1. Would Customer Participation Certainly Cause Customer Satisfaction?
Wang Haijun
Human&Social Science College of Wuhan University of Science and Engineering
Wuhan, China
wzwhj@sohu.com
Abstract customers participated in the production and delievery of
Customer participation in the production of goods and the service will help them to understand the service then
services appears to be growing. The marketing literature has make them have a appropriate expectation about the
largely focused on the economic implications of this trend and service quality, so customer participation will shorten the
has not addressed the methods of customer participation and difference ot the expected service quality and
customers' potential psychological responses to participation. On recognization. Which will help the customers to recognize
the base of the existent marketing literatures, this study is to the quality of the service and improve the satisfaction of
investigate the influence of customer participation on customer
satisfaction by experiment. The study shows that customer
the customers(Ennew and Binks,1999). Besides, because
participation is not a pure stimulating factor to customer customers and contact employees work together, if the
satisfaction,perceived consistency of participation methods 、 results of the service is not as expected, customers will
customer self-regulatory state and different service outcome will attribute some reasons to themselves which will reduce
have effect on customer satisfaction in the different degree. their complaining and increase their satisfaction. But
Keywords - Self-regulatory state; Customer satisfaction; according to the theory of Neeli Bendapudi and Robert
Customer participation; Perceived participation methods; P.Leone （ 2003 ） , when an outcome is worse than
Cognitive consistency expected, a customer who participates in production with
the firm will be as satisfied with the firm as will a
I. INTRODUCTION customer who does not participate in production; When
an outcome is better than expected, a customer who
Customers increasingly are being encouraged to take participates in production with the tlrm will be less
on more active roles in producing goods and services.
satisiled with the tlrm than will a customer who does not
They go into photography stores and use machines to
participate in production. Yen Gwinner and Su（2004）
crop, enlarge, correct, or enhance their photographs;
also expresse their different idea, they think the customers
check themselves in and out of hotels; and even routinely
who participate in the service will pay more cost such as
scan and bag their own groceries at supermarkets.
energy and time, so if the service fail, they will be more
Customer participation per se is not new. Supermarkets,
dissatisfied compared with the customers who do not
which are models of customer co-production with
participate in the service.
customers selecting, carting, and transporting groceries,
Why customer’s participation will not sure lead to
date to the 1930s. What is new is the recognition that
customer satisfaction? The current literatures want to
encouraging customers to be "co-producers" in this sense
explain their relationship directly from different theories,
is the next frontier in competitive effectiveness. We are
but the results are not certain. So there should be some
seeing the emergence of the "customizing consumer"
influencing mediators between the two variables. What
(Moyers 1989)—consumers who examine market
are these factors? We shall try to settle this problems in
offerings and create a customized consumption
the following parts of this article.
experience for themselves (Firat, Dholakia, and
Venkatesh 1995). On the basis of this trend. Lovelock and
Young (1979) urge firms to use customers to increase
II. METHODOLOGY
productivity. Schneider and Bowen (1995) suggest that
firms should use customer talents to deliver superior
Customer participation has been defined as "the degree
service. Lengnick-Hall (1996) urges firms to examine the
to which the customer is involved in producing and
roles that customers can and do play in the service
delivering the service" (Dabholkar 1990) . Extending this
production process. Recently, Prahalad and Ramaswamy
construct, Meuter and Bitner (1998) distinguish among
(2000) have advocated co-opting customer competence as
three types of service production based on customer
a competitive strategy.
Until recently, the logic of these exhortations has relied participation: firm production, joint production, and
customer production. In our research, we define the
almost exclusively on an economic rationale. Few
cognitive consistency between customer perceived
researches focused on the methods of customer
participation methods and their expected methods as
participation and customers' potential psychological
follows:”the customers perceive the methods in their
responses to participation. Additionally, from the current
participation process is consistent to the mental expected
marketing literatures, there are still some argues about
methods which can realize their hope.”
whether the customer participation will definitely lead to
customer satisfaction. Bitner(1997) believed that
978-1-4244-4639-1/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE

2. This consistency can be explained by the coginitive Regulatory fit is experienced when people pursue a
consistency theory(Festinger 1959; Heider 1958). goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation.
