Hubbry Logo
Customer satisfactionCustomer satisfactionMain
Open search
Customer satisfaction
Community hub
Customer satisfaction
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Customer satisfaction is a term frequently used in marketing to evaluate customer experience. It is a measure of how products and services supplied by a company meet or surpass customer expectation. Customer satisfaction is defined as "the number of customers, or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a firm, its products, or its services (ratings) exceeds specified satisfaction goals".[1] Enhancing customer satisfaction and fostering customer loyalty are pivotal for businesses, given the significant importance of improving the balance between customer attitudes before and after the consumption process.[2]

Expectancy disconfirmation theory is the most widely accepted theoretical framework for explaining customer satisfaction.[3] However, other frameworks, such as equity theory, attribution theory, contrast theory, assimilation theory, and various others, are also used to gain insights into customer satisfaction.[4][5][6] However, traditionally applied satisfaction surveys are influence by biases related to social desirability, availability heuristics, memory limitations, respondents' mood while answering questions, as well as affective, unconscious, and dynamic nature of customer experience.[2]

The Marketing Accountability Standards Board endorses the definitions, purposes, and measures that appear in Marketing Metrics as part of its ongoing Common Language in Marketing Project.[7] In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 71 percent responded that they found a customer satisfaction metric very useful in managing and monitoring their businesses.[1] Customer satisfaction is viewed as a key performance indicator within business and is often part of a balanced scorecard. In a competitive marketplace where businesses compete for customers, customer satisfaction is seen as a major differentiator and increasingly has become an important element of business strategy.[8]

Purpose

[edit]
Ideally a business is continually seeking feedback to improve customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction operates in relation to both consumer and business usage of goods and services. Farris et al. wrote that "[c]ustomer satisfaction provides a leading indicator of consumer purchase intentions and loyalty".[1] The authors also wrote that "customer satisfaction data are among the most frequently collected indicators of market perceptions. Their principal use is twofold:" [1]

  1. "Within organizations, the collection, analysis and dissemination of these data send a message about the importance of tending to customers and ensuring that they have a positive experience with the company's goods and services."[1]
  2. "Although sales or market share can indicate how well a firm is performing currently, satisfaction is perhaps the best indicator of how likely it is that the firm’s customers will make further purchases in the future. Much research has focused on the relationship between customer satisfaction and retention. Studies indicate that the ramifications of satisfaction are most strongly realized at the extremes."

On a five-point scale, "individuals who rate their satisfaction level as '5' are likely to become return customers and might even evangelize for the firm.[9] A second important metric related to satisfaction is willingness to recommend. This metric is defined as "[t]he percentage of surveyed customers who indicate that they would recommend a brand to friends". A previous study about customer satisfaction stated that when a customer is satisfied with a product, he or she might recommend it to friends, relatives and colleagues.[10] This can be a powerful marketing advantage. According to Farris et al., "[i]ndividuals who rate their satisfaction level as '1,' by contrast, are unlikely to return. Further, they can hurt the firm by making negative comments about it to prospective customers. Willingness to recommend is a key metric relating to customer satisfaction."[1]

In a business context where purchasing decisions involve a number of different individuals with varying objectives and professional backgrounds, Jagdish Sheth noted that varying degrees of satisfaction with previous usage of a product or a supplier are one of the reasons why business decisions can become challenging when a consensus on a purchasing decision is required.[11]

Theoretical ground

[edit]

In the research literature, the antecedents of customer satisfaction are studied from different perspectives. These perspectives extend from the psychological to the physical as well as from the normative perspective. However, in much of the literature, research has been focused on two basic constructs, (a) expectations prior to purchase or use of a product and (b) customer perception of the performance of that product after using it.

A customer's expectations about a product bear on how the customer thinks the product will perform. Consumers are thought to have various "types" of expectations when forming opinions about a product's anticipated performance. Miller (1977) described four types of expectations: ideal, expected, minimum tolerable, and desirable. Day (1977) underlined different types of expectations, including ones about costs, the nature of the product, benefits, and social value.

It is considered that customers judge products on a limited set of norms and attributes. Olshavsky and Miller (1972) and Olson and Dover (1976) designed their researches as to manipulate actual product performance, and their aim was to find out how perceived performance ratings were influenced by expectations. These studies took out the discussions about explaining the differences between expectations and perceived performance."[12]

In some research studies, scholars have been able to establish that customer satisfaction has a strong emotional, i.e., affective, component.[13] Still others show that the cognitive and affective components of customer satisfaction reciprocally influence each other over time to determine overall satisfaction.[14]

Especially for durable goods that are consumed over time, there is value to taking a dynamic perspective on customer satisfaction. Within a dynamic perspective, customer satisfaction can evolve over time as customers repeatedly use a product or interact with a service. The satisfaction experienced with each interaction (transactional satisfaction) can influence the overall, cumulative satisfaction. Scholars showed that it is not just overall customer satisfaction, but also customer loyalty that evolves over time.[15]

The disconfirmation model

[edit]

"The Disconfirmation Model is based on the comparison of customers’ [expectations] and their [perceived performance] ratings. Specifically, an individual's expectations are confirmed when a product performs as expected. It is negatively confirmed when a product performs more poorly than expected. The disconfirmation is positive when a product performs over the expectations (Churchill & Suprenant 1982). There are four constructs to describe the traditional disconfirmation paradigm mentioned as expectations, performance, disconfirmation and satisfaction."[12] "Satisfaction is considered as an outcome of purchase and use, resulting from the buyers’ comparison of expected rewards and incurred costs of the purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences. In operation, satisfaction is somehow similar to attitude as it can be evaluated as the sum of satisfactions with some features of a product."[12] "In the literature, cognitive and affective models of satisfaction are also developed and considered as alternatives (Pfaff, 1977). Churchill and Suprenant in 1982, evaluated various studies in the literature and formed an overview of Disconfirmation process in the following figure:" [12]

Construction

[edit]
A four-item six-point customer service satisfaction form

Organizations need to retain existing customers while targeting non-customers.[16] Measuring customer satisfaction provides an indication of how successful the organization is at providing products or services to the marketplace.

