Satisfaction with Company (Anticipated) (SWC)

1. Abstract

The Satisfaction with Company (Anticipated) (SWC) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument introduced by Gotlieb, Grewal, and Brown (1994) to assess an individual’s evaluative judgment regarding a recent decision to select an organization or service provider, specifically capturing anticipated and early post-choice satisfaction. Grounded in consumer psychology, health services research, and behavioral decision theory, the instrument bridges the conceptual interface between perceived service quality and subsequent behavioral intentions. Comprising four items evaluated on a 7-point semantic differential and Likert scale, the SWC operationalizes satisfaction as a unidimensional affective-cognitive evaluation of the decision itself rather than solely a retrospective assessment of long-term consumption outcomes. Psychometric evaluation across empirical investigations demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .89, alongside robust convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities confirmed via structural equation modeling (SEM). Confirmatory factor analyses support a single-factor structure with standardized factor loadings surpassing .80. The scale plays a critical methodological role in disentangling the causal ordering of quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions, offering researchers and healthcare administrators a parsimonious, rigorous metric for measuring decision contentment in high-involvement service contexts.

2. Keywords

Satisfaction with Company, Anticipated Satisfaction, Consumer Satisfaction, Perceived Service Quality, Behavioral Intentions, Healthcare Marketing, Psychometrics, Decision Evaluation, Gotlieb Grewal Brown, Structural Equation Modeling

3. Authors

The Satisfaction with Company (Anticipated) scale was developed and empirically validated by a team of prominent scholars in the fields of marketing, consumer psychology, and service management:

• Jerry B. Gotlieb, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Marketing at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA. Dr. Gotlieb has authored numerous influential studies on consumer decision-making, service quality perception, and source credibility effects.
• Dhruv Grewal, Ph.D.: Toyota Chair in Commerce and Electronic Business and Professor of Marketing at Babson College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA. A prolific behavioral scholar, Dr. Grewal is globally recognized for his work on pricing psychology, customer value, service quality, and retail strategies.
• Stephen W. Brown, Ph.D.: Edward M. Carson Chair in Services Marketing and Professor Emeritus at the W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. Dr. Brown is a pioneering figure in services marketing and former Executive Director of the Center for Services Leadership (CSL).

Correspondence regarding the foundational study was originally addressed to the authors through the Department of Marketing at their respective institutions or via the Journal of Applied Psychology editorial office.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Satisfaction with Company (Anticipated) (SWC) scale is to quantify an individual’s evaluation of their decision to patronize a specific organization before the full, longitudinal consequences of that service consumption have completely materialized. In many high-involvement, credence-based service encounters—most notably in healthcare, legal services, and complex financial advisory—consumers are required to make consequential provider selections under conditions of high uncertainty and asymmetric information. Once a commitment is made (such as checking into a hospital or signing an engagement contract), a crucial cognitive-affective phase occurs wherein the individual appraises the wisdom, emotional resonance, and subjective correctness of their decision.

Historically, psychometricians and service researchers conflated perceived service quality with customer satisfaction, treating them interchangeably or arguing ambiguously over which construct causally precedes the other. Gotlieb, Grewal, and Brown (1994) developed the SWC specifically to test competing structural models: whether perceived quality directly influences behavioral intentions or whether satisfaction functions as an indispensable mediator between perceived quality and intention. The SWC allows researchers to isolate the distinct psychological state of satisfaction as an affective evaluation stemming from cognitive appraisals of service quality dimensions.

In applied and clinical environments, measuring anticipated satisfaction provides administrators with an early diagnostic indicator of consumer confidence. Rather than waiting for discharge surveys or post-treatment attrition, capturing decision satisfaction at the point of provider selection enables institutions to detect acute cognitive dissonance, alleviate psychological discomfort, and introduce targeted interventions designed to reinforce patient or client trust before negative outcomes can escalate into formal complaints or service abandonment.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the SWC scale is Anticipated / Early Decision Satisfaction with a service organization. To fully grasp the construct, it must be situated within the broader taxonomy of consumer evaluation constructs: cumulative satisfaction, transaction-specific satisfaction, and perceived quality.

Cognitive Evaluation of the Choice

The cognitive dimension of this construct pertains to the rational appraisal of correctness. When an individual selects a provider, they weigh available evidence, past reputations, referrals, and observable environmental cues. Items reflecting this dimension (e.g., assessing whether choosing the provider was “the right thing to do”) capture the respondent’s rational justification of the choice. It taps into the cognitive conviction that, among available competing alternatives, the selected alternative optimizes utility and minimizes risk.

