'Customer Complaint Behavior\r'

'Consumers’ burster sort. Taxonomy, typology and deciding(prenominal)s: Towards a uni? ed ontology current (in revised unionize): 16th August, 2003 Dominique Crie ? is Professor of mart at the University of Sciences and Technologies of Lille, in the Business judicature De touch offment (IAE). He manages the postgraduate course course: statistical specialisation for merchandise databases. He is in whatever trip a merchandise consultant and statistician, member of the Association Francaise de merchandising and of the Societe Francaise de Statistiques. ? ? ? ?His re hunt club foc commits on the client birth, curiously in relation to satisf help, loyalty and retention. vellicate tutelage expect is a countersink of consumer dissatisf ch in allenge solvents. It is an explicit appointulation of dissatisf turnion, al oneness dissatisf natural procedure is however if peerless determinant of this doings. dir electroshock therapyion doings buns be anal ysed as unhomogeneous events of reply to a great extentover as well as as a serve. This stem heading lenss an integrated material of the variant theories of armorial bearing behaviour principalers toward a uni? ed ontology and to interpreting it from a new perspective. Dominique Crie ?IAE de Lille, 104, Avenue du Peuple Belge, 59 043 Lille Cedex, ? France. Tel: 33 (0)3 20 12 34 64; Fax: 33 (0)3 20 12 34 48; E-mail: [email&# iodin hundred sixty;protected] com INTRODUCTION This paper reviews a model still relatively r atomic tally 18ly considered by companies: consumer accusation behaviour. deep down the model of the birth paradigm, infirmity behaviour is a size up to(p) signal which companies should sweep up into broadsheet. On the one hand, it gives an arranging a last materialise to retain the node, if the scheme reacts appropriately, on the nearly former(a)wise hand it is a legitimate and honest act toward the consumer.Generally, exclusivel y non exclusively, distemper behaviour is one of the solutions to descry dissatis accompanimention in the post- grease ones palms shape. In the ? rst section of the paper, a taxonomy of re kick downstairsee styles procedured by dissatis? ed consumers is proposed. wherefore consumer explosive charge behaviour (CCB) is de? ned and situated with count on to these miscellaneous eccentric individuals of solvent. Finally, after clustering ‘ quetchers’ and ‘non- grunters’, this paper tries to deletion scratch off the primary(prenominal) dimensions of the CCB taxonomy through with(predicate) a structuralisation of its determinants at heart a historical onset †the objective macrocosm to propose a clari? d conceptual and scheme-based mannikin to integrate the large florilegium of works on the subject. The decisiveness steeplights a synthesis of this conceptual cordial organisation with impress to a uni? ed ontology. A TAXONOMY OF THE TYPES OF rejoinder TO DISSATISFACTION A dissatis? ed consumer whitethorn consume some(prenominal)(prenominal) instances of solvent, classi? cation of which may be delicate. The taxonomy of receptions ? rst requires a tuberosity among the nonions of closure and of bodily function to be established. Indeed, the term ‘ put through’ implies a very speci? c behaviour, 60Database merchandising & node scheme vigilance Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 heat content Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ billing behaviour send back 1: A taxonomy of the guinea pigs of retort to dissatisf proceeding Towards enitity outlet lawsuitwrite Behavioural Public (Sellers, manufacturers, of? cial organisations, associations, scarceice) mission Legal carry out Return of the detail Request for repair nary(prenominal) put through, with or without modi? cation of the mental attitude Forget or free Private (Family, friends, relations) Word of address ostracize/ expiration no(prenominal)- appearanceal hile the term ‘reaction’ contains several modalities which be non exclusively behavioural, nonably change of attitude or inactiveness. This distinction establishes a ? rst dimension. The hour is demoed by the entities towards which replys ar directed: the everyday one includes sellers, manufacturers and consumer associations or legal action; the underc everywhere one includes family, friends or relatives. Finally, results show distinct intensities check to the two previous dimensions. Responses may vary from inactivity to legal action †all simply to express dis rapture or to give repair or pay ( prorogue 1).The heterogeneity of these various response sheaths may be get aroundially explained by the app atomic number 18nt motion and intensity of dis rapture and by the genius and magnificence of the crossing or portion of concern. On the opposite hand, consumers may mix or connect several response lineaments for the like dis comfort. This prospect is relatively neglected by the literature, although Hirschman1 nones that unsoundness and exit argon not two symmetric elements: when a customer relegates the association, he/she loses ‘the opport unity’ to recitation their voice, slice if he/she uses the distemper ? rst, he/she is forever free to leave later if the bearing does not succeed.So exit kindle be a substitute for and complement to a c atomic number 18. The to a greater extent(prenominal) expensive and complex the produce, the to a greater extent(prenominal) than consumers argon inclined to initiate public action, however the greater likelihood is that they throw overboard stay inactive or understand private action. 2â€4 The authors of the ? rst swarm of literature argon legion(predicate), only when Hirschman’s work be standard in the conceptualisation of responses to dissatisfaction through the model â⠂¬ËœExit, piece and allegiance’. Exit is an active and erosive response to dissatisfaction, exhibited by a duty period of the kinship with the object ( trade name, increase, retailer, supplier. . ). The communicatory response (Voice) is a constructive response with an forethought of change in an organisation’s practices, policies and responses; it is characterised by directions towards friends, consumer associations and relevant organisations. The triad slip of response (Loyalty) has two aspects, constructive and passive, the unmarried(a) hoping that things chastening evolve in a positive steering. For Brown and Swartz,5 it is especially a tang of impotence that is the suffice of this behavioural loyalty. ‘The neglect of the incident and the inherent inactivity’ house, however, be considered as evidence for loyalty.Research designed to explain the various types of response to dissatisfaction is limited. Scales nonplus been created for this purpose by twenty-four hours et al. 6 simply they argon without methodological and atomic number 1 Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database merchandise & node system focus 61 Crie ? psychometric validation. Only Bearden and Teel7 hold up investigated the various types of response using a Guttman scale. The data be collected from ? ve speckles of increase intensity: (1) family and friends warning, (2) transcend of the item and/or indisposition, (3) get hold of with the manufacturer, (4) achieve with consumer associations or of? ial organisations and (5) legal action, notably when the customer does not obtain satisfaction with the seller. 8 Empirically validated, this scale does not, however, pass into broadsheet the non-behavioural responses shine uped by previous enquiry, and a human impudence-by- episode item relates to private action. 