The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
EJM 46,1/2
284 Received February 2008 Revised November 2008 June 2009 December 2009 Accepted March 2010
A dynamic model of customer complaining behaviour from the perspective of service-dominant logic Ba˚rd Tronvoll Department of Business Administration, Hedmark University College, Elverum, Norway Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual model of customer complaining behaviour as a dynamic process in accordance with the service-dominant logic perspective of marketing. Design/methodology/approach – The study reviews the common behaviour models of customer complaints and relates this to the service-dominant logic perspective in order to develop and describe a dynamic conceptual model of customer complaining behaviour. Findings – The proposed model posits three categories of complaining behaviour due to a customer’s unfavourable service experience: no complaining response, communication complaining responses, and action complaining responses. Research limitations/implications – Empirical validation of the proposed conceptual model is needed. Practical implications – The proposed model can be used by managers to understand the various behaviour responses of customer complaints that the company experiences. In addition, the model assists in framing appropriate managerial responses, including service recovery and improved service design. Originality/value – The study represents a thorough conceptual examination of the complaint process and proposes a dynamic model of customer complaining behaviour based on the service-dominant logic perspective. Keywords Customer complaining behaviour, Complaint process, Service-dominant logic of marketing, Communication complaint responses, Action complaint responses, Customers, Customer satisfaction, Complaints, Logic Paper type Conceptual paper
European Journal of Marketing Vol. 46 No. 1/2, 2012 pp. 284-305 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090561211189338
Introduction Information and feedback from customers are generally acknowledged as important factors in achieving a positive marketing outcome (Fornell and Wernefelt, 1987; Tax et al., 1998; Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002; Voorhees et al., 2006). One feature of this feedback relates to complaining behaviour therefore it is vital for service companies to understand the logic of this behaviour as well as how customers articulate their unfavourable service experience. As competitive pressures increase and customers pay more attention to service quality, it becomes impossible for service companies to compete successfully unless they pay close attention to customer feedback and complaints (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
The successful resolution of complaining behaviour may significantly affect the financial performance of a company. A complaint provides an opportunity for service recovery followed by a chance to educate the customer, strengthen loyalty and evoke positive word-of-mouth comments (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Blodgett and Anderson, 2000; Shields, 2006). Although attracting new customers is vital, successful companies recognise that retaining current customers and building loyalty are even more important for profitability; as such, successful companies actually encourage dissatisfied customers to complain (Tax et al., 1998). Indeed, successful complaint handling can be a significant positive investment for a service company generating a return of 30-150 per cent on investment (Brown, 2000). Most existing models treat customer complaining behaviour as a static, post-purchase phenomenon (Hirschman, 1970; Day and Landon, 1977; Richins, 1983a, 1987; Singh, 1988; Stephens, 2000). This retrospective view of customer complaining behaviour is derived from the conventional goods-dominant logic (G-D logic) of marketing. According to the G-D logic perspective, companies develop and offer products or services with embedded value for the customer after the exchange. Consequently, if a customer becomes aware of a product failure after the exchange, he or she will become dissatisfied and subsequently complain as a post-purchase activity. In contrast to this perspective, service-dominant logic (S-D logic) (Vargo and Lusch, 2004b; Lusch and Vargo, 2006b; Lusch et al., 2007; Vargo and Lusch, 2008) holds that service, defined as the application of resources linked to competence for the benefit of an actor, is the basis of economic exchange. Thus, S-D logic must be seen as a perspective where service as an exchange for service. According to this perspective, customers create value in a dynamic service-adjustment process (Tronvoll, 2007b). Thus, if they experience any lack of quality during this process of value creation, they may immediately give the company feedback, complain or voice their unfavourable experience to others. It follows that from an S-D logic perspective, complaints must be viewed as a behavioural process that occurs during the service process, in addition to being a post-interaction process as envisaged in existing models. From this perspective, the present study contends that it is necessary to re-evaluate existing complaining models in the light of an S-D logic perspective, by proposing a modified model that explains immediate complaining behaviour in the context of dynamic service provision. The aim of this study, therefore, is to propose a dynamic customer complaint model based on an S-D logic perspective. The following section provides a theoretical framework derived from an examination of the literature about existing complaining behaviour models and S-D logic. Subsequently, a conceptual complaining behaviour model will be explained that takes into account the possible behavioural responses of customers during the complaint process. The final section of the paper is devoted to the managerial implications of the proposed model and the opportunities for future research. Literature review and theoretical framework Existing customer complaining behaviour models The definitions of customer complaining behaviour generally have been based on a G-D logic perspective and are outcome-oriented; consequently, complaining behaviour becomes a post-purchased activity (e.g. Day, 1980; Landon, 1980; Day et al., 1981;
Customer complaining behaviour 285
EJM 46,1/2
Stephens, 2000). A commonly used definition of customer complaining behaviour was suggested by Singh (1988, p. 94), who conceptualised it as: [. . .] a set of multiple (behavioural and non-behavioural) responses, some or all of which are triggered by perceived dissatisfaction with a purchase episode.
