1The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and

~ Interactional Justice on Postcomplaint Behavior

JEFFREY G. BLODGETT
University
of Mississippi

DONNA J. HILL
i Bradley University

STEPHEN S. TAX
University of Victoria

This study examines the effects of distributive, interactional, and procedural justice on complainants’
repatronage and negative word-of-mouth intentions. In order to test the hypotheses an experiment was
conducted; twelve different scenarios were created, each describing a situation in which a customer
was returning a product to a retail store. In the various scenarios. the customer was allowed to
exchange the product or was given a partial discount on a new product, was treated either with tour-
tesy and respect or was treated rudely, and was able to take care of the problem promptly or wlas asked
to come back to the store the next day. Subjects were asked to read one of the rwelve scenarios and to
imagine that this situation happened to them, they were then asked to imagine how they would have felt
and what they subsequently would have done. In order to make the scenarios more vivid, subjects then
watched a videotape depicting the same event. Of the three dimensions, interactional justice had the
largest impact on complainants repatronage and negative word-of-mouth intentions.

INTRODUCTION

A number of factors have made it necessary for retailers to focus greater attention on suc-
cessfully resolving customer complaints. Increasingly competitive markets point to the
importance of preserving loyalty and developing long-term relationships with customers.
Furthermore, there is evidence that long-time customers are more profitable because they
tend to purchase in greater quantity and more frequently than new customers (Reichheld
and Sasser, 1990). Understanding the cost of customer defections and implementing strat-

Jeffrey G. Blodgett, Department of Management and Marketing, School of Business Administration, The
University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677; Donna J. Hill, Department of Marketing, Foster College of
Business Administration, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625; and Stephen S. Tax, School of Business,
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, VSW 3Pl.

Journal of Retailing, Volume 73(2), pp. 185-210, ISSN: 0022-4359

Copyright 0 1997 by New York University. Ail rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

185
186 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

egies to lessen their occurrence has been a key element of many quality improvement pro-
grams (e.g., Federal Express and Chrysler). Its central role in maintaining customer loyalty
clearly positions complaint handling as an important strategic tool for retailers.
Many retailers recognize that complaints represent an opportunity to remedy product or
service related problems and to positively influence subsequent customer behavior. There
is considerable evidence that dealing effectively with complaints can have a dramatic
impact on customers’ evaluations of retail experiences (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault,
1990; Kelley, Hoffman, and Davis, 1993; McCollough and Bharadwaj, 1992) as well as
enhance their likelihood of repurchase and limit the spread of damaging negative word-of-
mouth (Blodgett, Granbois, and Walters, 1993; Gilly and Gelb, 1982; TARP, 1986). Unfor-
tunately, many customers who complain end up feeling more negative about the business
because of the way their problems are addressed {Hart, Heskett, and Sasser, 1990). Since
complaint management can have considerable influence on retail sales and profitability
(Pomell and Wernerfelt, 19X7), this topic certainly is worthy of further research.
Despite the compelling evidence linking complaint handling to subsequent purchase
beha~~ior, relatively little progress has been made in de~~e~opin~ a theoretical a~derstand-
ing of how consumers evaluate retailers ’ responses to their complaints. One construct that
has shown promise in explaining individuals’ reactions to a variety of conjlict situations.is
perceivedjustice. Perceived justice is actually a broad, multifaceted construct, encompass-
ing three di~lensions: dist~butive justice, infractions justice, and procedural justice
(Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Bies and Shapiro, 1987; Clemmer and Schneider, 1996).
In a consumer complaint context, distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the
remedy offered by the seller. Proceduml justice encompasses the perceived fairness of the
policies and procedures used by the seller in processing a complaint, while interactional
justice focuses on the manner in which the complainant was treated (Blodgett et al., 1993).
The concept of perceived justice offers a valuable framework for explaining customers’
reactions to complaint episodes. It is also consistent with the service marketing literature
which recognizes the importance of process and interpersonal communication during the
service encounter (Bitner et al., 1990; Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, and Gutman, 1985).
The purpose of this study is to further examine the linkage between perceived justice and
postcomplaint behavior. More specifically, this study will assess the effects of dist~butive,
interactional, and procedural justice on complainants’ negative word-of-mouth and repa-
tronage intentions. The current research is unique in that we simultaneously investigate the
effects of all three dimensions of justice; by doing so, we can determine the relative impor-
tance of each dimension. In order to test the hypotheses we conducted a qu~i-expe~ment,
in which we manipulated the three dimensions of justice. This study will be of value to
researchers who are developing causal models of complaining behavior and to retail man-
agers who are responsible for developing and implementing complaint handling policies
and procedures (and who must train retail employees how to effectively interact with com-
plainants). By understanding the impact of each dimension of justice on postcomplaint
behavior retailers may be able to focus more precisely on the critical aspects of complaint
m~agement. This info~ation, in turn, should help retailers develop more effective and
cost efficient methods for resolving customer disputes, thus resulting in higher levels of
customer retention and profits.
Postcomplaint Behavior 187

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT

Complaining Behavior

Complaining behavior may be viewed in terms of a set of possible customer responses to

dissatisfying purchase experiences (Singh, 1988; Richins, 1983). In general, complaint
options include seeking redress (i.e., a refund, exchange, repair, or apology, etc.), engaging
in negative word-of-mouth (i.e., telling other people about one’s dissatisfaction), exiting
(i.e., vowing never to repatronize the seller), and contacting third parties (e.g., the Better
Business Bureau, writing a letter to a newspaper, taking legal action, etc.). These options
are not mutually exclusive and any dissatisfied customer may engage in multiple responses.
Blodgett et al. (1993) describe complaint behavior as a dynamic process, in which one’s
initial response(s) (i.e., whether or not one seeks redress or exits, and whether or not one
engages in negative word-of-mouth) is based upon factors such as the likelihood of success,
one’s attitude toward complaining, and the importance of the product. However, once a dis-
satisfied customer seeks redress, subsequent word-of-mouth behavior (both negative and
positive), repatronage intentions, and third party complaints are primarily dependent upon
the complainant’s perception of justice. There is considerable evidence that if a firm han-
dles complaints well it tends to reduce the incidence of negative word-of-mouth and third
party complaints, and increases the likelihood of repurchase (Blodgett et al., 1993; Kelly et
al., 1993; McCollough and Bharadwaj, 1992). Importantly, complainants may subse-
quently engage in positive word-of-mouth (thus spreading goodwill), and may even
become more loyal customers, if they perceive a high degree of justice. Despite the empir-
ical evidence linking complaint handling with subsequent customer responses, limited
effort has been expended in developing a theoretical understanding of how different facets
of justice affect consumers’ postcomplaint behavior.

Theoretical Foundations of Complaining Behavior

Several authors have noted that there is no single, comprehensive theory of complaining
behavior (Blodgett et al., 1993; Goodwin and Ross, 1992; Kelly and Davis, 1994). Rather,
“
. . the study of complaining behavior is based upon several different theories from vari-
ous fields of study” (Blodgett et al., 1993, p. 402). The confirmation/disconfirmation par-
adigm (Oliver, 1980), along with research on satisfaction/dissatisfaction (see Day, 1984;
Day, Grabicke, Schaetzle, and Staubach, 198 1); Hirschman’s (1970) theory of exit, voice,
and loyalty; and attribution theory (Folkes, 1984) all help to explain why some dissatisfied
consumers seek redress (and thus give the retailer a chance to remedy the problem), while
others silently exit, vowing never to shop there again. While these theories provide the the-
oretical foundation which allows us to better understand dissatisfied consumers’ initial
complaining behavior(s), it is the concept of fairness (Clemmer and Schneider, 1996;
Greenberg, 1990; Lind and Tyler, 1988) that provides the theoretical framework for the
study of dissatisfied consumers’ postcomplaint behavior(s).
188 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

The concept of fairness, or justice, has its foundations in social psychology, and has been
widely and successfully employed to explain individuals’ reactions to a variety of conflict
situations. Fairness principles have been applied in the context of pay raises (Folger and
Konovsky, 1989), hiring and promotion decisions, labor relations (see Greenberg, 1990),
legal settings (Thibaut and Walker, 1975), and more recently in buyer/seller transactions
(Clemmer, 1993; Oliver and Swan, 1989). These studies have demonstrated that fairness
has both psychological (e.g., satisfaction, loyalty, trust) and behavioral outcomes (e.g.,
employee turnover, legal appeals, repurchase intentions). In a recent review article cover-
ing 30 years of research Clemmer and Schneider (1996) concluded that there are three
dimensions of justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional. The distributive dimen-
sion focuses on the perceived fairness of outcomes, the procedural component reflects the
fairness of the policies and procedures by which the outcome is produced, and the interac-
tional component focuses on the interpersonal treatment people experience during the con-
flict resolution process. The next sections will explore each of these three dimensions of
justice in more detail, and will discuss their applications in the context of consumer com-
plaining behavior.