9 Of a rather formative character, every item shtups in its own bearing to the matur ation of the intensity of the responses. daytime10 con? rms the relevance of the use of much(prenominal) a scale. The main aim of this taxonomy is to clarify the various responses a dissatis? d consumer could use, in fix to track down to a greater extent precisely those which the come with foundation observe at once. DEFINING CONSUMER COMPLAINT demeanour Among the various types of response to dissatisfaction, some of them more(prenominal) than(prenominal) direcly concern CCB. The ? rst conceptual base of this phenomenon concerning post- grease ones palms was give tongue to at the end of the 1970s. 11 Jacoby and Jaccard12 de? ne it as ‘an action begun by the one-on-one who entails a communication of something forbid to a cross musical mode ( helper), either towards the order or towards a trinity entity’. For mean solar day et al. 13 it is the consequence ‘of a given act of wasting disease, by-line which the consumer is confronted with an expe rience generating a high gear dissatisfaction, of suf? cient impact so that it is, neither likened psychologically, nor apace forgotten’. Fornell and Wernermatt-up14 consider that the tutelage is ‘an get down of the customer to change an unsatis elementy situation’. Finally, Singh15 suggests that this behaviour, activated at an ablaze or sentimental direct by a perceive dissatisfaction, is part of the more planetary material of responses to dissatisfaction which consists of two dimensions (see also twenty-four hours and Lan beginner16).The ? rst dimension, grounded completely or in part in actions initiated by the consumer (conveying boldness of his/her dissatisfaction not only to the seller, but also to three parties, friends or relations17,18), is behavioural but does not necessarily entail action towards the familiarity; it is basically at bottom this dimension that CCB should be considered. The south dimension refers to absence of action by th e consumer, for example when he/she forgets a generative episode of dissatisfaction. 19,20 In this way, CCB moldinessiness, rather, be conceived as a function, ie its ? al manifestation does not directly forecast on its initiating f fakers but on military rating of the situation by the consumer and of its evolution over time. So, CCB really shits a sub array of all accomplishable responses to mindd dissatisfaction around a purchase episode, during consumption or during possession of the devout (or attend of process). In fact, the flavour of ‘ ailment behaviour’ includes a more general oral communication which also involves the ca worths of refuse, communication (word of mouth) or testimonial to third parties21 and even the notion of boycott.This notion is conceptually inserted in a set of explicit demonstrations, broadly towards the seller, of a consumer’s dissatisfaction. It seems because that it is inevitable to include in the de? nition of CCB a set of responses, heterogeneous in their targets †the study of this behaviour not being separable from figureing of all the responses to dissatisfaction. 62 Database merchandise & node outline wariness Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ ailment behaviour DISSATISFACTION Behavioural response none-behavioural response Towards companionship Perceptible by the comp eitherTowards food commercialize none evident by the association inaction Change of attitude malady Legal action Leaving prohibit word of mouth Repeat purchase or behavioural loyalty wide kick Repair stipend realise 1: Responses to dissatisfaction and unhealthiness behaviour In the rest of this paper, therefore, the term ‘ illness behaviour’ is used in the conceptual subject matter of a public manneral response to dissatisfaction. So, for a confederacy, only part of these responses forget be perceptible, including ca thexis in the nose out described previously ( emblem 1). On the other hand, it is the retailer who chip in be most affected by CCB.The manufacturer is rarely sought out, so much(prenominal) all- measurable(a) t all(prenominal)ing reaches him only rarely, and often not at all. 22,23 A TYPOLOGY OF DISSATISFIED CONSUMERS several(prenominal) authors behave tried to privateise groups of consumers with forecast to the type of response adopted in the wider framework of dissatisfaction. Most researchers endure a ‘normative typology’ inwardly which the ‘ kickers’ goat be reard but without really distinguishing crabby groups. These are opposed to the ‘non-complainers’,24â€27 in this way these works are more relate with responses to dissatisfaction than CCB in its strict sense datum.They are poor in terms of executable categories and are not grounded in a rigorous analysis of response styles. real typologies nevertheless stomach a f ew speci? c behaviours in the expression of CCB to be extracted, for example the ‘ bother actives’,28,29 the ‘activists’,30 the ‘complainers’, the ‘irates’,31 the ‘voicers’,32 the ‘slightly pained’ or the ‘champions’. 33 For Hirschman34 the burster essential(prenominal) be considered as feedback on the graphic symbol relinquished by the company, the ‘complainers’ are called ‘alert customers’ (because they accord the company to improve the product or dish out) asHenry Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database market & customer Strategy prudence 63 Crie ? defer 2: Main types of complainers Behaviour Complaint (prostestation) Public action Voicers Champions Complainers Authors Dart and freeman Weiser36 Etzel37 Shuptrine38 Bearden39 Day40 Gronhaug and Zaltman41 Singh42 Keng43 Masson44 Warland45 Singh46 Weiser47 Pfaff48 Warland49 Singh50 Dart51 Lost in action Weiser55 35 Private action Slightly pained Irates Authors Weiser52 Dart53 Singh54Request for repair Measures of retaliation Active upsets annoyed Detractors Activists opposed to ‘inert customers’. The complaint is and so a factor of enhancement for company performance. Taken as a unharmed the typology of dissatis? ed consumers overlaps with that of the responses to dissatisfaction and develops its structure at the equal(p) time as the intensity of the CCB modalities chosen by consumers, going from simple complaint to retaliatory measures in a regis emphasize of public or private actions (Table 2).Generally oratory, the various typologies outlined do not allow retailers or manufacturers to appreciate the complexity and transmutation of CCB in order to do in an feative way, but it is believably that trusted behaviours bequeath be more speci? c in a given situation. For example, within the framework of a dissatisfaction bound to permanent goods (high price and high commitment), one would prevail to observe among ‘complainers’ a stronger proportion of ‘irritated actives’ or ‘irates’. In a wonky competitive securities industry they will go to be ‘activists’.If the rough-cut caliber direct of products is weak, ‘detractors’ and ‘irates’ will be observed. Finally, within the framework of a well-established descent a bulk of ‘champions’ or ‘slightly offended lot’ would be evaluate. TOWARDS A DIACHRONIC nest TO CCB The literature does not propose a systematisation in the organisation of antecedents and determinants of CCB. This de? ciency is fundamentally due to the fact that CCB is deliberateed as an prompt act and not as a process. In fact, this concept lacks a distinctly identi? ed theoretical framework which allows the rganisation of a heterogeneous set of factors that initiate and order it and which john take into tale resemblances and differences that also comply with the more global notion of dissatisfaction responses. Indeed, an ambiguity in the study of CCB results from the fact that it should not include, by semantic de? nition, the non-behavioural aspect of responses to dissatisfaction or customers passing. The 64 Database market & node Strategy focusing Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ complaint behaviour iachronic nature of the phenomenon of complaint could in all probability explain similarities and differences which exist between these two concepts. The number of implied variables strengthens the supposition that CCB is not an instantaneous phenomenon, it is the offspring of a process of preliminary evaluations under the in? uence of initiating and modulating factors. This approach also raises the question of the effect of time on a consumer’s initial impulse to complain. CCB occur s after increasing re? ection by the consumer. 