Why Don't Some People Complain?

A Cognitive-Emotive Process Model of Consumer Complaint Behavior

Nancy Stephens
Arizona State University

Kevin P. Gwinner
East Carolina University

This article reports the development of a theoretical model of consumer complaint behavior by using cognitive appraisal theory as its foundation. Because of its importance to management and lack of attention in the marketing literature, specific emphasis is placed on the phenomenon of noncomplaining and the role of consumer emotion in dissatisfying marketplace experiences. The model presents cognitive appraisal as the key element in the evaluation of consumer threat and harm, which subsequently may result in psychological stress. Stressful appraisal outcomes are suggested to elicit emotive reactions that, in conjunction with cognitive appraisal, influence the type of coping strategy used by the consumer. Three coping strategies (problem focused, emotion focused, and avoidance) are identified and discussed. Key propositions are illustrated by using in-depth interview data from a sample of older female consumers.

A customer who does not complain to the firm when dissatisfied is of special concern to management for several reasons. First, the company loses the opportunity to remedy the problem and retain a customer (Hirschman 1970). Second, the firm's reputation can be damaged from negative word-of-mouth actions taken by dissatisfied customers (Richins 1983), resulting in the loss of potential and current customers. Finally, the firm is deprived of valuable feedback about the quality of its product or service (Fornell and Wemerfelt 1987), impeding its ability to identify quality variances and make improvements. Thus, insightful managers want to understand not only persons who voice their complaints but also those who do not. Yet, as Dellande (1995) has observed, most research attention has been on complaining as a response to dissatisfaction and a knowledge void exists with regard to noncomplaining. Research dealing witb consumer response to dissatisfying consumption experiences intensified in the consumeroriented i970s. Day and Landon (1977) introduced the generally well-received public-private distinction in complaint response. Under their taxonomy, dissatisfied consumers would either "take action" or "take no action." If action were taken, it was labeled as either a public (i.e., redress sought from seller, legal action, third party complaint) or private action (i.e., personal boycott of brand, negative word-of-mouth behavior). Unfortunately for many firms, research examining consumer dissatisfaction has found that up to two thirds oFconsumers do not report their dissatisfaction (Andreason 1984, 1985; Day and Ash 1979; Day and Bodur 1978; Day and Landon 1976, 1977; Krishnan and Valle 1979; Richins 1983; Technical Assistance Research Program [TARP] 1979; Warland, Herrmann, and Willits 1975; Zaltman, Srivastava, and Deshphande 1978). That is, the majority of dissatisfied customers often simply resign themselves to receiving

I find it hard to say anything when I'm unhappy [with a purchase]. It takes talking to myself all the way to the store. I say, "How do I say that?" I practice it. If I can get my husband to do it, I will. I'm very uncomfortable even afterwards. I don't want people to think that I'm such a crab or not be liked or not think, "That's not such a nice lady." Sally, 62-year-old retired teacher

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Volume 26, No. 3, pages 172-189. Copyright 1998 by Academy of Marketing Science.

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

173

poor service. They may quietly switch providers, may engage in negative word-of-mouth communications (Richins 1983; Singh 1988), or both. Given the Importance of noncomplaining consumers to product and service firms, much of the research in the consumer complaint behavior literature has sought to understand the differences between complaining and noncomplaining consumers. Past studies have examined individual characteristics such as demographics (Bearden and Oliver 1985;Bolfmg 1989; Jacoby and Jaccard 1981; Moyer 1984; Singh 1990; Warland et al. 1975; Zaltman et al. 1978), personal values (Rogers and Williams 1990), personality factors (Bolfmg 1989; Fornell and Westbrook 1979), attitudes toward complaining (Bearden and Oliver 1985; Day 1984; Jacoby and Jaccard 1981; Singh 1990; Sorensen and Strahle 1990; Zaltman et al. 1978), and attitudes toward business and government (Jacoby and Jaccard 1981; Moyer 1984) that may influence complaining propensity. These individual factors bave had relatively low predictive value in determining when consumers will voice a complaint to the seller following a dissatisfying consumption experience. Other studies have sought to understand situational factors and product-related factors that might play a role in consumers' decisions to voice (or not to voice) dissatisfaction to the firm. Representative work in this area has examined issues such as the role of provider responsiveness (Bolfing 1989; Brown and Beltramini 1989; Gilly and Gelb 1982; Jacoby and Jaccard 1981; Riehins 1983), the cost of complaining (Bolfmg 1989; Day 1984), tbe price and importance of the good to the consumer (Bearden and Oliver 1985; Bolfmg 1989; Day 1984; Gilly and Gelb 1982; Jacoby and Jaccard 1981), consumer experience (Day 1984; Jacoby and Jaccard 1981; Moyer 1984; Singh 1990), social climate (Jacoby and Jaccard 1981), and attribution of blame (Folkes 1984; Folkes, Koletsky, and Graham 1987; Krishnan and Valle 1979; Richins 1983). Despite advances in identifying personal and situational antecedents tbat may encourage the voicing of dissatisfaction, research in this area is limited in three respects. First, the lack of a unifying theoretical framework for organizing complaint antecedents has contributed to a lack of clarity with respect to past, often contradictory, results. Second, most studies of consumer complaint behavior have focused on the act of complaining rather than noncomplaining. Only a few have considered the factors that lead dissatisfied persons to remain silent (Andreason 1984, 1985; Andreason and Manning 1990; Hirschman 1970), much less attempted to identify the consumer coping strategies classified under the rubric of "silence." Third, almost all conceptual and empirical work examining consumer response (and nonresponse) to dissatisfying consumption experiences has disregarded the role of consumer emotion. Those studies that have addressed the role of emotion have taken varying perspectives. Westbrook (1987) and Oliver (1993) conceptualized and tested models in which product satisfaction judgments were at least partially determined by product-related affective experiences. In contrast. Day (1984) suggested that the satisfaction judgment itself is an emotion triggered

through the disconfirmation process. Thus, although the importance of emotion has been recognized, disagreement exists concerning its position in satisfaction assessment and consumer complaint behavior (Blodgett and Granbois 1992). ,The primary purpose of tbis article is to propose an integrating conceptual framework of the consumer complaint behavior process, to present research propositions to test tbe relationships hypothesized within the framework, and to provide illustrative support for theory-based propositions. Specific focus is placed on the role of emotion elicitation and emotion's impact on consumers' decisions not lo complain. Cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus 1966, 1991b; Lazarus and Folkman 1984) is used to develop a conceptual framework that describes the cognitive process consumers use to evaluate personal, situational, and product-related antecedents in tbe complaint/silence decision. In so doing, past research results can be more fruitfully interpreted with respect to their relative position in the framework. In addition, the role of emotion in consumers' decisions to complain is explicitly modeled by using perspectives from cognitive appraisal theory. Furthermore, the "no-action" side of the action/no-action dichotomy is broken into discernible consumer coping strategies. It is suggested that even though not directly observable from the firm's perspective, consumers' cognitive efforts to cope with dissatisfaction are important to the firm's retention efforts. If these actions (and the factors that encourage them) are better understood, then perhaps adroit firms can convert these silent defections into "voicing" behaviors. To extend the literature-based insights involving consumer complaint behavior, we conducted qualitative research. In-depth interviews were conducted using a sample of women ages 60 and older, a group that some researchers have found to be more likely to remain silent in the face of dissatisfaction (Endler and Parker 1990). The appendix describes details of the methodology used and presents a rationale for the particular sample selected. We use quotations from the interviews throughout this article to illuminate various constructs in the model. The remainder of the article is devoted to a detailed explanation of our proposed model of consumer complaint bebavior. We describe the conceptual framework and research propositions, using a thematic presentation of the depth interview data that illustrates many of the key propositions and relationships in the proposed model. We conclude by presenting implications of the proposed model for both future research and management practice.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework portraying the consumer complaint behavior process is presented in Figure 1. This framework represents an adaptation of tbe cognitive appraisal process tbat is mostly attributed to the work of Lazarus and his colleagues over the past two decades (Lazarus 1966,1991a, 1991b; Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Lazarus, Kanner, and Folkman 1980; Lazarus and Launier 1978). While other studies have attempted to examine

CO
^ oil c o. o U
U
3

c Cti o
u

Q. O

U
o

I
m
Q. O

actio plans

u o u.
,1

ial

3 o

u
3 O

g.
0

E o oi) i > , c
Q. O m

-bla -cor ial :ing

tio

SIC all

o '^ ye
o - UJ c

U o

u >^ c o
3

"2 u
jj

O Q CL

iS

."2

aj

L^ C/> f/> LJ

. . .