286
The most commonly used models of customer complaining behaviour are founded on this or similar definitions. Hirschman’s (1970) theory of exit, voice and loyalty was one of the first to conceptualise customer complaining behaviour (Figure 1a). Hirschman focused on political parties and the possibility of members being able to change political strategy and aims. According to Hirschman’s (1970) model, the customer has three options: (1) voice a complaint to the seller or a third party; (2) exit the relationship with the seller through switching; or (3) take no action (loyalty). Exit can be seen as an economic action, whereas voice is more of a political statement. The model suggests that the customer’s action is dependent on the degree of customer loyalty. According to Hirschman, loyal customers use their voice when they experience a reduction in quality. Several researchers have added to Hirschman’s conceptualised model and have empirically confirmed that the three predictors model finds reliable measures for exit, voice and loyalty (e.g. Andreasen, 1985; Fornell and Wernefelt, 1987; Huefner and Hunt, 1994; Stewart, 1998). Hirschman’s three-dimensional classification schemes have had a vital impact on complaining behaviour research and have influenced the work of political scientists, sociologists, social psychologists and marketers. His research has increased the interest and understanding of customer complaining behaviour and has resulted in a large collection of complaint data. Hirschman’s research has enlightened the conceptual structure of complaining behaviour and subsequently service recovery research. Huefner and Hunt (2000), for example, have extended Hirschman’s complaint model and included retaliation as an additional behavioural outcome. Day and Landon (1977) suggest a three-level hierarchical scheme (Figure 1b). This is essentially a conceptual model, although the authors did cite empirical data from an earlier study of various goods and service industries (Day and Landon, 1976). The model distinguished between “take no action” and “take some action”. If any action is taken, it is subdivided into “private actions” (such as decisions to make no further purchases, warnings to friends or ceasing to patronise) and “public actions” (such as seeking redress from the seller, complaints to consumer affairs agencies or legal action). Singh (1988) uses empirical data from grocery stores, automobile-repair shops, medical-care providers, banks and financial services to extend Day and Landon’s (1977) hierarchical model to the following three dimensions: (1) “private response” (e.g. negative word-of-mouth); (2) “voice response” (e.g. seeking redress from the seller); and (3) third-party response (e.g. taking legal action or complaining to an external third party) (Figure 1c). The author included “no complaint” under the category of “voice response”. Common to all the complaint models is the focus on activities after the purchase episode.
Customer complaining behaviour 287
Figure 1. Existing models of complaining behaviour
EJM 46,1/2
288
Traditionally, the common determinant of complaining behaviour has been described as dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is based in disconfirmation theory and is defined as a customer experience that is less than the perceived expectation. Complaints do not always stem from dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction does not always lead to complaining behaviour; therefore, dissatisfaction is not sufficient cause for customers to complain (Day, 1984; Singh and Pandya, 1991). Davidow and Dacin (1997), for example, have shown that personality-related variables represent almost half of the total complaint responses. Complaining behaviour thus appears to be more complex than a simple reaction to post-purchase dissatisfaction. The customer, however, not only co-creates value after delivery, but also during the service provision. It could even be argued that value co-creation will take place before service provision, in some forms of co-production. Additionally, post-experience complaining could be considered to be pre-delivery co-production for future service encounters. Therefore, the existing complaint models will be challenged because of their static and single post-purchase focus. The change of perspective in marketing Recently, an increasing number of scholars and practitioners have questioned the G-D logic perspective in favour of an S-D logic, which emphasises a more dynamic perspective of service (Vargo and Lusch, 2004b; Edvardsson et al., 2005a; Lusch et al., 2007). According to Vargo and Lusch (2004b), the S-D logic perspective posits goods as resources that are used in service provision, that is, service is defined as the application of competences for the benefit of another party and is the fundamental basis of economic exchange. A key assumption in S-D logic is that resources – operand and operant – do not “have” value per se, but value is created by customers when resources are used, hence the term value-in-use (Vargo and Lusch, 2004b). S-D logic categorises operand resources as typically physical and categorises operant resources as typically human, such as knowledge, skills and information (Hunt and Derozier, 2004). Vargo and colleagues (see, e.g. Vargo et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2010), however, have lately, begun to recognise that value-in-use is a transitional concept and should be replaced by the term value-in-context. According to this view, value is assessed by the beneficiary in the specific context when in use. The essential principles of S-D logic perspective can be summarised as follows (Vargo and Lusch, 2004b; Lusch and Vargo, 2006a; Vargo and Lusch, 2008): . Customers are the arbiters of value in the service provision – either directly in interaction with the company or through service interaction derived from goods. . Competitive advantages are based on operant resources, the co-creation of service and the sharing of collaborative competence. This advantage is achieved by engaging customers and value-network partners. . S-D logic emphasises the dynamic development of relationships through which various forms of interaction and value creation can emerge over time. . The creation of value is a phenomenological concept determined by and in the context of the resource integrators. S-D logic perspective implies a change in focus regarding how value is created, which also implies a change in how customer complaining behaviour must be understood. Complaints are no longer perceived merely as transactional post-purchase behaviour
but rather as a phenomenologically determined, unfavourable service experience. In other words, complaints are no longer perceived as emerging from a failure in the operand resources (i.e. a product failure), but as emerging from a lack of fit with the desired experience. This lack of fit emerges from a failure or problem in the application of knowledge and skills (operant resources), that is, critical negative incidents in the collaboration of the service provision through either service or goods. One example is a customer who has checked into a highly rated hotel. The hotel has recently communicated its value proposition through advertising, focusing on personal service and a range of facilities. During the stay, the customer experienced a long check-in queue and when she finally reached the front desk, the receptionist could not answer a basic question about a nearby tourist attraction. This resulted in the customer making gestures and rolling her eyes. Later that evening, while the customer was eating supper in the hotel restaurant, she was told by an arrogant waiter that the coffee was finished and it was too late to make a new one. The customer instantly wanted to complain to the maitre d’, but she could not find him. In the hotel bar afterwards, the customer discussed these negative incidents with some other guests. Altogether, these negative incidents became critical and the customer decided to give some feedback to the reception manager when she checked out of the hotel. After the stay, when noticing that the bill was charged twice to her credit card, she immediately voiced a formal complaint to the hotel manager. This example gives a description of a chain of activities leading to an unfavourable service experience resulting in altered complaining behaviour. A customer complaint model based on S-D logic perspective must therefore include reactions about the collaboration of the co-creation of service and the creation of value, both