56â€57 and Stephens and Gwinner,58 offer the ? rst longitudinal approach to CCB on the basis of in-depth interviews.For them, CCB results from a epitome cognitive evaluation. 59 The ? rst is de? ned as a process by which the separateistic estimates how much in? uence a particular situation, in a given environment, has on his/her well being. The second may be analysed as a puzzle resolution strategy. The CCB bets then on the situation and on the psychological resources of the individuals. Within this framework, it is then relevant to think that generally the object to complain or protest must occur at the like time as dissatisfaction and under the in? uence of initiating factors.This primary intention is then the object of various distorting or modulating factors meaning that the ? nal effect is often various from that intended, it freighter be highly altered or just not come slightly at all. This idea then leads to the co nsideration of a number of non-behavioural responses to dissatisfaction or responses not perceptible by the company (cf. Figure 1) as being in some way failed CCBs. It is consequently relevant to analyse how this intention annuls and changes over time. After a word form of universe represented by the initial direct of dissatisfaction, then a descriptor of re? ction necessary for the integration of its cause and for the evaluation of the come-at-able responses, there follows a phase of decision and of action which will in fact re? ect only the residual dissatisfaction at the conclusion of the process. This remaining dissatisfaction sess nevertheless be reinforced to reach a high train than that of the initial dissatisfaction, for example if the consumer is modify in his/her decision, either by the bother worsening, by the sales representative’s attitude or by the encouragement of third parties. In that case, measures taken by the consumer can be more signi? ant th an those ab initio intended. Nevertheless the process does not spot with the voicing of the complaint, it also includes evaluation of the company’s response and concludes with the ? nal behaviour which ensues from it (repurchase or exit). It is then advisable to restore, in a historical framework, various streams of literature whose main object is to explain the result of this process. Indeed, when researchers take time into account in CCB, it is essentially the available time to protest that is considered60 and not the period separating the episode of dissatisfaction from the response to it.But, the adjectival k instanterledges are connected in time. They bound randomness relative to processes, that is to say sequences of actions, or sequences of reasoning in the sense that they order, or at least structure, the progress of several operations, possibly several procedures. This cognitive approach to complaint behaviour go unders it totally within the framework of a dec ision process. TOWARDS AN integrating OF THE VARIOUS ANTECEDENTS AND DETERMINANTS OF CCB In a simplistic way and besides its historical aspect, it is likely to distinguish within the conceptual part of the literature related to the determinantsHenry Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database merchandise & client Strategy Management 65 Crie ? Psychological sphere †socioethnical factors †foiling/assurance †Learning †ascription †Attitude/complaint †Experiences †Educational train DISSATISFACTION Negative word of mouth economical sphere †Structure of the mart †frequence of purchases †Interactions purchaser / seller †Costs of the complaint †Probability of achievement †Expected profit †Incomes †Switching barriers †Equity †Loyalty †InformationTYPE OF response Complaint Legal action Inactivity Leaving Ethical sphere Figure 2: Antecedents and determinants of CC B of CCB, triplet spheres of factors which interact with different weights to lead, eventually, to CCB or to other modalities of response to dissatisfaction such as de? ned above. The psychological sphere is do up of individual variables re? ecting the liking to CCB. The economic sphere groups together elements of speak to and exchange structures. Finally, the honorable sphere in integrateds transactional virtue, concentrating on the erception of the value of the consociate with the company and on the accuracy and helpfulness of the data given, for example, attachmenting ship canal to resolve the disputes, etc (Figure 2). On the other hand, the diachronic approach to CCB requires its various antecedents and determinants to be anchored on two repoints: ? rst on the initiating factors and secondly on the factors modulating the mode of complaint. This point of view allows not only integration of the various instructive theories and the synthesis described above but also for a short course of action to complaint to be distinguished from a long one.This distinction, notably, can take into account the mapping of time and of both types of factors on CCB. In a short lane the in? uence of the modulating factors is less, the complaint occurring mostly at the sale point, almost simultaneously with rescue of the product or service. It is an speedy emotional reaction rather than an extended process. In a long, extended path, however, there are more modulating factors which seem to shape the type of response. (The variables of the respectable sphere work as initiators, those of the economic sphere have a modulator role and those of the psychological sphere can be classi? d as either type. ) On the whole, four entities are directly involved in CCB: the product or service, the customer, the supplier and the episode of dissatisfaction. These various actors allow, within the framework of a diachronic approach, the fivefold antecedents and determinants of CCB (T able 3) to be re-ordered. 66 Database Marketing & node Strategy Management Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ complaint behaviour Table 3: Various determinants of CCB according to the interpret and the actorStage of CB Actor Product/service rise of CB Dissatisfaction level Modulation of CB Structure of the trade Alternatives Purchase rate Price, complexity of the product/service Attitude, Experience/CB Learning, Information/CB Loyalty Education, Age, Sex Ethnicity Way of life substitute(prenominal) evaluation of response possibilities Absence of worry of post purchase Ease of rile to the company Switching barriers Switching be customer/seller fundamental interactions Size of the company, trading sector Expected pro? t Transaction be of CB Probability of victory Importance of consumer organisations customerPerceived frustration Perceived unfairness Assurance (self control) Will to act native evaluation of the di ssatisfaction Supplier Quality blot Incident/product or service Episode Situation, bunch Dissatisfaction ascription Time-spatial simultaneity of the dissatisfaction and response possibilities Initiating factors of CCB Several factors may lead to CCB. Introducing and find out, partly, a consumer’s prime(prenominal) of a given type of response to dissatisfaction, they allow on the one hand a better understanding of consumers’ motivation for CCB and, on the other hand, a forecast of what response will be the most likely to be adopted.Ordinarily consumers need to be dissatis? ed in order to complain but other variables are necessary to twitch from dissatisfaction to complaint. Such variables may lie in attribution of the cause of dissatisfaction or in psychosociological characteristics of the individual consumer (see Table 3). Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction is a necessary antecedent of CCB, but is often not suf? cient61,62 (see also Jacoby and Jaccard,63 Westbrook64 and Ping65 on the notion of complaint without dissatisfaction66). It is the activating factor of the process. 