"Customer satisfaction is measured at the individual level, but it is almost always reported at an aggregate level. It can be, and often is, measured along various dimensions. A hotel, for example, might ask customers to rate their experience with its front desk and check-in service, with the room, with the amenities in the room, with the restaurants, and so on. Additionally, in a holistic sense, the hotel might ask about overall satisfaction 'with your stay.'"[1]

As research on consumption experiences grows, evidence suggests that consumers purchase goods and services for a combination of two types of benefits: hedonic and utilitarian.[17] Hedonic benefits are associated with the sensory and experiential attributes of the product. Utilitarian benefits of a product are associated with the more instrumental and functional attributes of the product (Batra and Athola 1990).[18]

Customer satisfaction is an ambiguous and abstract concept and the actual manifestation of the state of satisfaction will vary from person to person and product/service to product/service. The state of satisfaction depends on a number of both psychological and physical variables which correlate with satisfaction behaviors such as return and recommend rate. The level of satisfaction can also vary depending on other options the customer may have and other products against which the customer can compare the organization's products.

Work done by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (Leonard L)[19] between 1985 and 1988 provides the basis for the measurement of customer satisfaction with a service by using the gap between the customer's expectation of performance and their perceived experience of performance. This provides the measurer with a satisfaction "gap" which is objective and quantitative in nature. Work done by Cronin and Taylor propose the "confirmation/disconfirmation" theory of combining the "gap" described by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry as two different measures (perception and expectation of performance) into a single measurement of performance according to expectation.

The usual measures of customer satisfaction involve a survey[20] using a Likert scale. The customer is asked to evaluate each statement in terms of their perceptions and expectations of performance of the organization being measured.[1][21]

Good quality measures need to have high satisfaction loading, good reliability, and low error variances. In an empirical study comparing commonly used satisfaction measures it was found that two multi-item semantic differential scales performed best across both hedonic and utilitarian service consumption contexts. A study by Wirtz & Lee (2003),[22] found that a six-item 7-point semantic differential scale (for example, Oliver and Swan 1983), which is a six-item 7-point bipolar scale, consistently performed best across both hedonic and utilitarian services. It loaded most highly on satisfaction, had the highest item reliability, and had by far the lowest error variance across both studies. In the study,[22] the six items asked respondents’ evaluation of their most recent experience with ATM services and ice cream restaurant, along seven points within these six items: “pleased me to displeased me”, “contented with to disgusted with”, “very satisfied with to very dissatisfied with”, “did a good job for me to did a poor job for me”, “wise choice to poor choice” and “happy with to unhappy with”. A semantic differential (4 items) scale (e.g., Eroglu and Machleit 1990),[23] which is a four-item 7-point bipolar scale, was the second best performing measure, which was again consistent across both contexts. In the study, respondents were asked to evaluate their experience with both products, along seven points within these four items: “satisfied to dissatisfied”, “favorable to unfavorable”, “pleasant to unpleasant” and “I like it very much to I didn’t like it at all”.[22] The third best scale was single-item percentage measure, a one-item 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., Westbrook 1980).[24] Again, the respondents were asked to evaluate their experience on both ATM services and ice cream restaurants, along seven points within “delighted to terrible”.[22]

Finally, all measures captured both affective and cognitive aspects of satisfaction, independent of their scale anchors.[22] Affective measures capture a consumer's attitude (liking/disliking) towards a product, which can result from any product information or experience. On the other hand, cognitive element is defined as an appraisal or conclusion on how the product's performance compared against expectations (or exceeded or fell short of expectations), was useful (or not useful), fit the situation (or did not fit), exceeded the requirements of the situation (or did not exceed).

A single-item four-point HappyOrNot customer satisfaction feedback terminal

Recent research shows that in most commercial applications, such as firms conducting customer surveys, a single-item overall satisfaction scale performs just as well as a multi-item scale.[25] Especially in larger scale studies where a researcher needs to gather data from a large number of customers, a single-item scale may be preferred because it can reduce total survey error.[26] An interesting recent finding from re-interviewing the same clients of a firm is that only 50% of respondents give the same satisfaction rating when re-interviewed, even when there has been no service encounter between the client and firm between surveys.[27] The study found a 'regression to the mean' effect in customer satisfaction responses, whereby the respondent group who gave unduly low scores in the first survey regressed up toward the mean level in the second, while the group who gave unduly high scores tended to regress downward toward the overall mean level in the second survey.

Methodologies

[edit]

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a scientific standard of customer satisfaction. Academic research has shown that the national ACSI score is a strong predictor of gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and an even stronger predictor of personal consumption expenditure (PCE) growth.[28] On the microeconomic level, academic studies have shown that ACSI data is related to a firm's financial performance in terms of return on investment (ROI), sales, long-term firm value (Tobin's q), cash flow, cash flow volatility, human capital performance, portfolio returns, debt financing, risk, and consumer spending.[29][30] Increasing ACSI scores have been shown to predict loyalty, word-of-mouth recommendations, and purchase behavior. The ACSI measures customer satisfaction annually for more than 200 companies in 43 industries and 10 economic sectors. In addition to quarterly reports, the ACSI methodology can be applied to private sector companies and government agencies in order to improve loyalty and purchase intent.[31]

The Kano model is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction developed in the 1980s by Professor Noriaki Kano that classifies customer preferences into five categories: Attractive, One-Dimensional, Must-Be, Indifferent, Reverse. The Kano model offers some insight into the product attributes which are perceived to be important to customers.

SERVQUAL or RATER is a service-quality framework that has been incorporated into customer-satisfaction surveys (e.g., the revised Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer[32]) to indicate the gap between customer expectations and experience.

J.D. Power and Associates provides another measure of customer satisfaction, known for its top-box approach and automotive industry rankings. J.D. Power and Associates' marketing research consists primarily of consumer surveys and is publicly known for the value of its product awards.

Other research and consulting firms have customer satisfaction solutions as well. These include A.T. Kearney's Customer Satisfaction Audit process,[33] which incorporates the Stages of Excellence framework and which helps define a company's status against eight critically identified dimensions.

The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is also used to measure customer satisfaction. On a scale of 0 to 10, this score measures the willingness of customers to recommend a company to others. Despite many points of criticism from a scientific point of view, the NPS is widely used in practice.[34] Its popularity and broad use have been attributed to its simplicity and its openly available methodology.

For B2B customer satisfaction surveys, where there is a small customer base, a high response rate to the survey is desirable.[35] The American Customer Satisfaction Index (2012) found that response rates for paper-based surveys were around 10% and the response rates for e-surveys (web, wap and e-mail) were averaging between 5% and 15% - which can only provide a straw poll of the customers' opinions.

In the European Union member states, many methods for measuring impact and satisfaction of e-government services are in use, which the eGovMoNet project sought to compare and harmonize.[36]

These customer satisfaction methodologies have not been independently audited by the Marketing Accountability Standards Board according to MMAP (marketing metric audit protocol).