>^ o .c c

2P

lo
U3

u
a!
3 C
UJ

S o

lisal

.1
o
UJ

I/)

Apprj vancc gmenc

u u

CL

,S
u
<J

c
O)

"(5 i o o O O UJ

pin

X UJ

Q W U H

O
1U <

oi

c 2
u
"O a

<*

u.
_J

I^ cUQ 1 2
O
u c

p " ^ u c c UJ

174

sati ying rke lace per nee

C/3

X UJ

tati

u c >

S o n o. -a o oo c o 1 8.

ati

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

175

personal predispositiotis and situational factors that might predict a consumer's complaint response {e.g., Richins 1987), the focus of this framework is on the consumer's cognitive processes. By exploring consumers' cognitive processes related to complaint actions, we hope that personal and situational factors can be more fruitfully interpreted. For example, Bearden and Oliver (1985) hypothesized, but did not find, a relationship between propensity to complain (a summary measure composed of personality, attitudinal, and lifestyle influences) and public or private complaint actions, However, this apparent lack of relationship might be better explained when considered in the context of the cognitive appraisal process. Cognitive appraisal has been described as "a process through which the person evaluates whether a particular encounter with the environment is relevant to his or her well-being, and if so, in what ways" (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen 1986, p. 992). As such, depending on situational and personal factors, the same event may be stressful to one individual, but not to another, where "stressful event" refers to a situation that taxes or exceeds an individual's psychological resources (Lazarus and Launier 1978). Researchers subscribing to a cognitive theory of emotion posit that emotive reactions are often an outcome of cognitive appraisal efforts. That is, specific emotions and their intensity are tied to an appraisal of the event eliciting the emotional response (Folkman and Lazarus 19B5). When environmental encounters are appraised as being stressful, the appraisal process generates potential coping strategies that may be employed. Coping strategies include both cognitive and behavioral activities aimed at managing the stressful situation (Folkman and Lazarus 1991). Model Overview The model suggests that a dissatisfying marketplace experience serves as input into an ongoing, cognitive appraisal process. This process assesses the significance of the dissatisfaction for the consumer's well-being (primary appraisal) and the availability and likely success of various coping options (secondary appraisal) that might be used to manage the dissatisfying consumption experience. In addition to the dissatisfying marketplace experience itself, the cognitive appraisal process will be greatly influenced by personal characteristics and situational variables. The personal factors identified in the model have implications for how an individual will assess the significance of a particular encounter for his or her well-being. Similarly, the situational variables are primarily factors affecting the accurate assessment and anticipation of potential threats. In a subsequent section, both personal factors and situational factors posited to influence one's cognitive appraisal process are considered in more detail. This conceptualization is not unlike that proposed by Day (1984), who suggested that dissatisfaction serves as the motivation to consider complaint behavior, but the ultimate complain/don't complain decision is based on a comparison of costs and benefits that are affected by

situational and personal factors. The model presented here elaborates on the nature of the cost-benefit analysis and extends that conceptualization by explicitly considering the role of emotion and the identification of various coping alternatives. When an assessment results in an experience being evaluated as positive or irrelevant to one's well-being, no coping actions are necessary. However, when a marketplace problem is appraised as stressful to the consumer's well-being (e.g., physical health, fmancial loss, social embarrassment, etc.), negative emotions may be generated. TTie precise aifective response, if one occurs, is thought to be predicated on the attribution about the source of the problem (Izard 1977; Smith and Ellsworth 1985), Coping may also occur without the experiencing of emotion, as depicted in the model. The model suggests that the appraisal process and/or the elicited emotion will lead to one of three general types of coping styles: problem focused, emotion focused, or avoidance. Although illustrated in separate boxes (see Figure 1), empirical findings related to coping styles suggest that people may rely on more than one form of coping when managing stressful encounters (e.g., Baum, Fleming, and Singer 1983; Folkman and Lazarus 1980,1985; Folkman etal. 1986;McCrae 1982). Problem-focused coping styles deal directly with the dissatisfying consumption experience. For example, one might complain to a restaurant server that a steak has been overcooked. In contrast, emotion-focused coping styles are directed at managing an individual's mental state rather than directly addressing the problem. For example, instead of complaining about an overcooked steak, an individual might accept responsibility for the error by convincing him- or herself that he or she didn't give the order clearly. Avoidance coping means physically withdrawing from the situation. Continuing the example, the dissatisfied diner might simply leave the restaurant in silence. Finally, specific coping methods associated with each of the three general styles are identified and described. The remainder of this section more fully discusses each major section of the framework and offers research propositions based on the depicted relationships. Dissatisfying Marketplace Experience The term dissatisfying marketplace experience is used here to represent those consumption events in which consumers' performance perceptions compare negatively to some standard (e.g., prepurchase expectations, desires, experience-based norms) and, therefore, are evaluated as dissatisfying (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987; Oliver 1980, 1993; Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996). The dissatisfying experience serves as the potentially stressful event that will be evaluated via the cognitive appraisal process. It is important to understand that stressful events are not necessarily large, life-changing occurrences (e.g., death of spouse, divorce), as was suggested by Dohrenwend, Snell, Krasnoff, Askenasy, and Dohrenwend (1978) when they ranked a large list of life events for their potential to induce stress. Indeed, Lazarus and

176

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

DeLongis (1983) argued that the stress created by the daily hassles of life is a better predictor of psychological and physical health than the stress brought about by major life events. Daily hassles include misplacing or losing things, filling out forms, not having enough time for one's family, concern about weight (DeLongis. Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, and Lazarus 1982), and likely include many problems consumers experience in the marketplace (e.g., poor-quality restaurant meals, rude service representatives, dishonest auto mechanics, and a host of ill-fitting, broken, or substandard consumer goods). However minor, each dissatisfying marketplace experience, and in some cases the redress process itself, has the potential to cause stress in one's daily life. Cognitive Appraisai To determine whether a dissatisfying marketplace experience is actually stressful, customers conduct an evaluation known as cognitive appraisal (Lazarus 1966, 1993). One pan of tbe appraisal (termed primary) is a determination of whether tbe marketplace problem is harmful, threatening, or benign, whereas another aspect (termed secondary) is a calculation of one's ability to cope or deal with the problem. As suggested in Figure I. primary and secondary appraisal, despite the chronology suggested by their names, may occur simultaneously and interactively (Lazarus 1991b). There are three specific components of primary appraisal (Lazarus 1991b). First, dissatisfied customers decide if tbe problem is relevant to deeply held goals. For example, does the unfortunate marketplace incident involve issues about which consumers care deeply or in which they have a personal stake? If the incident is not relevant, it will not be viewed as stressful and coping efforts are not required. Second, consumers assess the extent to which the dissatisfying event inhibits their goals {goal incongruence). A dissatisfying marketplace experience that does not inhibit one's goals will be appraised as benign or even positive. However, goal incongruency associated with tbe dissatisfying experience will lead to the experience being appraised as stressful. Naturally, goal incongruence should be viewed as having degrees ratber than being dichotomous. In the following anecdote, a relevant goal, eating dinner in a timely way. was thwarted, making Hilda more likely to appraise the situation as stressful. I was on vacation and I went into a restaurant in the hotel where I was staying. I ordered dinner and sat and sat. I didn't get dinner and it got to be about 15 minutes and 8 or 10 people came in and the waiter went over and took all their orders and I sat after he bad taken their orders and still didn't have my dinner. So I went up to the maitre d' and told the maitre d' my story and the maitre d' waited on me. Oh, I was mad! It was really the waiter's fault. I mean, he was the one that took my order and didn't wait on me. I

was mad at him. I was furious. (Hilda, 77-year-old retired purchasing manager) Finally, individuals may evaluate their level of ego involvement; does the situation touch on self-esteem, moral values, or closely held meanings and ideas? Threats to ego involvement will likely result in the event being appraised as stressful. Jane was highly ego involved in tbe following situation and was more likely to appraise it as stressful. It's like $23.95. It's pricey and it is very, very special. We've gone twice and just think that it's spectacular. It so happened that the last time my brother was visiting, we were raving to him about it. "We're going to go. the five of us, and you'll see tbis spectacular bruncb." However, they didn't have what they had had tbe last time, wbicb was Stilton in wine. Tbey had shrimp and they ran out of sbrimp. It was tbe end of the slicing of the roast beef. Everything was exquisite, spectacular, as usual. I was making apologies to my brother, saying "Oh, Richard, you would have loved the Stilton." The maitre d' passed by and said, "How is everything?" And everybody son of nodded iind thanked him. I don't know what came over me. I said, "We're really enjoying it, but I have to tell you that I was really dismayed to find out that there are no more sbrimp and disappointed that tbe Stilton in wine was gone and somebody said that that was the end of tbe roast beef" I am not somebody who is inclined to report, but I did say it very nicely and said that we had eaten here before, but it was a disappointment because my brother was visiting bere. (Jane, 64-year-old retired teacher) PI: Dissatisfying marketplace experiences are more likely to be appraised as stressful when they are Pla: goal relevant. Fib: goal incongruent, and Pic; ego involving. Secondary appraisal primarily consists of consumers' assessments of their ability to cope witb the marketplace problem. It is more than simply an account of all things tbat might be done. Secondary appraisal is a complex process tbat takes into account three elements (Lazarus 1991b; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). First, individuals must assign blame or credit for the incident, which requires knowing who is responsible. Without this, consumers have no target for coping action. These blame attributions may be external (someone else is responsible), internal (consumer is responsible), or situational (no one was responsible) (Weiner 1986). Previous research examining consumers' product failure attributions has tended to focus on situations where the locus of causality (i.e., who is to blame) is known to be either tbe consumer or the firm (e.g., Folkes 1984; Folkes et ai. 1987). In general, these studies show that when product failure is attributed to the firm,