7 Besides, Oliver68 underlines the live relationship between the intensity of the dissatisfaction and this behaviour. 69 Grandbois et al. ,70 Richins,71 Maute and Forrester72 prove that the gravity of the task is correlative in a positive way with the various responses to dissatisfaction including CCB. The more the dissatisfaction increases, the more the verbal complaint strengthens and the more the probability of go away the company grows. For Singh and Pandya,73 the relationship ‘intensity-type of response’ is not linear and admits threshold effects.When the level of dissatisfaction exceeds a given threshold consumers tend to use either prohibit word of mouth or leaving or allurement to a third party. On the other hand, the relationship between attitude to the Henry Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database Marketing & Cu stomer Strategy Management 67 Crie ? complaint and CCB itself can be modulated by the intensity of the dissatisfaction. 74â€76 attribution of the cause of the dissatisfaction Psychosociological factorsTo lead to CCB, the consumer has to identify clearly the party responsible for his or her dissatisfaction during a given consumption episode (Table 3). In numerous cases it is the consumer himself/herself, for example when he/she settle he/she did not situate the duty prime(a). So, even if for Valle77 the attribution of parentage for dissatisfaction operates as an intermediary between the confusion and the response which follow, it is advisable to classify it as an initiating factor of CCB. According to Weiner et al. 78 a success or failure can be attributed either to elements under the control of the individual (internal cause[s]), or to environment or situational factors (external cause[s]). On the other hand, the performance can be attributed to invariant factors (stable) or evolving with time (unstable). The type of attribution achieved by the consumer determines a priori the response that may be chosen. If an external attribution is necessary for a private type action, a legal action or a request for repair, in the case of an internal attribution it is especially inactivity which dominates. 9 Usually, consumers who perceive the cause of their dissatisfaction as being stable (the alike(p) paradox may recur) or controllable (the individual thinks that the retailer could have prevented the trouble) are more inclined to leave the product or the company and to engage in negative word of mouth than those who think that the problem has little chance of recurring and that the supplier could not prevent it (see also Folkes80). virtually individual characteristics are to be considered as initiators of CCB, although they can also play a modulating role according to the situation (Table 3).Fornell and Westbrook,81 according to Mischel,82 associate CCB with the feeling of frustration felt by a dissatis? ed consumer. Frustration arises not only when the objective depute to a given behaviour is blockade or interrupted before its ful? lment, but also when the result achieved has a subvert level than that sought, or when its realisation requires more resources than the consumer can, wants or expects to spend to reach the in demand(p) objective. This feeling is also present when the government agency to reach the satisfaction, both at the resources level and at the wanted object level (product or brand), are lose weightd or suppressed.Along the same lines, frustration can arise in situations of purchase intention (un handiness of the product or of the brand) or in post-purchase situations (dissatisfaction of use or of ownership). The more substantial the frustration, the greater the risk of aggressiveness and CCB. For Stephens and Gwinner83 the song of dissatisfaction adds to the cursory vehemence and CCB is connected to a double evaluation of the situation during a cognitive process. trio constituents form the primary evaluation of the stress: (1) the level of modi? ation of the individual objectives; (2) the incongruousness between these objectives and the incident; (3) the level of the person’s ego infringement (humiliation, self-esteem, ethical value). A second evaluation of realizable response strategies is then initiated according to: (1) the function attribution for the confusion; (2) the possibility of resoluteness the problem (capacities of the individual, probability of success); (3) the feeling that things will go better afterwards. If 68Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ complaint behaviour the resulting stress of the primary evaluation can be trim by a answer strategy (secondarily estimated), the probability of CCB is great. If, on the other hand, this strategy risks increasi ng the initial stress, the main probability turns out to be a non-behavioural response or a response towards the marketplace (see Figure 1). Other individual characteristics may also in? ence the scoop of a complaint process,84 eg loyalty to the brand, product or supplier; the level of quality judgement, the educational level and tastes; the ability to comment quality differences (a function of experience) and the acquired level of information; perception of the ‘monetary value/pro? t’ ratio of the possible actions. For Lapidus and Pinkerton,85 the consumerâ€retailer relationship is one of social exchange and, therefore, equity theory may be apply in order to explain the initiation of CCB.The consumer compares his/her inputs/outputs ratio with those that he/she perceives to be authorized by the seller. Naturally this comparison can be biased according to the disposition (positive or negative) of the revealed unfairness. The complaint appears then as an attemp t to reduce the sensed inequity (see also Blodgett et al. 86). Secondly, the prices inherent in the complaint and its perceived outcome can be considered as inputs and outputs of this theory. Finally, instruction theory can also be mentioned: the lean to CCB is essentially a function of olden experiences87â€90 and of their outcome. 1 Modulator factors of CCB Dissatisfaction can be organised around two harmonious factors: the former is situational, the latter(prenominal) temporal. It can so occur where the product is purchased or the service is delivered and frankincense be ready, but it can also take place at a distance from the act of purchase. In the same way, the response to dissatisfaction can be either nimble or deferred. So the CCB can consist of rather a short path in the case of a dissatisfaction on the spot and of an immediate response, or a long tour in the case of delayed dissatisfaction with regard to the purchase act or of a postponed response.It is then, es pecially in this last situation, that numerous variables can intervene to modify the consumer’s actual response, by moderating or aggravating it: ultimately the intensity of the CCB will thus expect on an evaluation of the situation during a temporal process. The market structure, sociocultural characteristics or evaluation of the various be associated with CCB will act as modulators of the process outcome. The market structure The market structure can be regarded as an element in? uencing the response type choice adopted by a dissatis? ed consumer (see Table 3).For Hirschman,92 consumers are flying to voice their complaints in two good deal: (1) the way they balance the certainty of leaving and the irresolution of an improvement in the product or service quality and (2) the thought they commit of their capacity to in? uence the organisation by voicing their concerns. These two factors are far from being independent. Fornell and Didow93 situate CCB in the larger ? eld of rational choice †with the slight difference that choice in economic theory is in the pre-purchase period, fleck CCB is generally a post-purchase phenomenon.The objects of choice are also different: products and services in the ? rst case, type of response in the second. In this theoretical framework, they show that verbal action can be Henry Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 69 Crie ? expressed as a mouthful function and as the possibility of purchasing elsewhere. Indeed, in a restricted competitive environment, verbal action will be the only possible action for a dissatis? ed consumer. 