According to this theory, When our inner systems (beliefs, Previous research on promotion and prevention
attitudes, values, etc.) all support one another and when orientations has found that regulatory fit increases
these are also supported by external evidence, then we people_s perception that a decision they made was ‘right’,
have a comfortable state of affairs. The discomfort of which in turn transfers value to the decision outcome,
cognitive dissonance occurs when things fall out of including being willing to pay more for a product than
alignment, which leads us to try to achieve a maximum those who chose the same product without regulatory fit
practical level of consistency in our world. (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., in press). Accordingly,
We also have a very strong need to believe we are being when customers participating in the service, if scenario is
consistent with social norms. When there is conflict consistent to their regulatory focus, they will be more
between behaviors that are consistent with inner systems satisfied than those who do not participate in the service.
and behaviors that are consistent with social norms, the So we propose the following hypothesis:
potential threat of social exclusion often sways us H3: When customers participate in the production or
towards the latter, even though it may cause significant delievery of service, if the scenario they perceived is
inner dissonance. consistent to their regulatory focus, the customers with
Avnet and Higgins(2006) find besides the results the promotion focus will be more satisfied than the customers
difference of the action process will have effection on with prevention focus.
customers affect experience. Because customer H4: When customers participate in the production or
participation is the mutual actions between customers and delievery of service, if the scenario they perceived is not
contact employees, so the attitude of the customers is consistent to their regulatory focus, the customers with
determined by the customers themselves and service promotion focus will be less satisfied than the customers
provider. General speaking, the whole scenario of the with prevention focus.
participation is designed by the service provider, so the
psychological feeling of the customers is coming from
their feelings about the whole scenario. The customers III. RESULTS
who participated in the service always expect good results We adopt simulative scene experiment to test all the
of the service, according to the recognitive consistency hypotheses. In the literatures of psychology and
thoery, customers will be more satisfactied if the scenario marketing, simulative scene experiment method is
the perceived are consistent with or superior to their abroadly accepted, and by using this method, we can
expected situations than the customers who do not control complicated variables easily, which has quite high
participate in the service. If the scenario designed by the exterior validity(Hui and Bateson,1991; Reeder, 2001).
service provider is not consistent with their expected, There are totally 120 EMBA students voluntarily
customers will neglect this information because they are participated in the experiment. We divide all the
always looking for the proof to support their consistency. participants into two groups randomly. We can see table 1
What is more, customers who participate in the service the whole scenario pirture.
spend so much energy and time cost, so they will be more TABLE I
dissatisfied. Then we propose the following hypothesis: THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIO
H1:when customers participate in service, if the The control of customers participation
scenarios they perceived are consistent with or superior to You are on of the potential customers You are the potential customers for A
their expected, they will be more satisfied than the for A brand car, now they invite you brand car, before you purchase this
customers who do not participate in the service. to participate in the design of the new car,you do not have the chance
H2: when customers participate in service, if the model, for the following two design toparticipate in the design of the car.
scenarios they perceived are not consistent with their idea, which one is suitable to you?
expected, they will be more dissatisfied than the a、 The outlin should be stydle and
customers who do not participate in the service. inner design be humanistic.
According to regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, b、 Safety and responsible, and
1998), different regulatory states arise when people durable.
follow different types of “self-guides:” (a) ideal self For the two groups, one group members will read the
guides, individuals’ representations of desired states as scenario they participate in the service and the other one
hopes or aspirations; and (b) ought self-guides, will read the other scenario they do not participate at their
individuals’ representationsof desired states as duties or own pace. After the participants finished reading the
responsibilities. Higgins (1987) suggested that a scenario, they will answer one item, nine points
promotion focus is associated with a person’s desire to questionaire, and “1” represtents “totally dissatisfied”, “9”
achieve ideal states, which are defined as that person’s represents “totally satisfactied”. We adopt selves
hopes, desires, or aspirations. In contrast, a prevention questions to test participants’ regulatory focus(Brocker,
focus is associated with a person’s desire to achieve ought 2002; Idson and Higgins 2000).
states, which are defined as that person’s duties
obligations, or responsibilities.