DistriSutive Justice

Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the tangible outcome of a dispute,
negotiation, or decision involving two or more parties. The concept of distributive justice
has its origins in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Adams, 1965), which emphasizes the
role of equity in shaping subsequent exchanges. The equity principle defines a fair
exchange as one in which each party to an exchange receives an outcome in proportion to
one’s contributions to the exchange (Messick and Cook, 1983). Although by far the most
pervasive, equity is not the only distributive rule that has been applied; two others are need
and equality (Deutsch, 1985). Need refers to whether the outcome meets the requirements
of the recipient, while equality demands that all parties the receive the same outcome
regardless of contributions. Because of its anchoring in exchange theory, marketing studies
have focused almost exclusively on equity as the appropriate distributive rule.
Distributive justice issues are pervasive throughout society, existing in all situations
where individuals or groups enter into exchanges (Deutsch, 1985). In a consumer com-
plaint context, distributive justice centers on the perceived fairness of the redress offered to
consumers to resolve their complaints. Types of redress include refunds, exchanges,
repairs, discounts on future purchases, store credits, etc., or some combination thereof (see
Kelly et al., 1993). It is important to recognize that perceptions of distributive justice rest
with individual complainants and reflect their impressions of tangible outcomes.
Several marketing studies provide insight into the effects of distributive justice. There is
considerable evidence indicating that equity evaluations influence customer satisfaction,
perceived service quality, and repurchase intentions (Fisk and Coney, 1982; Mowen and
Grove, 1983; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988; Oliver and Swan, 1989; Huppertz, Arenson, and
Evans, 1978). Complaint handling incidents which are rated favorably usually include
compensation in line with the perceived costs experienced by the customer (Kelly et al.,
1993), thus supporting an equity-based evaluation of complaint outcomes.
Postcomplaint Behavior 189

Procedural justice

Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the policies, procedures, and crite-
ria used by decision makers in arriving at the outcome of a dispute or negotiation (Thibaut
and Walker, 1975; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Alexander and Ruderman, 1987). Fair proce-
dures are consistent, unbiased and impartial, representative of all parties’ interests, and are
based on accurate information and on ethical standards (Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry,
1980). Fair procedures also allow focal parties to provide input into the decision (Green-
berg and Folger, 1983; Goodwin and Ross, 1992). Studies in courtroom and organiza-
tional settings have provided support for the importance of these particular elements of
procedural justice (Barrett-Howard and Tyler, 1986; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Tyler,
1987). In a study of service encounter incidents, Clemmer (1993) also identified flexibil-
ity, waiting time/responsiveness, and efficiency as dimensions of procedural justice.
These particular criteria reflect many concepts that also have been associated with cus-
tomer satisfaction and service quality (see Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 1985; Bit-
ner et al., 1990; Hui and Bateson, 1991).
While procedural justice appears to be a rather complex concept, a focal issue that
appears particularly relevant to retail complaints is the speed with which the conflict is
resolved (Hart et al., 1990; Kelley et al., 1993; Clemmer and Schneider, 1996). This dimen-
sion, in effect, is reflective of the timeliness, responsiveness, and convenience of the com-
plaint handling process. A number of studies have cited the negative emotional states and
resulting dissatisfaction caused by the perceived unfairness of waiting too long in service
situations (Katz, Larson, and Larson, 1991; Venkatesan and Anderson, 1985). Time loss is
seen as both aggravating and expensive to the customer (Maister, 1985). Waiting appears
to be especially disconcerting when the customer is angry and uncertain to begin with, and
believes that the seller has some control over the delay (Taylor, 1994). Such is likely to be
the case in consumer complaint situations.

Interactional justice

Interactional justice refers to the manner in which people are treated during the conflict
resolution process; for example, with courtesy and respect or rudely (Bies and Moag, 1986;
Bies and Shapiro, 1987). Previous studies, conducted across a variety of situations (e.g.,
service encounters, job performance evaluations, job recruitment) have identified a number
of other elements associated with interactional justice, such as truthfulness, the provision
of an explanation (Bies and Moag, 1986) politeness, friendliness, sensitivity, interest, hon-
esty (Clemmer, 1993) empathy and assurance (Parasuraman et al., 19X5), directness and
concern (Ulrich, 1984), and effort (Mohr, 1991). In a consumer complaint context, two
other important factors are acceptance of blame (Goodwin and Ross, 1989) and the offering
of an apology (Goodwin and Ross, 1992; Bies and Shapiro, 1987; Folkes, 1984). Because
of the importance of communication in the resolution of complaints (Jacoby and Jaccard,
1981) the concept of interactional justice appears particularly relevant to understanding
consumers’ postcomplaint behavior.
190 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

Limited empirical research has investigated the concept of interactional justice in a mar-
keting context. In general, it has been found that fair interpersonal treatment contributes to
satisfaction with service encounters (Bitner et al., 1990; Tyler, 1987), enhanced evaluations
of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985), better overall evaluations of complaint han-
dling (Goodwin and Ross, 1989,1992), and more favorable repurchase intentions (Blodgett
and Tax, 1993).

Overall Perceptions of justice

Although it is generally accepted that the three dimensions of justice are independent, it
is the combination of these three dimensions that determines complainants’ overall percep-
tions of justice and hence their subsequent behavior. For example, Greenberg and McCarty
(1990) note that giving constructive, informative comments when delivering a performance
review makes a poor review more acceptable than when the same review is given in a rude
manner and without an accompanying explanation. Likewise, providing explanations and
mitigating circumstances strengthens the perceived fairness of layoffs (Brockner and
Greenberg, 1990). Thus, it appears that high levels of interactional justice may offset (at
least partially) lower levels of distributive justice. Similarly, higher levels of procedural
justice may compensate for lower levels of distributive justice; for example, research in
social psychology has shown that even if concerned parties do not receive the outcome they
desire, they may still be satisfied with the overall result if they perceive that the policies and
procedures used to determine the outcome were fair (Lind and Tyler, 1988). In a marketing
context, Goodwin and Ross (1989) found that consumers were willing to return to an
offending service provider when only a token remedy was offered, if they perceived that
the procedures used to resolve the complaint were fair. It also appears that interactional jus-
tice and procedural justice may complement one another. For example, it has been demon-
strated that judgments of procedural fairness are influenced by the adequacy with which
formal decision making procedures are explained and by the manner in which the focal
party is treated during the conflict resolution process (Bies and Moag, 1986; Tyler and Bies,
1989). In summary, it appears that complainants use a compensatory model to arrive at an
overall, global perception of justice. Their overall perceptions of justice, in turn, directly
influence their subsequent behaviors.

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study will examine the effects of distributive, interactional, and procedural justice on
complainants’ (i.e., those dissatisfied consumers who have sought redress) subsequent
repatronage and negative word-of-mouth intentions. In order to test the various hypotheses
an experiment was designed, in which we manipulated the levels of distributive, interac-
tional, and procedural justice (the experiment will be described in detail in the methodology
section). For purposes of this experiment, distributive justice was made operational by
varying the amount of the exchange/discount offered to the complainant, while interac-
Postcomplaint Behavior 191

tional justice was derived by varying the manner in which the complainant was treated (i.e.,
courteous vs. rudely). As previously mentioned, one aspect of procedural justice that is par-
ticularly relevant in a retail setting is the speed in which the complaint is resolved. Accord-
ingly, procedural justice was made operational by varying the number of trips that the
complainant had to make to the store in order to get the problem resolved. For the sake of
parsimony, and to reduce potential confounds, other aspects of procedural justice (such as
the store’s return policy) were held constant.’ It should be noted, then, that our measure of
procedural justice is indeed more narrow than the broader conceptual definition, and that
any subsequent findings pertain only to the timeliness aspect of the procedural construct.
Theory and previous research (e.g., Blodgett et al., 1993; Clemmer, 1993) indicate that
higher levels of distributive, interactional, and procedural justice (i.e., timeliness) will lead
to more favorable repatronage intentions and a decreased likelihood of negative word-of-
mouth. We therefore hypothesize that:

Hla: Distributive justice will have a positive effect on complainants’ repa-

tronage intentions.

Hlb: Distributive justice will have a negative effect on complainants’ neg-

ative word-of-mouth intentions.