There are many operational strategies for improving customer satisfaction but at the most fundamental level you need to understand customer expectations.

Recently there has been a growing interest in predicting customer satisfaction using big data and machine learning methods (with behavioral and demographic features as predictors) to take targeted preventive actions aimed at avoiding churn, complaints and dissatisfaction.[37]

Prevalence

[edit]

A 2008 survey found that only 3.5% of Chinese consumers were satisfied with their online shopping experience.[38] A 2020 Arizona State University survey found that customer satisfaction in the United States is deteriorating. Roughly two-thirds of survey participants reported feeling "rage" over their experiences as consumers. A multi-decade decline in consumer satisfaction since the 1970s was observed. A majority of respondents felt that their customer service complaints were not sufficiently addressed by businesses.[39] A 2022 report found that consumer experiences in the United States had declined substantially in the 2 years since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[40] In the United Kingdom in 2022, customer service complaints were at record highs, owing to staffing shortages and the supply crisis related to the COVID pandemic.[41]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Customer satisfaction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Customer satisfaction is defined as a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provided a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under- or over-fulfillment. This evaluation arises from a customer's post-purchase assessment of their with a product, service, , or , encompassing both transaction-specific satisfaction from individual encounters and cumulative satisfaction from overall interactions. In essence, it reflects the degree to which offerings meet or exceed expectations, serving as a core metric for gauging consumer fulfillment in commercial and service contexts. The concept is foundational to business , as higher customer satisfaction levels are strongly linked to improved outcomes such as (correlation r = 0.60), positive word-of-mouth (r = 0.68), increased spending (r = 0.28), and higher prices (r = 0.39). At the firm level, it correlates positively with growth (r = 0.15), profitability (r = 0.10), (r = 0.22), and stock returns (r = 0.08), while reducing financial risks like variability (r = -0.10) and of (r = -0.14). These associations underscore its role in driving , retention, and long-term organizational performance, making it a predictor of economic value across industries. A key theoretical framework for understanding customer satisfaction is the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory (EDT), which explains satisfaction as resulting from the discrepancy between pre-consumption expectations and post-consumption perceived performance. Under EDT, positive disconfirmation (performance exceeding expectations) leads to satisfaction, while negative disconfirmation (performance falling short) results in dissatisfaction; neutral alignment yields assimilation effects where satisfaction aligns closely with expectations (r = 0.29). This model, dominant for over 40 years, highlights antecedents like perceived and value, influencing outcomes such as repeat purchases and complaints. Measurement of customer satisfaction typically involves structured surveys employing Likert scales or 1-10 ratings to assess overall satisfaction, expectation fulfillment, and comparisons to ideals. Prominent tools include the (ACSI), a national benchmark aggregating responses into a 0-100 score across sectors, representing about 40% of U.S. GDP as of 2006 and linking satisfaction to like . Other methods encompass customer feedback questionnaires, statistical models like partial , and performance tracking to monitor disconfirmation gaps, enabling businesses to refine offerings and enhance competitive positioning.

Definition and Importance

Definition

Customer satisfaction is defined as a judgment that a product, service, or feature thereof provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, often manifesting as an emotional response to the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and actual performance. This core concept emphasizes satisfaction as a post-consumption affective state, where positive disconfirmation (performance exceeding expectations) leads to pleasure, while negative disconfirmation results in disappointment. Seminal work by Richard L. Oliver in 1977 introduced the expectation-disconfirmation paradigm as a foundational framework for understanding this process, marking a pivotal advancement in conceptualizing satisfaction as a dynamic outcome of . Customer satisfaction differs from related concepts such as customer loyalty, which entails repeated behavioral intentions and long-term commitment rather than a singular evaluative judgment. It possesses key attributes distinguishing transaction-specific satisfaction—tied to an individual purchase or interaction—and cumulative satisfaction, which aggregates multiple into an overall relational assessment.

Importance in Business and Economics

Customer satisfaction plays a pivotal role in driving economic outcomes for businesses, with empirical research demonstrating strong correlations between higher satisfaction levels and improved financial performance. Studies indicate that a 5% increase in customer retention—closely tied to satisfaction—can lead to profit increases ranging from 25% to 95% across various industries, as retained customers tend to spend more and require less acquisition cost. Additionally, firms with superior customer satisfaction often experience revenue growth and expanded market share, as evidenced by longitudinal data from Swedish companies showing that satisfaction outperforms market share as a predictor of profitability. Reduced churn rates further amplify these effects; for instance, one telecommunications firm saw churn drop by 75% after elevating satisfaction to industry-leading levels, resulting in substantial cost savings and sustained revenue streams. Beyond direct financial gains, customer satisfaction fosters key business benefits such as enhanced retention and positive word-of-mouth (WOM), which serve as cost-effective growth mechanisms. Satisfied customers are significantly more likely to engage in WOM, recommending products or services to others and thereby lowering marketing expenses while boosting acquisition rates. This translates into competitive advantages, enabling firms to differentiate in crowded markets and build barriers against rivals through superior perceived value. On a broader scale, customer satisfaction influences behavior economics by shaping spending patterns and market dynamics, with high levels driving industry-wide standards for quality and innovation. The (ACSI) provides key , revealing that national satisfaction trends correlate closely with GDP growth, as —accounting for about 70% of U.S. GDP—rises with improved satisfaction, contributing to overall economic health. As of Q3 2025, the national ACSI score remained stable at 76.9 (on a 0-100 scale), reflecting ongoing correlations with like and GDP growth.

