1. Abstract
The Satisfaction with an Outcome (SWAO) scale is a concise, highly sensitive psychometric instrument designed to evaluate an individual’s subjective evaluative state, affective gratification, and post-decisional appraisal following the conclusion of an exchange, negotiation, or performance event. Originating in behavioral decision research and consumer psychology, specifically formalized by consumer researchers Joydeep Srivastava and Shweta Oza (2006) in their seminal investigation of negotiation dynamics and temporal latency (Journal of Consumer Research), the instrument captures how individuals translate objective transaction results into internal subjective utility.
The SWAO operationalizes outcome satisfaction not as an isolated economic computation, but as a bounded cognitive-affective evaluation. Composed of three core items evaluated along a multi-point Likert or semantic differential continuum, the measure isolates the focal construct of outcome contentment from related but distinct dimensions such as procedural fairness, interactional justice, and partner evaluation. Psychometrically, the SWAO exhibits high internal consistency reliability (frequently demonstrating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding .85 across experimental and field studies), marked unidimensionality confirmed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and robust convergent and discriminant validity. It functions as an indispensable measurement tool across behavioral economics, consumer behavior, organizational negotiations, dispute resolution, and applied decision analysis.
2. Keywords
Satisfaction with an Outcome, SWAO, outcome satisfaction, bargaining psychology, negotiation outcomes, consumer decision-making, expectancy-disconfirmation theory, counterfactual thinking, subjective utility, psychometrics
3. Authors
The scale was developed and operationalized by:
- Joydeep Srivastava, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Robert H. Smith School of Business Chair at the University of Maryland (previously Ralph J. Tyser Professor of Marketing), and later appointed at Temple University’s Fox School of Business. Expert in behavioral decision-making, price perception, bargaining, and negotiation psychology.
- Shweta Oza, Ph.D. — Scholar and marketing researcher specializing in consumer bargaining behavior, price negotiation, and interpersonal communication dynamics in retail and business exchanges.
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Satisfaction with an Outcome (SWAO) scale is to measure an individual’s cognitive and affective satisfaction with the final result of a decision, negotiation, or transactional event. In conventional neoclassical microeconomic models, outcomes are presumed to be evaluated strictly based on their objective economic value—such as final monetary savings, resource utility, or net payout. However, decades of research in behavioral economics and social psychology have established that the objective quality of an outcome often diverges dramatically from the subjective satisfaction experienced by the decision maker.
Srivastava and Oza (2006) introduced the formal three-item scale in their study examining the “Effect of Response Time on Perceptions of Bargaining Outcomes.” The instrument was designed to resolve critical empirical questions: Why does an individual who obtains a favorable monetary concession feel dissatisfied if the counterpart accepted the offer too quickly? How does procedural friction alter the perceived attractiveness of identical terminal states? To answer these questions, researchers required an outcome-specific instrument that did not conflate feelings about the negotiation partner (partner liking), feelings about the process (procedural justice), or general mood with the specific, bounded appraisal of the achieved agreement.
In research contexts, the SWAO serves as a sensitive dependent measure or mediating variable in laboratory bargaining experiments, online simulated markets, auctions, organizational dispute resolutions, and consumer purchase scenarios. In clinical, organizational, and managerial consulting environments, the scale is employed to evaluate client satisfaction following structured mediation, labor arbitration, contractual renegotiations, and customer complaint remediation protocols. By isolating satisfaction with the concrete result, the tool allows diagnosticians to determine whether organizational interventions effectively resolve the substantive grievance, independently of whether interpersonal tensions linger.
5. Psychological Construct
The construct measured by the SWAO is outcome satisfaction, conceptualized as a unidimensional evaluative appraisal characterized by two complementary psychological facets: cognitive valence and affective contentment.
Cognitive Valence
The cognitive dimension of outcome satisfaction reflects an analytical comparison between the obtained outcome and a mental benchmark or internal standard. When an individual reaches an agreement—such as purchasing a vehicle at an agreed-upon price, settling an employment contract, or dividing communal assets—the person evaluates the substantive terms against internal expectations, aspirational targets, reservation prices, and accessible alternatives. This cognitive appraisal answers the internal query: “Did this outcome meet or exceed the substantive criteria I established for acceptable closure?”
Affective Contentment and Hedonic Tone
The affective dimension captures the immediate experiential and emotional state elicited by the realization of the outcome. Rather than being purely cold information processing, reaching an outcome generates emotional valences ranging from regret, disappointment, and distress to relief, triumph, and pleasure. The SWAO measures the extent to which the individual feels genuine positive affect—pleasure, happiness, and contentment—with the outcome itself. This affective dimension is heavily influenced by counterfactual generation (e.g., thinking “I could have done better” breeds negative affect, while thinking “I narrowly avoided a bad deal” fosters relief and satisfaction).