H2a: Interactional justice will have a positive effect on complainants’

repatronage intentions.

H2b: Interactional justice will have a negative effect on complainants’ neg-

ative word-of-mouth intentions.

H3a: Procedural justice (i.e., timeliness) will have a positive effect on com-
plainants’ repatronage intentions.

H3b: Procedural justice (i.e., timeliness) will have a negative effect on

complainants’ negative word-of-mouth intentions.

In addition to these hypotheses other relevant research questions are: (1) Which dimen-
sion of justice has the largest impact on postcomplaint intentions?, (2) Are there any inter-
actions among the three dimensions of justice, and if so, what is the nature of these
interactions?, and (3) Which combinations of distributive, procedural, and interactional jus-
tice result in the most favorable postcomplaint intentions, and which combinations result in
the least favorable postcomplaint intentions? Answers to these exploratory research ques-
tions would allow retailers to develop strategies to more effectively respond to customer
complaints, and thus increase long-term sales and profits. These answers would also allow
researchers to advance their understanding of fairness/justice theory, and to more precisely
model the consumer complaining behavior process.
We would like to point out that the exploratory nature of these research questions does
not allow for specific, directional hypotheses.2 As Clemmer and Schneider (1996, p. 111)
note, “To date, there has been little research on the relative contribution of [distributive]
procedural and interactional fairness.. . .” Given the general lack of knowledge regarding
these issues, an examination of these exploratory research questions could provide retail
192 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

managers and marketing researchers alike with a greater understanding of the relationships
between the three dimensions of justice and consumer complaint behavior.

METHODOLOGY

Experimental Design and Procedure

In order to test the hypotheses a 3 x 2 x 2 between groups, quasi-experimental design

(Cook and Campbell, 1979) was employed, with three levels of distributive justice (high,
medium, and low), two levels of interactional justice (high and low), and two levels of pro-
cedural justice (high and low). Subjects were first asked to read a scenario describing a sit-
uation in which a customer was dissatisfied with a product (a pair of athletic shoes) and
subsequently sought redress from the retailer. The customer had worn the shoes for only a
couple of months but they were already starting to fall apart. The customer did not have a
receipt, but had purchased several other pairs of shoes at that particular retail store previ-
ously. In the different scenarios, the dissatisfied customer was offered a full exchange (high
distributive justice), a 50% discount on another pair of shoes (medium distributive justice),
or a 15% discount on a new pair of shoes (low distributive justice). The customer was
treated either with courtesy and respect and was offered a sincere apology (high interac-
tional justice) or was treated rudely (low interactional justice). In all twelve scenarios the
salesperson referred the customer to the store manager; in one-half of the scenarios the
manager was in and was immediately available (high procedural justice), while in the other
scenarios the customer was informed that the manager was not in and was asked to return
the next day (low procedural justice). Prior to reading the scenario subjects were asked to
imagine that this situation actually happened to them, and to imagine how they would have
felt and what they subsequently would have done. (See the Appendix for a sample of the
different scenarios.)
In order to make the scenarios more vivid, and to better communicate some of the more
subtle aspects of the service encounter (such as tone of voice, body language, facial expres-
sions, etc.), subjects were then shown a video depicting the same event.3 This procedure
also allowed subjects more time to reflect upon the situation, and to experience the same
thoughts and emotions that a customer would naturally experience in a similar situation.
After watching the video, subjects were given a questionnaire asking about their repatron-
age and negative word-of-mouth intentions (i.e., assuming that they had actually experi-
enced the described event).
An experimental approach was utilized in order to better control the independent vari-
ables of interest, and to be able to rule out extraneous variables (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
A pair of athletic shoes was chosen as the focal product because it is one that most everyone
is familiar with and has purchased at one time or another, either for themselves or for a fam-
ily member.4 In order to create a certain amount of uncertainty as to the responsibi.lity of
the retailer, and thus be better able to manipulate the three dimensions of justice, a situation
was described in which product failure occurred after the customer had been using the prod-
Postcomplaint Behavior 193

uct for a relatively short period and did not have a receipt. (Subjects were told that under
present circumstances the shoes should have lasted for approximately one year.) This type
of “nonroutine” situation increases the potential for customer/retailer conflict, thus high-
lighting the need for a greater understanding of the concepts of distributive, interactional,
and procedural justice.

Pretesting

The twelve scenarios were developed based on extensive pretesting. We first tested a
number of written scenarios to identify levels of redress that appropriately represented
high, medium, and low levels of distributive justice, and to determine whether the high and
low levels of interactional and procedural justice (i.e., timeliness) were being perceived
accordingly. After reading a scenario pretest subjects were given a short questionnaire con-
taining items designed to assess the validity of the manipulations. Subjects were then
debriefed and were asked to verbally comment on their perceptions of justice and on the
validity of the scenario. Based on these pretests the scenarios were modified and tested
again. This process continued through several iterations, until we were reasonably certain
that the manipulations possessed both discriminant and convergent validity.
Once the written versions of these scenarios were judged satisfactory, we then filmed
“rough’ versions of the scenarios. These filmed versions were then pretested using a sam-
ple of full- and part-time evening MBA students, and with staff members at two universi-
ties. As with the written versions, these subjects responded to a series of items assessing the
validity of the manipulations. After completing the pretest questionnaire, subjects were also
asked to comment on the believability and vividness of the scenarios. Based on these pre-
tests additional modifications were made to the scripts.
The final set of videotaped scenarios was tilmed in an actual retail store with three theater
majors playing the roles of customer, salesperson, and store manager. The scenarios were
professionally filmed, edited, and narrated by full-time staff members at a university tele-
productions/public television department. The scenarios were edited so that everything was
held constant except for the manipulations. At the beginning of each scenario, the narrator
reminded subjects to imagine that the situation actually happened to them, and to imagine
how they would have felt. Post-experiment interviews with subjects indicated that the actors
were credible, the videos were of professional quality, and the scenarios were realistic.

Subjects

Data were collected via a self-report questionnaire, at three different locations: a mid-
south university, a midwestern university, and a Canadian university. Subjects were
recruited from faculty and staff employees at each university and from local church groups,
and were given $5 in exchange for their participation. Each subject was randomly assigned
to one of the 12 scenarios. At the midsouth and midwestern universities each subject read
the written version of the scenario, watched the videotape, and was administered the ques-
194 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

tionnaire on an individual basis. In the Canadian sample the experiment was conducted in
small groups of five people or fewer (again, subjects read the written scenario first, and then
were shown the videotaped version).” A total of 265 useable responses were collected,
resulting in cell sizes ranging from 20 to 23.
Of the 265 respondents, 61% were female and 39% were male. Eighty-six percent of the
respondents were white, 10% were African-American, and 4% were from other minority
groups. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents classified themselves as clerical workers,
32% held professional jobs, 13% worked in white collar occupations, and 28% worked in
blue collar or skilled trades occupations. Respondents were fairly evenly divided between
the different age levels; 15% were between the ages of 18-24, 30% were between 25-34,
24% were in the 35-44 age group, 27% were age 45-64, and 4% were age 65 or older. Six-
teen percent of the respondents reported that their highest educational level was high
school, 28% had attended some college, 27% had completed college, and 29% had attended
graduate school. Nineteen percent of the respondents had household income of less than
$20,000,26% reported household income between $20,000-$34,999,15% earned between
$35,000-$44,999, 20% earned $45,000-$64,999, 15% earned $65,000-$99,999, and 5%
reported income in excess of $100,000.

Measures

Multiple item scales were created to measure each construct. The items were based on
previous research (e.g., Blodgett et al., 1993; Singh, 1988; Day et al., 1981), and were mod-
ified somewhat to better fit the context of the study. All of the items were measured using
7-point Likert-type scales; most of the items were anchored with “strongly agree/strongly
disagree”, while others were anchored with descriptors such as “very likely/very unlikely”
or “more than expected/less than expected.” Prior to conducting the main experiment the
questionnaire was extensively pretested. Based on this pretesting many of the items were
slightly reworded and the scales were refined. Subjects’ repatronage intentions and negative
word-of-mouth intentions were each measured with three items. The resulting scales were
highly reliable; Cronbach’s alpha for repatronage intentions was .91 and for negative word-
of-mouth intentions alpha equaled .87. In order to perform manipulation checks and to rule
out potential confounds the questionnaire also contained items measuring the three different
dimensions of justice and subjects’ attitudes toward complaining. Distributive justice and
interactional justice were each measured with four items, resulting in alphas of .92 and .95,
respectively. Procedural justice and attitude toward complaining were each measured with
three items, with alphas equaling .85 and .75. (See Table 1 for a listing of all the items.)