Theoretical Foundations

Expectation-Disconfirmation Model

The Expectation-Disconfirmation Model, developed by Richard L. Oliver in 1980, posits that customer satisfaction emerges from a cognitive comparison between pre-purchase expectations and post-purchase perceptions of product or service performance. This model builds on Leon Festinger's 1957 theory of , which describes the psychological tension arising from discrepancies between beliefs and experiences, adapting it to consumer behavior contexts where such tensions influence satisfaction judgments. Oliver's framework, detailed in his seminal paper, integrates disconfirmation as the key mechanism driving satisfaction outcomes, emphasizing its role in post-consumption evaluations. At its core, the model comprises four primary components: expectations, formed as anticipatory beliefs about a product's attributes prior to purchase; perceived performance, representing the actual experience during or after consumption; disconfirmation, calculated as the difference between performance and expectations (positive if performance exceeds expectations, negative if it falls short, and zero for exact alignment); and satisfaction, the resultant emotional response. The process unfolds in a step-by-step evaluation: consumers first establish expectations based on prior , cues, or word-of-mouth; they then encounter the product's performance; next, they compute disconfirmation by subtracting expectations from performance; finally, this gap determines satisfaction levels—confirmation yields neutral satisfaction, positive disconfirmation leads to delight or high satisfaction, and negative disconfirmation results in dissatisfaction. This sequential pathway highlights how satisfaction is not merely a direct assessment of performance but a relative judgment shaped by unmet or exceeded anticipations. Mathematically, the model is often represented as S=f(P−E)S = f(P - E), where SS denotes satisfaction, PP is perceived performance, EE is expectations, and ff indicates a function that transforms the disconfirmation score (D = P - E) into satisfaction, potentially incorporating weights for attribute importance in multi-dimensional evaluations (e.g., S=f(∑wi(Pi−Ei))S = f(\sum w_i (P_i - E_i)), with wiw_i as weights and subscripts for attributes). Variations account for nonlinear effects, such as on extreme positive disconfirmations. Extensions of the model integrate elements from assimilation-contrast theory to address boundary conditions, particularly for extreme disconfirmations. Under this integration, small discrepancies are assimilated—consumers adjust perceptions toward expectations to minimize dissonance—while large gaps trigger contrast effects, exaggerating the perceived difference and amplifying satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This refinement, explored in subsequent analyses of Oliver's work, explains why moderate surprises enhance satisfaction more predictably than outliers, enhancing the model's applicability to diverse consumption scenarios.

Other Key Theories

The theoretical underpinnings of customer satisfaction beyond the expectation-disconfirmation model trace their roots to mid-20th-century psychology, particularly social exchange and cognitive processes from the 1960s, which were progressively adapted into marketing paradigms by the 1990s to account for multifaceted consumer experiences. Early influences drew from psychological models emphasizing fairness and cognition, evolving into consumer-specific frameworks that integrated emotional, social, and perceptual dimensions as marketing scholarship expanded to address post-purchase behaviors and relational dynamics. Equity theory, originally formulated by J. Stacy Adams in 1965, conceptualizes satisfaction as emerging from perceived fairness in social exchanges, where individuals assess the balance between their inputs (e.g., effort, ) and outputs (e.g., benefits, rewards) relative to those of others, such as other customers or the provider. In consumer contexts, this manifests as dissatisfaction when buyers perceive inequity, such as overpaying for a product compared to peers, prompting motivational responses like reduced or complaints to restore balance. The theory's emphasis on highlights how social comparisons influence satisfaction, extending beyond individual expectations to relational equity in transactions. Attribution theory, advanced by Bernard Weiner in frameworks from the 1970s and 1980s, posits that post-purchase satisfaction depends on consumers' causal attributions for outcomes, categorized by dimensions like locus (internal vs. external), stability (enduring vs. temporary), and controllability (intentional vs. unintentional). For example, attributing a service failure to a company's controllable internal factors (e.g., poor ) intensifies dissatisfaction and erodes trust more than attributing it to stable external causes (e.g., ), shaping emotional responses and future behaviors like word-of-mouth. This theory elucidates the interpretive processes underlying satisfaction, particularly in ambiguous or negative experiences. Value-percept theory frames satisfaction as the outcome of discrepancies between desired and perceived values in a transaction, where perceived value represents the consumer's overall of derived from benefits received relative to costs paid, as synthesized by Valarie Zeithaml in 1988. Unlike predictive standards, this approach centers on holistic value judgments—encompassing , , and acquisition efforts—allowing satisfaction to arise from alignment with personal ideals rather than mere performance forecasts; for instance, a premium-priced item may satisfy if its experiential benefits exceed monetary sacrifice. Seminal work by Westbrook and Reilly () further formalized this as value-percept disparity, positioning it as a desirable alternative emphasizing emotional fulfillment over cognitive disconfirmation. These theories collectively address shortcomings in the expectation-disconfirmation model by incorporating overlooked elements: introduces social comparison and fairness norms, attribution theory adds and emotional valence, and value-percept theory prioritizes subjective value hierarchies, providing a more nuanced lens for contexts like relational services or cultural influences where isolated performance evaluations fall short. This evolution reflects a shift from unidirectional psychological models to integrative perspectives, enhancing explanatory power for diverse satisfaction drivers.

Measurement and Assessment

Survey Methodologies

Survey methodologies for assessing satisfaction involve structured approaches to gathering feedback that align with theoretical models, such as measuring disconfirmation gaps between expectations and experiences. Two primary types of surveys are used: transactional and relationship surveys. Transactional surveys focus on specific customer interactions, such as post-purchase experiences or support encounters, providing targeted feedback on individual touchpoints. In contrast, relationship surveys evaluate the overall satisfaction and toward the , offering a broader perspective on long-term customer sentiment. Transactional surveys enable precise identification of issues at granular levels but require frequent administration to capture evolving interactions, while relationship surveys facilitate and over time yet may overlook specific pain points without supplementary data. Data collection techniques vary to suit different contexts, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Online questionnaires are cost-effective, allow wide reach, and enable real-time data access, though they suffer from lower response rates and risks of fraud or incomplete submissions. Phone interviews offer high response rates and the opportunity for clarifications through personal interaction, but they are more expensive and time-consuming, potentially introducing interviewer bias. In-app feedback mechanisms, integrated into mobile or digital platforms, capture immediate reactions during use with high convenience and contextual relevance, yet they may limit participation to active users and face challenges with technical glitches or short attention spans. Effective question design is crucial to elicit reliable responses. Likert scales, typically ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, quantify levels of agreement or satisfaction, providing measurable data while maintaining balance to prevent . Open-ended questions complement these by allowing qualitative insights into customer motivations or suggestions, though they should be used sparingly, often as a single optional prompt at the survey's end, to avoid overwhelming respondents. To minimize , questions must employ neutral language, avoid leading phrasing, and separate compound ideas into distinct items, ensuring clarity and fairness in responses. Sampling strategies determine the validity of survey results by influencing representativeness. Random sampling, where every has an equal selection chance, promotes unbiased, generalizable findings but demands comprehensive lists and resources. , relying on readily available participants, is simpler and faster to implement, yet it risks non-representative outcomes due to potential biases toward accessible groups. Researchers prioritize random methods when possible to ensure the sample mirrors the broader base, adjusting for stratification by demographics if needed. Timing and frequency of surveys impact data freshness and respondent burden. Immediate post-interaction deployment, as in transactional surveys, captures vivid recollections shortly after events like purchases, enhancing accuracy but possibly inflating positivity from recency effects. Longitudinal tracking, involving periodic relationship surveys over months or years with the same cohort, reveals trends in satisfaction evolution, though it requires sustained engagement to mitigate attrition. Ethical considerations underpin trustworthy survey practices. protects respondent identities, fostering honest feedback by assuring no linkage to personal details. mandates clear disclosure of the survey's purpose, data usage, and participation rights prior to involvement, allowing voluntary opt-in without . Data privacy compliance, particularly under regulations like the EU's GDPR, requires explicit, revocable for processing personal information, minimization of collected data, secure storage, and breach reporting within 72 hours, with non-compliance risking substantial fines.

