Exploring the perceived competence of airport ground staff in dealing with unruly passenger behaviors

Exploring the perceived competence of airport ground staff in dealing

with unruly passenger behaviors

Yang Cheng-Hua

_{, Chang Hsin-Li}

a_{Department of Airline and Transport Service Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, No.1, Sung-Ho Road, Hsiao-Kang District, Kaohsiung, Taiwan} b_{Department of Transportation Technology and Management, National Chiao Tung University, No. 1001, Ta-Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan}

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 15 October 2010 Accepted 4 July 2011

Keywords:

Airport passenger service Ground staff

Unruly passenger behaviors Latent trait

Rasch models

a b s t r a c t

Unruly Passenger Behaviors (UPBs) are a challenge for service provision enterprises, notably the airline industry. To explore ground staff competence and difficulties in dealing with UPBs, a questionnaire was established in consultation with managers of three multinational airlines, and was duly completed by airline ground staff (n¼ 494). Response analysis using Rasch models identified the most challenging UPBs and assessed staff competence in handling UPBs. Some UPBs were commonly challenging for the staff of all airlines, whereas some were challenging only for the staff of specific airlines. Inter-airline differences emerged in regard to difficulty and staff competence in managing specific UPBs; this could reflect differences in company policy, training programs, staff support, and authorizations provided. These results suggest procedures by which airlines could improve UPB handling, including the estab-lishment of appropriate service-staff authorizations, passenger education, complaint mechanisms, unruly passenger databases, information feedback loops, and staff training courses on procedures for dealing with different UPBs.

Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The first rule of effective customer-orientated management

places customers at the heart of an organization_{’s productemarket}

definition (Nwankwo, 1995). Contemporary research has furnished

evidence that customer satisfaction plays a crucial role in

main-taining long-term customerebusiness relationships (Wu, 2007;

Slevitch & Oh, 2010). Thus, marketing theorists and practitioners

have generally promoted a service policy of‘the customer is always

right’ and devoted considerable attention to the service encounter

itself as occupying a central place in service marketing, and how this impacts upon service differentiation, quality control, delivery

systems, and customer satisfaction (Brady & Cronin, 2001).

However, as a result of increased popular awareness and ready access to information, some customers actively pursue personal

rights and sometimes ignore the basic profit-making position of

businesses. These clients can respond to the customer-oriented initiatives of the business in unanticipated and dysfunctional ways that lead to failed service encounters between the parties. In

this regard, marketing theorists have begun to explore and describe

the activities and motivations of such‘deviant’ or ‘dysfunctional’

customer behaviors (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994; Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Harris & Reynolds, 2004; Reynolds & Harris, 2009).

From a practical point of view, air transport passengers whose mental or physical states present a safety or health hazard or risk to other passengers, employees or property, or who might materially affect the comfort of any other persons either at the check-in counter, at the gate or on board aircraft, are considered unruly

passengers (ITF, 2000; Malaysia Airlines, 2009; Cathay Pacific

Airways, 2010; China Airlines, 2010). To establish effective mecha-nisms for dealing with problems related to unruly passengers in front-line service encounters, in September 2009 the International Air Transport Association (IATA) proposed that the existing inter-national legal regime should be revisited with a view to addressing

apparentflaws relating to the lack of jurisdiction and enforcement

mechanisms at the 34th Session of the International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) Legal Committee (ICAO, 2009).

Front-line service delivery systems of air transportation can be

generally divided into airport passenger service and in-flight

service. Airport passenger service covers the range of services and interactions from passenger check-in at the airport to completing boarding (including the check-in desk, assistance with customs clearance, boarding gate, lost and found, ramp service, load control and premier lounge) (Yang & Tseng, 2010). In-flight

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 937 324112; fax: þ886 7 8032423. E-mail addresses: edwardyang0920@gmail.com, edward@mail.nkuht.edu.tw (Y. Cheng-Hua),hlchang@cc.nctu.edu.tw(C. Hsin-Li).

1 _{Tel.:þ886 3 5731908; fax: þ886 3 5712365.}

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Tourism Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / t o u r m a n

0261-5177/$e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.07.001

service encompasses passenger boarding to their arrival at the destination airport (including food and beverage service, travel advice, safety reminders and basic medical assistance). The

Inter-national Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) (2000) noted that

disruptive customer behaviors on the ground can be a prelude to disruption in the air. If airport passenger service can effectively screen for unruly passengers who present a potential risk, it should be able to reduce work stress and the safety risk to in-flight service attendants.

Regarding in-flight service,Yang, Wan, and Lee (2010)

summa-rized 16 types of unruly passenger behavior (UPB) in the cabin, and

indicated that the most difficult types to be handled are ranked in

order as:‘passengers with poor mental condition’, ‘passengers who

conceal or avoid providing important information_{’, and ‘passengers}

under intoxication or inebriation on the plane’. However, very few

studies have focused on unruly passengers with regard to airport passenger service.

Among the studies on service recovery and customer complaints, some were conducted to explore the episodes leading to dysfunctional behaviors (Fullerton & Punj, 1993; Gabriel & Lang, 1997; Reynolds & Harris, 2005, 2009), whereas others explored and described the consequences of such behaviors (Harris & Reynolds,

2003). However, few studies have addressed whether the staff are

competent to handle UPBs and the types of problem they face in

dealing with dysfunctional behaviors.Harris and Reynolds (2003)

indicated three main consequences of dysfunctional behavior, namely effects on: (1) employees (long-term psychological and short-term emotional, behavioral, and physical effects), (2) customers (domino and spoilt-consumption effects), and (3) the

organization (pervasive indirect and occasional direct financial

costs). This ledReynolds and Harris (2006)to argue that customer

misbehavior is endemic within the service industry.

Taking the abovementioned concerns into account, the present study was conducted to explore the different types of UPB at the airport, to develop an approach to assess whether the front-line ground staff who have interpersonal exchanges with passengers are competent in handling these dysfunctional behaviors, and to

examine the difficulties they encounter in dealing with these

situations. This study will help airlines in developing appropriate training programs, work plans and managerial strategies to provide ground staff with the necessary emotional restraint and mecha-nisms for handling crises.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Assessment of ground staff’s competence and difficulties encountered in managing UPBs

During service provision and interaction with customers, front-line ground staff must adhere to the emotion-display rules estab-lished by the relevant organization (employer and/or airport

authority) (Grandey, 2000). When ground staff experience

common complaints or failed service encounters, they generally abide by established service procedures and proceed with service recovery in order to satisfy customer needs and/or restore customer satisfaction. However, when unruly passengers are encountered, ground staff must disregard their personal views, exert self-control to disguise their emotional responses, and comply with the requirements of the organization. Some ground staff might deal with UPBs easily whereas others might encounter a major chal-lenge based on their different working experience, education and training, staff support, company policies, and authorizations provided by their companies.

The competence of ground staff in managing UPBs is not directly

observable or measurable. In psychometrics, this is termed a‘latent

trait’ (Embretson & Reise, 2000). Latent traits are commonly

explored by means of questionnaires that include appropriate items for respondents to make a set of self-evaluations on the basis of their daily life experiences. Self-perceived competence can be

defined as self-efficacy, the belief of an individual in his/her

competence to perform and complete tasks successfully (Bandura,

1997). It can be said that perceived competence mimics the

expectations of competence, taking into account the determinants

of competence.Kruger and Dunning (1999)indicated that

percep-tions of competence are positively related to actual competence. Accordingly, the self-perceived competence of ground staff could be considered as a reasonable proxy of their actual competence.

Since there was no available questionnaire to follow, we had to design our own questionnaire for this study. Thus, we started our study by assuming that every member of ground staff, k, has his/her

unique competence,Өk, to handle UPBs. This latent trait could be

assessed by his/her performance in handling diverse UPBs during airport service encounters. Theoretically, a ground staff member with high competence will perform better in dealing with a greater number of UPBs than will a ground staff member of low competence. On conducting a survey, items in the questionnaire represent the most common categories of UPB that the respondents (i.e. ground staff in this study) confront when interacting with passengers. Among these items, some are easily dealt with while others present a major challenge. It is assumed here that there is a unique item difficulty value, bi(the item parameter), for each item

i in this study. Items with higher bivalue could be regarded as

particularly difficult categories of UPB for respondents to manage.

Such items comprise the potential passenger behaviors that cause service failure in front-line service encounters and are difficult to resolve even if appropriate service-recovery measures are adopted. The difference between the person parameter (i.e. competence),

Өk, and the item parameter (i.e. difficulty), bi, will determine the response of respondent k in considering his/her own performance on item i. This observed response can then be used to formulate the function of probability to achieve item i, which is determined by the value ofӨkebi.

In addition, answers provided by the respondents to specific

questions or items are not simply‘yes’ or ‘no’. An appropriate test

must provide_{flexible answers to permit respondents to express}

their views regarding different items. For this reason items designed to measure the competence of ground staff in handling UPBs are preferably answered using an ordinal scale that has

several levels of judgment (e.g. the five-point Likert scale)

(Anderson, Li, & Vermunt, 2007); this requires additional tech-niques for converting responses into numeric values that can be subjected to statistical analysis.

2.2. Review of Rasch measurement

The Rasch measurement, which can convert ordinal responses onto an‘equal interval scale’ measured in logits (log odd units), is considered as an appropriate approach for measuring the latent traits of respondents (Henson, Blandon, & Cranfield, 2010). The Rasch model proposes that answers to a set of items can be explained by two parameters: (1) the respondent’s competence (latent trait) in handling UPBs, and (2) the relative level of difficulty of a specific UPB. Both parameters are located on a linear, one-dimensional continuum (Rasch, 1980). The Rasch model is effective in providing estimates of the variables (types of UPB) of interest on an interval scale (Kaipper, Chachamovich, Hidalgo, Torres, & Caumo, 2010), thereby permitting validity testing of psychometric instruments with an objective set of criteria (Juan & Vanessa, 2007; Chang & Yang, 2008).

To simplify the introduction of the Rasch model, we first

form of:‘Can you easily handle the following types of UPB when

you experience failed service encounters?’ Possible responses are

thus either‘yes’ or ‘no’. A score of 1 is assigned to the response ‘yes’,

while a score of 0 is assigned to the response‘no’. The probability

that a respondent k will respond‘yes’ for item i is expressed as:

Pð1

q

eqkbi

1þ eqkbi (1)

The probability that a respondent k will respond‘no’ for item i is expressed as:

Pð0

q

q

1

1þ eqkbi (2) Therefore, the odds ratio that a respondent k can achieve the item i is:

Pð1

q

Pð0

q

¼ eqkbi ₍₃₎

and the logarithm of the odds ratio (logit) is as follows:

lnPð1

q

q

¼

q

which isolates the parameters of interest.

The parameters ofӨkand bican be estimated from the response

odds ratios in the data set using Eq.(4). In addition to dichotomous

responses, the Rasch model has been modified to be applicable to

polytomous rating scale instruments, such as thefive-point Likert

scale (Andrich, 1978). The modified Rasch model decomposes

a polytomous response into several dichotomous responses, and formulates one multiple-choice ordinal problem by several

binary-choice problems. The modified Rasch model assigns bixas the value

of the item parameter for the rating category x to item i, and

assumes that Eq.(1) refers to the probability that respondent k

responds to item i with rating category x instead of xe 1. In other

words, we can model the log odds of the probability that a person

responds in category x for item i, compared with category xe 1, as

a linear function of the person parameter Өk, and the relative

parameter of category x, namely bixfor item i:

ln Pkix P_kiðx1Þ

!

¼

q

Following Andrich’s modification of the Rasch model for a

pol-ytomous response, two formulations have been widely adopted in assessing the values of item and person parameters: These are ‘rating-scale model’ and ‘partial-credit model’. The former is used only for instruments in which the definitions of the rating scale are the same for all items; the latter is used when the definitions of the rating scale differ from one item to another (Chang & Yang, 2008).

In Andrich’s modified Rasch model, each item i of the

partial-credit model has its own threshold Fixfor each category x;

there-fore, bix¼ biþ Fixand Eq.(5)becomes Eq.(6)as follows (Wright,

1977):

ln Pkix P_kiðx1Þ

!

¼

q

The partial-credit model (Masters, 1982) is used for items in

which (1) credit is given for partially correct answers, (2) there is a hierarchy of cognitive demand on the respondents for each item, (3) each item requires a sequence of tasks to be completed, or (4) there is a batch of ordered response items with individual

thresh-olds for each item. In assessing the respondent’s competenceӨkto

handle UPBs, it is not necessary to assume that the item rating scales are identical; thus, we suggest that the partial-credit model can be employed for problem formulation in this study.

3. Empirical study

3.1. Focus group discussions for questionnaire design

Evidence relating to the widespread prevalence of dysfunctional customer behavior has drawn the attention of a small but growing number of academics who have provided insights into this

phenomenon (Reynolds & Harris, 2009). However, because an

attitude scale designed specifically for airline service has not

previously been presented in the literature, there was a need to create an appropriate assessment scale to cover all possible failed ground-staff service encounters. Airline carriers with actual expe-rience with this research topic were therefore invited to participate

in the ‘focus group discussions’ (FGDs) (Stewart & Shamdasani,

1990; Soh & Yuen, 2006) regarding the collection of relevant information for the questionnaire design through brain-storming and group interaction.

In practice, this study drew upon civil air transportation statis-tics from the website of the Taiwan Civil Aeronaustatis-tics Administra-tion, and assistance was requested from the top three international airlines in terms of market share of available seat kilometers in arranging FGDs, hosted by the researcher, with ground service managers and senior employees. Four participants with at least 10 years of work experience were selected from each airline for three separate FGDs.

The group discussions of these personnel were conducted in three phases. First, in accordance with the planned outline for the FGDs, the researcher proceeded with the meeting and explained

the definition and concept of unruly passengers to ensure that the

participants fully understood the nature and goals of the research project. Participants were then invited to describe their personal

experiences in regard to the most significant events in the past

years involving interpersonal exchanges with unruly passengers. The researcher made no critical comments, avoided leading their answers, and only expressed sympathy to encourage the partici-pants to express their views. Finally, a question-and-answer session was arranged during which all of the participants were invited to contribute to the discussion.

FGDs with three individual airlines were conducted, with each meeting lasting for approximately 2 h; the proceedings were recorded. After the meeting, the recording was transcribed into a written record. Furthermore, three participants with personal experience of airport passenger service worked on the transcrip-tion and word-by-word interpretatranscrip-tion, and translated the views into concrete concepts. These concrete concepts were then assembled and categorized according to their characteristics; highly homogenous concepts were then labeled with easy-to-understand phrases based on their common characteristics. Using the aforementioned procedure, 19 types of UPB during airport service encounter were obtained; these were used to construct the instrument for measuring the perceived competence of ground staff in managing UPBs (Table 1).

3.2. Verification of content validity

To further verify that the UPBs listed inTable 1could be effec-tively and comprehensively interpreted as situations typically encountered by ground staff, the content validity ratio (CVR)

method developed byLawshe (1975)was applied to evaluate the

appropriateness of the questionnaire and to screen the items. Ten experts (including senior executives of the three concerned airlines)

were invited to examine the suitability of the items with the use of both qualitative and quantitative analyses. In qualitative analysis, experts were asked to note their comments on each item and to correct the item if deemed necessary. In the quantitative analysis,

experts were asked:‘Is the investigation target measured by this

item essential, useful but not essential, or unnecessary to the construct?’ We then evaluated the content validity for each of the 19

items using the formula C_{i ¼ ðNei Ni=2Þ=ðNi=2Þ developed by}

Lawshe (1975), where Ciis the expert’s evaluation value (i.e., CVR) for the item i, Neirepresents the number of experts who rate item i as ‘essential’, and Nirepresents the number of experts rating the item i. Lawshe suggested a set of minimum threshold values of CVR, as in