Manipulation Checks: Convergent and Discriminant Validity

In order to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the three dimensions of jus-
tice manipulation checks were performed (see Cook and Campbell, 1979; Perdue and Sum-
mers, 1986). In this study, convergent validity would be established if it is shown that
Postcomplaint Behavior 195

TABLE 1

List of Items for Each Construct

(Including Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alphas)
Mean S.D. Alpha

Repatronage Intentions 3.30 1.92 .91

l What is the likelihood that you would shop at this retail store in the
future?’
l If this situation had happened to me I would never shop at this store
again.
l If this had happened to me I would still shop at this store in the
future.

Negative Word-of-Mouth Intentions 4.26 1.90 .87

l How likely would you be to warn your friends and relatives not to
shop at this retail store!’
l If this had happened to me I would complain to my friends and
relatives about this store.
l If this had happened to me I would make sure to tell my friends and
relatives not to shop at this store.

Distributive Justice* 3.47 1.82 .92

l Compared to what you expected, the “discount” offered was:l
l Taking everything into consideration, the manager’s offer was quite
fair.
l The customer did not get was deserved (i.e., regarding a refund or
exchange).
l Given the circumstances, I feel that the retailer offered adequate
compensation.

Procedural Justice* 4.31 1.93 .85

l The customer’s complaint was handled in a very timely manner.
l The customer’s complaint was not resolved as quickly as it should
have been.
l The customer had to make too many trips to the store in order to
resolve the problem.

Interactional Justice* 3.95 2.28 .95

l The customer was treated with courtesy and respect.
l The employees seemed to care about the customer.
l The employees listened politely to what the customer had to say.
l I feel that the customer was treated rudely.

Attitude Toward Complaining* 4.79 1.71 .78

l I am usually reluctant to complain to a store regardless of how had a
product is.
l I am less likely to return an unsatisfactory product than are most
people I know.
l If a defective produr-t is inexpensive I usually keep it rather than ask
for a refund, or to exchange it.

Nole~: All items were measured on 7.point scales.

Unless otherwise indicated, all items were anchored with “strongly disagree/strongly agree.”
‘Thl5 item was anchored with “very unlikcly/vcry likely.”
IThIT item was wchored with “lcs than expected/more than expected.”
These measures were included on the survey in order to perform manipulation and confounding checks.
196 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

subjects did indeed perceive significant differences between each level of the various
experimental conditions (i.e., between high, medium, and low distributive justice; high and
low interactional justice; and high and low procedural justice). At the same time, discrim-
inant validity would be established if it is shown that none of the manipulations were con-
founded by one another.
Three 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVAs (with distributive, interactional, and procedural justice, respec-
tively, as the dependent variable) were used to assess convergent validity. (See Table 2.)
The first ANOVA revealed that the level of distributive justice was significantly different
across the high (i = 4.99), medium (X = 3.29), and low (X = 2.30) distributive conditions
(F2,253 = 76.83, p = .OOO), as expected. Furthermore, a Newman-Keuls test showed that
each of the three group means was significantly different from one another. The second
ANOVA revealed that subjects exposed to the high interactional condition did indeed per-
ceive higher levels of interactional justice (X = 5.99) than did those subjects exposed to the
low interactional justice condition (i = 1.96; F1,253 = 992.76, p = .OOO).Likewise, the third
ANOVA showed that the level of procedural justice was significantly different across the
high (X = 5.45) and low (X = 3.24) procedural conditions (F1,2s3 = 194.09, p = .OOO).These
results indicate that subjects did indeed perceive significant differences between each level
of the various experimental conditions, thus establishing the convergent validity of the
manipulations.
The three ANOVAs also allowed us to assess the discriminant validity of the manipula-
tions. For the most part, the manipulations were “clean”; however, a slight amount of con-
founding was present. (See Table 2.) As expected, subjects’ perceptions of interactional
and procedural justice were not affected by the level of distributive justice. Likewise, sub-
jects’ ratings of distributive and interactional justice were not affected by the procedural
manipulation. However, subjects’ perceptions of both distributive and procedural justice
were affected somewhat by the level of interactional justice. Subjects who were exposed to
the high interactional (i.e., courteous) condition perceived higher levels of both distributive
and procedural justice (Xdist = 3.92, $,.,, = 5.19) than did subjects in the low interactional
(i.e., rude) condition (Xdjsl = 3.13, .?,,,, = 3.53). When this type of confounding occurs Per-
due and Summers (1986, p. 323) suggest that further analysis be done to determine whether
the degree of confounding is severe enough to “impair an unambiguous evaluation of the
results of the main experiment.” They state that the appropriate indicator to assess the
degree of confounding is w2. Calculation of o2 indicated that the distributive manipulation
accounted for 35.07% of the variance of distributive justice, while the interactional manip-
ulation accounted for only 4.52%. In the case of procedural justice, the procedural manip-
ulation accounted for 33.92% of the variance of procedural justice, while the interactional
manipulation accounted for 19.78% of the variance. Clearly, the interactional manipulation
had only a minor effect on distributive justice, and only a moderate effect on procedural
justice. Based on these findings, we feel that the degree of confounding is such that the
results of the main experiment can be interpreted in a straight-forward manner.
Finally, in order to rule out another potential confounding variable subjects were also
asked about their attitudes toward complaining. (Differences in subjects’ attitudes toward
complaining could be a plausible alternative hypotheses for any significant differences in
their subsequent repatronage and negative word-of-mouth intentions.) A 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA
revealed that subjects’ attitudes toward complaining were not significantly different across
Postcomplaint Behavior 197

TABLE2

Manipulation and Confounding Checks

independent Type of
Variable Check High Med Low F P 02

A. Dependent Variable: Distributive Justice

Distributive Justice Manipulation 4.99 3.29 2.30 76.83’ .ooo 35.07%
(1.39) (1.69) (1.40)
Interactional Justice Confounding 3.92 3.13 20.67] 4.52%
(1.91) (1.72)
Procedural Justice Confounding 3.60 3.44 1.142 ,287 0.00%
(1.89) - (1.83)

B. Dependent Variable: Interactional Justice

Distributive Justice Confounding 3.99 4.06 3.85 1.44’ ,238 0.00%
(2.44) (2.35) (2.05)
Interactions1 Justice Manipulation 5.99 1.96 992.76* .ooo 78.12%
(1.05) - (1.09)
Procedural Justice Confounding 4.03 - 3.90 3.492 ,063 0.20%
(2.20) (2.37)

C. Dependent Variable: Procedural Justice

Distributive Justice Confounding 4.38 4.42 4.26 0.72’ ,488 0.00%
(1.97) (1.95) (1.88)
Interactional Justice Confounding 5.19 3.53 113.64* ,000 19.78%
(1.74) ~ (1.75)
Procedural Justice Manipulation 5.45 3.24 194.092 ,000 33.92%
(1.39) - (1.77)

D. Dependent Variable: Attitude Toward Complaining

Distributive Justice Confounding 4.52 4.29 5.68 1.32’ .269 0.25%
(1 .50) (1.66) (I .58)
Interactional Justice Confounding 4.53 4.45 0.202 .654 0.00%
(1.61) - (1.57)
Procedural Justice Confounding 4.62 4.37 1.58* ,210 0.22%
(1.58) - (1.59)

Notes: ‘d.f. = 2,253

‘d.f. = 1,253

the various levels of distributive, interactional, and procedural justice (see Table 2). This
finding demonstrates homogeneity across groups and thus provides additional evidence as
to the internal validity of the experiment (Cook and Campbell, 1979).

