Abstract
This research aims to understand how two basic schemas—vigilante and reparation—influence online public complaining. Drawing on two experiments, a longitudinal field study and content analysis of online complaints, the current research makes three core contributions. First, we show that for similar service failures, each schema is associated with different justice motivations (i.e., in terms of recovery, revenge, and protection of others), which have different moral implications for consumers. Second, vigilante and reparation complainers write complaints in a different manner and are drawn to different online platforms; this information is helpful to identify complainers using each schema. Third, the schemas moderate the process leading to different post-complaint benefits (i.e., resolution and positive affect). Specifically, perseverance has a greater effect on obtaining a resolution for reparation complainers compared to vigilantes. Additionally, whereas a recovery leads to an increase in positive affect for reparation complainers, vigilantes experience a high level of positive affect simply by posting their complaint (regardless of the resolution). The theoretical, ethical, and managerial implications of these findings are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These authors identify a third schema, the relational model. Complainers using a relational model aim to restore their relationship as it was before the service failure. This schema is unlikely to be used by online complainers who are unlikely to return to the firm if they have sufficient time to find an alternative (Tripp and Grégoire 2011).
“Based on recent evidence that shows that online complaining can occur after both a service failure and a double deviation (Grégoire et al. 2015), our intention is to develop a theory and hypotheses at a broader level, which encompasses both possible contexts. However, because our model for H4 and H5 relies on the assumption that an individual will show perseverance and keep complaining over time, we also believe that a double deviation—in which a firm would have failed in its initial recovery attempts—is a more appropriate context to test this part of our theory. It should be noted that H4–H5 are only tested with Study 2, which is conducted in a double deviation context.”
We controlled for the effects of desire for recovery (F[1, 182] = 6.40; p < .05) and desire for protection of others (F[1, 182] = 0; p = .99) in this tests. It should be noted that the results remain significant even if we do not control for the other motivations (F[1, 184] = 29.82; p < .001).
We controlled for the effects of desire for recovery (F[1, 182] = 43.48; p < .001) and desire for revenge (F[1, 182] = 0; p = .99) in this test. The results remain insignificant even if we do not control for the other motivations (F[1, 184] = .64; p = .43).
H2 cannot be tested in Study 2 because we use the websites as proxies for the schema. This hypothesis was tested in Study 1b.
Two independent coders analyzed the content of the 431 complaints for which we had information. Overall, the level of agreement between coders was high (79.1%), and differences were resolved through discussion. Overall, 17.5% of the complaints were classified as “unspecified recovery stage.” After excluding these instances, 96.2% of the complaints were classified as double deviations. The coders identified only 13 (3.5%) service failures with no recovery request and only one service failure recovery followed by a positive recovery. See Grégoire et al. (2009) for details.
When we examined the effect of the website/schema on a desire for recovery, we controlled for a desire for revenge (F[1, 437] = 44.82; p < .001) and a desire for protection of others (F[1, 437] = 13.19; p < .001). For the same test for a desire for revenge, we controlled for a desire for recovery (F[1, 437] = 44.82; p < .001) and a desire to protect others (F[1, 437] = .95; p = .33). Finally, for the test on a desire to protect others, we controlled for a desire for revenge (F[1, 437] = .95; p = .33) and a desire for recovery (F[1, 437] = 13.19; p < .001).
References
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.
Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS ® System: A practical guide. North Carolina: SAS Institute.
Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016a). An extended model of moral outrage at corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 429–444.
Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016b). Identity bias in negative word of mouth following irresponsible corporate behavior: A research model and moderating effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 583–605.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52–59.
Barclay, L. J., Whiteside, D. B., & Aquino, K. (2014). To avenge or not to avenge? Exploring the interactive effects of moral identity and the negative reciprocity norm. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 15–28.
Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 440–453.
Beverland, M. B., Kates, S. M., Lindgreen, A., & Chung, E. (2010). Exploring consumer conflict management in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 617–633.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1019–1024.
Gollwitzer, M., Meder, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge? European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 364–374.
Grant, R. (2013). 85% of consumers will retaliate against a company with bad customer service. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/14/85-of-consumers-will-retaliate-against-a-company-with-bad-customer-service-report.
Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261.
Grégoire, Y., Salle, A., & Tripp, T. M. (2015). Managing social media crises with your customers: The good, the bad and the ugly. Business Horizons, 58(2), 173–182.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18–32.
Jacoby, S. (1983). Wild justice: The evolution of revenge. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., Devezer, B., & Tripp, T. M. (2013). When do customers offer firms a ‘second chance’ following a double deviation? The impact of inferred firm motives on customer revenge and reconciliation. Journal of Retailing, 89(3), 315–357.
Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., & Tripp, T. M. (2016). Customer forgiveness following Service failures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 76–82.
Kacewicz, E., Pennebaker, J. W., Davis, M., Jeon, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 125–143.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange. Boston, MA: Springer.
McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Putting revenge and forgiveness in an evolutionary context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 41–58.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns. New Scientist, 211(2828), 42–45.
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: liwc. net.
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 547–577.
Porath, C., MacInnis, D., & Folkes, V. S. (2011). It’s unfair: Why customers who merely observe an uncivil employee abandon the company. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 302–317.
Ringberg, T., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Christensen, G. L. (2007). A cultural models approach to service recovery. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 194–214.
Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Immoral imagination and revenge in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1), 19–31.
Singh, J. (1988). Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: Definitional and taxonomical issues. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 93–107.
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.