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

177

consumers expect apologies and refunds and may experience feelings of anger (Folkes et al. 1987). However, the source of product failure is not always discernible. Lazarus (1966) suggests that without a target, individuals will not be able to engage in coping strategies. It was unclear who to blame in the following incident, so Marjorie had no one to take her complaint. They faxed [sic] me some medicine and they said. "I don't know what time it's coming. You'll just bave to be tbere when it comes." I don't know where it was coming from. Well, a couple of days and it didn't come. So I couldn't hang around so I left my neighbor's telephone number because you had to sign for it. So they brought it and I wasn't home and he signed for it. There wasn't much I could do because I didn't come in contact with anybody, even the mailman, see? (Marjorie. 79-year-old retired factory worker) P2a: Consumers who do not know who to blame for the marketplace problem do not progress tbrough the cognitive appraisal process to coping of any type. Second, consumers must evaluate their own coping potential, tbe extent to which they feel they can manage the demands of the encounter and their perception of tbe likely success of each coping alternative. In an effon to differentiate between his four consumer complaint response clusters, Singb (1990) measured a related concept, "expectancy-value," that represents the consumer's probability assessment of obtaining a cenain complaint response outcome. Singh found that although outcome assessments influenced complaint response style, so too did one's experience and cenain enduring predispositions. This reinforces our premise that multiple factors must be considered in tbe modeling of consumer choice among multiple coping alternatives. An important element of cognitive appraisal theory is the interplay between primary and secondary appraisal. For example, even though an event may be evaluated as harmful or threatening to well-being in primary appraisal, if an individual has the ability to successfully cope with (i.e.. reduce or eliminate) the event, then the encounter might not be assessed as stressful. In panial support of this notion, Bolfing (1989) found tbat consumers who have personal difficulty voicing complaints tended to avoid directly addressing their dissatisfaction to the seller. Because of past experience with the merchant, June felt bigh coping potential and was less likely to appraise tbe following incident as stressful. I sent a sweater back to them that I bought my son and it was a knit and it had this ribbing around here and it kept coming loose. So. I sewed it up and sewed it up and sewed it up. I finally thought, I'll send it back and tell tbem that I've had this mucb trouble with this sweater, because I'd bought a lot of items

from them over the years. (June, 60-year-old retired teacher's aide) P2b: Low coping potential will be positively related to stressful appraisals. Third, consumers assess what might happen in the future and whether things are likely to get better or worse. Future expectations of barm are related to the stability dimension of attribution theory. Folkes et al. (1987) found that temporary causes of product failure were less likely to evoke feelings of anger and did not diminish consumers' repurchase intentions as much as stable product failure attributions. In accordance witb cognitive appraisal tbeory, if the situation is likely to improve on its own, the intensity of the stressful event is less and coping actions may not be needed. However, deteriorating circumstances call for some son of coping mecbanism to belp manage the stressful event. Because she believed the problem would likely reoccur. Mary Belle was more likely to appraise it as stressful in tbe following anecdote. We bought gifts for our children. We decided on a soup tureen set. Well, one son broke a ladle and we were just disappointed tbat they wouldn't simply send another ladle to him and take our word for it that it was broken. He's going to bave to mail the broken ladle back. It seems like we paid plenty to have it sent from the store and that they could cover tbat breakage themselves. It seems like a lot to bave to go througb, you know, unnecessarily. We're going to start sending money instead of actually purcbasing and mailing. At the depanment stores, they want $8, you know, for mailing tbings. (Mary Belle. 68year-old retired teacher's aide) P2c: Expectations of future harm will be positively related to stressful appraisals. Appraisal Outcome When an encounter is appraised as being positive or irrelevant with respect to well-being, no coping is required (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Apositive assessment occurs when the encounter is deemed to preserve or enhance one's well-being. Positive assessments are associated witb positive emotions (e.g.. joy and interest). An encounter is assessed as irrelevant when it has no implication for an individual's well-being. Interestingly, the same situation may be appraised differently by different individuals or even by the same individual at different times. Differing appraisals of the same event are due to individual differences in goals, ego-involved beliefs, and coping potential (Lazarus 1966). Marketplace experiences that are appraised as stressful lead to coping action. Stressful encounters have elements of harm or threat associated with tbem and may trigger negative emotions, such as anger, fear, or guilt (Izard 1991;

178

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

Lazarus and Folkman 1984), although, as will be discussed, the precise emotion felt is partly dependent on the attribution the consumer makes about who is responsible (Smith and Ellsworth 1985; Weiner 1986). Consumers may experience various levels of stress as a result of their cognitive appraisals. For example, high levels of stress may result from an experience perceived as very harmful, such as being given the wrong medicine by a pharmacy. On the other hand, low levels of stress may result from being served the wrong type of salad dressing in a restaurant. Naturally, the level of stress should have some influence on the elicited emotion. Personal Factors Affecting the Cognitive Appraisal Process As shown in the model, personal factors are characteristics possessed by individuals that influence the manner in which they conduct primary and secondary appraisals of dissatisfying marketplace incidents. The personal factors identified in the model are of importance because they influence interpretation ofthe significance an event has for an individual's well-being. Research in cognitive appraisal theory suggests that three types of factors may play roles: commitment, general beliefs, and experience/education (Lazarus 1966; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Unlike some prior investigations, the proposed model seeks to tie these constructs directly to a consumer evaluation process (cognitive appraisal), where personal variables are but one of several interacting inputs. Commitment refers to the things people hold as important. Related constructs include motive, drive, intentions, and involvement (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Individuals are thought to have patterns of commitments, in that some things are important and others are not. The potential for a stressful appraisal outcome is increased by deeply held commitments. For example, the failure of a car wash to clean the tire rims of an automobile will be viewed as more harmful to someone with a strong commitment to a clean car (i.e., it is important) than to someone with a weak commitment to auto cleanliness. This is consistent with a conceptual model put forth by Day (1984) that included the significance of the consumption event as a personal factor influencing the complaint decision. Because someone treated her mother without respect (a trait she felt was important), June was more likely to appraise the following incident as stressful. I was so angry. My mother had a little bit of money in one of these investment places and she wanted us to come with her to decide what she was going to do with this little bit of money. That man talked to my husband and I the whole time just like she wasn't even there. He knew that it was her money. It was just very defmitely that he just ignored her and just talked to Tommy and I, which I was very angry at. (June, 60-year-oId retired teacher's aide)

P3a: Dissatisfying marketplace experiences that threaten strongly held commitments will be positively related to stressful appraisals. Second, consumers' general beliefs about the world in general and marketplace transactions in particular will influence cognitive appraisals. General beliefs represent preexisting ideas about reality that serve to shape people's expectations about how things are and should be. In the following example, Sally believes that agreements should be honored and, therefore, she was more likely to appraise the situation as stressful. We had our children in for our 40th wedding anniversary for 4 days. On Friday, we were all going to go to a pizza place. There were four children and their wives and kids. We planned about a month before and they were going to give us a little room. Well, about 3 days before, they called us and told us that they couldn't take us because somebody with a larger party had signed up, which made us very angry. We certainly made it known that we were disappointed and we had to scrounge around to get another place. You just don't treat people like that. It's not the way to do business. (Sally, 62-year-old retired teacher) Some of the most important beliefs influencing the cognitive appraisal process are beliefs about personal control, that is, the extent to which individuals feel they exert mastery over their environment versus the degree to which they feel at the mercy of oulside forces. Note that these control beliefs are general rather than situational. Situational control beliefs are more aptly a part of the appraisal process itself rather than a general dispositional trait held by the individual. Controllable events may be viewed as less threatening than those that are dependent on luck, fate, or other people. A related concept in a complaint context is balance of power, which refers to how much control consumers perceive companies have compared to themselves. Persons who feel less power than an organization will appraise the threat as greater. Andreason and Manning (1990) have hypothesized that certain groups in society feel powerless because of their disadvantaged status (e.g., the older persons, the poor). It is possible that members of these groups would feel greater threat in a dissatisfying marketplace incident than a member of an advantaged group (e.g., the young, the wealthy), because of their power imbalance perceptions. P3b: A consumer's perceived power in marketplace transactions is negatively related to stressful appraisals. Finally, people's experience and education can affect the cognitive appraisal process. On one hand, consumers who lack experience and education may not possess sufficient knowledge to accurately assess the situation. As such.

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

179

the ambiguous nature of the event leads to a stressful appraisal. On the other hand, it may be that those who have experience and education will appraise a situation as more stressful because they have a greater understanding of all the things that might go wrong. Accordingly, the role of experience and education in influencing primary appraisal is important but not clearly understood (Lazarus 1966). As Jane gained experience, she became less likely to appraise marketplace problems as stressful. When I was a younger person, I would never, never complain. I've become more assertive. I grew up thinking people who did something were experts at it. But it's not true. I found out through living that it isn't true. I had great respect for authority to begin with and that just went down the line to anybody who had a job. If I had to make a phone call to a department store, I would make notes of what I wanted to say because my assumption was that I was talking to someone who was very efficient, very knowledgeable, and that I shouldn't waste any of their time. If I didn't get my thoughts together to express myself very clearly, I was infringing on them. That was an assumption until I discovered it wasn't true. Now, I know that I'm almost as expert as everybody else. (Jane, 64-year-old retired teacher) P3c: Extremely low and extemely high levels of experience and education are positively related to stressful appraisal.

A marketplace problem that is predictable influences cognitive appraisal because it allows people to engage in anticipatory activities. For example, if people know their health insurance company has made errors in reimbursing doctor bills in the past, they can request and save copies of their medical biils and records to cope witb any future errors that might be made. In contrast, marketplace problems tbat cannot be foreseen can be very stressful because they preclude any anticipatory actions by the consumer (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). In the following example, Donna can predict the problem, so she can prepare for it and thus is less likely to appraise tbe situation as stressful. You have to check wben they're ringing up your sales. You have to check your receipt to make sure that they don't overcharge you because when they scan things, it's not always right. I try and do that. Tbe worst mistake is if you don't do it right when you're there. (Donna, 66-year-old retired switchboard operator) P4b: Predictable dissatisfying marketplace experiences are negatively related to stressful appraisals. Imminence and duration of the stressful marketplace problem are two temporal factors that may influence tbe cognitive appraisal process. Imminence refers to the length of time that will pass before the actual harm takes place. Having short periods of time before harm occurs is likely to result in higher threat appraisal because an individual has less time to select coping strategies or take action to avoid the barm altogether. Interestingly, there is some evidence suggesting tbat longer periods of time existing before anticipated harm may also increase threat appraisal because there is more time available to grasp the significance of the event and reflect on the impending threat (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Duration refers to the length of time the harmful event will last. Some dissatisfying consumption experiences are short-lived (e.g., a rude waiter). Others can continue on for considerable lengths of time in the absence of intervention (e.g., a leaky roof). It is generally thought that harm of a longer duration will result in greater stress appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Because the problem in tbe following anecdote lasted a long time, Virginia was more likely to appraise it as stressful. I bad a real bad time with a plumber. It was a leak in the old kitchen sink. He took the thing apart and then he said, "Well, I've got to go," and here was my sink apart! I couldn't use it. I got real mad about tbat. I called maintenance and they came down and fixed it. (Virginia, 79-year-old retired homemaker/secretary) P4c: Very short and very long periods of time preceding harmful events will be positively associated with stressful appraisals. P4d: Harm of a short duration will be appraised as less stressful tban harm of a long duration.