RESULTS

A 3 x 2 x 2 full factorial MANOVA was used to assess the effects of distributive, interac-
tional, and procedural justice on complainants’ repatronage and negative word-of-mouth
intentions. A summary of all cell and group means is given in Table 3. All main effects and
interactions were tested for significance. See Table 4 for MANOVA summary statistics.
 Lfl =N
8Z’P = X
9E’E = x
(P9 = “)
f9.S = x 0-I
1L.Z =; JJ!lSll(
CL9= “)
/e"O!PPJa]",
OO’f = x !H
9s.t = :
Pt‘l = N
PL’P = x
LE’E = x
(69 = “)
91’S = x
61.2 = i
cs9 = “1
EO’E = -Y
S9’P = ?
-ualui qlnow-Jo-plom a~ye5au pur? aSmo1leda1 ,waCqns uo lceduq ~saXnq aql p~q aysnr
30 uoy~auup qqq~ au!uualap pm ‘uopsanb qsmasa~ droleloldxa ls.~g aql lsalol IapJo UI
.pamafa.~ a.ra~ argsn~ lempaDold ~u~.I~xIo:, sasaqlodLq 0~1 aql aI!qM
‘pavoddns alarn asgsn[ ~euo!l~~a~u! pur! agnq!Ils!p %up~8a_t sasaqlodLq mo3 aql ‘Lmu
-urns UI ‘(28~’ = d ‘PE’I = ZiZZJ SyI!M) SUO!lUalU~ qlUOUI-JO-p.IOM Z4~ldkXl Jraql UO .lOll
suogualu! a%suo.uedaJ ,wa[qns uo lcm33a uyu 1um3~u2Qs e amq lou p!p (ssaugatug ‘.a.!)
mlsnfpmpa~o.Id ‘X~Ouypd.ms ‘(000’ = d ‘~8.6~1 = EG‘~d) suoyualu! qlnour-30-pIorlh a12!lv
-%?aU_I!aql uo 13a33a aA!]v%aU e pue (()()()’= d '~5361= tsz‘rd) suoyualu! a%mogeda~ ,sl3a[
-qns uo 13a33a aA!l!sod 13peq acysn[ [euogmalu! ieqi pap?aAaJ slsai ay.n+un :(oo()’ = d
‘6p’gj = Zsz‘Zd q!&) suoy~aiu~ qmow3o-proh ah@!au pue a%mo.wda~ ‘slDa[qns uo
lDa33au!m ~1~3y@3;rs I? peq oslr! acgsn[ [euopmaluI ‘(000’ = d ‘o~y,l = EQ’ZJ) suoy.~a~u~
qlnow-Jo-pJOM aAg&aU .I!aql uo 13aJja aAy?%au prre (000 = d ‘~5'81 = csz'zd)suo!lualu!
a%.Io.wdar ‘slDa[qns uo iDa33a aA!i!sod e peq aD!lsnf aylnqys!p leql paleaaal sasL@m
alegen!un .(ooo. = d ‘OE.OI = @OS‘@
.g sq!~) suogualy qlnow30-prom a+leZau pm a2?c
-uo.mdaJ ,slsa[qns uo va33a U+WI 1ue~~uB~s e peq acylsn[ aylnq~lsrp ‘paz!saqloddq sv
L66 1 Z ‘ON ‘EL ‘1% ~U!I!w 10 1”U.w 861
Postcomplaint Behavior 199

TABLE4

MANOVA Summary Statistics

MainEffects & heractions Dependent Variable d.f. Wilks F p-value

A. Multivariate Statistics
Distributive Justice RepatronageiNWOM 4,504 10.30 ,000
Interactional Justice RepatronageiNWOM 2,252 95.49 ,000
Procedural Justice RepatronageiNWOM 2,252 1.34 ,382
Dist by Inter RepatronageiNWOM 4,504 4.70 ,002
Dist by Proc RepatronageiNWOM 4,504 0.79 ,390
Inter by Proc RepatronageiNWOM 2,252 1.86 ,088
Dist by Inter by Proc RepatronageiNWOM 4,504 0.26 ,950

6. Univariate Statistics
Distributive Justice Repatronage 2,253 18.52 ,000
Distributive Justice NWOM 2,253 14.30 ,000
Interactional Justice Repatronage 1,253 195.57 ,000
Interactional Justice NWOM 1,253 i 79.84 .OOO
Dist by Inter Repatronage 2,253 8.99 ,000
Dist by Inter NWOM 2,253 4.82 ,009

MAP: *Univariate statistics are reported nnly if thr mrresponding multivariate test was significant.

tions, o2 was calculated. The results show that interactional justice explained 38.5% of the
variance of subjects’ repatronage intentions and 37.5% of the variance of their negative
word-of-mouth intentions, while distributive justice explained just 7% of the variance of
repatronage and only 5.6% of the variance of negative word-of-mouth. These results clearly
indicate that the major determinant of respondents’ repatronage and negative word-of-
mouth intentions was interactional justice.
In order to answer the second exploratory research question we tested for all possible
interactions among the three dimensions of justice. Interestingly, there was a significant
interaction between distributive and interactional justice (Wilks F4,504 = 4.70, p = .002).
Univariate tests revealed that the interaction was significant both for repatronage intentions
(F2,253 = 8.99, p = .OOO)and negative word-of-mouth intentions (F2,2s3 = 4.82, p = .009).
In order to better understand the nature of this interaction the simple main effects were cal-
culated. Analyses of these simple effects revealed that the main effect of distributive justice
was significant only within the high interactional (i.e., courtesy and respect) condition; in
the low interactional (i.e., rude) condition the main effect of distributive justice was non-
significant. Calculation of w2 indicated that the interaction of distributive and interactional
justice had only a minor effect on postcomplaint behavior, accounting for only 3.1% of the
variance of subjects’ repatronage intentions and another 1.7% percent of the variance of
negative word-of-mouth. (All other possible two-way and three-way interactions were non-
significant; see Table 4.)
Finally, to assess the third exploratory research question and determine which combina-
tions of justice resulted in the most favorable postcomplaint intentions (and which combi-
nations resulted in the least favorable intentions), a Newman-Kuels planned comparisons
test was performed. Since procedural justice did not have any significant effects on post-
complaint intentions we collapsed the data accordingly, thus creating six different combi-
200 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 7997

nations of distributive and interactional justice. Table 5 rank-orders the six different
combinations according to their mean scores for repatronage and negative word-of-mouth
intentions, and indicates all significant differences between these means. The same pattern
was found both for repa~onage and negative won-of-mouth in~ntions. Obviously, the most
favorable combination was the “high distributive/high interactional” condition. More inter-
esting, however, is the fact that subjects who were in the “medium distributive/high inter-
actional” and “low distributive/high interactional” conditions reported higher repatronage
intentions and lower negative word-of-mouth intentions than those subjects who were
exposed to the “high dis~butive~ow interactional” condition. In other words, subjects who
“received” either a 50% or 15% discount, and who were ‘“treated” with courtesy and respect,
were more likely to repatronize the retailer and were less likely to engage in negative word-
of-mouth than those subjects who “received” a full exchange but were ““treated”rudely.
Table 5 also highlights the previously discussed interaction between distributive and
interactional justice. The Newman-Kuels test revealed that subjects’ repatronage and neg-
ative word-of-mouth intentions were statistic~ly different across the “high dist~butive/
high interactional, ” “medium dis~butive~igh interactional,” and “low dist~butive~igh
interactional” conditions; however, there were no significant differences across the *‘high
distributive/low interactional, ” “medium distributive/low interactional,” and “low distrib-
utive/low interactional conditions.” It appears, then, that the low interactional manipulation
created a “floor effect,” and that if subjects were “treated” rudely the amount of the
exch~ge/~scount did not matter. Overall, these results lend further support for the earlier

TABLE5

Newman-Kuels Planned Comparison Test for Differences in Means Across

Distributive and Interactional Justice
D;scribut~~e~ustice

High Med LOW

Experimental Condition Repat Nwom I 2 3 4 5

1) hi distihi inter 5.72 2.04

2) med d&z/hi inter 4.61 3.11 *

3) low dist/hi inter 3.4’) 3.89 * *

4) hi distJow inter 2.37 5.10 * * *

5) mud dist/low inter 2.12 5.49 * * *

6) low distilow inter 1.95 5.67 * * *

Notes: The data was rollapsed over pmredural pstice.