4,95 In contrast, when competitors are numerous, the customer’s leaving bewilders the most likely reaction and his/her action is then situated at the market level (see Figure 1). Therefore, the market structure appears as a powerful determinant of CCB. On the other hand, and within this framework, sen sitiveness of the various customer segments, either to price or quality, shapes the dominant response type to dissatisfaction. Those sensitive to price may leave the company, those sensitive to quality are more inclined to complain. 6 It also seems that buyerâ€seller interaction frequency (ie purchase rate) plays a part in the p reservoir for verbal action. 97 The more shit these interactions the fewer the public actions. 98 On the other hand, Barksdale et al. 99 report that the disappoint the level of purchase at the same supplier, the greater the tendency to CCB. New purchases lead to more complaints and the usual suppliers receive more complaints than the new ones. For Weiser,100 the class of ease of entranceway to the company and the willingness of the customer to complain are determining elements in the choice of a response type. In a more speci? way, Andreasen101 emphasises, within the framework of nearly noncompetitive markets or markets perceived as such, that the re sponse type is a function of the: perceived heterogeneity of the offer quality; level of knowledge; level of perceived reverse be; probability of success of a verbal action both for the individual and the community; supposed complaint level of other consumers; and the tip of loyalty to the product, brand or supplier. The attractiveness of the alternatives or the availability of substitutable goods shows a strong relationship with the response type adopted by the consumer. 02 In the same way, the more pregnant the company the more the number of complaints. 103,104 Day et al. 105 classify in three categories the factors which can in? uence the appositeness to CCB: (1) the circumstances de? ning the interests at work and evaluation of the constitutes and likely pro? ts of a search for compensation; (2) the characteristics of the individuals or the situation environ the costs and the purely psychological pro? ts of alternative actions, as well as the general tendency of the medi ation interventions; (3) market conditions and the legal climate.For Day et al. , this latter stratum determines the probability of a prospering outcome to the action taken. Generally harangue this type of action will also depend on the nature of the product or service, the usable channels of complaint and the third parties which could intervene. On the other hand, for Andreasen and Best,106 the inclination of consumers to perceive problems depends on the nature of the exchange. For services this propensity is greatest, because they are, by nature, more dif? cult to assess (see Shuptrine and Wenglorz,107 Bearden and Masson108).But there is also a unit of time and place during service actors line which favours CCB. Referring to the attribution theory, Zeithaml and Bitner109 consider that because the customer is an actor in service delivery, the customer appropriates more willingly a part of indebtedness in his/her dissatisfaction and tends to protest less often. sociocultural fa ctors around sociocultural factors have to be acknowledged as modulators of the complaint process (see Table 3). For Day 70 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003)Consumers’ complaint behaviour et al. ,110 (1) the standards of life and the potency of the merchandise system, (2) the degree of regulation and control of economic activities and trade practices and (3) the availability of information to help consumers make their choice or to know where to complain, represent three groups of characteristics to be taken into account for a cross-cultural approach to the phenomenon. Richins,111 within the framework of an international comparison, shows that in the the States the factors most gibe to CCB are price, the dif? ulty the consumer faces in resolving the confusion by himself and the attribution of the cause of dissatisfaction. In the Netherlands Richins found the correlating factors were price, responsibility for the damage and its felt intensity. The most determinative variables remain the attribution of responsibility and the perceived consequences of a complaint, two variables less correlated to CCB in the American sample. Cornwell, Bligh and Babakus112 clearly highlight that heathen origin plays an important role in CCB especially through values and the way of life.Webster113 also ? nds an in? uence of ethnic factors when the effect of social variables is controlled. Furthermore, women generally have a greater inclination to complain and stack living in cracker-barrel body politics are more prone to negative word of mouth. 114 For Farhangmehr and Silva,115 educational level is a determining variable; the higher it is the more consumers tend to complain in a dissatisfaction situation (see Gronhaug,116 Morganosky and Buckley117). In their study, the reasons for silence on the part of the consumer are: the effort and go off of time involved (44. per cent) whi ch can be compared with the expected get together; the feeling of not being understood or that the problem will not be indomitable (30. 3 per cent); and not knowing where and how to complain (21. 1 per cent) which is related to the consumer’s information level. Obviously these proportions can vary with the horizon that consumers have roughly the possibility of resolution of their problem according to the sector or company have-to doe with. 118 Gronhaug and Zaltman119 show that economic indicators such as income have only a weak explanatory power and that it is the same for demographic factors. 20â€123 For Singh124 the ‘complainers’ tend to have superscript incomes, a higher educational level, are still working and are younger (also Bearden et al. 125). Laforge126 so shows that elderly people complain less, this in agreement with the sociological theory of use uped helplessness which makes the individual passive because he/she perceives the situation as uncontrollable. The costs of the complaint In reference to the works of Landon,127 the pro? t of a complaint is a function of the result minus the cost of complaint.This result is itself estimated with regard to the immenseness and the nature of the damage sustained. The consumer’s preference for verbal action is then related to the expected value of the complaint outcome (connected with the importance of the dissatisfaction) minus the associated costs. 128 The latter depend notably on the anatomy of the company, especially in the resolution of disputes, on the consumer’s experience of CCB and on the nature of the dispute. An arbitration is thus achieved between cost and pro? of every possible action so as to gain supreme utility. 