Differentiating the effects of gratitude and transactional satisfaction on
post-complaint consumer behavior:
the moderating role of pre-existing brand attitude
Françoise Simon*
Maître de conférences
HuManiS, EM Strasbourg
* 61, Avenue de la Forêt Noire 67085 Strasbourg Cedex, email : [email protected],
Différenciation des effets médiateurs de la gratitude et la satisfaction transactionnelle
sur les réponses du client réclamant : le rôle modérateur de l’attitude vis-à-vis de la
marque
Résumé :
La recherche en marketing a montré que gratitude et satisfaction transactionnelle médiatisent
l'influence des investissements de la firme lors d’une réclamation sur les intentions de réachat.
Pour comprendre le rôle de ces médiateurs, nous proposons et testons un modèle dans lequel
l'attitude préexistante vis-à-vis de la marque modère leurs effets sur la réponse du
consommateur réclamant. Nos résultats mettent en évidence le rôle modérateur négatif de
l'attitude préexistante sur la relation entre la satisfaction et réponses du consommateur. A
l’inverse, les évaluations antérieures de la marque n'affectent pas le processus psychologique
par lequel la gratitude se transforme en réciprocité.
Mots-clés : réclamation, gratitude, satisfaction, amplification, attitude préexistante
Differentiating the effects of gratitude and transactional satisfaction on post-complaint
consumer behavior: the moderating role of pre-existing brand attitude
Abstract:
Consumer research has shown that both gratitude and transactional satisfaction mediate the
influence of complaint investments on repurchase intent. To better understand the role of
these mediators, we propose and test a model in which pre-existing brand attitude moderates
the effects of gratitude and transactional satisfaction on post-complaint performance out
comes. Our findings provide support for the negative moderating role of pre-existing brand
attitude on the relationship between transactional satisfaction and performance outcomes.
Conversely, prior brand evaluations do not affect the psychological process by which feelings
of gratitude are transformed into post-complaint reciprocal behaviors.
Keywords: service recovery, gratitude, satisfaction, amplification, pre-existing brand attitude.
Differentiating the effects of gratitude and transactional satisfaction on post-complaint
consumer behavior: the moderating role of pre-existing brand attitude
Introduction
The post-complaint behavior of customers has received considerable attention in the
marketing literature. Given that failure may drive customer-switching intentions,
understanding customers’ perceptions of complaint handling is a relevant issue because the
successful handling of complaints may lead to customer retention, which, in turn, will affect
company profitability (e.g., McCollough et al. 2000). Companies’ possible responses to
complaints encompass different types of actions that are aimed at maintaining customer
relationships. Research shows that these relationship investments have a direct impact on
satisfaction with complaint handling (SATCOM), and early research established that
SATCOM fosters positive performance outcomes; i.e., SATCOM increases repurchase
intentions and positive word of mouth (WOM). The managerial relevance of complaint
handling is reflected by a vast stream of academic research on the mediating role of
transactional satisfaction (e.g., Orsingher et al. 2010).
Building on gratitude-based reciprocation theory (Morales, 2005; Palmatier et al., 2009),
recent research has developed a relational complementary approach to complaint handling by
showing that gratitude also mediates the influence of complaint relationship investments on
repurchase intent (Simon, 2013). Gratitude, which is defined as the short-term emotional
appreciation of benefits received, is accompanied by a desire to reciprocate, which results in
an enhanced effectiveness of relationship investments. Because complaining customers are
likely to develop a particular awareness of the efforts exerted by customer service in their
favour, they are good candidates for becoming grateful and engaging in reciprocal behaviors.
1
However, little is known about the psychological mechanisms underlying the mediating
effects of both gratitude and SATCOM on post-complaint performance outcomes. The present
study addresses this void in marketing literature by examining the moderating role of preexisting brand attitude. Drawing on the amplification school of thought, which argues that
prior positive brand evaluations can amplify customers’ unfavorable responses to brand
failures, this study proposes a model that differentiates the mediating roles of SATCOM and
gratitude for the influence of complaint relationship investments on customer behavior. Based
on the results of a survey that examined naturally occurring responses among customers who
recently experienced a failure, this model was estimated with structural equation modelling.
