INTRODUCTION:

Expectations of Service,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 21(l), pp. l-12. Customer, in general, has been defined as a person who buys a product or uses a service. As per Drucker (1973), customer is the fundamental reason for the existence of business. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1944, p. 1792) defines satisfaction as "[1] being satisfied, [2] thing that satisfies desire or gratifies feeling". It describes satisfy as "[1] meeting wishes of content, [2] be accepted as adequate, [3] to fulfill, [4] comply with, [5] come up to expectations".

"Customer Satisfaction is generally described as the full meeting of one's expectations" (Oliver, 1980). "While customer satisfaction is a goal of the service provider, surrogate measures are typically used owing to the constraints involved in longitudinal studies. These measures relate to attitudes or future intentions towards the service provider. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that customer satisfaction can and should be viewed as an attitude" (Yi, 1990). Zeithaml et al., (1993) suggested that: customer satisfaction is a function of the customers' assessment of service quality, product quality and price. Olivia et al., (1995) stated that satisfaction is a function of product performance relative to consumer's expectations. Parasuraman et al., (1994) proposed that customer overall satisfaction is a function of service quality, product quality and price. Anderson et al., (1994) stated that expectations, quality and price affect customer satisfaction. Hill (1996) defined customer satisfaction as the customers' perceptions that a supplier has met or exceeded their expectations. Customers' perception of a service quality is based on his or her encounters with the firm. Gerson (1996) opined that a customer was satisfied whenever his or her needs met or exceeded. As per Caru and Cugini (1999), customer satisfaction is critically important for its impact on customer retention and firm's profitability. Oliver (1999) described the customer satisfaction as 'pleasurable fulfilment'. Wirtz (2003) cited the results of customer satisfaction as repeat purchase, loyalty, positive word-of-mouth and increased long term profitability. Kotler (2003) stated that high customer retention is an indicator for customer satisfaction. Ribbink et al., (2004) discussed the importance of customer satisfaction while doing business online and stated that satisfaction is likely to be even more important online, since it is harder to keep online customers loyal. Gustafsson et al., (2005) opined that customer satisfaction is a customer's overall evaluation of the performance of an offering to date. This overall satisfaction has a strong positive effect on customer intentions across a wide range of product and service categories. According to Soderlund (2006), "measures of overall customer satisfaction typically capture consumer expectations towards the service provided, as well as how far the provided service is from their ideal". In this paper, customer satisfaction of public insurance sector and private insurance sector has been compared.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The review of past studies has been presented to provide a glimpse of work done in this area.

Chowdhury, T.A. et al (2007), in their paper titled “Perceptions of the Customers towards Insurance Companies in Bangladesh- A Study based on the SERVQUAL Model” analyzed the insurance companies of Bangladesh. The main objective was to study the clients’ behavior and attitude regarding insurance companies in Bangladesh. It was found that the level and depth of marketing orientation varies so a broad distinction can easily be made between the public insurance sector and private insurance sector. It was found that the people have the perception that the services provided by the private insurance companies are far better than public insurance companies.

Christopher, S. E. (2009), in their paper titled “Consumer Awareness and Perceptual value on Insurance Products and Services” analyzed that the marketers had understood that they need to recognize the consumer needs and just not stop at that, but effectively make efforts to fulfill their needs and enhance their level of satisfaction to gain brand loyalty in the long run. Their main objective was to understand the general awareness of the consumers about Insurance. The primary data had been collected from 100 respondents through questionnaire. It was found that insurance market in India is still wide open for major business threshold and still remains to be covered and the need for the insurance market players to understand and hold the potential of the market remains in them understanding the pulse of the individual and moderating the behavior of consumer.

Duodu, F.K. and Amankwah, T. (2011), in their paper titled “An analysis and assessment of customer satisfaction with service quality in Insurance Industry in Ghana” analyzed the various factors which influence customer satisfaction towards insurance industry. The survey was done on 1100 customers on 11 insurance companies in Ghana. The main research constructs were satisfaction, determinants of satisfaction such as functional quality, technical quality and reputational quality. It was found that the customer satisfaction can wholly depend upon the reliability of the services provided by the insurance sector. It was found that the demographic variables cannot affect the customer satisfaction and behavior intentions.

Bapat, H.B. et al(2014), in their paper titled “A study of Product Quality of selected Public and Private sector Life Insurance Companies” analyzed that the perception of customers in terms of service quality. The comparison had been made between the Life Insurance Corporation of India and ICICI prudential life insurance company limited for evaluating the customer perception in terms of service quality. It was found that the Life Insurance Corporation of India was providing the good services to the customers but the ICICI prudential life insurance limited identified the gap between public and private insurance sector and started providing more services as compared to public sector.