Affective Decision Contentment

Beyond cold cognitive calculus, satisfaction inherently possesses an emotional or affective tone. The construct encapsulates feelings of relief, emotional comfort, and positive affect toward the selection event (e.g., “feeling good” about the decision, experiencing “pleasure”). Affective contentment reflects the absence of post-decisional regret and the presence of reassurance. When choosing a hospital, for instance, patients often experience high anxiety; feeling pleased or satisfied with the decision indicates that affective reassurance has been successfully established.

Anticipated versus Retrospective Focus

Traditional measures of satisfaction rely heavily on the retrospective evaluation of technical outcomes (e.g., “Did the medical treatment cure the symptom?”). However, in many contexts, outcome evaluations are deferred or impossible for a layperson to objectively assess. The SWC captures the immediate, forward-looking orientation of satisfaction: the expectation that the decision will yield positive outcomes based on early indicators, interpersonal interactions, and environmental signals. It reflects a transitional psychological state wherein the consumer projects their initial positive experiences onto the future relationship with the company.

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the Satisfaction with Company (Anticipated) scale integrates several landmark theories from cognitive psychology, consumer research, and behavioral economics.

Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory

The central paradigm informing modern satisfaction research is Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory formulated by Richard L. Oliver. Oliver posits that satisfaction is a psychological state resulting from a comparison between prior expectations and perceived actual performance. When performance meets or exceeds expectations, positive disconfirmation occurs, eliciting satisfaction. In the context of the SWC, early interactions with an organization—such as reception staff demeanor, facility cleanliness, and admission processes—trigger immediate micro-comparisons against baseline expectations, yielding an initial state of satisfaction with the decision to patronize that firm.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory provides another pillar. Festinger argued that making a choice between attractive alternatives inevitably produces psychological dissonance because the rejected alternatives have positive features and the chosen alternative has potential drawbacks. Immediately following a major decision, individuals strive to reduce dissonance by actively seeking cognitive consistency. The SWC captures the degree of successful dissonance reduction: high scores signify that the consumer has successfully resolved conflicting cognitions, feeling secure, justified, and comfortable with the selected organization.

The Cognitive-Affective-Conative Hierarchy

Gotlieb, Grewal, and Brown (1994) drew upon Bagozzi’s cognitive-affective-behavioral framework and the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen). According to this hierarchy of effects:

1. Cognition: Consumers form beliefs about the objective attributes of the service provider, conceptualized as Perceived Service Quality (evaluated along dimensions such as reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles).
2. Affect: These cognitive appraisals give rise to an overall affective response, operationalized as Satisfaction with the Company.
3. Conation: The affective state subsequently drives behavioral intentions, such as intentions to return, recommend, or comply with organizational regimens.

By defining SWC as the affective bridge within this structural sequence, Gotlieb et al. resolved prevailing debates by demonstrating that perceived service quality serves as an antecedent cognitive input to consumer satisfaction, which in turn directly determines behavioral intentions.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the SWC scale has been rigorously examined across multiple empirical and methodological phases, primarily within structural equation modeling environments.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity refers to whether the operationalized items accurately represent the theoretical construct. In Gotlieb et al. (1994), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the SWC items alongside scales measuring perceived service quality and behavioral intentions. Convergent validity was evidenced by:

• Statistically significant factor loadings ($p < .001$) for all four items on the latent satisfaction factor, with standardized coefficients uniformly exceeding .80.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE) estimates surpassing the recommended .50 threshold, establishing that the variance captured by the construct is significantly greater than the variance attributable to measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

A central empirical contribution of the Gotlieb et al. (1994) study was proving that satisfaction and perceived quality are distinct constructs rather than interchangeable artifacts. To verify discriminant validity:

• Chi-Square Difference Testing: The authors compared a constrained CFA model (where the correlation between perceived service quality and satisfaction was fixed to 1.0) against an unconstrained model (where the correlation was freely estimated). The unconstrained model demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in fit ($Delta chi^2 > 3.84, p < .001$), demonstrating that satisfaction and perceived quality are non-redundant constructs.
• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: Subsequent replications confirm that the square root of the AVE for the SWC scale is substantially greater than its bivariate correlation with related constructs, including perceived price fairness, hospital reputation, and professional competence.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity was verified by testing the placement of SWC within a theoretically grounded network. Structural equation modeling established that:

• Perceived service quality exerted a strong, positive, direct path coefficient to SWC ($\gamma pprox .65$ to $.78, p < .001$).
• SWC had a direct, statistically significant positive effect on behavioral intentions ($eta pprox .50$ to $.68, p < .001$).
• When testing mediation, the direct link between perceived quality and behavioral intentions became non-significant or substantially attenuated when SWC was entered into the model, confirming that anticipated/early satisfaction operates as a robust mediator of service quality outcomes.