Situational Factors Affecting the Cognitive Appraisal Process

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) identified several situational factors that may influence the appraisal process. Tbose that appear to be especially relevant have been adapted for a consumer complaint behavior context. They are discussed below, including the implications of each with respect to cognitive appraisal. The novelty of the situation refers to the level of previous experience with the dissatisfying consumption event. One might think of experience along a continuum ranging from absolutely no previous background (novel) to substantial previous knowledge (intimate). Direct personal experience is not necessary to increase intimacy; secondhand exposure through sources such as television, word of mouth, and observation can increase event experience through vicarious learning. As such, most marketplace problems are not completely novel. Novel situations, by their definition, consist of those with which consumers have had little experience. Because outcomes and processes are unknown in novel situations, they may be regarded with some degree of caution. Accordingly, stressful appraisals are more likely. P4a: Novel dissatisfying marketplace experiences are positively related with stressful appraisals.

180

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

TABLE 1 Operationalization of the Emotion Construct

Factor hems^ iBlame Attribution External External External Situational Situational Internal Internal

Enraged, angry, mad Anger Distaste, disgusted, revulsion Disgust Conlemptuous, scornful, disdainful Contempt Downhearted, sad, discouraged Sadness Scared, fearful, afraid Fear Shame/shyness Sheepish, bashful, shy Repentant, guilty, blameworthy Guilt

In summary, with the influence of personal and situational factors, consumers mentally evaluate the dissatisfying marketplace event. They go througb the process of cognitive evaluation, emerging either with a feeling of no threat/barm or a feeling of threat/harm. As shown in the model, cognitive appraisals of stress may lead directly to coping activities or may lead to emotion, which then leads to coping activities. Emotion Eiicitation Emotion is acomplex composite of several factors, both mental and pbysical (Izard 1991; Lazarus 1991a, 1993; Lazarus et al. 1980; Omdahl 1995; Plutchik 1980; Weiner 1986). Cognitive theories of emotion argue that the mental aspect involves tbe continual evaluation of one's surroundings (e.g., a marketplace problem) witb an eye to whether what is happening advances, inhibits, or is even relevant to one's goals (Lazarus et al. 1980; Omdahl 1995; Weiner 1986). As such, negative emotions are regarded as outcomes of stressful cognitive appraisals (Lazarus 1993). Emotions are not static states but instead are fleeting episodes that change as tbe environment that caused them changes (Lazarus et al. 1980). Emotion includes a physiological aspect, too, although the nature of it is unclear in the literature (Izard 1991; Lazarus 1993; Lazarus et al. 1980; Plutchik 1980) and not of primary interest in this article. Nyer (1997) has empirically demonstrated tbat positive and negative emotions mediate the link between some cognitive appraisal elements and word-of-mouth bebaviors. Negative emotions are the ones of concern in this framework, as tbose are tbe most likely to emanate from stressful encounters. Table 1 illustrates the negative emotions from Izard's (1977) taxonomy. This taxonomy has been demonstrated to be of predictive value in previous postpurchase behavior research (Westbrook 1987). According to cognitive theories of emotion, the particular emotion and the intensity with wbich it is experienced by people depend on the nature of the stressful appraisal (Lazarus 1993; Lazarus et al. 1980; Omdahl 1995; Smith and Ellsworth 1985; Weiner 1986). Specifically, believing tbat an event cannot be helped and that blame for it is situational (situational attribution) leads to the emotions of sadness or fear. Attributing responsibility for what is happening to someone else (external attribution) produces anger, disgust, or contempt emotions, wbereas blaming oneself for the situation (internal attribution) generates emotions of shame and guilt. Partial support for this attribution to the emotion eiicitation process is provided by Folkes et al. (1987). In their study of airline passengers, perceptions that an airline was responsible for, and in control of, a flight delay produced anger emotions, which further predicted consumers' desire to complain about the service failure. Westbrook (1987) suggests that only those emotions arising from attributing blame to the seller or the product will have a systematic influence on the consumer's product-related postpurchase behaviors (e.g., complaint behavior). However, limiting one's interest to only product-

a. Izard's (1991) Differential Emotions Scale. b. Godwin, Patterson, and Johnson (1995); Smith and Ellsworth (1985),

Ambiguity is related to novelty but is not necessarily associated with consumers' inexperience. Ambiguity exists in a dissatisfying purchase occasion when the information available to consumers is insufficient or unclear. Ambiguity is likely to intensify threat appraisals because it lessens people's sense of control and increases their sense of helplessness (Lazarus 1966). The greater the ambiguity is in a situation, the more consumers will rely on personal factors (e.g., beliefs, commitments) for their cognitive appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). One type of ambiguity is harm uncertainty. In some consumption experiences, people may be uncertain if they have been harmed, and if so, to what degree. An example of harm uncertainty for many consumers exists in tbe automobile repair industry. Given the ever increasing sopbistication of automobiles, consumers must often take on faith tbe level of repair needed to fix an automobile. In these situations, people may never know if they have approved and paid for unnecessary repairs. In the following vignette, Lois is more likely to appraise the situation as stressful because the problem is ambiguous. When the sign on tbe dashboard says, "Service Soon," I get total... I get heart palpitations. I think, "Oh, what am I going to do now?" because I don't even know where the thing is to open the hood. So I think those guys could take me for anything they want to . . . I honestly think that if somebody knows something about it, maybe they'll get better service. (Lois, 65-year-old retired social worker) Uncertainty in these ambiguous situations can increase stress appraisals because "it has an immobilizing effect on anticipatory coping processes" (Lazarus and Folkman 1984, p. 91). Not knowing if one bas been harmed can lead to an extended period of conflicting thoughts and behaviors that can contribute to feelings of helplessness and confusion (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). P4e: Harm uncertainty associated with dissatisfying marketplace experiences will be positively associated with stressful appraisals.

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

181

related postpurchase behaviors (e.g., direct action) may ignore the bulk of the consumer's coping strategies related to dissatisfying marketplace experiences. P5a: Dissatisfying marketplace experiences appraised as stressful are positively related to the generation of negative emotions. P5b: Anger, disgust, and contempt emotions are positively associated with external attributions. PSc: Sadness and fear emotions are positively associated with situational attributions. P5d: Shame and guilt emotions are positively associated with internal attributions. General Coping Strategies Coping consists of the efforts people make to manage the demands that are taxing to their psychological resources (Lazarus and Launier 1978). While Godwin, Patterson, and Johnson (1995) view coping strategy as an input into one's complaint behavior decision, our conceptualization of cognitive appraisal in a complaint context considers coping strategy to be the actions one uses to decrease the stressful event (e.g., direct complaint action, denial, physical avoidance, etc.). Three general coping strategies have been identified: (1) problem focused, (2) emotion focused, and (3) avoidance (Endler and Parker 1990; Folkman et al. 1986; Lazarus and DeLongis 1983; Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Lazarus and Launier 1978). Research in the stress and coping literature suggests tbat individuals actively choose from alternative coping strategies (Endler and Parker 1990). In this section, specific coping strategies from the stress and coping literature are discussed for tbeir potential to inform consumer complaint and noncomplaint actions. Probiem-Focused Coping A problem-focused coping strategy is one in which a consumer deals squarely with the problem by taking direct action. The focus of this coping strategy is external, toward the other party. In a consumer complaint behavior context, direct action consists of voicing displeasure to the offending party (Lazarus and DeLongis 1983; Strutton and Lumpkin 1994). This could take the form of face-to-face, phone, or mail-based complaint interactions. Problem-foe used coping results when consumers feel harm or threat to their personal well-being but also perceive themselves to have strong coping potential. Those wbo engage in problem-focused coping feel they will be effective in dealing witb the other party by "voicing" their displeasure. Problem-focused coping may or may not be accompanied by emotional feelings. For example, if an organization has established and promoted systems for handling complaints, customers may feel their problems will be taken seriously and may not experience anger or other emotions. In this instance, stressful cognitive appraisal may bypass emotion elicitation and lead directly to problem-focused coping. For example, in a restaurant

whose servers always check diners' satisfaction shortly after serving the food, customers can easily voice dissatisfaction without experiencing intense, negative emotions. Louise describes how she easily engages in problemfocused coping with grocery purchases without apparent emotion: If I'm unhappy with what I buy at the grocery store, I bring it back. Like these honeydews, I usually ask the produce man to pick one out for me. I had one and it was hard as a bullet. I didn't think it felt right and I returned it and he took it. They're very good [about taking things back]. (Louise, 80-year-old retired botnemaker) In other instances, stressful cognitive appraisals lead to emotion, which may then lead to problem-focused coping. The emotions expected to lead to problem-focused coping are anger, contempt, and disgust. These emotions are believed to occur as a result of externally attributed blame (Smith and Ellsworth 1985). In the following example, Dorothy's anger toward the auto dealership is apparent and she makes ber dissatisfaction known to the manager. I took my husband's car to the auto dealer and I don't know bow long I waited. I waited quite a while and then I had a telephone call. It was Frank and he said, "You're still there? Why so long?" I said, "I don't know." Then the man told me that tbe car had been waiting and he wanted me to look around at the new models and see what I thought of them. I said, "If you gave me every one on the floor, I wouldn't have it." I stood right in front of tbe dealer. I was so pissed! Nobody told me the car was ready and the waiting room was full of smoke. (Dorothy, 77-year-old retired executive secretary) It is unclear what particular conditions lead some dissatisfied consumers to experience emotion and others to not experience emotion before engaging in problem-focused coping, but our model hypothesizes botb possibilities. It is certainly possible that problem-focused coping is always preceded by emotion but that a retrospective interview, such as those conducted to illustrate the model, does not adequately capture the emotions felt during the encounter (Plutchik 1980). P6a: Consumer perceptions of strong coping potential during secondary appraisal are positively related to the use of problem-focused coping strategies. Emotion-Focused Coping In contrast to problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping strategies are directed inward. In this way, individuals attempt to regulate their mental response to the problem to feel better (Lazarus and Launier 1978). Instead of doing something, tbey remain silent and engage in any one of several self-deceptions (Lazarus and Folkman 1984), such