This study extends the existing literature on recovery by providing sound evidence of the
differentiated mediating effects of both gratitude and SATCOM on post-complaint
performance outcomes. The study also offers new insights into how companies can improve
the efficiency of service recovery.
1. Development of the hypotheses
1.1. Outcomes of perceived relationship investments
In the marketing literature, a perceived relationship investment is defined as a customer’s
perception of the extent to which a brand devotes resources and efforts to maintaining and
enhancing its relationship with regular customers (De Wulf et al. 2001, p. 35). In the context
of service recovery, complaint relationship investments refer to any irrecoverable resources in
which companies invest to maintain relationships, including time, attention, facilitation,
psychological compensation as apology or additional costs of the failure that exceed the
purchase price (e.g., Davidow 2003; Gelbrich and Roschk 2011). Due to their situational
involvement and their expectations of fairness, complaining customers are assumed to be
highly sensitive to managerial complaint relationship investments. Therefore, the recognition
2
of a company‘s effort during the complaint handling process may lead the customer to
attribute good motives to that company or its representative. Because gratitude is the affective
response triggered by the perception that one is the beneficiary of another source’s
intentionally provided benefits (e.g., McCullough et al. 2001; Emmons 2004), perceived
complaint relationship investment may lead a customer to have subsequent feelings of
gratitude toward the company.
The occurrence of SATCOM can be explained by the perceived performance in complaint
handling. Several studies have shown the positive influence of perceived performance on
satisfaction in a recovery context (e.g., Hess et al. 2003). A number of perceived complaint
relationship investments significantly reflect perceived performance and are likely to
contribute to SATCOM as evidenced by previous empirical research (e.g., Tax et al. 1998;
Gelbrich and Roschk 2011).
H1: The perceived complaint relationship investment has a positive influence on customer
gratitude toward the company.
H2: The perceived complaint relationship investment has a positive influence on SATCOM.
1.2. Outcomes of gratitude
Empirical research in social psychology consistently supports the propositions that
intentionally provided benefits induce gratitude and that gratitude increases compliance (e.g.,
Goei and Boster 2005; McCullough et al. 2001). Prior studies investigating the outcomes of
gratitude in consumer contexts have shown that consumers that are grateful toward a company
tend to engage in reciprocal behaviours that reflect commitment patterns, which include
repurchasing that company’s products and spreading positive WOM (e.g., Palmatier et al.
2009; Soscia 2007; Simon, 2013). Therefore, post-complaint customers who experience
3
feelings of gratitude are expected to act on their desires to repay the company with such
reciprocal behaviours.
H3a: Gratitude positively influences repurchase intent.
H3b: Gratitude positively influences positive WOM intent.
1.3. Outcomes of SATCOM
When applied to post-complaint behaviour, research on satisfaction has found that customers
who are satisfied with complaint handling engage in positive WOM and tend to repurchase
(e.g., Orsingher et al. 2010). Additionally, positive WOM intent has been shown to be an
antecedent of repurchase intent, which suggests that individuals tend to behave in accordance
with their cognitions (e.g., Szymanski and Henard 2001). Therefore, we posit the following
hypotheses as a replication of previous research:
H4a: SATCOM positively influences repurchase intent.
H4b: SATCOM positively influences positive WOM intent.
H4c: Positive word of mouth intent positively influences repurchase intent.
1.4. Moderating effects of pre-existing brand attitude.
Pre-existing brand attitude represents a comprehensive integration of cognitive and affective
evaluations pertaining to the brand object (Petty et al., 1997), thus pre-existing brand attitude
encompasses an array of perception measures including past experience and relationship
quality. Initial service research posits that positive brand evaluations lead customers to
respond more favorably to most recovery attempts (e.g., Hess et al. 2003; Tax et al. 1998).
However, recent work challenges the buffering view of positive associations with the brand
object. Failures have been reported to be more damaging to strong relationships involving
favored brands, and brand commitment shows obvious signs of decline despite subsequent
4
recovery attempts (Aaker et al. 2004). In such cases, consumers do not discount the failure
transgression that is inconsistent with their brand expectations and are thus unlikely to benefit
from complaint handling to the same extent as consumers whose brand evaluations were less
favorable. Accordingly, commitment to a high equity brand compared to one of low equity is
more adversely affected by a performance lapse and the subsequent recovery interaction
(Roehm and Brady 2007). Thus, positive pre-existing brand evaluations appear to alter the
favorable consequences of SATCOM because of the cognitive elaboration of inconsistencies
between past brand evaluations and the occurrence of brand transgressions. Consistent with
the amplification school of thought regarding favorable brand associations (e.g., Aaker et al.
2004), we postulate that pre-existing brand attitudes negatively moderate the relationship
between SATCOM and commitment patterns.
H5: The positive relationship between SATCOM and repurchase intent and SATCOM and
positive WOM intent, respectively, will be lower for individuals with high pre-existing brand
attitudes compared to those with low pre-existing brand attitudes.
Assuming that the influences of gratitude and SATCOM on performance outcomes rely on
different psychological mechanisms, we expect that pre-existing brand attitude will not alter
the relationship between gratitude and targeted outcomes. According to social psychology,
gratitude-based reciprocal behaviors arise from a sense of obligation to repay that goes beyond
pro-social norms and is intrinsically emotionally driven (Emmons 2004; Watkins et al. 2006).
Additionally, these behaviors do not require previous relationships and primary expectations
regarding their target and can easily extend to strangers (Bartlett and de Steno 2006). For
example, even newly developed social connectedness can make a grateful consumer
responsive to the needs of a salesperson (Dahl et al. 2005). From this observation, it is
possible to conjecture that gratitude generates reciprocal behaviors without heavily relying on
5
previous evaluations of the target. As a potential consequence, pre-existing brand attitude is
unlikely to alter the process by which gratitude-based reciprocal behaviors are spontaneously
triggered by the perception of the efforts of customer service.
2. Method
2.1. Data collection and sample
A survey approach was employed to examine naturally occurring responses among customers
who had recently experienced a service or product failure and an associated complaint
handling. Data were collected from a sample of undergraduate business students enrolled in a
research methods course. The nature of the research model and the detailed research topic
were neither mentioned nor suggested. We collected data for our study in two steps. In the
first step, students were asked to report any dissatisfaction they had experienced as consumers
during an 8-week period. In the second step, students were asked to submit complaints against
companies that had dissatisfied them. The students completed a series of scales designed to
assess their perceptions of the complaint handling immediately after they executed their
interaction with the company’s customer service department. The companies were contacted
via either phone or online channels. If no response was received after three separate calls over
a two-minute period or after a period of 15 days for phone and online channels, respectively,
the complaint was considered ‘unanswered’.
In total, 144 students including 62 males (43%) and 82 females (57%) completed the survey.
The students were between 21 and 27 years old. The students submitted 440 complaints, and
360 complaints were answered. Regarding the nature of the failures, the respondents
mentioned the following types of dissatisfactions: employee difficulty in meeting the specific
needs of, and attending to, the consumers (33%), a lack of product quality (30%), delays or
6
service breakdowns (19%), product information and website design inadequacies (11%), and
other causes (7%). Our research design permitted a large variety of sector activities to be
represented, and these activities included the following: convenience goods (18%),
telephone/Internet (16%), financial services (14%), retail (12%), transportation (12%),
automotive (9%), and others (19%). On average, 2.5 complaints per respondent were
answered, and the complaints varied significantly in terms of the investigated company, type
of failure and category of product. The independence of the data across respondents was
confirmed with ANOVA tests.
2.2. Measures
Participants responded to a series of multi-item nine-point Likert measures that ranged from
“completely disagree” (1) to “completely agree” (9) to capture the investigated constructs.
Gratitude was measured with the scale of Goei and Boster (2005), which uses items such as “I
feel grateful to this company”. To measure perceived relationship investments regarding the
complaint encounters, we used the scale of Palmatier et al. (2009) as extended to service
customer targets. All other scales have been used in prior studies that report on their
reliabilities and validities; i.e., SATCOM (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002), repurchase intent
(Maxham and Netemeyer 2002), positive WOM intent (Chea and Luo 2008) and brand
attitude (Thomson et al. 2005).
3. Results
3.1. Measurement model
We evaluated the psychometric properties of the constructs by conducting confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). The fit indexes indicated that the measurement model produced an adequate
fit to the data with a χ2 (155) = 326.72 (p<.001), comparative fit index (CFI) = .98,
7
incremental fit index (IFI) = .98, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .98 and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) = .056. All factor loadings were also significant (p<.001), which
supports the convergent validity. Cronbach’s alphas were .90 or above and thus demonstrated
good reliability. Additionally, we confirmed the discriminant validity because the average
variance extracted exceeded the square of correlations between constructs. We list the
descriptive statistics and correlations in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations
Constructs
Mean
SD
AVE
1
2
3
4
5
1. Perceived complaint relationship investment
5.36
2.07
.89
0.96
2. Gratitude
3.63
2.16
.92
.70
.97
3. Satisfaction with
complaint handling
5.56
2.27
.95
.87
.65
.96
4. Repurchase intent
4.92
1.92
.87
.52
.57
.45
.95
5. Positive word of
mouth intent
2.69
1.76
.90
.60
.34
.59
.41
.97
6. Pre-existing brand
attitude
5.62
1.54
.83
.23
.33
.16
.55
.10 ns
6
.95
Notes: Correlations are reported below the diagonal; Cronbach‘s alphas are reported on the diagonal.
ns: correlation not significant; p<.001 for all other correlations. AVE = average variance extracted.
3.2. Structural model
The hypothesised model was estimated to assess path and explained variance estimates. This
model yielded a good fit with χ2 (97) = 233.76 (p<.001), CFI = .98, IFI = .98, TLI = .98 and
RMSEA = .063. The hypotheses were supported at p<.01 with the exception of hypotheses
H3b and H4a, which concern the direct paths between gratitude and WOM intent and
SATCOM and repurchase intent, respectively. These paths were not significant at p<.05.
Taken together, these results show that the perceptions of complaint relationship investments
were associated with elaboration of both gratitude and SATCOM on the part of the customers.
In turn, gratitude led to repurchase intent, whereas satisfaction triggered positive WOM intent.
8
As WOM intent significantly influenced repurchase intent, we content that WOM intent fully
mediated the effects of SATCOM on repurchase intent because the path between SATCOM
and repurchase intent was not significant. Overall, the model explained 76% of the variance in
SATCOM, 51% in gratitude, 37% in purchase intent, and 35% in WOM intent. In sum, our
hypothesised model was mostly supported and exhibited significant power in explaining the
variance in both final variables.
Although we did not find any theoretical support for the hypothesis of a causal relationship
between SATCOM and gratitude, these two variables may be statistically correlated. We
tested an alternative model in which we included a direct path between SATCOM and
gratitude to examine the hypothesis that a causal link exists between these variables. This path
was not found to be significant (.16, p>.05), which confirms the relevance of the hypothesised
model.
Given that the measures of both the independent and dependent variables came from the same
source, the strength of the observed relationships between the constructs in our model may
have been overstated due to common variance. We controlled for the portion of the variance
in the indicators that was attributable to obtaining the measures from the same source by reestimating the structural model. The re-estimation included a single-source first order factor
that was added to the indicators of all of the latent variables in the model (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). To achieve model convergence (e.g., Rindfleisch et al. 2008), we specified all loadings
of the method factor as the same size, which reflects the assumption that CMV affected all
items equally. We found that the estimates of our structural model remained unchanged after
we introduced the method factor. This result suggests that method variance did not materially
affect our conclusions.
3.3. Moderation analysis
9
We tested the moderating effects of pre-existing brand attitude with hierarchical moderated
regression analyses (Cohen et al. 2003). All scales were averaged to form a composite, and the
constructs were mean-centred to avoid any potential threat of multicollinearity when
calculating the interaction terms. Multicollinearity was not a problem because the variance
inflation factor (VIF) scores were well within the cut-off of 10. The Durbin-Watson check for
independence of error terms was not significant. We also performed the Levene test for
homoscedasticity for the dependent variable’s uniform variance across the independent
variable, and this test was not significant (p>.10). The results of our regression analyses are
reported in Table 2.
Table 2: Hierarchical moderating regressions results
Dependent variables
Word of mouth intent
Repurchase intent
Model 1
tB
value
Main effects
Gratitude (G)
SATCOM (S)
Positive WOM (W)
.46**
0.02
.26**
8.28
0.28
5.06
Model 2
tB
value
.45**
0.02
.26**
8.16
0.25
5.02
Model 1
tB
value
-0.05
.60**
-0.86
10.5
Two-way interactions with pre-existing brand attitude (PEBA)
PEBA x S
-.12* -2.04
PEBA x G
-0.03 -0.48
PEBA x W
-0.07 -1.35
Model F
Total R
2
Adjusted R2
2
R change
Model 2
tB
value
-0
.58**
-0.63
10.16
-.14**
0.09
-2.68
1.71
70.14*
*
0.37
36.74*
*
0.38
85.39*
*
0.32
45.12*
*
0.34
0.37
0.37
0.32
0.33
0.013
0.01
Notes: Standardized regression coefficients are reported. * p< .05, **p<.01
For each dependent variable, Model 1 concerns the hypothesised main effect variables, and
Model 2 includes the main effects and the hypothesised two-way interaction terms (see Table
10
2). The regression analyses of Model 1 confirmed the results from the structural models.
Regarding repurchase intent, adding the three interaction variables (i.e., pre-existing brand
attitude x gratitude, pre-existing brand attitude x SATCOM, pre-existing brand attitude x
WOM intent) to Model 2 increased the R2 value by .13 (∆F=36.74, p<.01). The interaction
term between pre-existing brand attitude and SATCOM was significantly negatively related to
repurchase intent. This finding suggests that when pre-existing brand attitude was high, the
positive effects of SATCOM on repurchase intent were lower. In contrast, no statistically
significant interaction was found between pre-existing brand attitude and gratitude. Regarding
WOM intent, the regression analysis revealed a similar pattern of interaction effects, which
supports H5. When the interaction terms (i.e., pre-existing brand attitude x gratitude and preexisting brand attitude x SATCOM) were entered into model, the R2 value increased by .14
(∆F=45.12, p<0.01). The pre-existing brand attitude x SATCOM interaction term was
significant and negatively related to positive WOM intent. In contrast, the pre-existing brand
attitude x gratitude term was not significant; the attitudinal variable did not moderate the
relationship between gratitude and WOM intent.
To interpret the nature of the significant interactions, we plotted the predicted outcome values
for different levels of the interacting variables (Cohen et al. 2003). We fixed high, medium,
and low values as one standard deviation above the mean, equal to the mean, and one standard
deviation below the mean, respectively. The regression lines showing the significant
interaction between pre-existing brand attitude and SATCOM on each outcome are depicted
in Fig. 1. Regardless of the level of pre-existing brand attitude, SATCOM was positively
related to each outcome. For low levels of SATCOM, repurchase intent was negatively related
to pre-existing brand attitude, which suggests that the amplifying effect of previous brand
evaluations operates fully under low satisfaction conditions. Regarding the middle and high
11
levels of SATCOM, the highest repurchase intent values were achieved when pre-existing
brand attitude was at a medium rather than a high level, and its low level led to the lowest
values of repurchase intent. Thus, the amplification phenomenon was attenuated under high
satisfaction condition for repurchasing. In contrast, the amplification phenomenon was fully
effective under this condition when WOM was considered. Regarding the low and middle
levels of SATCOM, pre-existing brand attitude played only a minor role in the elaboration of
WOM intent. Overall, the regression plots revealed that the amplification effect of prior brand
attitude was particularly potent under conditions of low satisfaction when repurchasing was
examined and under conditions of high satisfaction when positive word of mouth was
examined.
4. Conclusion
This study examined the mediating roles of gratitude and SATCOM in conveying the
influence of perceived complaint relationship investments on performance outcomes, thus
extending the earlier work of Simon (2013). Gratitude was found to mediate the influence of
perceived complaint relationship investment on repurchase intent and had no influence on
WOM intent. Consistent with previous research on SATCOM, this study also shows that
positive WOM intent mediated the influence of transactional satisfaction on repurchase intent.
Overall, our study indicates that grateful post-complaint customers are willing to repurchase,
and those who are satisfied with the complaint handling are inclined to recommend the failing
firm to others.
12
Figure 1: Interaction between SATCOM and pre-existing brand attitude
Additionally, this research suggests the existence of substantial differences in the
psychological mechanisms of each mediator. Consistent with the amplification school of
thought, our findings provide support for the negative moderating role of pre-existing brand
13
attitude on the relationship between SATCOM and performance outcomes. To the best of the
authors' knowledge, this is the first report to examine a pre-existing brand attitude-based
approach to repurchase and WOM responses in a recovery context. This form of the lovebecomes-avoidance effect represents another piece of evidence that shows that strong
relationships can “backfire” on firms after a poor recovery (Aaker et al., 2004). Thus, our
findings indicate that pre-existing brand attitude may be useful in a number of recovery
studies involving satisfaction-based models. Conversely, prior brand evaluations do not affect
the psychological process by which feelings of gratitude are transformed into post-complaint
reciprocal behaviors, which suggests that the gratitudinal route to reciprocity is emotionally
driven independently of considerations about the inconsistencies between previous brand
evaluations and current brand failures.
In highlighting the role of post-complaint gratitude in inducing repurchasing intent, our
findings have important implications for companies. Most notably, our findings suggest that
service customer managers should encourage and train their employees to develop
discretionary behaviors in servicing customers that extend beyond formal role requirements
because gratitude depends on the perception of singular efforts exerted by the concerned
company. Service customer managers should also ensure that they are able to control for
customer gratitude much as they do for SATCOM; e.g., by issuing surveys immediately after
complaint handlings.
Moreover, to prevent “love becomes avoidance” situations, firms should also develop
recovery procedures that are specifically designed to satisfy the needs of high brand attitude
customers. Firms should make special efforts to identify these customers, and insure that they
are provided with relationship investments that are likely to generate feelings of gratitude.
Whereas transactional satisfaction fails to repair their grievances, discretionary inputs can
effectively compensate the lesser efficiency of role-based complaint investments.
14
Although this study expands our knowledge of complaint handling efficiency, the use of a
student sample is a limitation because the students may have had a more limited scope of
consumption experiences than other customer segments. Another limitation is that
respondents were asked to complain. Even if their complaints arose from actually experienced
failures, it is possible that their emotional states were weaker than those of spontaneous
consumers. Additionally, this study focused on a single interaction with customer service
representatives. Therefore, future research might examine the persistence and correlates of
post-complaint gratitude over time. Another promising avenue for research would be to
investigate whether different types of relationship recovery investments are equally able to
elicit gratitude in complaint handling. In that respect, researchers should consider
interactional, procedural and distributive recovery investments and assess their different
contributions to both gratitudinal and transactional routes to loyalty. Possible moderators of
the relationship between recovery investment and customer gratitude should also be
considered; failure severity and the locus of responsibility constitute potential factors that may
reduce relationship strengths.