129 Gronhaug and Gilly130 use transaction costs theory131 in order to explain the various consumer responses to dissatisfaction. Three dimensions of this theory (speci? city, uncertainty and exchange frequency) can be invoked to Henry St ewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 71 Crie ? explain CCB. Does approaching the electrical distributor or manufacturer entail speci? c costs? Generally, CCB requires time and effort thus generating a mixture of ifferent types of costs, eg opportunity cost of the elapsed time, deliberation costs, transportation costs †these can be called CCB transaction costs. These costs are speci? c to the envisaged response type whether it is actual or not. They cannot be give off afterwards, at top hat they could be used as a learning arcdegree in order to reduce them during a later complaint. Uncertainty arises from any transaction (ie complaint) and the consumer facial expressions for information to reduce this uncertainty to a bearable level. Finally, the complaint frequency has a direct in? ence on its organisation, possibly becoming a ‘ fleck’, thus reducing the associated costs. This theory t hus explains more frequent CCB when consumers have superior educational level: they know their rights so the level of uncertainty associated with the complaint is reduced and there is, therefore, a global reduce of the perceived costs of a complaint. Nevertheless, as a general rule, the majority of dissatis? ed customers do not complain. Kolodinsky132 insists moreover on the assessment, by the consumer, of the temporal cost of the choice of an appropriate response.Furthermore, as the search for a new product or supplier also generates numerous costs, it is often the case that the dissatis? ed consumer refrains from any action. 133,134 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR interference COMPLAINTS Businesses are, too often, completely hopeless at relations with complaints, although complaint management has become an important issue for many companies. Some elements of the various theories mentioned above allow managers to understand better the complaint process in order to cope with it bett er.First of all, and within the framework of relationship trade, complaint management is a major strategic issue. On the one hand complaint management has a retention function in the sense that where a customer satis? ed with the interposition of his/her complaint gets a second-order feeling of satisfaction his/her con? dence with the company is strengthened. Thus companies that respond to consumer dissatisfaction and complaints with appropriate recovery strategies and satisfactory complaint resolution can turn dissatis? ed consumers into satis? ed ones, positively in? uencing repurchase rates (eg Bearden and Oliver135).To decrease the effect of dissatisfaction and the relative incidence of further negative actions, companies need to show, at the least, that they are responsive to legitimate complaints. But, if problems are resolved poorly, they are only the opening of a multitude of ‘hidden’ actions which do not come to the attention of the caper. So, meet disc ourse of customer complaints improves repeat financial backing intentions and reduces negative word of mouth. 136 Finally, in dealing with complaints, truly trade-oriented companies must examine not only the costs of the remedy, but also the cost of not settling the complaint.The usual rationale is that complaints represent valuable feedback to companies that allows them to take corrective action vis-a-vis the risky product or ` service as regards either the critical incidents137 or trying on of the offer to match customer expectations. both actions are of strategic nature: the ? rst is concerned with customer relationship management and retention, the second with an equally long-term strategy, ie unceasing improvement of the product or service in order to ? t customer expectations. 72 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy ManagementVol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ complaint behaviour From an operational point of view , the complaints handling process begins before the customer addresses his/her complaint to the seller or manufacturer. All must be done in order that the various costs associated with this behaviour are reduced, so that complaints are encouraged, facilitated and even solicited in order for companies to take corrective action. Kotler138 suggests that the best thing a retailer can do is to make it easy for a customer to complain.For example, Saint Maclou, a cut nationally-advertised carpet manufacturer and retailer, indicates on each bill the name of the person to connection if a problem arises and, if the trouble remains unresolved, the name of a more authorise executive is given. Access to the company thus has to be multichannel. The customer must be assured that he/she will be listened to and that his/her problem will probably be success estimabley resolved. Lastly, and according to justice theory, the consumer must be conscious that the failure will be corrected fairly, that i s to say with impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and fairness.As the majority of dissatis? ed consumers leave the company without complaining, managers have to overcome customers’ natural indisposition to complain. Thus this process is concerned with service recovery, that is to say, the recti? cation of mistakes or compensation of customers. Service recovery is de? ned as the response a supplier makes to a service failure;139 service failure usually requires dissatisfaction on the part of the customer. It begins with thanks for the approach by the customer: salespeople or lag need to learn to use ‘complaint welcoming’ procedures.Then the complaint must be listened to. Psychologically speaking it is important for the customer to cope with his/her frustration through a kind of debrie? ng by oral or compose expression of the trouble. For instance, complaint letters to Railtrack in the UK rose to an all time high in 2001, without the writers realistically expecting any immediate bene? t other than the ability to state their frustration. Complaint, especially voice, gives the customer an opportunity to ‘ give notice (of) their side of the story’ which serves as a kind of quit for the customer. 40 Furthermore, levy and Weitz141 argue that a sales representative’s willingness to listen can be an important source of consumer dissatisfaction and complaint intentions. A salesperson’s willingness to listen has been described as the degree of attentiveness a person shows. 142 According to Palmroth,143 a salesperson must ask questions until s/he understands the full nature of the complaint without appearing to place blame on the customer. These salespeople should be seen as trustworthy, friendly, expert, honest, helpful and concerned.The third footmark is concerned with the acknowledgment of the failure, if justi? ed. (If not, it is necessary to explain wherefore and, according to the attribution theory, to ge ntly point out the misuse of the service or product. It should also be noted that some consumers may complain not out of dissatisfaction but in an effort to gain fraudulently from retailers or manufacturers. ) This is, however, related to the salesperson’s familiarity with the product and awareness of any possible problems with the merchandise in question.Apologies are the next step and empowered contact employees must be able to offer immediate redress where possible or advice on the way to proceed, always in order to reduce customers’ costs and frustration. Indeed, of customers who archives a complaint, somewhat 60 to 75 per cent will do business with the take into accountr again if their complaint has been resolved, and this Henry Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 73 Crie ? gure goes up to 95 per cent if the customer feels that the complaint was resolved quickly. Furthermore, providi ng compensation is a reciprocal response to customer complaints. In assenting to the tangible bene? ts received, customers typically see the compensation as a symbolic expression of regret by the giver. 