during and after the service provision. Moreover, such a model must take into account the changing contextual conditions and embrace the adjustment resulting from the dialogue with the customer. Existing complaint models do not allow for such chains of incidents and dialogue. The dynamic understanding of customer complaining behaviour The complaint process In this study, the term “complaint process” describes the customer’s complaining behaviour embedded in the context with the presence of a specific resource-configuration interacting with that behaviour. In other words, the complaint process exists as a hidden structure of related complaint activities and may run simultaneously but separately from the co-creation process even though both processes are interwoven. This process can be understood as a network of activities rather than as a sequence – although the complaint activities are still linked in an orderly way (Ljungberg, 2002). The complaint process normally begins with a trigger caused by an incident. The initial unfavourable service experience can include the following: . the experience of a negative critical incident; . several negative incidents that together become critical; . a negative evaluation of value-in-context during the service provision; or . an unacceptable evaluation in the post-provision phase. A negative critical incident is defined in the present study as an incident that has the potential to have an adverse effect on the customer’s attitude or behaviour towards the
Customer complaining behaviour 289
EJM 46,1/2
290
company. A negative incident leading to an unfavourable service experience is defined as a state of cognitive and affective discomfort caused by insufficient return relative to the resource-configuration (operand and operant) used by the customer at any part of the service provision and the value-in-context evaluation. An unfavourable service experience is defined as a service process that causes customers to form negative cognitive, emotional or behavioural responses, which ultimately results in a negative mental “mark” (or memory) (based on Edvardsson et al., 2005b). In terms of S-D logic perspective, we may redefine customer complaining behaviour to be viewed as a process that emerges if a negative incident triggers an unfavourable service experience. This experience can be expressed in the form of verbal or non-verbal communication to another entity, which can lead to a behavioural change (Tronvoll, 2007b). The unfavourable experience that is outside the customers’ normal experience must be understood as being beyond the boundary of what is acceptable or within the range of objectionability. The basis of this understanding can be found in adaptation-level theory, prospect theory and social-judgement theory (for more discussions see, e.g. Sherif et al., 1965; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Vargo and Lusch, 2004a; Tronvoll, 2007b). To understand how and why a complaint develops over time, inspiration may be found in process theories. An emergent process can be described as a sequence of changed events that unfold over the duration of an entity’s existence (Van de Ven and Poole, 1991), which includes identification, action, reaction and termination. The process of sequence is a description of how things change over time. Van de Ven (1992) identifies four different families of process theories: lifecycle, teleology, dialectics and evolution theories. These theories explain why observed events occur in particular sequence progressions when specific circumstances or conditions occur. Lifecycle and dialectic theories may be fruitful to apply to customer complaining behaviour because of the distinct characteristic of the complaint process, that is, usually a given cause starts the process. The lifecycle theory (Miles and Kimberly, 1980; Ansoff, 1984; Van de Ven, 1992) takes for granted that change is inborn and fundamental. In terms of customer complaining behaviour, the lifecycle theory regulates the process of change and drives the complaint from a given point, the cause of complaint, towards an anticipated end. The complaint that lies latent in the early stage of the complaining behaviour becomes progressively more mature, complex and distinguished. Different contextual events and processes may influence how the customers express themselves, but it will always be within the inborn logic. A lifecycle theory will frequently operate on the basis of institutional rules that require developmental activities in a prescribed sequence (Van de Ven, 1992). The lifecycle theory describes the process as different stages: (1) a set of starting conditions; (2) an emergent process of change; and (3) a functional end-point (Van de Ven, 1992). An example of the lifecycle theory is written guidelines describing different stages through which the complainer must proceed in order to, for instance, seek redress from the company. The dialectic theory (Engels et al., 1940; Van de Ven, 1992; Holt, 2002) believes that the development of a complaint process is based on argumentation that focuses on
resolving contradictions. The dialectic theory portrays a pluralistic world of colliding events, forces or contradictory values that compete with each other for domination and control (Van de Ven, 1992). Stability and change in the complaining process are described as forces competing to sustain the status quo and are embedded in the contextual environment. The opposition may be internal and emerge from emotional sub-processes or it may be external and emerge from the resource-configuration, for example, influences of employees or other customers, or multiple conflicting goals. Both process theories may provide fruitful insights into understanding complaining behaviour even though they have different perspectives. Lifecycle theory is a predictive theory and describes the required stage sequence, while the dialectic theory is an explanatory theory. Dialectic theory focuses on the means of action and reaction of complaining behaviour and explains how change and development occur with indicators that make it possible to identify key development constructs. These process theories may provide a useful foundation for explaining the complaint processes.
Customer complaining behaviour 291
The complaint activity To understand the complaint activity, it is necessary to describe what takes place after the negative incident is generated but before the customer eventually decides to engage in complaining behaviour. The customer will use the available resources in the given context, together with information available at the present time, to articulate the unfavourable experience that has emerged. That is, resources accessible from the company, those available to the complainants themselves, and those from other market-facing, public and private sources. This can be illustrated by Figure 2, where negative incidents and the pre-experience represent what goes into the complaint process and triggers an activity. The resource-configuration and information will influence the complaint process and hence support and control the direction of the process. The resource integration is the result of the service and resource-configuration meeting, in the present context, where various tasks are being carried out. The post-experience is the result of the resource integration and represents everything from the complaint process that subsequently triggers the next possible complaint activity. Normally, the resource-configuration has been disregarded in the complaint process, although resources have been identified as antecedents to customer complaining behaviour (Richins, 1983b; Andreasen, 1988; Crosier et al., 1999; Tronvoll, 2007a). Competence is, for most customers, an important resource in carrying out the complaint activities (Kolodinsky and Aleong, 1990; Hogarth and English, 2002). The configuration of operant resources influences how customers employ their operand resources in the complaint process and their use of the company’s operand and
Figure 2. The core characteristics of a complaining sub-process
EJM 46,1/2
292
operant resources (Arnould et al., 2006). It is further likely that customers, while making a complaint, heavily draw on their social resources, such as role and position in social structures that makes the complaint activity a non-linear process. The customers’ competence can be applied or extended to a variety of contexts or transposed to new situations when the opportunity arises. Zohar (1997, p. 46) states: Change the context, and the entity itself is different.