3. To test H1 and H2, we performed ANOVA test for the IV. DISCUSSION
two groups. For the customers who participated in the Although the researchs about customer participation
service and their perceived scenarios are consistent with are quite abundant in the marketing, but we do not get
or superior to their expected, their mean satisfaction consistent opition about whther customer participation
points is 7.63; fot those who did not participate in the certainly cause customer satisfaction. Which means some
service and their perceived scenarios are not consistent influencing factors between these two variables. But
with their expected, their mean satisfaction points is 6.67. current literatures pay little attention to this point, they
And for the customers who do not participate in the want to settle this problem directly by using different
service, their mean satisfaction point is 5.47. The two theory. So the factors between the two variables are still
differences of the points(7.63 and 5.47; 6.67 and 5.47) are like “black case”. From the research background of
all significant(p=0.001;p=0.001). So H1 and H2 is
customer participation and the prior research results, we
certified. That is to say, when customers participate in
take customers regulatory focus and the consistency of
service, if the scenarios they perceived are consistent with
perceived scenario as the influencing factors between
or superior to their expected, they will be more satisfied
than the customers who do not participate in the customer participation and customer participation, which
service.And if the scenarios they perceived are not fill the gap in the customer participation theory at some
consistent with their expected, they will be more degree.
dissatisfied than the customers who do not participate in The results give us some illuminations: when
the service. customers participate in service, if the scenarios they
To test H3 and H4, we devided the group in which the perceived are consistent with or superior to their expected,
group members participate in the service into two groups they will be more satisfied than the customers who do not
according to their perceived scenarios. The we performed participate in the service.And if the scenarios they
ANOVA test for the two groups and we get the results as perceived are not consistent with their expected, they will
table 2 and table 3. be more dissatisfied than the customers who do not
participate in the service.
TABLE 2 What is more, when customers participate in the
THE RESULTS OF ANOVA FOR PERCEIVED SCENARIO production or delievery of service, if the scenario they
perceived is consistent to their regulatory focus, the
Regulatory focus Mean F Sig.
customers with promotion focus will be more satisfied
Prevention focus 6.00 than the customers with prevention focus. And if the
consistent 31.925 .001 scenario they perceived is not consistent to their
Promotion focus 7.17
regulatory focus, the customers with promotion focus will
Prevention focus 7.56
Not be less satisfied than the customers with prevention focus.
14.336 .007
consistent Promotion focus 6.67
V. CONCLUSION
When customers participate in the production or Because most of the researches about customer
delievery of service, if the scenario they perceived is participation and customer satisfaction are descriptive,
consistent to their regulatory focus, the mean satisfaction very few literatures in marketing and management can
point for the customer with prevention focus is 6.00 and give the managers detail and normative suggestions. So
for those with promotion focus is 7.17, the difference of another purpose of this article is to help the company to
these two points are significant(p=0.001). So H3 get design effective customer participated scenarios to
supported. That is to say, when customers participate in increase customer satisfaction. Particularly, this article
the production or delievery of service, if the scenario they provide demonstration proofs that there are some factors
perceived is consistent to their regulatory focus, the between customer participation and customer satisfaction.
customers with promotion focus will be more satisfied Firstly, customer participation can lead to customer
than the customers with prevention focus. satisfaction, but which will behind some kind of
And if the scenario they perceived is not consistent to precondition. From our lives, we can see many cases in
their regulatory focus, the mean satisfaction point for the which customers feel too bad even they participate in the
customer with prevention focus is 7.56 and for those with service such as the shopping during their tourism.The
promotion focus is 6.67, the difference of these two points scenarios they perceived are consistent with or not to
are significant(p=0.007). Then H4 is proved. So when their expected are very important to their satisfaction. So
customers participate in the production or delievery of just designing a scenario randomly is not enough for the
service, if the scenario they perceived is not consistent to companies, managers must do some investigations to find
their regulatory focus, the customers with promotion which kind of scenarios are suitable to their potential
focus will be less satisfied than the customers with customers. Then by designing most suitable scenarios to
prevention focus. increase customer satisfaction.
At the same time, because the results show customers
different regulatory focus will have effect on their

4. satisfaction. So the managers can investigate the potential [14]Hui, Michael K. and John E.G. Bateson (1991), "Perceived
customers to see which kind of customers are prominent, Control and the Effects of Crowding and Consumer Choice
then they can adopt adaptive methods. on the Service Experience," Journal of Consumer Research,
18 (2), 174-84.
[15]Howard, John A., and Jadish N. Sheth, (1969), 'The Theory
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Buyer Behavior," New York, NY: Wiley.
