Dissatisfaction and violation: two distinct consequences of the wait experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the theory that dissatisfaction and violation are distinct affective responses to a service wait. It was thought that dissatisfaction was a consequence of a disconfirmation of expectations while violation was a consequence of a breach of a psychological contract. Design/methodology/approach – The study used the critical incidents method to examine 144 consumption stories where an informant experienced a wait in a service situation. Findings – It was found that consumers generally felt disappointed or dissatisfied when they experienced a wait when they had expectations about waiting time. When they believed that service provider had made concrete representations (or promises) about the length of time it would take to deliver a service, they felt angry or outraged. These are elements of the overall affective state of violation. Research limitations/implications – The critical incidents technique is well used in services marketing and rich theory building method of investigation. It has known limitations. In addition to explaining reaction to waits and delays, the application of psychological contract theory might apply to a host of marketing phenomena and the theory explains why some consumers get frustrated and angry while others are merely dissatisfied. Originality/value – There are two significant contributions of this paper. First, the psychological contract exists in service marketing situations and that the psychological contract is different from consumer expectations about the service encounter. Second, dissatisfaction is distinct from violation as violation is a strong emotional response to breach of the psychological contract in the service encounter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".