144 In a word, courteous and fast treatment by front of? ce force play can enhance favourable post-complaint responses145 and staff must persuade the customer that all will be done to gibe that the trouble does not recur. Other authors provide some rules of thumb.For example, Davidow146 presents a model framework that divides the organisational responses to complaint into six separate dimensions: timeliness, facilitation, redress, apology, credibleness and attentiveness. Nevertheless, according to Mitchell,147 a study shows that 51 per cent of his sample who had complained about a service and 23 per cent about products were less than completely satis? ed with the responses they received. The importance of regulatory authorities in determining how complaints should be managed in a merchandise sense, and their active occasion in researching this area and etting standards should also be noted. Generally speaking the legal analysis assumes that it is important that companies are involved in ? xing problems with consumers. But more often, sector-based organisations are proactive and promulgate codes of conduct or of deontology in order to provide a conventional frame for a wide range of business activities, including complaints. For instance, Consumer Complaint Form (CCform; coordinated by the compact of European Direct Marketing) is a European Commission Information Society technology funded discombobulate to reach a consensus between business, consumers, academics and egulators on new, more ef? cient and transparent processes for complaints management. The CCform project aims to develop an online, multilingual complaint form and a best practice business process. With CCform, consumers will be able to make complaints in their own language, and then the fo rm will be translated into the companies’ preferred tongue. nib that cultural norms appear to change the way people react to dissatisfaction and so the response type. Consumers will be able to track the progress of their complaint, and, if necessary, escalate their grievance to a dispute resolution service or regulator.CCform can be used by any company doing business by e-commerce, distance selling or topical anesthetic retail operations. 148 Complainants may have repair to a third party and an escalation in the process can result. In this sense, the complaint handling can also be seen as a dispute prevention mechanism. On the other hand, and from a customer relationship management point of view, CCB is an important early warning. Furthermore, Powers and Bendall-Lyon149 have shown that the number of complaints change magnitude as a result of the presentation of a complaint management programme in an hospital context.Complaint management programmes alter organisations to receive complaint information in order to identify and accommodate dissatis? ed customers and identify common failure points in order to improve service quality. all(prenominal) complaint either by phone, face to face, letter or e-mail, should be put down in the database. The manager should be able to link each product, customer and complaint together. For example, a customer with an increasing complaint rate may be in a leaving phase and should be carefully monitored. Indeed, and although customer 4 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003) Consumers’ complaint behaviour relationship management aims to establish and follow ongoing customer relationships by focal point on the speci? c customer’s needs in order to deliver high levels of customer satisfaction and company loyalty, one major aspect of customer relationship management is the effective handling of customer complaints. CON CLUSION AND FUTURE seek This paper allows CCB to be placed and de? ed within the larger framework of responses to dissatisfaction and then suggests an integrating framework of diachronic nature. Until now research into CCB has taken a deductive approach, researchers trying to deduce its causes from contextual or individual elements without being really raise in the process taking place in a temporal post of variable duration. The various works of literature studied offer different explanations for CCB but few of them consider the sequence and interaction of initiating or modulating factors in a process.CCB is indeed essentially described in its immediate nature, that is to say as an instantaneous event. Nevertheless, the nature and intensity of response to dissatisfaction certainly depend on the type of experience and on the responsible product/service but they also involve two other actors (the supplier and the customer) in a diachronic framework. The variability of individual r eactions, notably revealed by the lack of a clear typology of ‘complainers and noncomplainers’, results from a different weighting of constitutive elements of the process over time.The joining together and organisation of these elements, from which three large areas can be isolated (the utilitarian sphere of the economists, the ethical sphere of equity and the psychological sphere, notably represented by attribution), supply a synthetic approach by describing CCB in two stages: initiation and modulation. The initiation phase is related to the dissatisfaction level which determines the opening of the process. It is then followed by a search for attribution of the problem and by the perception of the unfair character of the transaction engendering frustration or stress which the individual will try to minimise.It is during the evaluation of the problem resolution strategies that modulators, such as experience and attitude towards the complaint, personality of the indivi dual and his/her sensitivity to quality, will or will not allow the process to evolve towards the actual complaint. Other factors of this type can be isolated, such as loyalty level and information level, the degree of nearness (commitment) in the relationship with the supplier, the market structure (particularly the possibility of choice alternatives) and ? ally, the hoped/expected utility of the complaint with regard to the perceived costs as well as the accessibility of the company for CCB. If CCB is taken to be a process it becomes easy to link together all the response types following an episode of dissatisfaction and this knowledge is helpful for complaints handling, eg in encouraging the customer to complain or in avoiding his leaving. The TARP study150 indeed indicates that 90 per cent of dissatis? ed consumers initiate no action and leave the product, brand or company.So, the managerial implications arise not only from contextual factors but also from the diachronic aspect of the phenomenon. Although initiators are only decrepit accessible to action by the manager, withdraw by avoiding dissatisfaction and by strengthening the perceived equity of transactions, some Henry Stewart Publications 1741-2439 (2003) Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management 75 Crie ? modulators can be amended so as to lead the dissatis? ed customer to complain more frequently. Thus the company can contribute to the modi? ation of consumers’ attitudes towards CCB by: rendering more favourable the perception of previous experiences; restoring a feeling of equity after a complaint; decreasing the costs, particularly the psychological ones; and ? nally, establishing social relationships that reduce the attraction of alternatives. It is necessary to reward customers who complain by including them in this step and by getting them used to this cultural change. It is necessary to insist on the exigency of a dissatisfaction communication to the company and to tailor the response delay (free phone number, speci? coupon, website, CCform. . . ) in order to minimise the negative constituents of the modulators. From a passive role of complaint reception, the company has to evolve towards a proactive stage in the genesis and the actual expression of CCB. It is then necessary to gather information about dissatisfaction as quickly as possible in order to vary a process which would otherwise probably lead to the customer leaving. So, complaints must be regarded more as a marketing tool than as a cost (better service to the customer and customer retention); they constitute a fundamental element of relationship marketing.This synthesis should encourage the number of research studies into the diachronic side of CCB, in the sense that any dissatisfaction (of external attribution) requires that the consumer get in touch with the company. So, the relationship between dissatisfaction, complaint intention and actual response merit t o be clari? ed in connection with time. It is also advisable to analyse more exactly consumers’ expectations of complaints. It is indeed by pleasant these expectations that marketers can hope to increase the number of ‘complainers’. References 1 Hirschman, A. O. (1970) ‘Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to declivity in ? ms, organizations and states’, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 2 Day, R. and Landon, E. Jr. (1977) ‘Toward a theory of consumer complaining behaviour’ in Woodside, Sheth and Bennett (eds) ‘Consumer and industrial buying style’, northern Holland Publishing Co. , Amsterdam, pp. 425â€437. 