Tripp, T. M., & Grégoire, Y. (2011). When unhappy customers strike back on the Internet. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(3), 37–44.
Uniacke, S. (2000). Why is revenge wrong? The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34(1), 61–69.
Walster, E., Berscheid, L., & Walster, W. G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.
Ward, J. C., & Ostrom, A. L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220–230.
Zeger, S. L., Liang, K., & Albert, P. S. (1988). Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics, 44(4), 1049–1060.
Funding
This study was funded by a large public North American university.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest between this university and the two websites of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Justice Motivations (Studies 1B and 2)
Desire for Revenge (Study 1b: average variance extracted (AVE) = .79; composite reliability (CR) = .96; α = .95) (Study 2: AVE = .84; CR = .96; α = .97)
Indicate to which extent you wanted to:
-
… take actions to get the firm in trouble.
-
… punish the firm in some way.
-
… cause inconvenience to the firm.
-
… get even with the service firm.
-
… make the service firm get what it deserved.
Desire for recovery (Study 1b: AVE = .48; CR = .73; α = .71) (Study 2: AVE = .53; CR = .77; α = .72)
-
… have the firm assume responsibility for its actions.
-
… receive a form of reparation for the failure.
-
… have the firm to fix its mistake.
Desire to Protect Others (Study 1b: AVE = .91; CR = .96; α = .94) (Study 2: AVE = .83, CR = .93, α = .92)
-
… to ensure that others would not go through what I went through.
-
… protect others from this type of situation.
-
… warn others so that they wouldn’t experience a similar failure.
Control Variables in Study 2
Relationship Quality (Second-order construct: Study 2: AVE = .50; CR = .75; α = .73)
-
Trust (AVE = .80; CR = .94; α = .94)
-
I felt that the firm was…
-
…Very undependable (1)–very dependable (7)
-
…Very incompetent (1)–very competent (7)
-
… Of low integrity (1)–of high integrity (7)
-
…Very unresponsive to consumers (1)–very responsive consumers (7)
-
-
Commitment (AVE = .79; CR = .92; α = .92)
-
I was very committed to my relationship with the service firm.
-
The relationship was something I intended to maintain for a long time.
-
I put efforts into maintaining this relationship.
-
-
Social Benefits (AVE = .80; CR = .94; α = .94)
-
My relationship with the service firm was based on its ability to…
-
… recognize who I am as a customer.
-
… know my personal needs as a customer.
-
… build a “one-on-one” connection.
-
… make me feel important and appreciated.
-
-
Dissatisfaction (AVE = .80; CR = .92; α = .90)
-
At the moment of the service failure, I felt (1) dissatisfied, (2) discontented, and (3) displeased.
-
-
Blame (AVE = .57; CR = .79; α = .71)
-
Overall, the firm was “not at all” (1) vs. “totally” (7) responsible for the poor recovery.
-
The service failure episode was in “no way” (1) vs. “completely” (7) the firm’s fault.
-
To what extent do you blame the firm for what happened? Not at all (1)–completely (7).
-
-
Failure Severity (AVE = .70; CR = .87; α = .86)
-
The service failures caused me…
-
… minor problems (1)–major problems (7).
-
… small inconvenience (1)–big inconvenience (7).
-
… minor aggravation (1)–major aggravation (7).
-
-
Procedural Fairness (AVE = .72; CR = .91; α = .91)
-
Despite the hassle caused by the problem, the firm responded fairly and quickly.
-
I feel they responded in a timely fashion.
-
I believe the firm has fair policies and practices to handle problems.
-
With respect to its policies and procedures, the firm handled the problem in a fair manner.
-
-
Distributive Fairness (AVE = .79; CR = .92; α = .92)
-
Overall, the outcomes I received from the service firm were fair.
-
Given the time, money, and hassle, I got fair outcomes.
-
I got what I deserved.
-
Appendix 2
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Study 1b)
The psychometric properties of the three justice motivations were assessed with a CFA. This model includes a desire for revenge (five items), a desire for recovery (three items), and a desire to protect others (three items). This 11-item model produced a satisfactory fit with a comparative fit index (CFI) of .96, a Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .95, a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .089, and a χ2 of 101.51 (df = 41, p < .001). In this model, the loadings (λ’s) of the first-order constructs were large and significant (p’s < .001), the average variance extracted exceeded or approached .50 for all constructs, and composite reliability scores and Cronbach’s alphas were greater than the .7 guideline (see “Appendix 1”).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Study 2)
The psychometric properties of the reflective scales (at time 1) were assessed with one CFA. This model includes a desire for revenge (five items), a desire for recovery (three items), a desire to protect others (three items), dissatisfaction (three items), blame (three items), failure severity (three items), procedural fairness (four items), and distributive fairness (three items). See “Appendix 1” for the detailed items. This 27-item model produced a satisfactory fit with a comparative fit index (CFI) of .96, a Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .96, a root–mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .051, and a χ2 of 608.70 (df = 296, p < .001). In this model, the loadings (λ’s) of the first-order constructs and the second-order construct (i.e., relationship quality) were large and significant (p’s < .001), the average variance extracted exceeded .50 for all constructs, and composite reliability scores and Cronbach’s alphas were greater than the .7 guideline (see “Appendix 1”).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grégoire, Y., Legoux, R., Tripp, T.M. et al. What Do Online Complainers Want? An Examination of the Justice Motivations and the Moral Implications of Vigilante and Reparation Schemas. J Bus Ethics 160, 167–188 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3850-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3850-1