Leepsa, N.M. and Digal, S.K. (2015), in their paper titled “The Insurance Industry in India: A Comparative Analysis of the Private and Public Players” analyzed the various factors required for making the comparison between public and private insurance players. The comparison has been made on the basis of Insurance Education, Mergers and Acquisitions, and profitability of insurance firms and role of government in insurance sector. It was found that the people had more confidence upon the public insurance sector.

Research Methodology:

The area of study is Jalandhar. The study has been done on Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Private Limited. The primary data has been collected through questionnaire to carry out the further study.The Chi-Square had been applied under this study. The sample size of 200 respondents (100 of LIC and 100 of ICICI).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

A comparative study of customer satisfaction and loyalty in respect to their demographic variables in Public Insurance sector and Private Insurance sector.

Null Hypotheses:

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between gender and customers’ satisfaction in public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between age and customers’ satisfaction in public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between income and customers’ satisfaction in public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

Ho4: There is no significant relationship between educational qualification and customers’ satisfaction in public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

Ho5: There is no significant relationship between occupation and customers’ satisfaction in public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

Ho6: There is no significant relationship between marital status and customers’ satisfaction in public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

H_O7: There is no significant difference in level of customer loyalty between public insurance sector and private insurance sector.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

Demographic Profile of Respondents of Public Insurance Sector and Private Insurance Sector

For the purpose of comparisons of customer loyalty in public insurance sector and private insurance sector, responses on respondents’ attitudes, opinions and experiences have also been collected from both public insurance sector and private insurance sector. Table no. 1 depicts the demographic profile of respondents:

Table No. 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents’ of Public Insurance Sector and Private Insurance Sector

Description	Number of Respondents	Public Insurance Sector	Private Insurance Sector
Gender	Male	40 (40%)	50 (50%)
	Female	60 (60%)	50 (50%)
	Total	100	100
Age	20- 30	25 (25%)	23 (23%)
	31- 40	37 (37%)	22 (22%)
	41- 50	12 (12%)	33 (33%)
	51and above	26 (26%)	22 (22%)
	Total	100	100
Income Level p.a. (in lakhs)	Less than 2	10 (10%)	10 (10%)
	2- 4	11 (11%)	38 (38%)
	4- 6	33 (33%)	19 (19%)
	Above 6	46 (46%)	33 (33%)
	Total	100	100
Educational Qualification	Secondary education or below	13 (13%)	11(11%)
	Graduates	38 (38%)	37 (37%)
	Post- Graduates	39 (39%)	33 (33%)
	Any other	10 (10%)	19 (19%)
	Total	100	100
Occupation	Service Class	25 (25%)	36 (36%)
	Business Class	38 (38%)	28 (28%)
	Students	5 (5%)	18 (18%)
	Retired	23 (23%)	9 (9%)
	Other	9 (9%)	9 (9%)
	Total	100	100
Marital Status	Single	37 (37%)	24 (24%)
	Married	63 (63%)	76 (76%)
	Total	100	100

Table no. 1 reported that the 60% respondents are female in the public insurance sector and 40% are the male but in private insurance sector the ratio is 1:1 i.e. 50% are the male and 50% are female. In case of public insurance sector, maximum people are of the age group of 31- 40 years i.e. 37% people and rest is the 25% in the age group of 20- 30 years and 12% are in the age group of 41- 50 years and 26% are in the age group of more than 51 years of age. But in case of private insurance sector most of the people are of the age group of 41- 50 years i.e. 33% people and rest is the 23% in the age group of 20- 30 years and 22% both in 31- 40 years and 51 years and above age group. In case of income 46% people have more than 6 lakh income per annum in case of public insurance sector and rest are 10% in case of less than 2 lakh per annum and 11% in 2- 4 lakh per annum and 33% in 4- 6 lakh per annum. But in case of private insurance sector 38% of the people have their income in the category of 2- 4 lakh per annum and 10% in case of less than 2 lakh per annum and 19% in case of 4- 6 lakh per annum and 33% are of above 6 lakh per annum. In case of public insurance sector 39% people are post- graduates and rest is the 13% belong to secondary education or below and 38% are graduates and 10% belong to any other qualification. But in case of private insurance sector 37% people are the graduates and 11% belongs to secondary education or below and 33% people are post- graduates and 19% people belongs to any other qualification. In the public insurance sector 38% people belongs to business class and 25% are from the service class and 5% are students and 23% are retired people and 9% comes in the category of others. But in case of private insurance sector 36% people belongs to service class and 28% are from business class and 18% are students and 9% are the retired people and the rest 9% comes in the category of others. There are 63% married people in case of public insurance sector and 37% people are single. But in private insurance sector 76% people are married and 24% people are single.