Common Indices and Scales

The (NPS) is a key metric for gauging customer loyalty and predicting business growth, calculated as the percentage of promoters (customers rating the likelihood of recommending a company or product 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale) minus the percentage of detractors (ratings of 0-6), with passive responses (7-8) excluded. Introduced by Frederick F. Reichheld in his 2003 Harvard Business Review article "The One Number You Need to Grow," NPS emerged from research showing that promoter shares strongly correlate with revenue growth across industries. Benchmarks established by , which commercialized the system, classify NPS scores above 50 as excellent and above 80 as world-class, though optimal thresholds vary by sector. The Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) offers a direct, post-interaction measure of how well a product, service, or meets customer expectations, typically derived from a single survey question using a such as 1-5 (very dissatisfied to very satisfied) or 1-10. Satisfaction is quantified as the of respondents selecting positive ratings (e.g., 4-5 on a 5-point scale or 7-10 on a 10-point scale) out of total responses, providing a simple from 0% to 100%. This metric prioritizes immediacy, often applied immediately after transactions to capture transactional satisfaction without broader loyalty implications. Launched in 1994 by Claes Fornell at the University of Michigan's , the (ACSI) functions as a standardized national , benchmarking satisfaction across U.S. industries through annual and quarterly surveys of approximately 200,000 customers. The ACSI model employs to link antecedents like customer expectations, perceived quality (encompassing reliability and customization), and perceived value (quality relative to price) with satisfaction outcomes, including disconfirmation (the gap between expectations and performance). Scores, scaled from 0 to 100, are computed as a weighted average of three core survey questions assessing overall satisfaction, expectation fulfillment, and comparison to an ideal standard, yielding an index that correlates with GDP trends and stock performance. The instrument, pioneered by A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry in their 1988 Journal of Retailing paper, quantifies via gaps between expected and perceived performance across five dimensions: tangibles (physical aspects like facilities and materials), reliability (dependable service delivery), responsiveness (prompt assistance), assurance (trust-inspiring competence and courtesy), and empathy (personalized care). Each dimension is evaluated through 22 paired statements (expectations and perceptions), with the gap score calculated as the average perception rating minus the average expectation rating per item; negative gaps highlight improvement areas, emphasizing diagnostic utility over absolute scores. The European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI), developed in 1999 as a pan-European counterpart to the ACSI, integrates similar structural elements—corporate image, expectations, perceived quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty—into a model tailored for cross-national comparisons across EU countries and sectors. Like the ACSI, ECSI scores are derived from customer surveys using , producing indices that inform policy and business strategy at both firm and regional levels. Industry-specific adaptations of these core scales, such as the E-S-QUAL for developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and in 2005, extend dimensions to online contexts like (ease of ), fulfillment (order accuracy), system , and , measured via 22 items to address digital service gaps.

Influencing Factors

Internal Factors

Customer expectations form the foundational benchmark for evaluating satisfaction, derived primarily from prior experiences, exposure to , and individual personal needs. Prior interactions with similar products or services establish a reference point; for instance, a history of reliable delivery from one retailer can elevate expectations for timeliness in subsequent purchases. Advertising further shapes these benchmarks by highlighting idealized features or outcomes, often leading customers to anticipate performance that aligns with promotional claims. Personal needs, varying by context such as urgency or lifestyle requirements, personalize these expectations, making satisfaction more subjective to the individual's circumstances. Perceived value, another key internal driver, arises from the customer's personal assessment of benefits received against costs expended, encompassing monetary, time, and effort investments. This is heavily influenced by demographics; for example, variations in age and can affect satisfaction priorities. Such demographic variations underscore how perceived value is not uniform but tailored to personal economic and life-stage contexts, directly impacting overall satisfaction levels. Emotional and psychological factors profoundly modulate satisfaction through elements like mood, involvement, and cognitive biases. A positive pre-consumption mood can amplify favorable interpretations of experiences, enhancing satisfaction even with average service, whereas negative moods may heighten scrutiny and reduce it. High personal involvement, such as in purchases tied to self-identity, intensifies emotional investment and leads to more rigorous evaluations. Cognitive biases, including , further distort assessments by predisposing customers to overweight information confirming preconceived notions about a , often resulting in polarized satisfaction ratings. These internal states tie into broader theoretical frameworks like expectation-disconfirmation, where psychological filters alter the gap between anticipated and actual outcomes. The cumulative effects of past interactions build enduring satisfaction thresholds, where repeated engagements create a holistic view rather than isolated judgments. Positive historical encounters foster and higher tolerance for imperfections, effectively raising the bar for future satisfaction, while negative accumulations can lower expectations preemptively. This ongoing aggregation means that a single transaction's impact diminishes over time, overshadowed by the aggregate pattern of reliability or . Research highlights how personality traits influence these internal dynamics; for example, individuals high in tend to exhibit higher satisfaction due to their propensity for positive attributions in service encounters, correlating with more lenient evaluations of ambiguities.