The complaining behaviour, therefore, cannot be seen or even defined in isolation. The environment surrounding the complaint process is not only the context in which the complaint exists and evolves, but also an integrated part of the service provision. In order to understand complaining as a dynamic process, it is necessary to acknowledge that the customer is an integrated part of the context, and hence the act of complaining will subsequently change the context itself (Giddens, 1984). This view corresponds with Vargo and Lusch’s concept of value-in-context (Vargo et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2010). Consequently, complaining behaviour will evolve differently depending on various social, cultural and situational contexts. The context may encourage the complaint behaviour to evolve or inhibit it because, for example, a complaint channel is missing or the complaint process is currently too complicated. The contextual situation provides a better opportunity to understand why some customers complain and some do not when the context changes. Through the use of different resources available, the exchange of information, the influence of stakeholders (e.g. other customers) and the situational aspects etc., complaint activities are linked through the context, have an impact on the post-experience and thereby impact the quality of the complaint process. In other words, complaining behaviour has to be understood as a “complaining-in-context” process. The complaining behaviour process can even be seen in a wider setting, implied by SD-logic’s resource-integration and co-creation to extend beyond the company to other customers. In some cases, the company functions in this context more as the conduit for complaints, rather than the target. Examples of this phenomenon can be found, for example, in the Ebay’s and Amazon’s buyer and seller rating systems. This type of rating systems gives a new and comprehensive meaning to feedback and complaining behaviour processes. Proposing a dynamic customer complaining behaviour model To describe the dynamic behaviour of the complaining process, a conceptual model is suggested (see Figure 3). Depending on the complaining process previously described (type and strength of unfavourable service experience, resource-configuration, direction of the complaint process, context, etc.), the customer can engage in various types of complaining behaviour, each of which has a different threshold: . the customer might not engage in any complaining behaviour (designated “no complaining response”); . the customer might communicate the unfavourable service experience in various ways (designated “communication complaint responses”); and . the customer might undertake certain complaint actions (designated “action complaint responses”). Complaining behaviour is dependent on the filter of resource-configuration and context. The resource-configuration includes both the customer’s resources
Customer complaining behaviour 293 Figure 3. Proposed model for dynamic customer complaining behaviour
(e.g. competence, time, finance, etc.) and the resources made available by the company (e.g. complaint channels, information about how to complain, etc.). The context consists of all conditions surrounding the customer in the complaint process, from the initial negative incident onwards. This includes the physical environment, market situations, company related issues, etc. The context is dynamic and dependent upon the complainant’s role and position; furthermore, the operant and operand resources are constantly changing over time, as does the context of the complaining behaviour. When the context or the resource-configuration changes, the customer may exceed the thresholds of communicative or action complaint responses at a certain point in time. Even if the resource-configuration continues to be relatively stable, the meaning and importance of the unfavourable service experience shifts as the context changes. Considering these factors, it is possible to view the complaint process as a latitude-based conceptualisation of assessment. If the unfavourable service experience does not exceed the “complaining threshold”, the customer will not engage in complaining behaviour and the relationship will continue, in the short-term, as if nothing happened. If the unfavourable service experience exceeds the complaining behaviour threshold, the customer will engage in “communication complaint responses” and/or “action complaint responses”. Complaining behaviour in these two categories can be manifested separately or in combination at various stages in the complaint process. The conceptual model of customer complaining behaviour embraces the entire feedback and complaining behaviour processes. No complaining response It is well documented in the literature that a majority of customers do not voice their complaints to organisations (Best and Andreasen, 1977; Day and Bodur, 1978; Singh and Pandya, 1991; Keaveney, 1995; Stephens and Gwinner, 1998; Smith et al., 1999; McCollough et al., 2000). Research has revealed that personality, assessments of cost/benefits, social benefit, situational and contextual elements are among the factors that inhibit complaining behaviour (Day and Ash, 1979; Day, 1984; Andreasen, 1988; Davidow and Dacin, 1997). In terms of the proposed model, contextual reasons for not engaging in complaining behaviour might include lack of time, an inability to get in touch with a suitable person or a lack of access to an appropriate complaint channel. In terms of
EJM 46,1/2
294
resource-configuration, a failure to complain might be due to a lack of knowledge (not knowing how to complain or being uncertain about the standard of service that might be expected from the service company) or a lack of skills (such as an inability to argue their reasons for complaining). Communication complaint responses In the proposed model, communication complaint responses refer to the interactive process whereby the activity and the resource-configuration are integrated into outcomes through purposeful social interaction. Schramm (1973, p. 3) states that communication is fundamentally a study of relationships and “society is a sum of relationships in which information of some kind is shared”. Lin (1973, p. 9) defines communication as “the nature of human symbolic exchange”. All complaint communication responses are phenomenologically determined by the negative incident, the context and the resource-configuration. The communication complaint response can be verbal or non-verbal. Verbal communication complaint responses include written and spoken exchanges using all kinds of channels, whereas non-verbal communication complaint responses refer to physical expressions and acts (or performances). Verbal complaint communication responses Depending on the intention of the communicator, verbal communication complaint responses can be subdivided into three categories of interaction: (1) informational; (2) communicational; and (3) dialogical (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006). In terms of complaining behaviour, the informational mode is used for standardised messages (or “feedback”) to the company, the communicational mode is used to communicate relevant messages about a specific negative critical incident and the dialogical mode is used in an interactive process of learning together (Ballantyne, 2004). Dialogical interaction is of particular interest in the proposed model because this mode of interaction plays an important role in relationship development and knowledge generation (Varey, 2002). This type of interaction can be important in a subsequent service-recovery process because it has the capacity to reveal the true nature of the problem or discrepancy. By engaging in dialogue with a customer, the company can learn from the customer and be in a better position to improve service design, overcome negative critical incidents and strengthen the relationship quality. The primary purposes of communication with the company are to seek attention from and to secure an adjustment in the service provision; in addition, the customer might wish to receive an apology or some form of compensation. The communication can take the form of informal feedback or a more formal complaint. Feedback, which has been described as a “reversal of the flow” (Schramm, 1973, p. 51), is usually provided during the service provision. The purpose of the feedback is to make adjustments during the service process in a way that will improve the perception of the service and lead to a favourable service experience. The customer, however, might choose to communicate after the service provision has been completed as part of the post-interactional communication complaint response. A complaint is a more formal communication to the company in which the customer wishes to make a definite statement about the