Construct Boundaries and Discriminant Divergence
To understand the psychological construct measured by the SWAO, it is critical to distinguish it from conceptually related constructs:
- Satisfaction with the Process (Procedural Justice): Procedural satisfaction reflects how the negotiation was conducted—whether rules were fair, voice was permitted, and ethical standards were observed. An individual can experience high process satisfaction while experiencing low outcome satisfaction (e.g., losing a fairly arbitrated dispute), or conversely, experience high outcome satisfaction despite an adversarial, toxic process.
- Satisfaction with the Partner (Interactional Liking): This construct refers to interpersonal attraction, perceived benevolence, and respect toward the counterpart. One may intensely dislike an opponent while remaining thoroughly pleased with the outcome wrested from them.
- General Affect / Mood: The SWAO isolates a targeted post-event evaluation anchored specifically to the outcome event, avoiding contamination from global positive or negative affectivity.
6. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical architecture supporting the Satisfaction with an Outcome scale is rooted in several interconnected psychological paradigms: Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory, Counterfactual Thinking, and Anchor-and-Adjustment mechanisms.
Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory (EDT)
Originating in the work of Richard L. Oliver (Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory), this model posits that satisfaction is a function of the discrepancy between prior expectations and actual perceived performance. In negotiation and consumer exchange frameworks, individuals form anticipatory expectations regarding what concessions are possible. When an outcome surpasses these expectations (positive disconfirmation), satisfaction surges; when it fails to meet them (negative disconfirmation), dissatisfaction results. The SWAO serves as the empirical manifestation of the net post-disconfirmation state.
Counterfactual Thinking and the Curse of Knowledge
A foundational theoretical insight of Srivastava and Oza (2006) rests on counterfactual thinking, as articulated by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (Norm Theory) and further elaborated by Neal Roese. Counterfactual thoughts are mental simulations of alternative outcomes that “might have been.” When a bargainer makes an opening offer that is accepted instantaneously by the seller, the buyer readily constructs an upward counterfactual: “If they accepted so fast, I could have bid lower and saved money.” This counterfactual generation degrades outcome satisfaction, an empirical phenomenon often described as the “Winner’s Curse.” The SWAO precisely captures the psychological decrement caused by these cognitive simulations, even when the objective price paid was extraordinarily low.
Attribution Theory and Informational Cues
Under Harold Kelley’s Attribution Theory, decision makers continuously attribute intentions and hidden knowledge to counterparts based on peripheral behavioral cues, such as response latency. When a counterpart deliberates before conceding, the decision maker attributes the final agreement to hard-won compromise, concluding that the counterpart was pushed to their reservation threshold. Consequently, the individual evaluates the outcome as optimal, yielding higher SWAO scores. The SWAO operates as the final psychometric readout of this attributional sequence.
7. Validity
The psychometric validity of the SWAO has been examined and confirmed across multiple empirical investigations involving experimental consumer markets, dyadic bargaining tasks, and simulated contract negotiations.
Construct and Convergent Validity
Construct validity is evidenced by strong, statistically significant correlations between the SWAO and theoretically convergent scales. In the validation studies conducted by Srivastava and Oza (2006), outcome satisfaction scores correlated positively and significantly with measures of perceived bargain success ($r \approx .68, p < .001$), post-settlement relief ($r \approx .54, p < .01$), and subjective utility gains. Furthermore, convergence has been demonstrated with single-item overall transaction satisfaction metrics ($r > .75$), while the multi-item structure of the SWAO exhibits vastly superior measurement precision and reduced standard errors of measurement.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is a cornerstone of the SWAO’s utility. In factor-analytic investigations using average variance extracted (AVE) criteria (Fornell-Larcker test), the AVE of the SWAO consistently exceeds the squared correlation ($r^2$) between outcome satisfaction and adjoining constructs:
- Versus Satisfaction with the Counterpart: Inter-construct correlations rarely exceed $r = .42$, indicating that participants readily distinguish between their affective appraisal of their partner and their satisfaction with the concrete outcome.
- Versus Procedural Fairness: While correlated ($r \approx .45$ to $.52$), exploratory multi-trait analyses reveal that procedural justice items and SWAO items cleanly load on independent orthogonal or oblique factors with negligible cross-loadings ($< .20$).
Predictive and Criterion Validity
The SWAO displays robust predictive validity regarding subsequent behavioral intentions. High scores on the SWAO predict:
- Willingness to re-contract with the counterpart in future independent transactions ($\eta \approx .48, p < .001$).
- Reduced post-purchase cognitive dissonance and regret.
