Quality, value, satisfaction, trust, a

epresent higher tolerance of incompatibility while higher marginal means
represent lower tolerance. All results were in expected direction. Data supports
all seven hypotheses. Means for good and bad mood (2.63 and 3.70
respectively) provide strong support for hypothesis 1. The range of marginal
means (the difference between means for two levels) signifies the relative
intensity of the impact of design factors on response variable. Larger is the
range, higher is the impact. Range for mood is the third highest among the six
factors. Data also provide strong support for hypothesis 2, where marginal means
for expectation of incompatibility and no expectation were 2.58 and 3.78 and had
the second highest range (1.20). Hypotheses 3 about the impact of perception of
control on activity received only moderate support (3.38 and 2.97 for perception
of control over activities and no control respectively with a small range of 0.41).
Hypothesis 4 received the strongest support (2.55 and 3.80 for control and no
control over outcome with a range of 1.25). Hypotheses 5 and 6 received
moderate support (2.92 and 3.43 for open to change and conservative
orientations with a small range of 0.48). Similarly hypothesis 7 was also
supported moderately with means of 2.90 and 3.46 for low and high involvement
with a range of 0.56.
Place table 1 about here
Factorial analysis of variance was conducted to investigate the impact of
main and interaction effects on reaction to customer incompatibility. Model seems
to fit the data well (Adjusted R 2 =0 .893). ANOVA results presented in table 2,
showed a significant effects for control over outcome (F = 322, p