unfavourable service experience. This usually takes the form of a direct approach to frontline employees or management, although it might be channelled through a third party (such as a fair-trading agency or ombudsman). The complaint might be made during or after the service provision and might be spoken or written. Verbal communication complaint responses can be directed in two directions: to the company (in the form of feedback or complaints) or to relatives, friends, potential customers, the press, consumer pressure groups, other stakeholders and the general public (in the form of negative word-of-mouth). External communication to friends, relatives and others (as negative word-of-mouth) has long been recognised as an important force in the marketplace (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002; Luo, 2007). The main purpose of such external communication is to warn potential and existing customers or other stakeholders about the unfavourable service experience created during the service provision. This information about the company and their offerings represents an important alternative source of information for the recipients (Hugstad et al., 1987). If negative word-of-mouth is received from sources that are viewed as credible, it is likely to have a more significant influence on customers’ evaluations than information received from commercial sources (Richins, 1983a). Moreover, negative word-of-mouth has been shown to have a stronger influence on customers’ evaluations of brands than does positive word-of-mouth (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Oliver, 1997). Apart from face-to-face verbal communication, information and communication technology (ICT) systems are important enablers of communication. ICT improves the circulation of information and can thus be a catalyst to dialogic communication. Technology facilitates communication and extends its reach, thus enabling the customer to communicate with the company, friends, relatives and other stakeholders. In terms of complaining behaviour, advances in ICT communication channels are likely to lead to an increased number of complaints (Brown, 1997). Studies have shown that a dissatisfied customer tells, on average, 10-20 people about his or her unfavourable service experience (Brown, 1997). The Internet, however, enables this type of communication to increase dramatically (Brown, 2000), particularly with the establishment of websites and blogs designed as complaint forums. Non-verbal complaint communication responses During face-to-face service encounters, customers might strengthen the effect of their verbal communication through various forms of non-verbal communication, such as body movements, eye contact, handshaking or smiling. After experiencing a negative critical incident, the customer may consciously or unconsciously signal a non-verbal response resulting in an adjustment of the service process. It has been claimed that such non-verbal communication is as important as verbal communication in determining the outcome of employee-customer interactions (Mehrabian, 1981; Burgoon et al., 1990). Non-verbal communication plays an important role in shaping perceptions of factors such as: . the credibility of communication (Burgoon et al., 1990); . courtesy (Ford, 1995); and . interpersonal warmth (Bayes, 1972). Appropriate non-verbal communication is crucial to the development of effective communication and high-quality relationships.
Customer complaining behaviour 295
EJM 46,1/2
296
Action complaint responses Action complaint responses include a repertoire of different activities, which can range from relatively passive activities (reduced or fading buying behaviour, exit or switching to another company) to more active and aggressive behaviour. Based on the phenomenologically determined unfavourable experience, the customer will use the resource-configuration to engage in different complaint action responses. According to Huefner and Hunt (1994, 2000) and Huefner et al. (2002), aggressive behaviour is undertaken with the intention of retaliating against the company. These authors identified the following broad categories of customer retaliation: . creating cost or loss (causing extra work, spoiling products, placing false orders etc.); . trashing (making a mess, dumping products on the floor etc.); . vandalism (destroying or damaging objects); . stealing (taking a product without paying for it); and . personal attack (abusive language, negative feedback to supervisors or physical aggression). Such actions can become overtly aggressive and sustained. According to Heskett et al. (1994), an unfavourable service experience can create “terrorists”, that is, customers who are so dissatisfied that they actively and systematically seek opportunities to criticise or damage the company or its reputation. The various complaining responses (“no complaining response”, “communication complaint responses” and “action complaint responses”) are summarised in Table I. Discussion The existing and most commonly used customer complaining behaviour models have been based traditionally on a static, post-purchase behavioural perspective that was essentially derived from the G-D logic of marketing (Day and Landon, 1977; Singh, 1988). By adopting an S-D logic perspective, complaining behaviour becomes a more complex phenomenon than envisaged in these complaint models. A complaining model based on S-D logic can be used for both good and service, although a model based on G-D logic is less suitable for service. This is because service enables service, that is, goods represent a special case of service provision (Gro¨nroos, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2006). In this perspective, a complaining model based on service will become more universal. The model proposed in this paper views customer complaining behaviour from an S-D logic perspective that emphasises complaining behaviour as a dynamic process consisting of a chain of activities. The proposed model accepts the fact that negative events may constantly form the foundation for complaining behaviour. Any negative incident that is experienced is specific to a given customer and a given context; in other words, an unfavourable service experience that leads to complaining behaviour is experiential, idiosyncratic, contextual and meaning-laden and is determined uniquely and phenomenologically by the complainer. Further, since value in S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) is conceptualised as value-in-context, complaining behaviour must be understood as a construct expanding beyond the transaction of a post-transactional activity. Consequently, the complex nature of complaining behaviour implies more than a linear extension of the existing complaint understanding. A complaint process does not
Type of behaviour
Towards the company
No complaining response
“Forgive and forget” No specific behaviour, but modification of attitude
Communication complaint responses
Action complaint responses
Verbal
Informal feedback Formal complaint (legal action; seeking redress)
Non-verbal
Body language
Passive
Reduce/fade relationship Exit/Switching Boycott Create cost/loss Trashing Stealing Vandalism Protest Personal attack
Active
Towards others
Private communities (family, friends, friends of friends) Open communities (public chat-groups, blogging, etc.) Newspapers, TV Third parties (ombudsmen, consumer protection agencies, trade associations, legal agencies) Body language
Customer complaining behaviour 297
Boycott service, brand, or company Protest Vandalism
happen according to a deterministic process because the complaint process can take various directions at any time. This understanding of the complaint process supports and is explained by the lifecycle and dialectic process theories which are described earlier in the paper. In order to understand the complaining behaviour, the complaint process must include contextual surroundings, that is, as “complaining-in-context” perspective. The suggested complaint model uses the unfavourable service experience, filtered through the context and the resource-configuration (embedded in the customer’s network and those given access to by the company), as a point of departure for complaint responses. Further, the existing models of customer complaining behaviour have focused on a separation of private action from public action (Day and Landon, 1977). This categorisation has become increasingly irrelevant (and perhaps even misleading) because of recent advances in ICT systems. In the past, when a customer experienced an unfavourable service experience, he or she talked to relatively few people; in contrast, the advent of the internet (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) has dramatically increased the number of people available for negative communication (Brown, 2000). In these circumstances, it becomes difficult to maintain a separation of the concepts of private action and public action. In response to these developments, the proposed model suggests new categories of complaining behaviour in terms of communication complaint responses and action complaint responses. This schema facilitates a categorisation of a wide range of complaint responses over time. Complaining behaviour in these two categories can be manifested separately or together and at various stages in the complaint process.