8. Reliability

The SWC scale exhibits robust reliability coefficients across academic and industrial applications, reflecting low random measurement error and high item intercorrelation.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Gotlieb, Grewal, and Brown (1994), the four-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): The baseline instrument achieved an alpha coefficient of .89 to .91 across diverse experimental and field test conditions.
• Composite Reliability ($CR$): In structural equation modeling estimation, the composite reliability of the latent construct exceeded .90, far surpassing the standard psychometric adequacy criterion of .70 suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for each of the four items routinely range between .72 and .86, demonstrating that all items share substantial common variance with the overarching latent construct.

Stability and Error Variance

Because the scale is designed to evaluate immediate post-decisional and anticipated satisfaction, test-retest reliability over prolonged multi-week intervals is rarely appropriate due to the fact that ongoing service delivery dynamically alters the underlying satisfaction state. However, in short-interval test-retest assessments (e.g., 24 to 48 hours within the pre-service or early-admission phase), temporal stability coefficients have remained above .82, indicating that the instrument captures a stable evaluative attitude rather than momentary situational noise.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the SWC has been evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor extractions using Principal Axis Factoring with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations consistently reveal a clear, single-factor solution:

• Eigenvalues: A single factor typically yields an eigenvalue well above 3.10, accounting for 75% to 82% of the total variance across the four indicators.
• Scree Plot: The scree test exhibits a sharp drop after the first component, with subsequent eigenvalues falling well below 0.40.
• Factor Loadings: Unrotated and rotated loadings for all four items fall between .81 and .93, with negligible residual cross-loadings when evaluated alongside multi-item quality batteries.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm unidimensionality within a structural equation modeling framework, Gotlieb et al. estimated a measurement model using maximum likelihood estimation in LISREL. The four observed indicators were specified to load onto a single latent construct ($xi$):

Goodness-of-Fit Indices

The structural model incorporating the SWC measurement construct exhibited exemplary fit to the empirical data across standard benchmarks:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: $chi^2 / df < 2.0$, reflecting minimal divergence between the sample covariance matrix and the implied model matrix.
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): $> .95$
• Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI): $> .92$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $> .97$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $< .05$

These findings conclusively indicate that the four items reflect a singular, highly cohesive, unidimensional latent attitude.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Satisfaction with Company (Anticipated) (SWC)
• Construct Measured: Consumer early decision evaluation and anticipated organizational satisfaction.
• Target Population: Adult consumers, hospital patients, clients, or service users who have recently selected or engaged a service provider.
• Item Count: 4 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point semantic differential / Likert scale. Items 1 and 2 utilize bipolar agreement anchors (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), Item 3 utilizes satisfaction anchors (1 = Very Dissatisfied to 7 = Very Satisfied), and Item 4 utilizes pleasure anchors (1 = Very Displeased to 7 = Very Pleased).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital survey platform, or computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI).
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Scoring Rules: All items are scored on a 1 to 7 scale where 1 represents the least favorable response and 7 represents the most favorable response. Items are non-reversed. An overall anticipated satisfaction composite index is calculated by computing the arithmetic mean across all four items:
  
  $$\text{SWC Composite} = \frac{\text{Item}_1 + \text{Item}_2 + \text{Item}_3 + \text{Item}_4}{4}$$
  Higher composite scores reflect higher anticipated and decision satisfaction. Alternatively, items can be modeled as observed indicators of a single latent construct in structural equation modeling.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 1994
• Original Copyright: © 1994 by the American Psychological Association (APA). Published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
• Licensing and Fair Use: The scale items are widely accessible in the public academic literature for non-commercial research, academic inquiry, and educational purposes under fair use principles. Researchers utilizing the instrument in scholarly work should provide full bibliographic attribution to Gotlieb, Grewal, and Brown (1994).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial deployments, integration into proprietary healthcare management systems, or inclusion in fee-for-service consulting batteries may require explicit reproduction permission or licensing from the American Psychological Association.

12. References

• Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945
• Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000102
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3850
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Gotlieb, J. B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. W. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: Complementary or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 875–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.875
• 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
• Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)