See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235275108

Customer complaint behaviour from the perspective of the service-

dominant logic of marketing

Article  in  Journal of Service Theory and Practice · November 2007

DOI: 10.1108/09604520710834966

CITATIONS READS
57 3,381

1 author:

Bård Tronvoll
Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Rena, Norway
50 PUBLICATIONS   1,798 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Service Design for Innovation View project

The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bård Tronvoll on 22 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM
46,1/2 A dynamic model of customer
complaining behaviour from the
perspective of service-dominant
284
logic
Received February 2008
Revised November 2008
Bård Tronvoll
June 2009 Department of Business Administration, Hedmark University College,
December 2009 Elverum, Norway
Accepted March 2010

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 Customer
financial performance of a company. A complaint provides an opportunity for service complaining
recovery followed by a chance to educate the customer, strengthen loyalty and evoke
positive word-of-mouth comments (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Blodgett and behaviour
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 285
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;
EJM Stephens, 2000). A commonly used definition of customer complaining behaviour was
46,1/2 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.
The most commonly used models of customer complaining behaviour are founded on
286 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 Traditionally, the common determinant of complaining behaviour has been described as
46,1/2 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
288 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 Customer
other words, complaints are no longer perceived as emerging from a failure in the complaining
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 behaviour
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 289
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
EJM company. A negative incident leading to an unfavourable service experience is defined
46,1/2 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
290 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 Customer
events, forces or contradictory values that compete with each other for domination and complaining
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 behaviour
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. 291
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.

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 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
46,1/2 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.
292
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 resource-configuration, a failure to complain might be due to a lack of knowledge (not
46,1/2 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

294 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 Customer
frontline employees or management, although it might be channelled through a third complaining
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. behaviour
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 295
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.
EJM Action complaint responses
46,1/2 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.
296 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 (Grönroos, 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
 Customer
Type of behaviour Towards the company Towards others
complaining
No complaining “Forgive and forget” behaviour
response No specific behaviour, but
modification of attitude
Communication Verbal Informal feedback Private communities (family,
complaint responses Formal complaint (legal friends, friends of friends) 297
action; seeking redress) Open communities (public
chat-groups, blogging, etc.)
Newspapers, TV
Third parties (ombudsmen,
consumer protection
agencies, trade associations,
legal agencies)
Non-verbal Body language Body language
Action complaint Passive Reduce/fade relationship Boycott service, brand, or
responses Exit/Switching company
Boycott
Active Create cost/loss Protest
Trashing Vandalism
Stealing
Vandalism Table I.
Protest Types of complaining
Personal attack behaviour

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.
EJM Moreover, these two main categories are subdivided into new subcategories. Due to the
46,1/2 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
298 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 Customer
action plans and inform the employees as to when and where the customers will most complaining
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 behaviour
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 299
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
EJM customer during a certain period and thereby observe the long-term behavioural
46,1/2 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
300 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 Customer
knowledge”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 114-23.
complaining
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 behaviour
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. 301
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.
EJM Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Sanden, B. (2000), New Service Development
and Innovation in the New Economy, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
46,1/2
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
302 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.
Grönroos, 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”, Customer
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-91.
complaining
Keaveney, S.M. (1995), “Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 71-82. behaviour
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. 303
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.
EJM Richins, M.L. (1983a), “Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
46,1/2
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.
304 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 Customer
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
complaining
might be”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: behaviour
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. 305
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

Bård 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. Bård Tronvoll can be contacted at:
bard@tronvoll.no

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats