duplicating the similar kind of manners.
This research is effective especially for technological and electronics companies. The results can be interpreted to be able to understand the consumer post purchase patterns. The results leads towards the actual fact that even satisfied customer might move over to other brands. Which means this will lead towards the theory that client satisfaction and customer retention both are two unique concepts. In order to better manage the buyer cognitive dissonance, it is suggested that organizations should conduct the tests before launching a new product on the market. Experimental design should maintain such a means that several modals (each having different competitive benefit) of the new product should be produced and experimental and control groups should be produced for every modal. Cognitive dissonance of each group can be then measured and compared and tests can be replicated and an optimal modal can identified which minimize the cognitive dissonance.