An “*’ indicates a significant differences between means, hased on the Newman-Ku~ls test.
The same results hold for both repatmnage and negative word-of-mouth intentions.
Postcomplaint Behavior 201

finding that the main determinant of complainants’ repatronage and negative word-of-
mouth intentions is interactional justice.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In general, these findings indicate that complainants who experience higher levels of dis-
tributive and interactional justice are more likely to repatronize the retailer and are less
likely to engage in negative word-of-mouth behavior (and vice-versa). Contrary to expec-
tations, we found that procedural justice (or more specifically, timeliness) had no effect on
subjects’ repatronage intentions or on their negative word-of-mouth intentions. Although
the high and low procedural justice conditions were perceived accordingly, having to come
back the next day to talk to the manager apparently was of little consequence compared to
the manner in which the complainant was treated and the amount of the exchange or dis-
count that was offered. One possible explanation for this finding is that complainants may
understand the need to speak to the store manager (especially in nonroutine situations), and
realize that the manager cannot always be at the store. Hence, having to come back to the
store the next day is not so unreasonable as to cause complainants to engage in negative
word-of-mouth or to vow never to repatronize the retailer.
The key finding of this study is that interactional justice explained a significantly greater
percentage of the variance of subjects’ postcomplaint intentions than did distributive jus-
tice. This finding indicates that higher levels of interactional justice can compensate for
lower levels of distributive justice. In other words, complainants may be willing to repa-
tronize the retailer when only a partial refund, exchange, or discount is given, provided that
they are treated with courtesy and respect. However, even a full exchange is not enough to
overcome the ill will due to being treated rudely. Complainants who are treated rudely are
more likely to vow never to shop there again (i.e., exit), and to warn others not to patronize
the retailer, regardless of the amount of redress that is offered. These findings are consistent
with service encounter research that has observed the importance of interpersonal elements
in shaping customers’ satisfaction with service experiences (Bitner et al., 1990), and with
other research that has demonstrated the impact of emotions on postcomplaint behavior
(Westbrook, 1987).
Another interesting finding concerns the interaction between distributive and interac-
tional justice. As reported in the results section, there was a significant difference in the
repatronage and negative word-of-mouth intentions-across the three levels of distributive
justice-of those subjects who experienced a high degree of interactional justice. However,
there was no significant difference in the repatronage and negative word-of-mouth inten-
tions-across the three levels of distributive justice-of those subjects who were exposed
to a low level of interactional justice. Based on these findings, it appears that complainants
may use a two-stage decision making rule in determining their overall perceptions of justice
and their subsequent responses. In this two-stage process interactional justice first acts as a
“cutoff’ that determines whether the secondary criteria (i.e., distributive justice) is even
taken into consideration. When complainants experience a high level of interactional jus-
tice their overall perceptions of justice, and their subsequent behaviors, are then based on
202 .Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

the amount of redress that was offered. However, if complainants experience a low level of
interactional justice the level of distributive justice is not even taken into consideration, In
other words, when complainants are treated rudely the level of redress offered by the
retailer is irrelevant. It is only when complain~ts are treated with courtesy and respect that
distributive justice has a positive effect on postcomplaint behavior. These results reinforce
previous research emphasizing the importance of front-line employee attitude in retail ser-
vice recovery (Bowen and Lawler, 1995).
These findings point to the importance of training retail employees how to respond to
customer complaints. Accordingly, we recommend that all retail employees, both full- and
part-time, be provided with an in-depth unders~nding of the different dimensions of jus-
tice, particularly the interactional component. In particular, retail employees should be
taught to always respond to customer complaints with courtesy and respect. Retail employ-
ees should be instructed to give the customer an opportunity to explain the problem, espe-
cially in nonroutine situations. Employees should also offer an apology, and thank the
customer for bringing the problem to the retailer’s attention. Since interactional justice is
the key factor that determines whether a complainant will repatronize the retailer (and pos-
sibly become a more loyal customer) or whether that person will exit and engage in nega-
tive word-of-mouth behavior, training programs that emphasize the importance of this
dimension of justice can have a substantial impact on the long-term profitability of a retail
firm. Retailers that do not give this topic the attention it deserves may unnecessarily be los-
ing customers, and hence sales and profits.
These findings also have implications for retailers’ return policies. Some retailers have
very liberal return policies, guaranteeing satisfaction with “no questions asked.” However,
a full refund or exchange may not always be deserved (or even expected). Interestingly, our
findings indicate that retailers do not necessarily have to offer full refunds or exchanges to
all complainants in order to guarantee satisfaction. Rather, in nonroutine situations (i.e.,
those in which the customer has used the product for a fair mount of time, has clearly
abused the product, or is partially to blame for the problem, etc.), some retailers may want
to ask complainants what they think would be a fair outcome, and to proceed accordingly
(i.e., within reason). Instead of offering a full refund or exchange, retailers may be able to
satisfy these complainants by providing some type of partial redress. Indeed, our findings
show that if complainants are treated in a courteous manner they may be satisfied with this
type of remedy. At the same time, retailers that do not offer any refunds or exchanges
(except maybe under strict conditions) may want to rethink this policy. When complainants
are treated with courtesy and respect even a partial refund, exchange, or discount can have
a favorable impact on their repatronage behavior. Since the opportunity cost of losing a cus-
tomer is many times greater than the cost of an exchange (Blodgett, Wakefield. and Barnes,
1995) these retailers would be wise to adopt a more flexible policy.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the experimental nature of this study the findings should be inte~reted accord-
ingly. Subjects were asked to read, and view, a complaint scenario and to imagine them-
Postcomplaint Behavior 203

selves in that situation; they were then asked as to their repatronage and negative word-of-
mouth intentions. Although subjects’ comments indicated that the scenarios were very real-
istic, we cannot say with certainty that the same pattern of findings would emerge from a
field study of subjects’ actual complaint experiences. Indeed, a field study would provide
an interesting complement to the current study, and would provide additional insight as to
the relative impact of each dimension of justice.
Another limitation of this study concerns our measure of procedural justice. For the
sake of parsimony, and to avoid possible confounding, the only aspect of procedural jus-
tice that was manipulated was timeliness. Even though we successfully manipulated this
aspect of procedural justice, the manipulation may have been, in effect, somewhat weak.
This dimension was probably less tangible than the distributive justice dimension, and
most likely was less vivid than the interactional dimension. As a result, subjects may not
have fully appreciated the inconvenience of having to return to the store the next day to
resolve the problem. Had this manipulation been more vivid or more tangible the results
might have been different. In retrospect, a field study is probably more appropriate to
investigate this particular aspect of procedural justice. Furthermore, since this study
focused solely on the timeliness aspect of procedural justice, the results do not apply to
other dimensions of the construct. Considering that our measure of procedural justice was
somewhat narrow, additional studies could broaden our understanding of this construct.
Indeed, this construct presents a potentially fertile area of future research. Issues such as
the degree to which employees should be empowered to resolve complaints), and whether
store refund/exchange policies should be strictly enforced or whether they should be flex-
ible, represent two such topics.
Finally, because of the slight degree of confounding between distributive and interac-
tional justice, some of the findings should be interpreted with caution. Although it is
clear that interactional justice had the largest effect on subjects’ postcomplaint behavior,
these effects may be slightly overstated, while the effects of distributive justice (and pro-
cedural justice) may be somewhat understated. At this point, a replication experiment
would be of only minimal value; therefore, we recommend that a field study be con-
ducted in order to more precisely ascertain the relative importance of each dimension of
justice.

SUMMARY

Because of its impact on customer loyalty, and hence on long-term sales and profits, the
concept of perceived justice has emerged as a critical element in retailers’ marketing pro-
grams. In order to effectively implement successful complaint handling policies and proce-
dures retailers need to have a more complete understanding of the different dimensions of
justice. Our results indicate that-even if a retail store has a liberal return policy-the end-
result of a customer complaint could be disastrous if a retail employee acts rudely. Retailers
that focus on interactional issues will have the greatest chances of building long-term rela-
tionships with their customers.
204 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

APPENDIX: TWO EXAMPLES OF THE SCENARIOS

Med Distributive l Hi Interactional l Hi Procedural

Imagine that you purchased a pair of moderately priced, name-brand athletic shoes a
couple of months ago (for yourself, your spouse, or a son or daughter) and just recently
noticed that they are already starting to fall apart. Under normal conditions the shoes
should have lasted much longer (probably about a year); therefore, you decide to take
the shoes back to the retailer and ask for a refund or an exchange.

Upon entering the store you are greeted by a salesperson, who appears to be very
friendly and helpful. “Hi, I’m Laurie,” she says, “How can I help you today?’

You reply, “Well, I bought these shoes a couple of months ago and they are already
wearing out pretty badly.” You proceed to take the shoes out of the bag and show the
salesperson. “These shoes should normally last about a year before they wear out. So, I
would like to either get my money back or exchange them for another pair,”

The salesperson takes a good look at the shoes, and says, sounding somewhat apolo-
getic, “You are right, these shoes haven’t held up very well. I’m really sorry. They
should last much longer than just a couple of months.” She then asks, very politely, “Do
you happen to have your receipt with you?’

“No, I don’t,” you reply, “Since these are brand-name shoes it did not even occur to me
that they might wear out so quickly.”

“I understand,” says the salesperson, “I hardly ever save my receipts for more than a few
days, either. I am going to need to get the manager though. If you will excuse me for a
few seconds I will get Adam and let you speak with him.”

“OK’, you reply.

The salesperson then exits, and returns a few moments later with the manager. As the
salesperson and the manager are approaching, the salesperson says, “Adam, this person
is returning these shoes. He’s (or she’s) had them for only a couple of months and they
are worn out already.”

Adam very cordially introduces himself, “Hi, I’m Adam. How are you?”