External Factors

Product and service attributes, including reliability, features, and customization, serve as direct influencers of customer satisfaction by meeting or exceeding user expectations in performance and adaptability. In a study of Malaysian firms, (β=0.260, p=0.0216) and serviceability (β=0.375, p=0.0001) emerged as significant positive predictors of satisfaction among 78 respondents, while perceived quality also showed a strong effect (β=0.357, p=0.0025). Customization enhancements, such as tailored product options, further boost satisfaction by aligning offerings with individual needs, leading to higher in . Customer service interactions, characterized by , , and resolution speed, significantly shape satisfaction through effective problem handling and emotional support. Dimensions of like and , as outlined in established frameworks, positively correlate with satisfaction levels. A longitudinal healthcare study confirmed that sustained and quick not only elevate immediate satisfaction but also contribute to long-term profitability by fostering repeat interactions. Pricing and value perception influence satisfaction by balancing perceived costs against benefits, where fairness perceptions mediate overall evaluations. In an empirical test among 246 automobile buyers, price fairness directly and indirectly affected satisfaction through value judgments, with unfair pricing reducing satisfaction by amplifying feelings of vulnerability in high-stakes purchases. Promotions that enhance perceived value, such as discounts aligning costs with quality, further strengthen satisfaction, particularly when they signal equitable treatment relative to competitors. The external environment, encompassing brand reputation, competition, and economic conditions, modulates satisfaction by shaping contextual expectations and alternatives. Brand reputation positively impacts satisfaction by building trust, with one analysis of service firms showing it mediating loyalty through customer satisfaction and trust (significant effect, p<0.05). Intense competition can elevate satisfaction standards. Economic conditions like inflation erode satisfaction by constraining budgets and heightening price sensitivity, while growth expands consumer outlooks and purchasing power, leading to higher satisfaction ratings in expanding economies. In recent years, digital factors such as online reviews and AI-driven personalization have emerged as additional influencers, particularly post-pandemic, where health and safety concerns affect service satisfaction as of 2023. Industry-specific examples illustrate these factors' varied impacts. In retail, in-store experiences—encompassing layout, staff assistance, and ambiance—enhance overall satisfaction, with one study finding satisfactory environments increasing cumulative satisfaction and among shoppers. Conversely, in technology sectors, stands out, as a survey of 603 users revealed it strongly predicts satisfaction (β=0.47, p=0.002), primarily through efficiency in interface . A case in airlines underscores on-time performance; consumers value it at $1.56 per minute avoided delay, with a 10% OTP improvement boosting demand by 2.39% and profits by 3.95%.

Applications and Strategies

Marketing and Retention Strategies

Businesses leverage customer satisfaction data to implement personalization tactics in marketing, tailoring offerings to individual preferences and thereby enhancing engagement and loyalty. Recommendation engines, powered by AI and machine learning, analyze past purchases, browsing behavior, and satisfaction feedback to suggest relevant products, reducing dissatisfaction from irrelevant suggestions and improving perceived shopping experiences. For instance, these systems employ needs-satisfaction-selling strategies, where satisfaction insights inform real-time recommendations, leading to higher customer retention and revenue growth. Empirical studies confirm that personalized product recommendations positively influence user satisfaction through factors like accuracy and quality, fostering repurchase intentions. Loyalty programs integrate satisfaction feedback by offering rewards such as points, tiers, or exclusive perks that respond to customer input, encouraging repeat business and long-term commitment. These programs tie rewards to satisfaction metrics, allowing es to refine benefits based on feedback, which enhances perceived value and drives retention. indicates that top-performing loyalty programs, incorporating behavioral segmentation from satisfaction , can boost from redeeming customers by 15-25% annually through increased purchase frequency and basket size. Moreover, such programs using personalized elements based on satisfaction insights increase and satisfaction by 20-30%, while redeemers spend 25% more than non-active members, underscoring their role in acquisition and building. A 5% in retention via these programs can yield 25-100% profit gains, highlighting their strategic impact. Feedback loops embed customer satisfaction surveys directly into (CRM) systems, enabling real-time analysis and operational adjustments to address issues promptly. By collecting data through digital channels and applying advanced , businesses can identify dissatisfaction trends and implement changes, such as service modifications, within short cycles to maintain . In , for example, integrating real-time feedback into CRM fosters responsiveness, with frequent collection (e.g., monthly) leading to measurable improvements in and . This approach overcomes data challenges via , ensuring adjustments align with customer expectations and enhance overall satisfaction. Retention modeling employs to connect satisfaction scores with (CLV), forecasting long-term profitability and guiding targeted interventions. Satisfaction data serves as a key predictor in these models, where higher scores correlate with extended customer lifespan and increased value, allowing firms to prioritize high-potential segments for efforts. The basic CLV formula is: CLV=Average Purchase Value×Purchase Frequency×Customer Lifespan\text{CLV} = \text{Average Purchase Value} \times \text{Purchase Frequency} \times \text{Customer Lifespan} This metric helps quantify how satisfaction-driven strategies extend lifespan, with predictive models using historical data to estimate future value and optimize retention tactics. A notable is Amazon's use of satisfaction data in retaining Prime members, where AI-driven personalization re-engages inactive subscribers through tailored recommendations and offers based on feedback. By analyzing satisfaction metrics within its CRM, Amazon achieves high renewal rates for Prime, with contributing to sustained and from the program's 200 million+ members. This approach demonstrates how satisfaction insights fuel retention modeling, directly linking to CLV enhancements via exclusive benefits and real-time adjustments. Recent advancements as of 2025 include the integration of generative AI in CRM systems to enhance feedback and , further improving satisfaction in dynamic retail environments.