3 Richins, M. L. (1987) ‘A variable analysis of responses to dissatisfaction’, ledger of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 15, none 4, pp. 24â€31. 4 Levesque, T. J. and McDougall, G. H. G. (1996) ‘Customer dissatisfaction: The relationship between types of problems and customer r esponse’, Canadian journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 3, nary(prenominal) 3, pp. 264â€276. 5 Brown, S. and Swartz, T. (1984) ‘Consumer medical complaint behavior: Determinants of and alternatives to malpractices litigation’, Journal of Public polity and Marketing, Vol. 3, pp. 85â€98. 6 Day, R. L. , Grabicke, K. , Schaetzle, T. and Staubach, F. (1981) ‘The hidden agendum of consumer complaining’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 86â€106. 7 Bearden, W. O. and Teel, J. E. (1983) ‘Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 21â€28. 8 Barnes, J. and Kelloway, K. R. 1980) ‘Consumerists: Complaining behavior and attitude toward social and consumer issues’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 329â€334. 9 Singh, J. (1988) ‘Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: De? nitional and taxonomical issues’, J ournal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 93â€107. 10 Day, R. L. (1984) ‘Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 496â€499. 11 Day and Landon (1977) op. cit. 12 Jacoby, J. and Jaccard, J. J. (1981) ‘The sources, meaning and validity of consumer complaining behavior; A psychological review’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, No. , pp. 4â€24. 13 Day et al. (1981) op. cit. 14 Fornell, C. and Wernerfelt, B. (1987) ‘Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: A theoretical analysis’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 337â€346. 15 Singh (1988) op. cit. 16 Day and Landon Jr. (1977) op. cit. 17 Day (1984) op. cit. 18 Richins, M. L. (1983) ‘Negative word of mouth by dissatis? ed consumers: A pilot study’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 68â€78. 19 Hirschman (1970) op. Cit. 20 Day and Landon Jr. (1977) op. cit. 76 Dat abase Marketing & Customer Strategy Management Vol. 11, 1, 60â€79 Henry Stewart Publications 1741â€2439 (2003)Consumers’ complaint behaviour 21 Mooradian, T. A. and Olver, J. M. (1997) ‘I can’t get no satisfaction: The impact of personality and emotion on postpurchase processes’, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 379â€393. 22 Kolodinsky, J. (1995) ‘ avail of economics in explaining consumer complaints’, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 29â€54. 23 Lovelock, C. H. (1996) ‘Services marketing’, 3rd ed. , Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp. 473â€480. 24 Day, R. (1980) ‘Research perspectives on consumer complaint behavior’, Lamb and Dunne (eds) ‘Theoretical developments in marketing’, AMA, Chicago IL, pp. 11â€215. 25 Shuptrine, K. and Wenglorz, G. (1980) ‘ spatiotemporal identi? cation of consumer’s marketplace problems and what they do about themâ €™, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 687â€692. 26 Gronhaug, K. and Zaltman, G. (1981) ‘Complainers and non-complainers revisited: Another look at the data’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 83â€87. 27 Bearden and Teel (1983) op. cit. 28 Masson, J. B. and Himes, S. H. (1973) ‘An exploratory behavioral and socio-economic pro? le of consumer action about a dissatisfaction with selected household appliances’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. , No. 1, pp. 121â€127. 29 Warland, R. H. , Hermann, R. O. and Willis, J. (1975) ‘Dissatis? ed consumers: Who gets upset and who takes action’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 148â€163. 30 Pfaff, M. and Blivice, S. (1977) ‘socioeconomic correlates of consumer and citizen dissatisfaction and activism’, in Day R. ‘Consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behavior’, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 115â€123. 3 1 Singh, J. (1990) ‘A typology of consumer dissatisfaction response styles’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 57â€98. 32 Dart, J. and freewoman, K. 1994) ‘Dissatisfaction response styles among clients of professional method of accounting ? rms’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 75â€82. 33 Weiser, C. (1995), ‘Customer retention: The importance of the ‘‘Listening Organisation’’ ’, Journal of Database Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 344â€358. 34 Hirschman (1970) op. cit. 35 Dart and Freeman (1994) op. cit. 36 Weiser (1995) op. cit. 37 Etzel, M. and Siverman, B. (1981) ‘A managerial perspective on directions for retail customer satisfaction research’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 124â€136. 38 Shuptrine and Wenglorz, (1980) op. cit. 39 Bearden, W. , Crockett, M. nd Teel, J. (1980) ‘A past model of consumer complaint behavior’, in Bagozzi, R. P. (ed. ) ‘Marketing in the 80’s: Changes and challenges’, AMA Proceedings, Chicago, IL, pp. 101â€104. 40 Day (1980) op. cit. 41 Gronhaug and Zaltman (1981) op. cit. 42 Singh (1988) and (1990) op. cit. 43 Keng, K. A. , Richemond, D. and Han, S. (1995) ‘Determinants of consumer complaint behaviour: A study of capital of Singapore consumers’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 59â€67. 44 Masson and Himes (1973) op. cit. 45 Warland (1975) op. cit. 46 Singh (1988) and (1990) op. cit. 47 Weiser (1995) op. cit. 48 Pfaff and Blivice (1977) op. it. 49 Warland, R. H. , Hermann, R. O. and Moore, D. E. (1984) ‘Consumer and community involvement: An exploration of their theoretical and empirical linkages’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 64â€79.. 50 Singh (1988) and (1990) op. cit. 51 Dart and Freeman (1994) op. cit. 52 Weiser (1995) op. cit. 53 Dart and Freeman (1994) op. cit. 54 Singh (1988) and (199 0) op. cit. 55 Weiser (1995) op. cit. 56 Kolodinsky (1995) op. cit. 57 Conlon, D. E. and Murray, N. M. (1996) ‘Customer perceptions of corporate responses to product complaints: The role of explanations’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1040â€1056. 58 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, 172â€189. 59 Lazarus, R. S. (1966) ‘Psychological stress and the coping process’, McGraw Hill, New York. 60 Kolodinsky (1995) op. cit. 61 Day (1984) op. cit. 62 Oliver, R. L. (1987) ‘An probe of the interrelationship between consumer (dis)satisfaction and complaint reports’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 218â€222. 63 Jacoby and Jaccard (1981) op. cit. 4 Westbrook, R. A. (1987) ‘Product/consumption based affective responses and postpur chase processes’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 258â€270. 65 Ping, R. A. (1993) ‘The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, egocentrism and neglect’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 320â€352. 66 These authors mention the possibility of complaint by satis? ed consumers, either to try to obtain more from the company, or for fear of a future breakdown or because of question in the performance of the product or because of propensity to complain. 67 Singh, J. 1989)\r\n'