182

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEI^Y OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

as denial or self-blame (Endler and Parker 1990; Lazarus and DeLongis 1983; Lazarus and Launier 1978). Emotionfocused coping is "to maintain hope and optimism, to deny botb fact and implication" (Lazarus and Folkman 1984, p. 151). If emotion-focused coping is successful, the unhappy situation still exists; only people's thinking about it has changed (Lazarus and DeLongis 1983). The model shows several tactics described in the literature as emotion focused. We do not believe this list to be exhaustive. In fact, there is disagreement in the literature about the semantic and operational definitions of constructs such as self-blame, self-control, denial, and seeking social support (Endler and Parker 1990, 1993; Lazarus 1991a, 1991b). Nonetheless, for purposes of our model, we have tried to semantically define each coping tactic by relying on past studies and on data from our respondents. Consumers using self-blame coping tactics place responsibility for the dissatisfying marketplace experience on themselves. In some cases, consumers truly believe their disappointment is a result of their own actions. However, in other cases, they may deceive themselves into thinking they are to blame. In these instances, it may be easier for these individuals to blame themselves ratber than assign external blame and face the challenge of seeking redress. Self-blame may be triggered by the fear that complaining will result in otber people evaluating them negatively (Sorensen and Strahle 1990). Westbrook(1987) hypothesized that consumers who feel they are responsible for a problem (internal attribution) will feel guilt or shame and will not complain. In their silence, they may be engaging in the emotion-focused coping tactic of self-blame. For example, Violet related a construction redress problem for which she took the blame; We had a leak around the fireplace, around the chimney Then we kept getting leaks in the laundry room. It was our fault that we probably didn't complain more than we did. The builders came out several times and tried to take care of it and then it was our fault because we just didn't keep up witb it. (Violet, 68-year-oId retired accountant) Engaging in self-blame was common among our respondents, as indicated by Jane's experience with produce buying and Violet's cotnments about complaining in general. If the man who sold me the melon said it was ripe or perfect for eating and if I got home and cut it and it really wasn't so terrific, my first thought was that I must have done something wrong. (Jane, 64-yearold retired teacher) I make sure tbat it's something that I really feel I should complain about. I always kind of think, maybe sometbing doesn't satisfy me completely, but then maybe I didn't make myself clear about what I wanted or sometbing . . . I don't like to confront people. (Violet, 68-year-oId retired accountant)

Self-control is an emotion-focused coping tactic in which one simply resists the urge to voice a complaint. It appears to relate strongly to two different variables. First, the silence that results from self-control sometimes seems to be due to an unfavorable balance of power, a key part of the secondary appraisal process (Lazarus and Fofkman 1984). The theme of powerlessness was suggested by Andreason and Manning (1990), referring specifically to vulnerable consumers such as minority groups or the older persons. "That's just the v/ay it is" describes tbe attitude supporting a lack of action in the face of dissatisfaction. Consumers who feel powerless do not believe tbere is anything tbey can do or say to change the situation. In the example below, Hilda saw her shopping problem as so widespread that she doesn't think a complaint by her or anyone else would make any difference at all. Back in the old days, you used to have three or four clerks coming up to you saying, "Can I help you?" These days you can't find anybody to wait on you. Not only to wait on you but to ask sometbing. The first time that it ever happened to me I was at a department store to buy some dresses. There were two or three clerks standing around. I went over and looked at dresses and finally found two or three and said, "May I try these on?" They said, "The dressing room is over there." I almost dropped the dresses because this was the first time ever that a clerk didn't go in with me. And it';; gotten worse since then. I don't think they care whether you buy anything or not. I really don't. You can't even find anybody in tbe store to ask them wbere is size so-and-so or where do you keep tbis or where can I find this. I just try to root around and find it myself. They're all the same, all the department stores. (Hilda, 77-year-old retired purchasing manager) The second variable that relates to self-control is compassion, wbich is included in the model as a moderator of emotion's infiuence on coping strategies. Compassion is defined as a person's ability to understand and react based on another party's feelings (Lazarus 1991b). It includes empathy, which has been defined as the taking of another's perspective and sharing the other's emotions (Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, and Miller 1989; Omdabl 1995). Women bave been found to be more empatbetic and to feel more sympathy and personal distress than men in their dealings with other people (Eisenberg et al. 1989; Jordan, Surrey, and Kaplan 1991), and while men and women are equally able to recognize and label another person's emotions, women more often imagine themselves in the other person's place than men (Jordan 1991). Apparently, because they understood and empathized with a service provider's situations or feelings, some of our older women respondents remained silent in the face of marketplace problems. Empathy has various levels of manifestation, including cognitive role taking, sympathy, and personal distress (Eisenberg et al. 1989). Cognitive role taking is a form of

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

183

empathy in wbich a consumer identifies with the thoughts of another, such as a service provider. The consumer does not necessarily share tbe service provider's thoughts or feelings but does understand them. Mary Belle, who understands tbe cooking problems facing a restaurant, exhibited cognitive role taking. I'm not the kind that sends things back. But, yeah, once in a while the food is colder than you like for it to be. Even at a deli this week, I bad chili with beans and the chili was not... it was just lukewarm. It wasn't satisfying. Knowing about thick things like that, tbey were probably worried that it would stick to the bottom of the pan and have a bumed taste. (Mary Belle, 68-year-old retired teacher's aide) Beatrice also engages in cognitive role taking, trying to understand the thoughts of her service provider, a physician. She wanted me to have an X ray and I had to ride the bus. I wouldn't have had time to catch it. I was afraid I wouldn't make it, so I said, "I just can't today. Can I do it tomorrow?" "Well," she said, "it's entirely up to you. The sooner we find out these things the better." I don't know if she knew about the bus or not. I had been there before and told her. Maybe she didn't remember. I know she's very busy. (Beatrice, 73-year-old retired factory worker) Sympathy is a vicarious emotional reaction people experience on the basis of their understanding of another person's situation. The sympathetic person has feelings of sonow or concern for another (Eisenberg et al. 1989), such as Donna, below, exhibits for the server. We went to this culinary institute. All of a sudden, the waiter brings everybody the special of the day. I really felt sorry for the kid because they're all in training. They came up and were very gracious and we finally reordered. The prices are reasonable except tbe service wasn't good. The kid could have been nervous. (Donna, 66-year-old retired switchboard operator) Personal distress is one's feeling of anxiety and discomfort based on his or her reaction to the feelings of another. In the following example, Dorothy feels bad about the possibility of hurting another's feelings. There's a line over bere at our grocery store. One is for 9 items or less and no check. The other is 15 or less and cash or check. I've had people that I was behind in the line that had maybe 20 items in their basket and writeacheckforit in the wrong line. I'm not going to make a fuss about it. I'd hurt somebody's feelings and it's not worth the hassle. (Dorothy, 77-year-old retired executive secretary)

Similarly, Louise feels personal distress at the possibility of hurting the feelings of a waiter who was making up for an earlier problem with seating. He waited on us and after the meal we were sitting there and this big plate came with all these rich desserts. 1 looked at him and I thought, "I can't refuse it because he gave it to us." So he said, "Compliments of me." He's from England. And I knew I was going to be sick, but I ate it anyhow. And I came home and I got sick during tbe night. I can't eat rich stuff. (Louise, 80-year-old retired housewife) The same respondent, Louise, reacted to a problem with her hairdresser with personal distress. Her anxiety at letting the hairdresser know of her anger apparently causes her to lie about her true reasons for brand switching. I had a hairdresser and every time I went, I'd get there five minutes early so I wouldn't keep her waiting. Tbe last time I was there, I waited half an hour. I just sat there and fumed and I was getting madder by the minute. That irked me and I thought, I'll call her and tell her I'm not coming back because I was getting tired of sitting and waiting all the time. So instead of tne calling her, she called and she said, "I was just wondering if you were going to be coming," and I said, "No, I'm not. A friend of mine is in a beauty parlor now and I think I'll try her for a while." So I didn't say anything to her. I had just figured I can always leave. I don't have to put up with anything like that. (Louise, 80-year-oId retired homemaker) In compassionate responses, it appears that consumers may exhibit self-control and remain silent when dissatisfied because tbey feel empathy for the person or company involved. They understand the other's perspective and perhaps for that reason do not voice their unhappiness. P6b: Consumers who feel compassionate toward the souree of the dissatisfying marketplace experience will be more likely to practice tbe emotion-focused coping tactic of self-control. Denial means minimizing the existence or impact of a marketplace problem. Its emotional predecessors are not clear but could be any of the negative emotions shown in the model. Among our respondents, denial was carried out through humor, as illustrated by Dorothy, when her doctor forgot that she was waiting. r 1 tell you a funny tbing. I had an appointment with 1 the gynecologist for a routine exam. I got all undressed in one room and put the little paper nighty on and I waited and I waited and I waited. I couldn't go out because I didn't have any clothes on and finally about 15 minutes after they were due to close, somebody opened the door and said, "My God, are