“I’m fine,” you respond.

“Let me take a look at these shoes,” says Adam, pausing for a moment while looking at
the shoes. “I really am very sorry that you had a problem with these shoes. They nor-
mally hold up very well, but these are definitely worn out.”

“I agree,” you reply. “I have worn this brand many times before and have never had a
problem. But for some reason this pair just did not last very long.”

“I understand,” says Adam, very politely. “We really do want to take care of our cus-
tomers, but unfortunately, our store policy is no cash refunds after thirty days, or without
a receipt. However, I will be glad to give you a 50% discount on another pair of shoes.
Would that be OK?’
Postcomplaint Behavior 205

“I guess so.”

“Good, we really do appreciate your business. Why don’t you look around for a while
and see if there is anything you like. We’ve got a lot of new shoes in. If you want to try
any on I’ll be glad to get them for you.”

Hi Distributive l Lo Interactional l Lo Procedural

Imagine that you purchased a pair of moderately priced, name-brand athletic shoes a
couple of months ago (for yourself, your spouse, or a son or daughter) and just recently
noticed that they are already starting to fall apart. Under normal conditions the shoes
should have lasted much longer (probably about a year); therefore, you decide to take
the shoes back to the retailer and ask for a refund or an exchange.

Upon entering the store you are greeted by a salesperson, who appears to be very
friendly and helpful. “Hi, I’m Laurie,” she says, “How can I help you today?’

You reply, “Well, I bought these shoes a couple of months ago and they are already
wearing out pretty badly.” You proceed to take the shoes out of the bag and show the
salesperson. “These shoes should normally last about a year before they wear out. So, I
would like to either get my money back or exchange them for another pair.”

At this point the salesperson’s attitude changes, as she responds very matter of factly:
“Do you happen to have the receipt with you?

“No, I don’t,” you reply. “Since these are brand-name shoes it did not even occur to me
that they might wear out so quickly.”

At this point the salesperson becomes a bit abrupt, and sounding irritated, says “Well,
I’m sorry (but not really), but since you don’t have a receipt, and since you have been
wearing the shoes, we cannot give you a refund or let you exchange the shoes.”

You respond emphatically, “Look, I’ve purchased several pairs of shoes from this store
in the past, and I’ve never had a pair of shoes wear out this quickly.”

“I’m sorry,” says the salesperson, sounding quite sarcastic, “but our policy is that we
need to have a receipt, otherwise we can’t even be sure that you bought the shoes at our
store!”

You are now somewhat angry. “But I just bought these shoes two months ago! I thought
this store stood behind its products! Let me speak to the manager!”

The salesperson replies, “I’m sorry,” sounding irritated. “But he’s not here right now.
He’s left today already. You’ll just have to come back tomorrow.”

“I’ve got to come in tomorrow?!” you say, sounding incredulous. “What time will he be
in?’

“He’ll be in all day tomorrow. Just come in anytime,” says the salesperson, flippantly.

“OK, I’ll be back tomorrow,” you respond, sounding very frustrated and angry.

“OK,” says the salesperson, as the customer is leaving the store.

206 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

The next day you make a special trip back to the store. You park your car, grab the
shoes, and walk to the storefront. As you enter the store you are greeted by the same
salesperson, “Hi, can I help you?’

“Yes,” replies the customer. “I need to speak to the manager. I came in yesterday to
return these shoes and... “

“Oh yeah. Wait here just a minute and 1’11get him,” says the salesperson, with a grim
sounding voice. The salesperson then exits and returns a few moments later with the
manager.

As the salesperson and the manager are approaching, the salesperson says, in a sarcastic
tone of voice, “Adam, this lady wants to return these shoes. She’s been wearing the
shoes for a while and doesn’t have a receipt.”

As the salesperson and manager are approaching, the salesperson says, in a sarcastic
tone of voice, “Adam, this person wants to return these shoes. He (or she) has been
wearing the shoes for a while and doesn’t have a receipt.”

The manager greets you in a somewhat cold tone of voice, “Hi, I’m Adam. What can I
do for you?” You proceed to explain what happened, “I bought these shoes from your
store a couple of months ago, and they are falling apart already. They really should have
lasted much longer. So, I would like a refund.” In a very condescending tone of voice,
the manager replies, “I understand you don’t have a receipt. Is that right?’

“No, I don’t,” you reply, sounding irritated. “Since these are brand-name shoes it did
not even occur to me that they might wear out so quickly.”

The manager then coldly states, “ Well, our policy is that we cannot give any refunds
after 30 days or without a receipt.”

“What!” you exclaim, sounding very surprised. Then, in a very assertive tone of voice
you state, “Look, I’ve purchased several pairs of shoes from this store in the past and I
have never had a problem, but for some reason this pair of shoes just did not hold up. I
really think that you should give me a refund, or at least let me exchange the shoes!”

The manager reiterates, rudely, “Like 1 said, since you don’t have a receipt I can’t refund
your money. That’s our policy.”

You respond, very emphatically, “I can’t believe this! Any other store in town would
give me my money back!”

The manager then seems to get your message, and starts to back off a little. Still sound-
ing a bit sarcastic the manager says, “OK. OK. We don’t normally do this, but .. .
because of your inconvenience I guess I could let you exchange the shoes for another
pair. Would that be OK?’

You start to reply, somewhat reluctantly, “Well, I . ....” when you are cut off by the man-
ager.

“Good,” he says, again in a condescending tone of voice. ‘Why don’t you look around
for a while and see if there is anything you like. We’ve got a lot of new shoes in, if you
want to try any on we’ll be glad to get them for you.”
Postcomplaint Behavior 207

Acknowledgment: This research was supported, in part, by a grant provided by the Business
Chapter of the University of Mississippi Alumni Association.

NOTES

1. Although procedural justice is a separate and distinct dimension of justice, as a practical mat-
ter it can have implications for the distributive component. For example, whether a retailer has a lib-
eral return policy or a restrictive policy may affect the amount of refund, discount, or exchange
offered to the complainant. In order to ensure against this type of confound we decided to manipu-
late only the timeliness aspect of procedural justice, while holding all other aspects constant. We
thus acknowledge that our findings are limited to only the timeliness aspect of the construct.
2. As noted, previous research does not allow us to posit a more specific set of hypotheses.
Although prior research does indicate that the three dimensions of justice complement one another,
and that it is the combination of these three dimensions that determines ones’ subsequent behaviors,
it does not indicate whether one dimension of justice might have a larger impact than the others, nor
does it discuss any possible interactions. Previous research is also too general in nature to allow us to
predict that specific combinations of justice will result in more favorable postcomplaint behaviors
than other combinations.
3. During pretesting, subjects’ remarks gave us the impression that the written versions were not
nearly as vivid as a “real life” complaint episode; as a result, subjects did not become very emotion-
ally involved. In order to ensure the external validity of the experiment we felt that it was necessary
to make the scenarios “come to life,” hence, we created the videotaped versions. During subsequent
pretesting subjects remarked that the videotaped versions did indeed make the scenarios more vivid
and emotionally involving. Although they were more vivid, we chose not to show the videotaped
versions only, just in case a subject missed out on something that was said, either by the customer,
the salesperson, or the manager. This procedure also allowed subjects more time to internalize their
thoughts and emotions.
4. In choosing a product we felt that we should use a product category that both males and
females, and younger and older consumers, and so forth, could relate to. Pretests indicated that the
athletic shoe product category was one that most everyone could relate to. More importantly, we do
not feel that the product category had any effect on subjects’ responses because the focus of this
study was on the effect of perceived justice on postcomplaint behavior. The product category may
have implications for whether or not a dissatisfied consumer initially seeks redress; however, once a
dissatisfied consumer seeks redress the focus is shifted off of the product and onto the three dimen-
sions of justice.
5. This was done purely for administrative convenience; it simply was not possible to schedule
these subjects on an individual basis. The experimenter ensured that there was no talking among
subjects. A MANOVA revealed that “method of administration” (individual vs group) had no effect
on subjects’ responses.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). “Inequity in Social Change.” Pp. 267-299 in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.
208 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