Table I. Types of complaining behaviour
EJM 46,1/2
298
Moreover, these two main categories are subdivided into new subcategories. Due to the static, post-interaction perspective, most existing models do not include non-verbal communication as a complaint response during the service provision, even though research has revealed that this is an important form of communication. Communication is a fundamental enabler in the co-creation process (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006) and should therefore be recognised as an essential enabler in the complaint process. The model recognises the importance of communication complaint responses for the creation of knowledge and the acquisition of learning – both of which provide essential input for the complaint and service-recovery process. Most existing models concentrate on passive action responses (such as switching and exit), which leaves proactive responses largely (or completely) neglected. This is an unsatisfactory situation because there is a growing recognition that customers who have experienced unfavourable service experiences can become exceedingly active in their complaining behaviour; indeed, some might even adopt “terrorist” behaviours. It is thus essential that models of customer complaining behaviour include active complaining responses. The main contribution of this paper has therefore been to establish a conceptual model of dynamic customer complaining behaviour that embraces the entire feedback and complaining behaviour processes during and after service provision. The model proposes three thresholds for complaining behaviour and emphasises, based on a filter of a specific resource-configuration and context, three categories of behaviour in the complaint process: (1) no complaining response; (2) communication complaint responses; and (3) action complaint responses. Managerial implications The dynamic model of customer complaining behaviour has implications for managers in a number of areas. Managers face a daily problem that customers do not communicate their unfavourable service experiences to the company. This feedback is important because the company may correct the unfavourable service experience by offering an apology, a service reco-creation, or some form of compensation. Managers may use the M-O-A model (motivations, opportunities and abilities) as a guide to increase the feedback they receive from customers (Maclnnis et al., 1991). Managers can motivate customers to complain, by teaching them how. Further, companies can inform customers about the company’s service recovery strategies, and thereby indicate that complaining customers are taken seriously. To address the lack of ability to complain and thereby facilitate complaining behaviour, managers should actively arrange and visualize the company’s resources such as number of contact points for feedback and easy entry barriers for complaints. Managers can inform the customer about how to complain through the web, leaflets, receipts etc., about different channels for complaining and about how the complaint will be processed. The managers may find it complicated to arrange the resource-configuration effectively because the contextual environments are changing during the co-creation process. To overcome these challenges, the company may map the co-creation process to locate the most likely appearance of negative incidents by using a blue print of the service process
(Shostack, 1984, 1987; Bitner et al., 2008). The managers can thereby make different action plans and inform the employees as to when and where the customers will most likely articulate their feedback or complaints during the service process. In order to help the customer provide feedback, the company may also communicate a description of its value proposition or the co-creation process, for example, a type of service guarantee. In particular, managers should be aware of the importance of using feedback and complaint information to prevent the dangerous effects of negative word-of-mouth. This is especially important in light of the increasingly common use of the internet for communication among customers. A great deal of customer feedback is generated through the service encounter and the information voluntarily provided by customers is one of the most valuable sources of information available to service managers (Voss et al., 2004). It becomes more important for the company to establish and continue to develop an effective complaint collecting system, because the feedback can be used as vital input in the learning process of the employees. One of the challenges the managers will face is to record some of the informal feedback/complaints given directly to the employee during the service process. This challenge emphasises the need for a service recovery system interwoven with the co-creation process that will make it easy for employees and customers to provide input into the system during a busy day. Mobile technology (hand-held electronic devises or mobile phones) that collects information can be used by the company as a platform for dialogue. The feedback can be used for immediate service recovery and, in the long-term, to gather information about the wants and needs of customers. If correctly analysed, such data can also reveal previously unrecognised latent needs and thus lead to improvements in service quality and favourable service experiences. Conversely, information given to the complaint process can change the perception of the unfavourable service experience. Customer feedback may therefore play an important role in operational learning (Berry and Parasuraman, 1997; Meyer et al., 1999) and new service development (Edvardsson et al., 2000). Further, this implies the reciprocal service-for-service model of SD-logic, which says that the company itself has a complaining role; for example rating systems. This extended role of the company may change the relationship towards customers. Future research There are limitations to the dynamic model of customer complaining behaviour, which suggest a need for further research in this important area. First, there is a need for more knowledge about complaining behavioural processes. The need for knowledge applies to both: . the dynamic process that focuses on triggers and fluctuations of the complaining behaviour during the service provision and particularly the factors that inhibit or encourage these incidents to become a communicative or action complaining response; and . how a negative critical incident influences the relationship over a certain period. Further, knowledge is needed about why a customer chooses a specific set of complaint responses. Little research has been conducted to reveal the long-term impact of a negative critical incident or complaining behaviour in the relationship. To follow a