An Analysis of Demographic factors of customers’ in relation to their satisfaction in Public Insurance Sector and Private Insurance sector.

An attempt has been made to explore the relationship between customers’ demographic variables and satisfaction both in public insurance sector and private insurance sector. Chi- square test has been used to identify the significant relationships between demographic factors and customers’ satisfaction.

Table No. 2: Cross Tabulation between Gender and Customer Satisfaction

Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
Gender	Customer Satisfaction		Total	Gender	Customer Satisfaction		Total
Gender	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total	Gender	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total
Male	20	20	40	Male	30	20	50
Female	31	29	60	Female	27	23	50
Total	51	49	100	Total	57	43	100

Table No. 3: Chi- Square Test between Gender and Customer Satisfaction

Description	Public Insurance Sector			Private Insurance Sector
Description	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig.
Pearson Chi- Square	.027	1	.870	.367	1	.545
Likelihood Ratio	.027	1	.870	.367	1	.544
Linear-by-linear association	.026	1	.871	.364	1	.547
N of valid cases	100			100

Table No. 4: Cross Tabulation between Age and Customer Satisfaction

Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
Age	Customer Satisfaction		Total	Age	Customer Satisfaction		Total
Age	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total	Age	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total
20- 30	13	12	25	20- 30	12	11	23
31- 40	25	12	37	31- 40	12	10	22
41- 50	0	12	12	41- 50	20	13	33
51and above	13	13	26	51and above	13	9	22
Total	51	49	100	Total	57	43	100

Table No. 5: Chi- Square Test between Age and Customer Satisfaction

Description	Public Insurance Sector			Private Insurance Sector
Description	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig.
Pearson Chi- Square	16.574	3	.001	.487	3	.922
Likelihood Ratio	21.302	3	.000	.487	3	.922
Linear-by-linear association	1.495	1	.221	.365	1	.546
N of valid cases	100			100

Table No. 6: Cross Tabulation between Income and Customer Satisfaction

Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
Income p.a.(in lacs)	Customer Satisfaction		Total	Income p.a.(in lacs)	Customer Satisfaction		Total
Income p.a.(in lacs)	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total	Income p.a.(in lacs)	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total
Less than 2	4	6	10	Less than 2	5	5	10
2- 4	0	11	11	2- 4	22	16	38
4- 6	12	21	33	4- 6	13	6	19
Above 6	35	11	46	Above 6	17	16	33
Total	51	49	100	Total	57	43	100

Table No. 7: Chi- Square Test between Income and Customer Satisfaction

Description	Public Insurance Sector			Private Insurance Sector
Description	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.
Pearson chi- square	26.347	3	.000	1.629	3	.653
Likelihood ratio	31.260	3	.000	1.656	3	.647
Linear-by-linear association	15.655	1	.000	.022	1	.883
N of valid cases	100			100

Table No. 8: Cross Tabulation between Educational Qualification and Customer Satisfaction

Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
Education	Customer Satisfaction		Total	Education	Customer Satisfaction		Total
Education	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total	Education	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total
Secondary Education or Below	0	13	13	Secondary Education or Below	7	4	11
Graduates	26	12	38	Graduates	18	19	37
Post- Graduates	19	20	39	Post- Graduates	20	13	33
Any other	6	4	10	Any other	12	7	19
Total	51	49	100	Total	57	43	100

Table No. 9: Chi- Square Test between Educational Qualification and Customer Satisfaction

Description	Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
		Value	df	Asymp. Sig.	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig.
Pearson chi- square		18.551	3	.000	1.720	3	.633
Likelihood ratio		23.692	3	.000	1.717	3	.633
Linear-by-linear association		3.179	1	.075	.377	1	.539
N of valid cases		100			100

Table No. 10: Cross Tabulation between Occupation and Customer Satisfaction

Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
Occupation	Customer Satisfaction		Total	Occupation	Customer Satisfaction		Total
Occupation	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total	Occupation	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total
Service Class	0	25	25	Service Class	19	17	36
Business Class	26	12	38	Business Class	22	6	28
Students	4	1	5	Students	10	8	18
Retired	12	11	23	Retired	3	6	9
Other	9	0	9	Other	3	6	9
Total	51	49	100	Total	57	43	100

Table No. 11: Chi- Square Test between Occupation and Customer Satisfaction

Description	Public Insurance Sector			Private Insurance Sector
Description	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig.
Pearson chi- square	40.978	4	.000	9.706	4	.046
Likelihood ratio	54.346	4	.000	10.126	4	.038
Linear-by-linear association	17.719	1	.000	2.175	1	.140
N of valid cases	100			100

Table no. 10 depicts that the highest percentage of satisfied customers belongs to the business class in public insurance sector. In case of service class 25%

customers are unsatisfied and in the category of business class 26% customers are satisfied and 12% are unsatisfied. In the category of students 4% are satisfied and 5% are unsatisfied. In the category of retired customers 12% are satisfied and 11% are unsatisfied and in the category of others 9% customers are satisfied.