Alexander, S. and M. Ruderman. (1987). “The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in
Organizational Behavior,” Social Jusrice Research, 1: 177- 198.
Barrett-Howard, E. and T.R. Tyler. (1986). “Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation
Decisions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 296-304.
Bies, R.J. and J.S. Moag. (1986). “Interactional Communication Criteria of Fairness.” Pp. 289-3 19 in
R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, and M.H. Bazerman (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R.J. and D.L. Shapiro. (1987). “Interactional Fairness Judgements: The Influence of Causal
Accounts,” Social Justice Research, 1: 199-2 18.
Bitner, M.J., B.M. Booms, and M.S. Tetreault. (1990). “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing
Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal ofMarketing, 54(January): 7 l-85.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Blodgett, J.G., D.H. Granbois, and R.G. Walters. (1993). “The Effects of Perceived Justice on
Negative Word-of-Mouth and Repatronage Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 69(Winter): 399-
428.
Blodgett, J.G. and S.S. Tax. (1993). “The Effects of Distributive and Interactional Justice on
Complainants’ Repatronage Intentions and Negative Word-of-Mouth Intentions,” Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6: 100-I 10.
Blodgett, J.G., K.L. Wakefield, and J.H. Barnes. (1995). “The Effects of Customer Service on
Consumer Complaining Behavior,” Journal of Services Marketing,9(4): 3 l-42.
Bowen, D.A. and E.E. Lawler. (1995). “Empowering Service Employees,” Sloan Management
Review, 36(Summer): 73-84
Brockner, J. and J. Greenberg. (1990). “The Impact of Layoffs of Survivors: An Organizational
Justice Perspective.” Pp. 45-75 in J. Carroll (ed.), Advances in Applied Social Psychology:
Business Settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clemmer, E.C. (1993). “An Investigation into the Relationships of Justice and Customer Satisfaction
with Services.” In R. Cropanzano (ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human
Resources Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clemmer, E.C. and B. Schneider. (1996). “Fair Service.” Pp. 109-126 in S.W. Brown. D.A. Bowen,
and T. Swartz (eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Zssuesfor Field
Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Day, R.L. (1984). “Modeling Choices Among Alternative Responses to Dissatisfaction.” Pp. 496-
499 in T.C. Kinnear (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1 I. Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research.
Day, R.L., K. Grabicke, T. Schaetzle, and F. Staubach. (1981). “The Hidden Agenda of Consumer
Complaining,” Journal of Retailing, 57(Fall): 86-106.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fisk, R.P. and K.A. Coney. (1982). “Postchoice Evaluation: An Equity Theory Analysis of
Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Service Choices.” Pp. 9-16 in H. Keith Hunt and
Ralph L. Day (eds.), Conceptual and Empirical Contributions to Consumer Satisfaction and
Complaining Behavior. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Folkes, V.S. (1984). “Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 10: 398-409.
Folger, R. and M.A. Konovsky. (1989). “Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, and Reactions to
Pay Raise Decisions,” Academy of Management Journal, 32: 851-866.
Fomell, C. and B. Wernerfelt. (1987). “Defensive Marketing Strategy by Customer Complaint
Management: A Theoretical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24(November): 337-346.
Postcomplaint Behavior 209

Gilly, M.C. and B.D. Gelb. (1982). “Post-Purchase Consumer Processes and the Complaining
Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9: 323-328.
Goodwin, C. and I. Ross. (1992). “Consumer Responses to Service Failures: Influence of Procedural
and Interactional Fairness Perceptions,” Journal ofBusiness Research, 25: 149-163.
-. (1989). “Salient Dimensions of Perceived Fairness in Resolution of Service Complaints,”
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2: 87-92.
Greenberg, J. and R. Folger. (1983). “Procedural Justice, Participation and the Fair Process Effect in
Groups and Organizations.” Pp. 235-256 in P.B. Paulus (ed.), Basic Group Processes. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Greenberg, J. and C. McCarty. (1990). “The Interpersonal Aspects of Procedural Justice: A New
Perspective in Pay Fairness,” Labor Law Journal, 41(August): 580-585.
Greenberg, J. (1990). “Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” Journal of
Management, 16(June): 399-432.
Hart, C.W.L., J. L. Heskett, and W.E. Sasser Jr. (1990). “The Profitable Art of Service Recovery,”
Harvard Business Review, 68(July_August): 148-156.
Hirschman, A. 0. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations
and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hui, M.K. and J.E. Bateson. (1991). “Perceived Control and Consumer Choice on the Service
Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, lS(September): 174-185.
Huppertz, J.W., S.J. Arenson, and R.H. Evans. (1978). “An Application of Equity Theory to Buyer-
Seller Exchange Situations,” Journal qfMarketing Research, lS(May): 250-260.
Jacoby, J. and J.L. Jaccard. (1981). “The Sources, Meaning, and Validity of Consumer Complaint
Behavior: A Psychological Analysis,” Journal @Retailing, 57(Fall): 4-24.
Katz, K., B. Larson, and R. Larson. (1991). “Prescription for the Waiting in Line Blues: Entertain,
Enlighten, and Engage,” Sloan Management Review, (Winter): 44-53.
Kelly, S.W., and M.A. Davis. (1994). “Antecedents to Customer Expectations for Service
Recovery,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(Winter): 52-61.
Kelly, S.W., K.D. Hoffman, and M.A. Davis. (1993). “A Typology of Retail Failures and
Recoveries,” Journal of Retailing, 69(Winter): 429-452.
Leventhal, J., J. Karuza, and W.R. Fry. (1980). “Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocation
Preferences.” Pp. 167-218 in G. Mikula (ed.), Justice and Social interaction. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Lind, E.A. and T.R. Tyler. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum
Press.
McCollough, M.A. and SC. Bharadwaj. (1992). “The Recovery Paradox: An Examination of
Consumer Satisfaction in Relation to Disconfirmation, Service Quality, and Attribution Based
Theories.” In Chris T. Allen et al. (eds.), Marketing Theory and Applications. Chicago: American
Marketing Association,
Maister, D.H. (1985). “The Psychology of Waiting Lines.” Pp. 113-123 in John D. Czepiel, Michael
R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant (eds.), The Service Encounter. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Messick, D.M. and KS. Cook. (1983). “Psychological and Sociological Perspectives on Distributive
Justice: Convergent, Divergent and Parallel Lines.” Pp. l-13 in David M. Messick and Karen S.
Cook (eds.), Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Mohr, L.A. (1991). Social Episodes and Consumer Behavior: The Role of Employee Effort in
Satisfaction with Services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Mowen, J.C. and S.J. Grove. (1983). “Search Behavior, Price Paid and the Consumption Other: An
Equity Theory Analysis of Post-Purchase Satisfaction.” Pp. 57-63 in Ralph L. Day and H. Keith
210 Journal of Retailing Vol. 73, No. 2 1997

Hunt (eds.), International Fare in Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction
Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17(November): 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. and W.S. DeSarbo. (1988). “Response Determinants in Satisfaction Judgment,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 14(March): 495-507.
Oliver, R.L. and J.E. Swan. (1989). “Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction
in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 53(April): 21-35.
Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml, and L.L. Berry. (1985). “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and its Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall): 41-50.
Perdue, B.C. and J.O. Summers. (1986). “Checking the Success of Manipulations in Marketing
Experiments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23(November): 317-326.
Reichheld, F.F. and E.W. Sasser, Jr. (1990). “Zero Defects: Quality Comes to Services,” Harvard
Business Review, 68(September_October): 105-l 11.
Richins, M.L. (1983). “Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study,”
Journal of Marketing, 47(Winter): 68-78.
Singh, J. (1988). “Consumer Complaint Intentions and Behavior: Definitional and Taxonomical
Issues,” Journal of Marketing, 52(January): 93-107.
Solomon, M.R., C. Surprenant, J.A. Czepiel, and E. Gutman. (1985). “A Role Theory Perspective on
Dyadic Interactions: The Service Encounter,” Journal of Marketing, 49(Winter): 99-l 11.
Taylor, S. (1994). “Waiting for Service: The Relationship Between Deals and Evaluations of
Service,” Journal of Marketing, 58(April): 56-69.
Technical Assistance Research Programs. (1986). Consumer Complaint Handling in America: An
Update Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs.
Thibaut, J. and L. Walker. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tyler, R.T. (1987). “Conditions Leading to Value-Expressive Effects of Procedural Justice: A Test of
Four Models,” Journal of Personal@ and Social Psychology Research, 52: 333-344.
Tyler, R.T. and R.J. Bies. (1989). “Beyond Formal Procedures: The Interpersonal Context of
Procedural Justice.” Pp. 77-98 in Applied Psychology and Organizational Settings. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ulrich, W.L. (1984). “HRM and Culture: History, Ritual and Myth,” Humnn Resource Management,
23(Summer): 117-128.
Venkatesan, M., and B.B. Anderson. (1985). “Time Budgets and Consumer Services.” Pp. 52-55 in
Thomas M. Bloch, Gregory D Upah, and Valerie Zeithaml (eds.), Services Marketing in a
Changing Environment. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987). “Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase
Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August): 258-270.