Thomas Powers and Eric Jack look into, “The Influence of Cognitive Dissonance on Retail Product Returns” in their research. The researchers specify two parts of cognitive dissonance used in their study: product and emotional dissonance. These dimensions are defined by the scholars in their article as follows, “Product related cognitions related to dissonance are based on unknown outcomes different from the actual purchase (Powers & Jack, 2013)” and “The emotional dimension of dissonance has been described as a sense of disappointment or sadness due to the choice made with the possibility that the outcome would have been better if the customer had acted differently (Powers & Jack, 2013).” The three variables that influence cognitive dissonance resulting in product returns as defined Powers & Jack are the consideration of liberal return policies, customer opportunism, and switching barriers. The researchers look into these three influencers and two moderators in their study. Gender and the store brand are established as the moderators of the study and used to look more in depth at the results of the study. Overall the researchers want to learn about how the actions retailers take can impact customer’s decisions to return products.
Eight hypotheses are made by Powers & Jack to be tested in their study. The first three hypotheses delve into the three variables of cognitive dissonance: liberal return policies, customer opportunism, and switching barriers. Three more hypothesis were made to analyze the expected effect of product and emotional dissonance on each the frequency of returns. The seventh and eighth hypotheses made by the researchers address moderators of their study: gender and store brand. These hypotheses predict how the findings will differ based on males v. females and Target v. Wal-Mart customers. To find the relations of these