But in private insurance sector the highest percentage of satisfied customers belongs to the business class. In the category of service class 19% customers are satisfied and 17% customers are unsatisfied. In the category of business class 22% customers are satisfied and 6% are unsatisfied customers. In case of students 10% are satisfied and 8% are unsatisfied and in the category of retired customers 3% customers are satisfied and 6% are unsatisfied. In the category of others 3% customers are satisfied and 6% are unsatisfied customers.

Table no. 11 reveals that in public insurance sector the Pearson chi- square calculated value is .000 which is less than .05 (p < .05). Hence, null hypothesis i.e. “There is no significant relationship between occupation and customers’ satisfaction of public insurance sector” is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted. It means occupation and customer satisfaction are dependent to each other. Hence, occupation has direct association to satisfaction. In private insurance sector the Pearson chi- square calculated value is .046 which is less than .05 (p < .05). Hence, null hypothesis i.e. “There is no significant relationship between occupation and customers’ satisfaction of private insurance sector” is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted. It means occupation and customer satisfaction are dependent to each other. Hence, occupation has direct association to satisfaction.

Table No. 12: Cross Tabulation between Marital Status and Customer Satisfaction

Public Insurance Sector				Private Insurance Sector
Marital Status	Customer Satisfaction		Total	Marital Status	Customer Satisfaction		Total
Marital Status	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total	Marital Status	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total
Single	12	25	37	Single	20	5	25
Married	39	24	63	Married	37	38	75
Total	51	49	100	Total	57	43	100

Table No. 13: Chi- Square Test between Marital Status and Customer Satisfaction

Description	Public Insurance Sector			Private Insurance Sector
Description	Value	df	Asymp. Sig.	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig.
Pearson chi- square	8.102	1	.004	7.194	1	.007
Likelihood ratio	8.232	1	.004	7.684	1	.006
Linear-by-linear association	8.021	1	.005	7.122	1	.008
N of valid cases	100			100

Table no. 12 reveals that the highest percentage of satisfied customers is married in public insurance sector. In the category of single 12% customers are satisfied and 25% customers are unsatisfied. In the category of married 39% customers are satisfied and 24% are unsatisfied customers.

But in private insurance sector the highest percentage of satisfied customers are married. In the category of single 20% customers are satisfied and 5% are unsatisfied customers. In the category of married 37% customers are satisfied and 38% customers are unsatisfied.

Table no. 13 it has been found that in public insurance sector the Pearson chi- square calculated value is .004 which is less than .05 (p < .05). Hence, null hypothesis i.e. “There is no significant relationship between marital status and customers’ satisfaction of public insurance sector” is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted. It means marital status and customer satisfaction are dependent to each other. Hence, marital status has direct association to satisfaction. In private insurance sector the Pearson chi- square calculated value is .007 which is less than .05 (p < .05). Hence, null hypothesis i.e. “There is no significant relationship between marital status and customers’ satisfaction of private insurance sector” is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted. It means marital status and customer satisfaction are dependent to each other. Hence, marital status has direct association to satisfaction.

Comparison of Level of Customer Loyalty in Public Insurance Sector and Private Insurance Sector:

This section examines the difference in level of customer loyalty in public Insurance Sector and private insurance sectors. The hypothesis that has been taken for this analysis is “there is no significant difference in level of customer loyalty between public Insurance Sector and private insurance sector’. Thus, in order to verify the hypothesized statements the simple comparison based on mean and standard deviation has been done.

Table No. 14 Comparison of Level of Customer Loyalty between Public Insurance Sector and Private Insurance Sector

Category	Description	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Standard Deviation
Public Insurance Sector	Switching cost	100	1	2	1.4300	.492
	Loyalty	100	1	2	1.500	.482
	Customer Satisfaction	100	1	2	1.4000	.462
Private Insurance Sector	Switching cost	100	1	2	1.600	.472
	Loyalty	100	1	2	1.40	.502
	Customer Satisfaction	100	1	2	1.4300	.442

Along with, level of customer loyalty is not similar in both sectors.