[16]Hubbert, A.R., Customer Co-creation of Service Outcomes:
We adopt simulative scene experiment to test all the Effects of Locus of Causality Attributions. Unpublished
hypotheses. In the future research, we can use other doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University(1995).
methods to testify its reasonable and increase its exterior [174]Idson, Lorraine Chen and E.Tory Higgins(2000), “How
validity.And it is also necessary we put our experiment to Current Feedback and Chronic Effectiveness Influence
other industry to prove whether it is still correct. Motivation: Everything to Gain Versus Everything to
The results of our research show there are factors Lose”,European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(May),
between customer participation and customer satisfaction. 252-74.
[18]Jones, Edward E. and Richard E. Nisbett (1972), "The Actor
Besides regulatory focus and perceived scenario and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of
consistency, there should be other factors. Which will be Behavior," in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of
the futrue direction of our research. Behavior, E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E.
Nisbett, S. Valins, and B.Weiner, eds. Morristown, NJ:
REFERENCES General Learning Press, 79-94.
[1] Ajzen, I., Dalto, C.A. and Blyth, D.P.(1979), “Consistency [19]Lovelock, Christopher H. and Robert F Young (1979),
and bias in the attribution of attitudes”, Journal of "Look to Consumers to Increase Productivity," Harvard
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1871-6 Business Review, 57 (May-June), 168-78.
[2] Bitner, B.J., Faranda, W.T., Hubbert, A.R. and V.A. [20]Neeli Bendapudi & Robert P. Leone, “Psychological
Zeithaml, “Customer Contributions and Roles in Service Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production”
Delivery,” International Journal of Service Industry Journal of Marketing, 2003(January),14-28.
Management, 8(3), 193-205(1997). [21]Oliver, R.L.(1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents
[3] Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: and consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of
The Effects of Physical Surrounding and Employee Marketing Science, Vol.82 No.2,pp. 213-25.
Responses," Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82. [22]Prahalad, C.K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2000), "Co-
[4] Brockner, Joel, Srikanth Paruchuri, Lorraine Chen Idson, opting Customer Competence," Harvard Business Review,
and E.Torry Higgins(2002), “Regulatory Focus and the 78 (January-February), 79-87.
Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive [23]Reeder, Glenn D., Matthew Hesson-Mclnnis, Josuha O.
Events,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Kroshe, and Elizabeth A. Scialabba (2001), "Inferences
Processes, 87(January) About Effort and Ability," Personality and Social
[5] Bateson, J.E.G., “Self-service Consumer: An Exploratory Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1225-35.
Study,” Journal of Retailing, 61(3), 49-76(1985). [24]Rodie, A.R. and Kleine, S.S.(2000), “Customer
[6] Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R.and Zeithaml, Participation in Services Production and Delivery,” in
V.A.(1993), “A dynamic process model of service quality: Swartz, T.A. and Iacobucci, D.(Eds), Handbook of Services
from expectations to behavioral intensions”, Journal of Marketing and management, California: Sage Publications,
Marketing Research, Vol.15, February, pp.7-27. Inc., 111-126.
[7] Bowen, D.E., “Managing Customers as Human Resources [25]Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen (1995), Winning
in Service Organizations,” Human Resource Management, the Service Game. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
25(3), 371-383(1986). [26]Tamar Avnet and E.Tory Higgins, “How Regulatory Fit
[8] Czepiel, J., “Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Affects Value in Consumer Choice and Opinions”, Journal
Implications for Research,” Journal of Business Research, of Marketing Research, 2006(February), 1-10.
20(1), 13-21(1990). [27]Westbrook, R.A. (1987), “A product/consumption-based
[9] Cooper, J. & Fazio, R.(1984). A new look at dissonance. In affective responses and postpurchase behavior”, Journal of
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social Marketing Research, August, pp. 258-270
psychology, Vol. 17, (pp. 229-266). [280]Zeithaml,V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A.(1993),
[10] Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). “Cognitive “The nature and determinants of customer expectations of
consequences of forced compliance” Journal of Abnormal service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210. Vol.21, pp. 1-12.
[11] HsiuJu Rebecca Yen, Kevin P.Gwinner, Wanru Su, “The
impact of customer particaipation and service expectation
on Locus attributions following service failure”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management;
2004;15,1
[12]Heider, F. (1958).,“The psychology of interpersonal
relations” Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associattes Inc.
[13] Hallowell, R. (1996), “The Relationship of Customer
Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty and Profitability: An
Empirical Study”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol.7, No.4, pp.27-42.