Customer complaining behaviour 299
EJM 46,1/2
300
customer during a certain period and thereby observe the long-term behavioural fluctuations will give further insight into the complaining behaviour processes. Second, more knowledge is needed about the contextual environment and how this, together with the specific resource-configuration, influences complaining behaviour. It is of special interest to study how changing contextual environments and access to the resource-configuration inhibit or encourage complaining behaviour such as changing access to complaint channels. Research has also revealed that elements in the service experience room such as ambient conditions, design, etc. influence behaviour, but no research to my knowledge has focused on similar issues within complaining behaviour research. Third, more knowledge is required about what could be called moderators or sub-processes of complaining behaviour. These sub-processes, such as emotional processes, evidently influence complaining behaviour. Further research could build on, for example, Stephens and Gwinner’s (1998) emotional complaint framework. Identifying and analysing different sub-processes will add more knowledge about customer complaining behaviour. Fourth, the more extended value creation space and, hence, the changing role of the company implied by SD-logic, creates a wider space for complaining processes. Through, for example, rating systems, the company might take a position in peer-to-peer complaining. This phenomenon creates new and unexplored situations that should be investigated in relation to each of: the role of the company, the company’s relationship to customers, and how to execute service recovery. Fifth, future research should not be limited only to theoretical framing, descriptive and static casual empirical research, but should also courageously enter the methodological areas. To obtain empirical evidence of the behavioural complaint processes, new methods that capture the unfavourable service experiences during the activities, episodes and sequences are required. This is especially important in the quantitative research design, because the dynamic techniques are most limited in this area. Using existing methods in a new way or developing new methods could encourage complaint research to enter new frontiers. The experiential sampling methods might be useful because data is collected at different points of the co-creation process (Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hogarth et al., 2007). Finally, one particularly intriguing possibility is for the dynamic complaining behaviour model to provide a conceptual foundation for further development and the general understanding of collecting information and feedback. References Andreasen, A.R. (1985), “Consumer response to dissatisfaction in loose monopolies: the case of medical care”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 135-41. Andreasen, A.R. (1988), “Consumer complaints and redress: what we know and what we don’t know”, in Maynes, E.S. (Ed.), The Frontier of Research in the Consumer Interest, American Council on Consumer Interests, Columbia, MO, pp. 675-722. Ansoff, H.I. (1984), Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. and Malshe, A. (2006), “Toward a cultural resource-based theory of the consumer”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
Ballantyne, D. (2004), “Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific knowledge”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 114-23. Ballantyne, D. and Varey, R.J. (2006), “Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: the exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 335-48. Bayes, M.A. (1972), “Behavioral cues of interpersonal warmth”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 333-9. Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1997), “Listening to the customer – the concept of a service quality information system”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 65-76. Best, A. and Andreasen, A.R. (1977), “Consumer response to unsatisfactory purchases: a survey of perceiving defeats, voicing complaints and obtaining redress”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 701-42. Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Morgan, F.N. (2008), “Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 66-94. Blodgett, J.G. and Anderson, R.D. (2000), “A Bayesian network model of the consumer complaint process”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 321-38. Brown, S.W. (1997), “Service recovery through IT”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 25-7. Brown, S.W. (2000), “The move to solutions providers”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 10-11. Burgoon, J.K., Birk, T. and Pfau, M. (1990), “Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion and credibility”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 17, Fall, pp. 140-69. Crosier, K., Hernandez, T., Mohabir-Collins, S. and Erdogan, B.Z. (1999), “The risk of collateral damage in advertising campaigns”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 837-55. Davidow, M. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “Understanding and influencing consumer complaint behavior: improving organizational complaint management”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 450-6. Day, R.L. (1980), “Research perspectives on consumer complaining behavior”, in Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M. (Eds), Theoretical Developments in Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Day, R.L. (1984), “Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction”, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. II, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 496-9. Day, R.L. and Ash, S.B. (1979), “Consumer response to dissatisfaction with durable products”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 438-44. Day, R.L. and Bodur, M. (1978), “Consumer response to dissatisfaction with services and intangibles”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 263-72. Day, R.L. and Landon, E.L.J. (1976), “Collecting comprehensive consumer compliant data by survey research”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 263-8. Day, R.L. and Landon, E.L.J. (1977), “Toward a theory of consumer complaining behavior”, in Woodside, A.G., Sheth, J.N. and Bennett, P.D. (Eds), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, North-Holland Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 425-37. Day, R.L., Grabicke, K., Schaetzle, T. and Staubach, F. (1981), “The hidden agenda of consumer complaining”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 86-106.