184

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

you Still there?" Tbey had forgotten me. The doctor had to leave the office and go to the hospital and they forgot me. It was at least an hour and a half and I was freezing to death in that little paper shirt. They were all very apologetic. The doctor was nice and he was so apologetic. It was funny. (Dorothy, 77-year-old retired secretary) The reason consumers practice denial is not entirely clear. On the basis of our interviews, we think it is possible that denial is the result of perceiving an unfavorable balance of power, perhaps combined with the emotion of fear. It is not the same as a resigned "that's just the way it is" powerlessness. Instead, it is the feeling that there will be unfavorable consequences of some kind if one speaks up. Seeking social support means explaining the marketplace problem to another person to obtain informational, emotional, or tangible support (Folkman et al. 1986). Although none of our respondents described tbis coping tactic, it is not difficult to imagine a consumer seeking help and reassurance from family and friends when faced with a marketplace problem. In summary, we believe tbat consumers wbo perceive they have low coping potential and do not feel the balance of power in the marketplace incident favors them are likely to engage in emotion-focused coping strategies. The specific tactics shown in the model and illustrated above are likely to be used to carry out emotion-focused coping. P6c: Consumer perceptions of weak coping potential during secondary appraisal are positively related to the use of emotion-focused coping strategies. P6d: Consumer perceptions of a negative balance of power during secondary appraisal are positively related to the use of emotion-focused coping strategies. Avoidance Coping While many authors have considered avoidance as a type of emotional coping (Folkman et al. 1986; Lazarus and DeLongis 1983; Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Lazarus and Launier 1978), others bave argued that it is a separate coping style. Endler and Parker (1990) presented empirical evidence showing avoidance coping as distinct from emotional coping. When engaging in avoidanee coping, consumers do not deceive themselves by repositioning tbe event in a positive light or telling themselves that they are to blame. Instead, they simply leave the situation. Avoidance coping strategies are consistent with much of the complaint bebavior researcb suggesting that many consumers do not complain; rather, they simply never return to the firm with whom they are dissatisfied (e.g.. Day and Landon 1977; Singb 1988; TARP 1979). When consumers choose an avoidance coping strategy, they typically feel that complaining is "not worth the effort" (e.g.. Day and Bodur 1978) or "would not achieve any resolution" (e.g.. Day and Ash 1979). In addition, avoidance coping may also be more common when a market is highly

competitive and dissatisfied buyers can easily switch (Hirschtnan 1970). In these instances, tbe balance of power in tbe transaction favors the consumer. In the following incident, Hilda attributes the blame for her marketplace problem externally and clearly experiences anger, Sbe engages in avoidance-focused coping in a market tbat is highly competitive and in wbich brand switching is extremely easy. I was looking all around getting prices and what not and one fellow showed me a new model car and it was wbat I was looking for. So, he showed me the car and took me into his office and so we were talking about 10 or 15 minutes and then he got a phone call. He said, "Oh, I'm so sorry, my daughter is sick and I've got to go to the hospital. I'll turn you over to so-and-so," I don't remember wbat his name was now. So I said, "Sorr;/, 1 feel so bad, you know, your daughter is sick." So he turned me over to soand-so, who got a sheet of paper out of a drawer and asked, "What's your name and what's your address?" I said, "Hey, wait a minute." I said, "I don't want to buy a car today. I'm just looking today. That's all I'm interested in." So anyway, we talked for a while and I got up to walk out and the other guy was sitting in his office. So, see, he just turned me over to this other guy and figured that he could convince me to buy the car. He was stronger or whatever. I should bave gone into the office and said something to him. I really should. Oh, I was mad! I just left. But I thought, "I'd never buy a car there, that's for sure!" (Hilda, 77-year-old retired purchasing manager) P6e: In highly competitive markets where brand switching is easy, consumers will be more likely to use avoidance coping strategy. Naturally, the three coping strategies discussed in this section can be used in combination (e.g., a dissatisfied consumer may use both self-blame and avoidance coping). In fact, research in the stress and coping literature suggests that individuals may choose multiple coping strategies (Endler and Parker 1990). MANAGERIAL AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS Managerial Implications The underlying managerial theme of this article has been the identification of factors that lead dissatisfied consumers to exit silently rather than voice their complaints. It is hoped that by specifying the phenomenon of "silent defection" appropriate steps can be identified and taken by organizations to minimize defection by encouraging complaint bebavior. As stated earlier, the problem is

Stephens. Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

185

rampant, with an estitnated 96 percent of dissatisfied customers not complaining to the offending firm (TARP 1979). Unfortunately for these organizations, unhappy customers often do voice their displeasure in the form of negative word of mouth to otber current and potential customers (Richins 1983; Singh 1988). The payoff for custotner retention is high. It has been estimated that by decreasing customer defections among dissatisfied customers by just 5 percent, a firm can achieve profit improvement of 25 percent to 85 percent (Reicbbeld and Sasser 1990), From the model presented, coping potential emerges as one important factor in the consumer's complaint decision. Firms that are able to increase a consumer's coping potential are in tbe best position to increase the number of individuals voicing their displeasure and thus bave tbe opportunity to remedy the problem and retain the customer. Altering the perceived balance of power between the individual and the firm appears to be a key issue in increasing a consumer's coping potential. Organizations seeking to shift more power to the consumer should attempt to reinforce this message in all of their external communications. In addition to advertising 100 percent satisfaction guarantees and other money-back offers, the firm can perhaps shift power perceptions by inviting consumers to contact them with feedback. To facilitate feedback, an organization's mailing address. Web site address, telephone number, and an invitation to get in touch can be included on all publicly viewed material, including promotional communications, packaging, stationery, business cards, and invoices. Catalog retailers such as Lands End and L. L. Bean have done a particularly admirable job of letting consumers know that feedback is welcome and desired. The company should also be proactive in seeking feedback. For example, it is not enough to leave comment cards on a restaurant table. A server or manager should tell diners that their opinions are valued and directly request that tbey complete the cards. Furthermore, managers should occasionally call or personally visit customers to ask them how happy they are with the product or service. It may also be valuable to be specific in requesting feedback. A manager asking, "How is everything?" may not elicit the same type of valuable feedback as asking the question, "What could we have done to make this a more pleasant experience for you?" The responses of the particular sample used for illustrating the propositions, older women, suggest that some consumers do not feel powerful enough to voice their dissatisfaction. As such, Andreason and Manning's (1990) hypothesis of vulnerability among certain groups of consumers is given credence. Clearly, in some situations, consumers are uncomfortable communicating directly with the firm and, therefore, cannot be counted on to voice a complaint when dissatisfied. This is unfortunate, as it appears that a large number of companies have established complaint-handling systems requiring some sort of customer-initiated, direct contact. Managers whose customer base consists of such "bashful" consumers (e.g., the older

persons, immigrants, etc.) may find it useful to pay special attention to developing special, customized avenues for feedback, which will enhance the customer's perception of tbeir power relative to tbe firm. These multiple channels of feedback might take the form of toll-free telephone numbers, consumer surveys witb managerial follow-up, and direct and in-person questioning of recent customers. It is important that organizational promises for satisfaction be easy and painless for tbe customer to obtain. Communication should play a roie in the shifting of power by articulating the exact steps necessary to enact these guarantees. Furthermore, the steps consumers must take to receive redress cannot be overly burdensome. That is, customers who feel they must prove or justify their dissatisfaction will feel that tbe balance of power rests witb the firm. Companies making complaint behavior simple will be more successful in shifting the balance of power. This line of reasoning is consistent with Hart's (1988) call for service guarantees to be easy to invoke and easy to collect. Once customer feedback bas been obtained, organizations should make every attempt to communicate with customers about the steps being taken to remedy their problem and the changes being made to enstjre it does not occur in the future. Following this line of thought, customers who take the time to complain should be rewarded in some way. While tbis might simply take the form of thanking customers for their feedback, it may be more effective to make the reward substantial (relative to the purchase). In making the expression of dissatisfaction more attractive to consumers, firms may be forced to accept a small increase in the percentage of fraudulent claims to encourage the vast majority of legitimate complaints to surface. However, is it not smarter to make decisions that facilitate exchanges with the vast majority of targeted consumers rather than taking actions designed to control for tbe small percentage that may take advantage of a firm's policies? Firms expressing appreciation to tbe consumer, in both word and action, will send the message that customer complaints are valued and taken seriously. Research Implications While the cognitive appraisal process has been empirically demonstrated in a variety of contexts, its application to tbe consumer complaint behavior process has been studied only minimally. Nyer (1997) demonstrated that important elements of cognitive appraisalnamely, goal relevance, goal congruence, and coping potentialare determinants of emotions such as anger and sadness. In turn, these emotions were shown by Nyer (1997) to be determinants of certain postconsumption behaviors, Although Nyer's (1997) findings are consistent with the relationships proposed in our framework, mucb more empirical work must be done to understand the process behind those relationships. Additional research is needed to understand how tbe specific elements of primary cognitive appraisal (i.e., goal relevance, goal incongruence, and ego involvement) inter-