Improvement Frameworks

Improvement frameworks provide structured methodologies for organizations to systematically enhance customer satisfaction by identifying gaps, prioritizing actions, and implementing changes across processes and services. These approaches emphasize data-driven and continuous refinement, often integrating tools from assessment methodologies to track progress. By focusing on performance evaluation, feature prioritization, and process optimization, organizations can achieve sustainable improvements in customer perceptions and loyalty. The SERVPERF model serves as a performance-only assessment tool for , designed to directly measure customer perceptions of service delivery without incorporating expectations, thereby streamlining evaluations for improvement initiatives. Developed by Cronin and Taylor, it consists of 22 items across five dimensions: tangibles (physical facilities and appearance), reliability (accurate and dependable service), (prompt assistance), assurance (knowledge and courtesy instilling trust), and (caring, individualized attention). This model has been shown to explain a higher proportion of variance in overall perceptions compared to expectation-based alternatives, making it particularly effective for pinpointing actionable service enhancements that boost customer satisfaction. The offers a categorization framework for product and service features based on their impact on customer satisfaction, enabling organizations to prioritize developments that maximize delight while ensuring essentials are met. Introduced by and colleagues, it classifies attributes into three main types: basic factors (must-be qualities that cause dissatisfaction if absent but do not increase satisfaction if present), performance factors (linearly proportional to satisfaction, where better execution yields higher satisfaction), and excitement factors (delighters that significantly boost satisfaction when provided unexpectedly). Additional categories include indifferent and reverse factors, but the core trio guides toward high-impact enhancements, such as transforming basic factors into performance ones to elevate overall satisfaction levels. Six Sigma methodologies integrate the DMAIC process to address customer satisfaction as a key performance indicator, treating dissatisfaction instances as defects to be minimized through rigorous analysis and control. DMAIC stands for Define (identifying satisfaction-related problems and goals), Measure (quantifying current satisfaction levels using metrics like Net Promoter Score), Analyze (root cause investigation via tools such as fishbone diagrams), Improve (testing and implementing solutions), and Control (monitoring to sustain gains). This structured application has been validated in various sectors, where it reduces variability in service delivery, leading to measurable improvements in customer satisfaction scores. Continuous improvement cycles, exemplified by the (Plan-Do-Check-Act) approach, embed customer satisfaction metrics as key performance indicators to foster iterative enhancements in organizational processes. Originating from principles, PDCA involves planning changes based on satisfaction data, executing them on a small scale, checking outcomes against metrics, and acting to standardize successful adjustments or revise plans. When satisfaction indices serve as KPIs, this cycle ensures ongoing alignment with customer needs, with organizations reporting sustained improvements through repeated iterations, such as incremental gains in response times correlating to higher satisfaction ratings. Effective organizational implementation of these frameworks requires dedicated training programs, formation of cross-functional teams, and regular benchmarking against industry leaders to embed satisfaction-focused practices enterprise-wide. Training equips employees with skills in satisfaction measurement and framework application, often through workshops that enhance awareness and execution capabilities. Cross-functional teams, comprising members from departments like operations, , and , facilitate holistic problem-solving and accountability for satisfaction outcomes. involves comparing internal satisfaction metrics and processes against competitors or best-in-class entities to identify gaps and adopt superior practices, driving competitive advantages in .

Challenges and Contemporary Issues

Measurement Limitations

Measuring customer satisfaction through surveys and indices is prone to various response biases that distort results and undermine reliability. occurs when respondents provide answers they perceive as socially acceptable, often inflating satisfaction scores to avoid negativity. , where participants tend to agree with statements regardless of content, further contributes to overly positive responses in self-reported data. Recency effects also play a role, as customers disproportionately weigh recent interactions over cumulative experiences when evaluating satisfaction, leading to volatile and unrepresentative scores. Low response rates exacerbate these issues, typically ranging from 10% to 30% in customer satisfaction surveys, resulting in non-response where certain groups are underrepresented. The direction of this bias can vary by context: in some cases, it skews data toward dissatisfaction as unhappy customers are more likely to respond, while in others, such as healthcare, satisfied customers respond more frequently, leading to overestimation of satisfaction levels by up to 16% in lower-performing groups and invalidating comparisons across providers. Subjectivity in measurement arises from cultural variations in interpreting rating scales, where respondents from different backgrounds assign differing weights to numerical values. For example, individualistic cultures like the tend toward extreme responses on 1-10 scales, selecting high or low ends 41% more frequently than in collectivist cultures such as (19.2% vs. 13.6% extreme choices), while collectivist cultures favor neutral midpoints (23.2% neutral selections in ), leading to systematically lower average scores. These differences complicate cross-group comparisons and highlight the need for culturally adapted scales to ensure consistent interpretation. Validity concerns further limit the robustness of satisfaction metrics, particularly their overemphasis on transactional experiences that neglect long-term and behavioral outcomes. Self-reported surveys, as the primary method, are susceptible to common method bias, where shared measurement artifacts—like consistent response styles across items—artificially inflate correlations between satisfaction and related constructs, such as perceived quality. This bias arises because both independent and dependent variables are captured via the same instrument, distorting true relationships and reducing for retention or . Statistical limitations compound these problems, including errors from small sample sizes that amplify variability and fail to capture diversity. Non-response bias, as noted, systematically excludes segments like passive customers, while over-reliance on aggregate averages ignores segmentation by demographics or usage patterns, masking subgroup disparities. These issues can lead to misguided strategic decisions based on unrepresentative data. Historically, customer satisfaction measurement evolved in the with the launch of national indices like the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (1989) and the (1994), which initially promised comprehensive insights but faced critiques for over-optimism in linking satisfaction to economic outcomes. Early models suffered from tautological structures and weak causal paths, such as between expectations and value, prompting modern calls for multi-method to integrate surveys with behavioral data and qualitative insights for greater validity.

Digital and Global Perspectives

In the digital era, customer satisfaction has been profoundly shaped by online reviews, which serve as a primary source of information influencing purchasing decisions and perceptions of service quality. Studies indicate that consumers perceive online reviews as more trustworthy than traditional advertising, leading to significant impacts on purchase intentions, with meta-analyses showing a positive correlation between review valence and consumer behavior. Social media sentiment analysis further amplifies this effect by enabling real-time monitoring of customer emotions, allowing businesses to predict and enhance satisfaction through data-driven insights into public opinion. The rise of AI-driven chatbots in the 2020s has introduced new dimensions to e-satisfaction metrics. Studies from 2024 show mixed impacts of AI chatbots on customer satisfaction. They often increase satisfaction for simple queries through faster responses and 24/7 availability, with some reports noting improvements in satisfaction scores (e.g., up to 20-30% in certain cases), while research has demonstrated that well-implemented chatbots can improve satisfaction scores by up to 18 percentage points by reducing response times and personalizing interactions. However, satisfaction decreases for complex or emotional issues, where customers prefer human agents, leading to frustration when chatbots fail or require escalation. Generative AI chatbots (e.g., based on models like GPT) perform better than rule-based ones, but accuracy issues persist. Projections for 2025 suggest further gains as AI matures, with more seamless human-AI hybrid models, though their effectiveness depends on natural language processing capabilities to handle complex queries. Global variations in customer satisfaction are notably influenced by cultural dimensions, as outlined in Hofstede's model, which highlights differences in individualism versus collectivism. In Western cultures, characterized by high individualism, satisfaction often emphasizes personal achievement and direct feedback, whereas in Asian contexts with stronger collectivism, it prioritizes group harmony and relational aspects in service encounters, leading to divergent expectations in retail and service sectors. These cultural norms affect how satisfaction is expressed and measured, with collectivist societies showing greater tolerance for relational delays in favor of building long-term trust. Cross-border operations introduce challenges such as the need for localization to align products and services with regional preferences, ensuring that customer experiences resonate culturally and linguistically to maintain satisfaction levels. Currency fluctuations exacerbate these issues by altering pricing perceptions and operational costs, potentially eroding trust when unexpected fees arise in international transactions. Supply chain disruptions, particularly in global networks, further impact satisfaction by causing delays and inconsistencies in delivery, which studies link to diminished customer loyalty in multinational settings. Emerging trends post-2020 pandemic have accelerated shifts toward hybrid experiences, blending digital and physical interactions to meet evolved consumer demands for flexibility and seamlessness in service delivery. By 2025, sustainability has emerged as a key driver of satisfaction, with environmentally conscious consumers prioritizing eco-friendly practices, as evidenced by surveys showing that sustainable branding now forms a baseline expectation influencing loyalty and repurchase intentions. A illustrative case is Uber's adaptation of satisfaction algorithms for international markets, where data-driven management incorporates localized dynamic pricing and two-way rating systems to account for regional variations in rider expectations and driver behaviors, resulting in improved operational efficiency and higher satisfaction ratings across diverse geographies.