Customer complaining behaviour 301
EJM 46,1/2
302
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Sanden, B. (2000), New Service Development and Innovation in the New Economy, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Roos, I. (2005a), “Service portrays and service constructions – a critical review through the lens of the customer”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 1 No. 16, pp. 107-21. Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B. and Johnston, R. (2005b), “Cocreating customer value through hyperreality in the prepurchase service experience”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 149-61. Engels, F., Dutt, C. and Haldane, J.B.S. (1940), Dialectics of Nature, International Publishers, New York, NY. Ford, W.S.Z. (1995), “Evaluation on the indirect influence of courteous service on customer discretionary behavior”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 22, September, pp. 65-89. Fornell, C. and Wernefelt, B. (1987), “Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, November, pp. 337-46. Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge, p. 402. Gro¨nroos, C. (2006), “What can a service logic offer marketing theory?”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 354-64. Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the service-profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-70. Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Hogarth, J.M. and English, M.P. (2002), “Consumer complaints and redress: an important mechanism for protection and empowering consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 217-26. Hogarth, R.M., Portell, M. and Cuxart, A. (2007), “What risks do people perceive in everyday life? A perspective gained from the experience sampling method (ESM)”, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1427-39. Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-90. Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1994), “Extending the Hirschman model: when voice and exit don’t tell the whole story”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 7, pp. 267-70. Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (2000), “Consumer retaliation as a response to dissatisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 61-82. Huefner, J.C., Parry, B.L., Payne, C.R., Otto, S.D., Huff, S.C. and Swenson, M.J. (2002), “Consumer retaliation: confirmation and extension”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 114-27. Hugstad, P., Taylor, J.W. and Bruce, G.D. (1987), “The effects of social class and perceived risk on consumer information search”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-52. Hunt, S.D. and Derozier, C. (2004), “The normative imperatives of business and marketing strategy: grounding strategy in resource-advantage theory”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-91. Keaveney, S.M. (1995), “Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 71-82. Kolodinsky, J. and Aleong, J. (1990), “An integrated model of consumer complaint action applied to services”, Journal of Customer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 5, pp. 36-44. Kubey, R.W. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) in Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Ed.), Television and the Quality of Life: How Viewing Shapes Everyday Experience, Vol. XVII, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, p. 287. Landon, E.L.J. (1980), “The direction of consumer complaint research”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 335-8. Lin, N. (1973), The Study of Human Communication, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis, IN. Ljungberg, A. (2002), “Process measurement”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 254-87. Luo, X. (2007), “Consumer negative voice and firm-idiosyncratic stock returns”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 75-88. Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006a), “Service-dominant logic as a foundation for a general theory”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, ME Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 406-20. Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006b), “Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-8. Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and O’Brien, M. (2007), “Competing through service: insights from service-dominant logic”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 5-18. McCollough, M.A., Berry, L.L. and Yadav, M.S. (2000), “An empirical investigation of customer satisfaction after service failure and recovery”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 121-37. Maclnnis, D.J., Moorman, C. and Jaworski, B.J. (1991), “Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 32-53. Maxham, J.G.I. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “A longitudinal study of complaining customers’ evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 57-71. Mehrabian, A. (1981), Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes, 2nd ed., Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA. Meyer, A., Chase, R., Roth, A., Voss, C.A., Sperl, K.-U., Menor, L. and Blackmon, K. (1999), “Service competitiveness – an international benchmarking comparison of service practice and performance in Germany, UK and USA”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 369-80. Miles, R.H. and Kimberly, J.R. (1980), The Organizational Life Cycle: Issues in the Creation, Transformation, and Decline of Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E.J. (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 105-11.
Customer complaining behaviour 303
EJM 46,1/2
304
Richins, M.L. (1983a), “Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68-78. Richins, M.L. (1983b), “An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 73-83. Richins, M.L. (1987), “A multivariate analysis of responses to dissatisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 24-32. Schramm, W. (1973), Men, Messages, and Media: A Look at Human Communication, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Sherif, C.W., Sherif, M. and Nebergall, R.E. (1965), Attitude and Attitude Change: the Social Judgment-Involvement Approach, Saunders, London. Shields, P.O. (2006), “Customer correspondence: corporate responses and customer reactions”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 155-70. Shostack, G.L. (1984), “Designing services that deliver”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 133-9. Shostack, G.L. (1987), “Service positioning through structural change”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 34-43. Singh, J. (1988), “Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: definitional and taxonomical issues”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 93-107. Singh, J. and Pandya, S. (1991), “Exploring the effects of consumers’ dissatisfaction level on complaint behaviours”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 7-21. Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 356-72. Stephens, N. (2000), “Complaining”, in Swartz, T.A. and Iacobucci, D. (Eds), Handbook of Service Marketing and Management, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 287-98. Stephens, N. and Gwinner, K.P. (1998), “Why don’t some people complain? A cognitive-emotive process model of consumer complaint behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 172-89. Stewart, K. (1998), “The customer exit process – a review and research agenda”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, pp. 235-50. Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), “Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 60-76. Tronvoll, B. (2007a), “Complainer characteristics when exit is closed”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 25-51. Tronvoll, B. (2007b), “Customer complaint behaviour from the perspective of the service-dominant logic of marketing”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 601-20. Van de Ven, A.H. (1992), “Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 169-88. Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1991), “In search of theories of development and change”, discussion paper, Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Varey, R.J. (2002), Relationship Marketing: Dialogue and Networks in the E-Commerce Era, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004a), “Consumers’ evaluative reference scales and social judgment theory: a review and exploratory study”, Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 245-84.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004b), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2006), “Service-dominant logic: what it is, what it is not, what it might be”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10. Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), “On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 145-52. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., Akaka, M.A. and He, Y. (2010), “Service-dominant logic: a review and assessment”, Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 125-67. Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K. and Horowitz, D.M. (2006), “A voice from the silent masses: an exploratory and comparative analysis of noncomplainers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 514-27. Voss, C.A., Roth, A.V., Rosenzweig, E.D., Blackmon, K. and Chase, R.B. (2004), “A tale of two countries’ conservatism, service quality, and feedback on customer satisfaction”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 212-30. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46. Zohar, D. (1997), “Predicting burnout with a hassle-based measure of role demands”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 101-15. About the author Ba˚rd Tronvoll is an Associated Professor of Marketing at Hedmark University College, Norway and a research fellow at Service Research Center (CTF) at Karlstad University, Sweden. His research interests include customer complaining behaviour, service marketing and philosophy of science. Dr Tronvoll is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board at Journal of Service Management and his work has been published in journals such as International Journal of Service Industry Management, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Managing Service Quality, and Marketing Intelligence and Planning. Ba˚rd Tronvoll can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Customer complaining behaviour 305