186

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

act in the assessment of a situation. For example, in a complaining context, how relevant, incongruent, and ego involving must a dissatisfying marketplace experience be to result in a stressful appraisal? Might the degree of goal relevance, goal incongruence, and ego involvement vary witb personality and situational factors in predictable ways? Unfortunately, as Nyer (1997) indicates, the manipulation of these factors (e.g., high relevance/high incongruence) may be difficult to achieve in "lab-based" experimental research, given the ethical considerations of using human subjects. Perhaps these issues can be more fruitfully explored by studying this phenomenon in the field as it happens (i.e., collecting data from individuals as they are displeased with actual purchases and as they progress [or don't progress] through the redress-seeking process). Although more logistieally challenging and timeconsuming, a field study may provide better evidence on wbich to evaluate the cognitive appraisal process due to the realistic nature of the relevance, congruence, and egoinvolvement components. Furthermore, researchers would not have to attempt to artificially "create" high levels of emotional response (e.g., anger, sadness, and guilt), and problems associated with measuring consumer emotions retrospectively would be eliminated. Another area in need of further research is investigating the element of coping potential in secondary cognitive appraisal. Is it possible to identify conditions tbat reliably infiuence people's assessment of their ability to cope with a purchase problem? How important is coping potential relative to other aspects of appraisal? Might there be some interesting social policy issues surrounding the determinants of coping potential? Studies are needed that evaluate the relative importance of each element of the cognitive

appraisal process in determining subsequent stress appraisal, elicited emotion, and selected coping strategy. The construct of emotion needs further investigation due to the recognition of this construct as an important mediating variable between cognitive appraisal and consumer behaviors (Nyer 1997). Theoretical perspectives have not been developed for linking specific emotional reactions with one or more coping tactics. Although anecdotal evidence suggests, for example, that fear emotions are positively associated with emotion-focused strategies such as denial, no empirical data or theoretical explanation have shown this link. Future research should examine the direct and indirect manner in which emotion is tied to the coping strategies identified in this study. The three general coping strategies presented in the mode! and their associated tactics represent a blending of insights from the cognitive appraisal literature and our in-depth interview data. However, it is likely that the discussion of coping tactics presented here is not exhaustive. Additional research is needed to provide a full accounting of the coping tactics consumers engage in when dissatisfied in a purchase occasion. It would also be useful to understand how tbe various coping tactics infiuence other postconsumption behaviors such as repurchase intention, switching behaviors, and word-of-moutb activities. APPENDIX Methodoiogy
Because few empirical data have been collected on emotion and consumer complaint behavior, particularly noncomplaining (Dellande 1995), we used a qualitative methodology, in-depth interviews, Asampie of 17 women ages 60 and older was selected

TABLE A1 Description of Respondents

Name Age 60 62 Preretirement Occupation Teacher's aide Teacher Teacher Social worker Switchboard operator Teacher'.s aide Accountant Executive secretary Factory worker Factory worker Executive secretary Purchasing manager Factory worker Homemaker/secretary Homeraaker Homemaker Rancher Dertuigraphic De tails Married, high school graduate Married, college degree Married, college degree Divorced, master's degree Married, some college Married, some college Married, some college Widow, some college Divorced, some college Married, high school dropout Widow, some college Divorced, high school graduate Widow, high school dropout Widow, some college, blind Widow, some college Widow, high school dropout Widow, high school graduate

June SaUy Jane Lois

Donna Mary Belle Violet Phyllis Beatrice Lucette Dorothy Hilda Marjorie Virginia Louise Beulah Madeline

64 65
66 68 68 70 73 75 77 11 79 79 80 85 94

Stephens. Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR

187

on the basis of their believed likelihood of exhibiting the phenomenon of interest, emotion-focused noncomplaining. Sample Women were selected as a sample for this exploratory study because they were thought to exhibit the behavior of interest, silence, and emotion-focused coping more frequently than men. Many studies support the hypothesis that the sexes differ greatly in their willingness to speak up or assert themselves, which is typically a skill required in complaining. Tavris (1982), for example, argued that men are more comfortable expressing anger in public and are more willing to say or do something if they are dissatisfied. Many women, in contrast, are sensitive to social condemnation and can feel ashamed for behaving aggressively in public (Campbell 1993). When women do behave aggressively, they are more likely to feel guilt, anxiety, and fear than men, and these emotional feelings may inhibit further aggression (Geen ]990;LottandMaluso 1993). In the psychological coping literature, Endler and Parker (1990) found that although men and women were equally likely to engage in problem-focused coping behaviors, women were significantly more likely than men to use emotion-focused and avoidance coping strategies. Older women were selected in this study because they, more than younger women, might be prone to silence and emotionfocused coping when dissatisfied. For example, in a large-scale study of mentally healthy women ages 25 to 66. Thomas {1993) found that the oldest women (ages 55 and older) were less likely to express their anger than younger women. She noted that the youngest women in her study (ages 34 and younger) were socialized during a time when feminists were speaking out. providing these young women with role models unavailable to the oldest women. The work of Thomas (1993) implies, then, that the unwillingness of older women to express their dissatisfaction is an effect of a cohort instead of the aging process. Future generations of older women may not be reticent about complaining. The 17 retired women in the current study ranged from 60 to 94 years old. They varied somewhat in socioeconomic status, but the majority had attended college (seeTable Al), Although not a large sample, the goal of our research was not to generalize results to a larger population but rather to illustrate the use of the various coping strategies identified in the model. Furthermore, we hoped to identify themes for theoretical reflection and future research. Pseudonyms are used in the article to conceal the respondents' actual identities. Data Collection In-depth interviews were used because they allow the probing and follow-up that are useful when little is known about a phenomenon. The interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes and all were audiotape-recorded. The respondents were told the nature of the study and signed consent forms before the interview. All interviews were conducted in the respondent's home, with only the respondent and interviewer present. Typically, the substantive portion of the interview was then initiated by a phrase similar to: 'Tell me about a time when you were unhappy with a purchase." Follow-up questions used the respondent's own terminology and were designed not to lead or bias but to elicit more detail (Thompson, Locander. and Pollio 1989). For example, typical probe statements were the following: 'Tell me more about

that" and "Can you give me an example?" The question, "Why?" was not asked to avoid "requested" attributions (i.e.. those that might not have been made had the interviewer not asked) (Weiner 1986). Data Analysis All interview audiotapes were transcribed by a professional typist. The initial transcripts were then checked against the audiotape for accuracy, and all discrepancies were corrected. Because the data consisted of each respondent's own words, content analysis was used as the method of analysis (Kassarjian 1977). The unit of analysis was a "theme," which is defined as a unit of text that consists of a perceiver, a perceived agent of action, an action, and a target of the action (Weber 1985). In our interview transcripts, a theme was defined as the words and similar concepts used by the respondent to answer the question. 'Tell me about a time when you were unhappy with a purchase," and all its associated probes. In this study, the perceiver was the respondent herself, the perceived agent of action was generally the organization and/or its employee(s), the action consisted of the events surrounding the purchase occasion, and the target of the action was generally the respondent or someone with her. Thus, the task in data analysis was to identify instances of marketplace problems and the strategies used for coping with these problems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Michael D. Hutt and Scott R. Swanson for comments on a previous version of this article. They would also like to thank the anonymous JAMS reviewers and the editor for their detailed and insightful comments.

REFERENCES
Andreason, Alan R. 1984. "Consumer Satisfaction in Loose Monopolies: The Case of Medical Care." Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 2:122-135. . 1985. "Consumer Responses to Dissatisfaction in Loose Monopolies." yura(j//Con.sumrReif(jr(.'/( 12 (September): 135-141. and Jean Manning. 1990. 'The Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior of Vulnerable Consumers." Journal of Consumer Satisfaction. Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 3:12-20. Baum, A., A. R. Fleming, and J. E. Singer. 1983. "Coping With Victimization by Technological Disaster." Journal of Social Issues 39:117-138. Bearden. William, and Richard L. Oliver. 1985. "The Roie of Public and Private Complaining in Satisfaction With Problem Resolution." Journal of Consumer Affairs 19 (2): 222-240. Blodgett, Jeffrey G.. and Donald H. Granbois. 1992, 'Toward an Integrated Conceptual Model of Consumer Complaining Behavior," Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining fie/!av;(jr5:93-103. Bolfing, Claire P. 1989. "How Do Consumers Express Dissatisfaction and What Can Service Marketers Do About It?" Journal of Services Marketing 3 (Spring): 5-23. Brown, Steven P., and Richard F. Beltramini. 1989. "Consumer Complaining and Word of Mouth Activities: Field Evidence." In Advances