References

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11002-023-09671-w
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/customer-satisfaction
  3. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=36702901
  4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-024-01078-x
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235357014_Defining_Consumer_Satisfaction
  6. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-13415-001
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2025.2514937
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487001000307
  9. https://www.bain.com/insights/the-story-behind-successful-crm/
  10. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299405800304
  11. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/experience-led-growth-a-new-way-to-create-value
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698921002046
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257488414_Reexamining_the_Market_Share-_Customer_Satisfaction_Relationship
  14. https://theacsi.org/company/key-acsi-findings/
  15. https://theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/2025/11/13/press-release-national-acsi-q3-2025/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258180675_Customer_Satisfaction_Conceptual_Issues_Consumer_Satisfaction_Theories_A_Critical_Review
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7293428/
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260108601082
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24099069_Attributional_Thoughts_About_Consumer_Behavior
  20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1251446
  21. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Value-Percept-Disparity%253A-an-Alternative-to-the-of-Westbrook-Reilly/5a45bdc1e3d5e4f71f36f17471e6ff857b845c14
  22. https://www.cvent.com/en/blog/events/advantages-disadvantages-online-surveys
  23. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/survey-data-collection/
  24. https://qualaroo.com/blog/in-app-vs-email-vs-sms-surveys/
  25. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/survey-best-practices/
  26. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/
  27. https://www.nbrii.com/customer-survey-white-papers/the-value-of-longitudinal-research/
  28. https://www.smartsurvey.com/blog/10-ethical-considerations-for-your-next-survey
  29. https://www.netigate.net/articles/survey-tips/gdpr-new-regulations-affect-survey-and-market-research/
  30. https://hbr.org/2003/12/the-one-number-you-need-to-grow
  31. https://www.bain.com/consulting-services/customer-strategy-and-marketing/net-promoter-score-system/
  32. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/csat-customer-satisfaction-score
  33. https://theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/2025/02/25/press-release-finance-study-2025/
  34. https://theacsi.org/company/the-science-of-customer-satisfaction/
  35. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03110080v1/document
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094670504271156
  37. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/02cf/934f12bc127e3b72019c26b3fd19cb46d7ff.pdf
  38. https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2406462.pdf
  39. https://jcsdcb.com/index.php/JCSDCB/article/view/1084/670
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698913000647
  41. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211031550
  42. http://ethesisarchive.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/2019/TU_2019_5702320051_12426_12137.pdf
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256454108_The_cumulative_effect_of_satisfaction_with_discrete_transactions_on_share_of_wallet
  44. https://www.emerald.com/josm/article/25/3/310/232462/The-cumulative-effect-of-satisfaction-with
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236904587_Personality_influences_on_customer_satisfaction
  46. https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijim/article/download/13959/11026
  47. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/72053/Johnson19_Technology_customization_and_reliability.pdf?sequence=1
  48. https://jier.org/index.php/journal/article/download/2045/1701/3574
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316659426_The_long-term_impact_of_service_empathy_and_responsiveness_on_customer_satisfaction_and_profitability_a_longitudinal_investigation_in_a_healthcare_context
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36381195_The_Influence_of_Price_Fairness_on_Customer_Satisfaction_an_Empirical_Test_in_the_Context_of_Automobile_Purchases
  51. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08974438.2024.2434244
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361116839_The_Effect_of_Firm%27s_Brand_Reputation_on_Customer_Loyalty_and_Customer_Word_of_Mouth_The_Mediating_Role_of_Customer_Satisfaction_and_Customer_Trust
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228756236_How_economic_growth_affects_customer_satisfaction
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296323001234
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334775728_The_relationship_between_a_satisfactory_in-store_shopping_experience_and_retailer_loyalty
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289179657_Influence_of_usability_on_customer_satisfaction_A_case_study_on_mobile_phone_services
  57. https://www.k-state.edu/economics/pdfs/websitefiles/gayle/Manuscript_Gayle_Yimga_website.pdf
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698918307987
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371234825_Personalized_Product_Recommendation_and_User_Satisfaction_Reference_to_Industry_50
  60. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/next-in-loyalty-eight-levers-to-turn-customers-into-fans
  61. https://hbr.org/2014/10/the-value-of-keeping-the-right-customers
  62. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2405H38.pdf
  63. https://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/thought-leadership/wharton-online-insights/why-customer-lifetime-value-matters/
  64. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/20438869251325244
  65. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-ceo-guide-to-generative-ai
  66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1252296
  67. https://asq.org/quality-resources/pdca-cycle
  68. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-three-building-blocks-of-successful-customer-experience-transformations
  69. https://execsintheknow.com/magazines/july-2022-issue/activating-cross-functional-teams-for-better-cx/
  70. https://asq.org/quality-resources/benchmarking
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167811610000728
  72. https://www.becisions.com/post/response-bias-in-surveys-a-behavioral-science-perspective
  73. https://softbrik.com/csat/
  74. https://delighted.com/blog/average-survey-response-rate
  75. https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/nonresponse-bias-what-it-is-and-how-to-avoid-its-errors/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1464019/
  77. https://measuringu.com/scales-cultural-effects/
  78. https://www.qualtrics.com/en-gb/experience-management/customer/measure-customer-satisfaction/
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277704092_Common_Methods_Bias
  80. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstreams/23aca139-1cdd-44a8-ae6e-d8cb3283e9b0/download
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11044045/
  82. https://researchhub.id/index.php/optimal/article/view/6516
  83. https://www.cxnetwork.com/cx-experience/articles/customer-behavior-2025-sustainability
  84. https://drpress.org/ojs/index.php/jid/article/download/31873/31206/47505
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.