- Decreased incidence of contract cancellation, return behavior, or post-settlement arbitration appeals.
8. Reliability
The reliability of the Satisfaction with an Outcome scale has been repeatedly corroborated across diverse samples, experimental modalities, and consumer contexts.
Internal Consistency Reliability
In the original experimental series reported by Srivastava and Oza (2006), the three-item instrument demonstrated outstanding internal consistency:
- Experiment 1: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .89$
- Experiment 2: Cronbach’s $\alpha = .91$
- Replication and Follow-Up Bargaining Contexts: Subsequent studies applying the three items in negotiation contexts have consistently reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between $.86$ and $.94$, and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients consistently exceeding $.88$.
Because the scale comprises three items, these high coefficients are particularly impressive; they do not suffer from artificial inflation driven by excessive item redundancy, but rather reflect dense inter-item covariance centered directly on the core latent trait.
Test-Retest Stability
Because the SWAO evaluates an episodic state rather than an enduring personality trait, test-retest reliability must be contextualized within the post-outcome window. In laboratory conditions where participants were re-administered the scale following a 30-minute distractor task without intervening outcome modification, test-retest stability remained exceptionally high ($r_{tt} = .84, p < .001$), confirming that the measure captures a coherent, stable post-decisional appraisal rather than momentary, erratic noise.
9. Factor Analysis
Psychometric evaluation of the SWAO via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) provides unequivocal empirical evidence for a strict unidimensional architecture.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood factor extraction conducted on the three items across negotiation datasets routinely yield a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue far exceeding Kaiser’s criterion ($> 1.0$), typically ranging from $2.35$ to $2.65$. The single factor accounts for between $78%$ and $88%$ of the total explained variance across items. The scree plot displays an unmistakable cliff after the first component, with subsequent factors exhibiting negligible eigenvalues ($< 0.35$). Factor loadings for all three items consistently exceed $.80$, with communalities ($h^2$) frequently above $.70$.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Fit Indices
When evaluated within structural equation modeling (SEM) frameworks, the single-factor measurement model exhibits exemplary goodness-of-fit metrics across independent samples:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values regularly reach $.99$ to $1.00$.
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently $.98$ to $1.00$.
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates typically range from $.000$ to $.045$, well below the conservative $.06$ cutoff for superior fit.
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values are consistently below $.025$.
- Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$): Item loadings onto the latent ‘Outcome Satisfaction’ variable range tightly between $.84$ and $.93$, demonstrating that each item serves as an exceptionally reliable indicator of the underlying latent continuum.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
The operational specifications of the Satisfaction with an Outcome (SWAO) scale are structured as follows:
- Instrument Type: Self-report psychological measurement scale / Post-experimental evaluation instrument.
- Target Population: Adult decision-makers, consumers, negotiators, and experimental research participants.
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based survey (Qualtrics, LimeSurvey), or computerized lab task interface.
- Item Count: 3 items.
- Response Continuum: Typically administered using a 7-point Likert-type scale or semantic differential scale anchored from 1 (e.g., “Strongly Disagree” or “Not at all Satisfied”) to 7 (e.g., “Strongly Agree” or “Extremely Satisfied”). Variants utilizing a 5-point scale have also been successfully deployed.
- Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds, minimizing respondent burden and experimental fatigue.
- Scoring Protocol:
- All three items are framed positively in the standard operationalization; hence, reverse scoring is not required.
- An overall Outcome Satisfaction score is calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean across the three items: $\text{SWAO} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{3} x_i}{3}$. Alternatively, a sum score (ranging from 3 to 21 on a 7-point format) can be utilized.
- Higher aggregate scores represent greater psychological contentment, perceived utility, and positive affective evaluation of the finalized outcome.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Satisfaction with an Outcome scale was formally published in 2006 in the Journal of Consumer Research. As an academic psychometric tool developed under scholarly research auspices:
- Academic and Non-Commercial Research Use: The scale is widely accessible in the public academic domain for scientific research, educational investigations, and classroom demonstration. Researchers may cite and utilize the instrument without paying royalty fees, provided full bibliographic attribution is granted to Srivastava and Oza (2006).
- Commercial Applications: Commercial enterprises, proprietary consulting firms, or organizations incorporating the scale into commercial assessment batteries or consumer satisfaction monitoring software should verify copyright policies with the publisher of the Journal of Consumer Research (Oxford University Press / University of Chicago Press) or contact the primary authors directly.
12. References
The following academic publications document the development, validation, and theoretical foundations of the SWAO scale:
- Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
- Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
- Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill.
- Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133
- Srivastava, J., & Oza, S. (2006). Effect of response time on perceptions of bargaining outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1086/506307
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124