188

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

SUMMER 1998

in Consumer Research. Vol. 16. Ed. Thomas K. SniU. Ann Artjor, Ml: Association for Consumer Research, 9-16. Cadotte, Emest R., Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger L. Jenkins. 1987. "Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction." Journal of Marketing Research 24 (August): 305-314. Campbell, Anne. 1993. Men, Women and Aggression. New York: Basic Books. Day, Ralph L. 1984. "Modeling Choices Atnong Aitemative Responses to Dissatisfaction." In Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. il. Ed. Thomas C. Kinnear. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 496-499. and Stephen B. Ash. 1979. "Consumer Response to Dissatisfaction With Durable Products." In Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 6. Ed. Wllliain Wilkie. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 438-444. and Muzaffer Bodur. 1978. "Consumer Response to Dissatisfaction With Services and Intangibles." In Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 5. Ed. H. Keith Hunt. Aim Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 263-272. and E. Laird Landon. Jr. 1976. "Collecting Comprehensive Consumer Complaint Data by Survey Research." In Advances in Consumer Research. VoL 3. Ed. Beverlee B. Anderson. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 263-268. and . 1977. "Toward a Theory of ConsumerCompIaining Behavior" In Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. Eds, Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth. and Peter D. Bennett. New York: North Holland. 425-437. Dellande. Stephanie. 1995. "Consumer Response to Dissatisfaction: An Overview." Graduate School of Management Working Paper No. MK950i2. University of California, Irvine. DeLongis, Anita. James C. Coyne, Gayle Dakof, Susan Folkman, and Richard S. Lazarus. 1982. "Relationship of Daily Hassles, Uplifts, and Major Life Events and Health Status." Health Psychology 1 (2): 119-136. Dohrenwend. Baibara Snell. Larry Krasnoff, Alexander R. Askenasy. and Bruce P Dohnsnwend. 1978. "Exemplification of a Method for Scaling Life Events: The PERI Life Events Scale." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19 (June): 205-229. Eisenberg. Nancy, Richard A. Fabes, Mark Schailer, and Paul A, Miller. 1989. "Sympathy and Personal Distress: Development. Gender Differences, and Interrelations of Indexes," In Empathy and Related Emotional Processes. Ed. Nancy Eisenberg. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, i 07-126. Endler, Norman S. and James D. A. Parker. 1990. "Multidimensional AssessnKnt of Coping: A Critical Evaluation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (May): 844-854, and . 1993. "If It Changes, It Might Be Unst^le: Examining the Factor Structure of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire." Psych/ilogical Assessment 5 {ScpiembeTy. 361-368. Folkes, Valerie S. 1984. "Consumer Reaction to Product Failure: An AOiibuUonai Approach." Journal of Consumer Research 10 (March): 398-409. , Susan Koletsky, and John L. Graham. 1987. "A Field Study of Causal Inferences and Consumer Reaction: The View from the Airpon." Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 534-539. Folkman, Susan and Richard S. Lazarus. 1980. "An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21 (September): 219-239. and . 1985. "If It Changes. It Must Be a Process: Study of Emotion and Coping During Three Stages of a College Examination." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 (January): 150-170. and , 1991. "Coping and Emotion." In Stress and Coping: An Anthology. Eds. Alan Monat and Richard S. Lazarus. New York: Columbia University Press, 201-221.

. . Christine Dunkel-Schetter, Anita DeLongis, and Rand J. Gruen. 1986. "Dynamics of a Stressful Encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, Coping, and Encounter Outcomes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (May): 992-1003. Fomell. Claes and Birgir Wemerfelt. 1987. "Defensive Mariteting Strategy by Customer Complaint Management: A Theoretical Analysis." Journal of Marketing Re,search XXIV (November): 337-346. and Robert Westbrook. 1979. "An Exploratory Study of Assertiveness. Aggressiveness, and Consumer Complaining Behavior" In Advances in Con.sumer Research. Vol. 6. Ed. William Wilkie. Ann Arbor. MI: Association for Consumer Research. 105-110. Geen. Russell G. 1990. Human Aggression. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Gilly, Maiy C , and Betsy D. Gelb. 1982. "Post-Purchase Consumer Processes and the Complaining Consumer." Journal of Consumer Research 9 (December): 323-328, Godwin, Beth. Paul G, Patterson, and Lester W. Johnson. 1995. "Emotion. Coping and Complaining Propensity Following a Dissatisfactory Service Encounter." Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 8:155-163. Hart, Christopher W. L. 1988. "The Power of Unconditional Service Guarantees." Harvard Business Review 66 (July-August): 54-62. Hirschman. Albert O. 1970. Exit. Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Izard. Carroll E. 1977. Human Emotion. New Yoik: Plenum. . 1991. The Psychology of ErruHions. New York: Plenum. Jacoby. Jacob, and James J.Jaccard, 1981. "The Sources. Meaning, and Validity of Consumer Complaint Behavior: A Psychological Analysis." Journal of Retailing 57 (Fall): 4-24. Jordan, Judith V 1991. "Empathy and Self-Boundaries." In Women's Growth in Connection. Eds. Judilh V. Jordan. Alexandra G. Kaplan. Jean Baker Miller, Irene P Stiver, and Janet L. Surrey. New Yoiic: Guilford, 67-80. , Janet L, Sutrey, and Alexandra G. Kaplan. 1991. "Women and Empathy: Implications for Psychological Development and Psychotherapy." In Women's Growth in Connection. Eds. Judith V, Jordan, Alexandra G. Kaplan, Jean Baker Miller, Irene P. Stiver, and Janet L. Sumy. New York: Guilford, 27-50. Kassatjian, Harold H. 1977. "Content Analysis in Consumer Research." Journal of Consumer Re,search 4 i June): 8-18. Krishnan, S. and Valerie A. Valle, 1979. "Dissatisfaction Attributions and Consutner Complaint Behavior." inAdvancesin Consumer Research. \tol. 6. Ed. William Wilkie. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 445-449. Lazarus, Richard S. 1966. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill . 1991a. "Cognition and Motivation in Emotion." American Psychologist 46 {Aphl): 352-367. . 199ib. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. . 1993. "From Psychological Stress to the Emotions: A History of Changing Outlooks." Annual Review of Psychology 44:1 -21. and Anita DeLongis. 1983, "Psychological Stress and Coping in Aging." American Psychologist 38 (March): 245-254. and Susan Folkman. 1984. i'tre.<!S, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. , Allen D. Kanner. and Susan Folkman, 1980. "Emotions: A Cognitive Phenomenological Analysis." In Emotion: Theory. Research and Experience. Vol. 1. Eds. Rob:rt Plutchick and Henry Kellerman. New York: Academic Press. 189-217. and Raymond Launier 1978. "Stress-Related Transactions Between Person and Environment." In Perspectives in Interactional Psychology. Eds. L. A. Pervin aiid M. Lewis. New York: Plenum, 287-327.

Stephens, Gwinner / CONSUMER COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR 189

Lott. Bemice and Diane Maluso. 1993, "The Social Learning of Gender." In The Psychology of Gender. Eds. Anne E. Beall and Robert J. Stemberg. New York: Guilford. 99-126, McCrae. Robert R. 1982, "Age Differences in the Use of Coping Mechanisms." Journal of Gerontology 37:454-460, Moyer. Mel S, 1984, "Characteristics of Consumer Complainants: Implications for Marketing and Public Policy," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 3:67-84, Nyer, Prashanth U, 1997, "A Study of the Relationships Between Cognitive Appraisals and Consumption Emotions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (Fall): 296-304. Oliver, Richard, 1980. "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Conseqtiences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research XVII (November): 460-469, . 1993. "Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response." Journal of Consumer Research 20 (December): 418430, Omdahl, Becky Lynn, 1995. Cognitive Appraisal. Emotion and Empathy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ertbaum. Plutchik, Roben. 1980. Emi)tion. a Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New Yorii: Harper & Row. Reichheld, Frederick F and W. Earl Sasser, Jr. 1990. "Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services." Harvard Business Review 68 (SeptemberOctober): 105-111. Richins, Marsha L. 1983. "Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study." Journal of Marketing 47 (Winter): 68-78. , 1987, "AMultivariate Analysisof ResponsestoDissatisfaction," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15 (Fall): 24-31, Rogers, John C, and Terrell G, Williams. 1990, "Consumer Personal Values as Antecedents to Dyadic and Third Party Public Consumer Complaining Behavior: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior 3:11-^1. Singh, Jagdip. 1988. "Consutner Complaint Intentions and Behavior: Definitional and Taxonomicai Issues." Journal ofMarketing 52 (January): 93-107. . 1990. "A TVpology of Consumer Dissatisfaction Response Styles." Journal of Retailing 66 (Spring): 57-99. Smith, Craig A, and Phoebe C, Ellsworth, 1985. "Patterns of Cognitive Appraisal in Emotion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(4): 813-818. Sorensen, Robert C, and William M, Strahle, 1990, "An Analysis of the Social Aspects of Complaint Reporting: A Survey of VCR Owners," Journal of Satisfaction. Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior 3:82-91, Spreng. Richard A,. Scott B. MacKenzie, and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1996, "A Reexamination of the Determinants of Consunr Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing 60 (July): 15-32.

Strutton, David and James R. Lumpkin, 1994, "Problem- and EmotionFocused Coping Dimensions and Sales Presentation Effectiveness." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (Winter): 28-37. Tavris, Carol, 1982. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. New Yotic: Simon & Schuster, Technical Assistance Research Program (TARP), 1979. Consumer Complaint Handling in America: A Final Report. Washington, DC: White House Office of Consumer Affairs. Thomas, Sandra P 1993. "Anger and Its Manifestations," In Women and Anger. Ed, Sandra P. Thomas. New York: Springer, 40-67, Thompson. Craig J,, William B. Locander, and Howard R, Pollio, 1989, "Putting Consumer Experience Back Into Consumer Research: The Philosophy and Method of Existential-Phenomenology," Journal of Consumer Research 16 (September): 133-146, Warland, Rex H,, Robert O, Herrmann, and Jane Willits, 1975. "Dissatisfied Consumers: Who Gets Upset and Who Takes Action," Journal of Consumer Affairs 9 (Winter): 148-163. Weber, Robert Philip. 1985. Basic Content Analysis. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage, Weiner. Bernard, 1986, An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer Verlag. Westbrook, Robert A, 1987, "Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research XXIV (August): 258-270. 21altman, Gerald, Rajendra K. Srivastava. and Rohit Deshphande. 1978, "Perceptions of Unfair Marketing Practices," In Advances in Consumer Research. Vol, 5. Ed. H. Keith Hunt, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 263-268.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Nancy Stephens is an associate professor of marketing at Arizona State University. She has published a variety of studies on consumer behavior, services marketing, and marketing communications issues in such publications as Ihe Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, and the Journal of Services Marketing, as well as many conference proceedings. Kevin P. Gwinner is an assistant professor of marketing in the School of Business at East Carolina University. North Carolina. His research interests include performance issues of customercontact service employees, consutner complaint behaviors, and corporate sponsorship issues. His research has been published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the International Journal of Service Industry Management, International Marketing Review, and the Journal of Marketing Education.