References
Aaker, J., S. Fournier, & A. Brasel (2004), When Good Brands Do Bad, Journal of Consumer
Research, 31, 1–16.
Bartlett, M. & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs
you. Psychological Science, 17, 319-325.
Chea, S. & Luo, M.. Post-Adoption Behaviors of E-Service Customers: The Interplay of
Cognition and Emotion. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12, 3, 29-56
Cohen,J., Cohen,P.,West, S.., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). NJ: Erlbaum.
15
Dahl, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. (2005), Three Rs of Interpersonal Consumer Guilt:
Relationship, Reciprocity, Reparation, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 307-315.
Davidow, M. (2003), Organizational Responses to Customer Complaints: What Works and
What Doesn’t, Journal of Service Research, 5, 225-250.
DeWulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. & Iacobucci, D. (2001), Investments in Consumer
Relationships: A Cross- Country and Cross-Industry Exploration, Journal of Marketing, 65,
33–50.
Emmons, R. (2004), The Psychology of Gratitude: An Introduction, The Psychology of
Gratitude, New York: Oxford University Press, 3–16.
Fredrickson, B. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. The
psychology of gratitude, New York: Oxford University Press, 145-166.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.
Gelbrich, K. & Roschk, H. (2011), A Meta-Analysis of Organizational Complaint Handling
and Customer Responses, Journal of Service Research, 14 (1), 24-43.
Goei, R. & Boster, F. (2005), The Roles of Obligation and Gratitude in Explaining the Effect
of Favors on Compliance, Communication Monographs, 72, 284–300.
Hess, R., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. (2003). Service failure and recovery: The impact of
relationship factors on customer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
31, 127–145.
Maxham, J. III, & Netemeyer, R. (2002). Modelling customers perceptions of complaint
handling over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent. Journal of
Retailing, 78(4), 239–252.
McCollough, M, Berry L , & Yadav, M. (2000), An Empirical Investigation of Customer
Satisfaction after Service Failure and Recovery, Journal of Service Research, 3, 121-137.
16
McCullough, M. , R. Emmons, S. Kilpatrick, & D. Larson (2001), Is Gratitude a Moral
Affect?, Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–66.
Morales, A. (2005), Giving Firms an ‘E’ for Effort: Consumer Responses to High-Effort
Firms, Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 806–812.
Orsingher, C., Valentini, S, de Angelis, M. (2010), A meta-analysis of SATCOM in services,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 2, 169-186.
Palmatier, R.; Jarvis, C .; Bechkoff, J. ; Kardes, F. (2009), The Role of Customer Gratitude in
Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 73, 5, p1-18
Petty, R, Wegener, D., Fabrigar, L. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48, 609–647.
Podsakoff, P., S. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and N. Podsakoff (2003), Common Method
Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended
Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903.
Rindfleisch, A., A. J. Malter, S. Ganesan, & C. Moorman (2008), Cross- Sectional Versus
Longitudinal Survey Research: Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines, Journal of Marketing
Research, 45, 261–79.
Roehm, M. & M. Brady (2007), Consumer Responses to Performance Failures by HighEquity Brands, Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 537–45.
Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, delight, or guilt: The role of consumers’ emotions in predicting
postconsumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 871–894.
Simon, F. (2013), The influence of empathy in complaint handling: evidence of gratitudinal
and transactional routes to loyalty, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 6, 599–
608
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 16–35.
17
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service
complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62, 60–
76
Thomson, M., D. J. MacInnis, & C. W.Park (2005), The Ties That Bind: Measuring the
Strength of Consumers’Attachments to Brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77–
91.
Watkins, P.C., Scheer, J., Ovnicek, M.. & Kolts, R. (2006). The debt of gratitude:
Dissociating gratitude and indebtedness. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 217-241.
18