CONCLUSION:

Thus, customer satisfaction is crucial for endurance of the organization for a long period which is possible only if the organization is able to attract newer customers and retain the existing ones. Hence, for survival in the world of globalization and cutthroat competition, customer satisfaction is the top priority for the banking industry

which itself is the most significant constituent of an economy as well. Here, the analysis of respondents’ demographic characteristics indicates that customers have different needs and expectations that need a deep understanding of individual customer needs. Companies need to identify customers’ expectations and focus on meeting their current needs.

REFERENCES:

1. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., and Lehmann, (1994), “Customer Satisfaction, Market Share and Profitability: Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 53-66.

2. Bapat, H.B. (2014), “a study of Product quality of Selected Public and Private Life Insurance Companies”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol 16, issue 4, pp 32-41.

3. Caru, A., and Cugini. A., (1999), “Profitability and Customer Satisfaction in Services,” International Journal of Service Industry Management. 10 (2), pp. 132-157.

4. Chowdhury, T.A. et al(2007), “Perceptions of the Customers towards Insurance Companies in Bangladesh- A Study based on the SERVQUAL Model”, BRAC University Journal, PP 55-66, Volume 4, Issue 3.

5. Christopher, S.E.(2009), “Consumer Awareness and Perceptual value on Insurance Products and Services”, Journal of Management and Science, PP 21-25, Volume 1,Issue 2.

6. Drucker, P.F., (1973), “Management Tasks. Responsibilities, Practices,” New York, pp. 64-65.

7. Duodu, F.K. and Amankwah, T.(2011), “An analysis and assessment of customer satisfaction with service quality in Insurance Industry in Ghana”, International Journal of Computer Science and Technology, PP 1-97, Volume 3, Issue 2.

8. Gen, C. and Clemes, M., (2006), “A Logit Analysis of electronic Banking in New Zealand”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24(6), pp. 360-383.

9. Gerson, R.F., (1996), “Great Customer Service for your Small Business,” Crisp Publications, California.

10. Gustafsson, A., Jhonson, M., and Inger, R., (2005), “The Effect of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions and Triggers on Customer Retention,” Journal of Marketing, 69(4), pp. 210-218.

11. Hackle, P., and Westlund, A.H., (2000), “On Structural Equation Modelling for Customer Satisfaction Measurement,” Total Quality Management, 11(4/5/6), pp. S820-S825.

12. Hill, N., (1996), Handbook of Customer Satisfaction, Aldershot, Gower Publishing Limited.

13. Kotler, P., (2003), Marketing Management, Pearson Education, Inc. Fifth Edition.

14. Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner, M.J.. (2000), “Self –Service Technologies: Understanding /customer Satisfaction with Technology-based Service Encounters”, Journal of Marketing Research, 64(3), pp. 50-64.

15. Oliver, R. L., (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?,” Journal of Marketing, 63(4), pp. 33-44.

16. Oliver, R.L., (1980), “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), pp. 460-469.

17. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L, (1994), “Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (Jan Issue), pp. 111-124.

18. Leepsa, N.M. and Digal, S.K. (2015), “The insurance industry in India: a comparative analysis of the Provate and public players” Journal of Business and Management, pp 1-37.

19. Ribbink, D., Van-Riel, A., Liljander V., and Streukens, S., (2004), “Comfort your Online Customer: Quality, Trust and Loyalty on the Internet,” Managing Service Quality, 14 (6), pp. 446-456.

20. Soderlund, M., (2006), “Measuring Customer Loyalty with Multi-item Scales: A Case for Caution,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), pp. 76-98.

21. Wirtz, J., (2003), “Halo in Customer Satisfaction Measures: the Role of Purpose of Rating, Number of Attributes and Customer Involvement,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(1), pp. 96-119.

22. Yi, Y., (1990), “A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction,” in Zeithaml, V.A. (Ed.), Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 68-123.

23. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, I.L. and Parasuraman, A., (1993), “The Nature and Determinants of Customer.

Received on 05.07.2017 Modified on 17.08.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(4):1271-1279.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00193.7

Null Hypotheses	Public Insurance Sector	Private Insurance Sector
H_O1: There is no significant relationship between gender and customers’ satisfaction.	Accepted	Accepted
H_O2: There is no significant relationship between age and customers’ satisfaction.	Rejected	Accepted
H_O3: There is no significant relationship between income and customers’ satisfaction.	Rejected	Accepted
H_O4: There is no significant relationship between educational qualification and customers’ satisfaction.	Rejected	Accepted
H_O5: There is no significant relationship between occupation and customers’ satisfaction.	Rejected	Rejected
H_O6: There is no significant relationship between marital status and customers’ satisfaction.	Rejected	Rejected