Table 2, to evaluate whether the item is appropriate. According to

the method prescribed byLawshe (1975), items with a Civalue less

than 0.62 are to be eliminated when the number of experts is ten. The computed results illustrated that items V18 (Sexual

preda-tion) and V19 (Black-listed, red-flagged) should be eliminated and

the remaining 17 items were retained in the assessment scale. The

questionnaires were then distributed to 200 front-line ground staff of each of the three airlines concerned; the completed question-naires were collected by relevant supervisors. The question items

were in the form of:‘How competent do you feel in handling the

following types of UPB during failed service encounters?’ Five

response categories were then designed to reflect the respondents’

opinions of the 17 items. Thesefive response categories were coded

from 1 to 5 as follows: 1, very dif_{ficult; 2, difficult; 3, fair; 4, easy,} and 5, very easy. Excluding incomplete questionnaires, 179, 162 and 153 effective respondents were collected successfully from the three airlines A, B and C, respectively.

3.3. Application of Rasch measurement

The competence of ground staff to handle UPBs could vary between airlines. In other words, the relative difficulty of particular items could depend on the airline concerned, for example in view of different ground-staff training programs or differences in the authorizations provided to ground staff to assist them in dealing with UPBs. If so, it is possible that analysis would encounter the different item functioning (DIF) problem, leading to incorrect comparisons (Bond & Fox, 2007); for this reason it was necessary to treat the ground staff of each airline as performing independently regarding their competence in dealing with UPBs. Different Rasch models were therefore applied separately to evaluate the compe-tence of the ground staff of different airlines in handling UPBs.

To determine the reliability and logit values of the item and person measures, as well as the appropriateness of the Rasch

Table 2

Suggested minimum threshold value of Cifor different number of experts rating

each item i.

Number of experts rating the item i Minimum threshold value of Ci

7 0.99 8 0.75 9 0.78 10 0.62 11 0.59 Source:Lawshe (1975). Table 1

Instrument for measuring the perceived competence of ground staff in dealing with UPBs.

How competent do you feel in handling the following types of UPB during failed service encounters? Please answer the following statements by checking the most appropriate response (very difficult, difficult, fair, easy, and very easy).

No. Type of UPB Item description

V01 Violent speech or behavior Customers who are impatient, easily angered, are volubly outspoken, and have potentially violent tendencies. V02 Under the influence of alcohol or drugs Those who have consumed excess alcohol, or prescription or non-prescription drugs, and who tend to be

aggressive and violent.

V03 Crowd stirrer Those who stir up emotion in the crowd at the scene using provocative language to cause disturbance, interruption or termination of service when there areflight irregularities.

V04 Member of a disadvantaged minority who takes advantage of their status

Excessive reliance on disadvantaged minority status to obtain preferential treatment under airline service provision rules.

V05 Illegal travel broker Illegal travel brokers (these solicit passengers by using the name of a legitimate travel agency). In some instances airlines are obliged to deal with problems associated with customer disputes caused by broker mismanagement.

V06 Baggage violations Passengers who carry excess baggage (overweight or too many bags) and refuse to pay additional charges, or who carry prohibited items in cabin baggage in violation of baggage policy.

V07 Customers who threaten to go to the media When dissatisfied with service, such customers threaten to contact news reporters with the intention of embarrassing the airline or service provider.

V08 Customers who are extremely picky or fussy about services

Customers who are systematically unhappy and fussy about the services provided.

V09 Failure to comply with boarding procedure Customers who fail to cooperate with the correct boarding procedure for each class of passenger. V10 Fraudulent baggage claim Arriving passengers who fraudulently claim that their baggage has been damaged, lost, or interfered with. V11 Passengers who do not abide by premier

lounge rules

Passengers, for example, who insist on taking food out of the premier lounge, or who invite a travel companion into the premier lounge who is not entitled to use the lounge.

V12 Selfish, devious and manipulative customers E.g. customers who exploit minor anomalies to exert pressure on the airline company.

V13 Misuse of social status Customers who attempt to use their social status (e.g. high authority or wealth) to obtain additional services, privileges, or benefits.

V14 False complaints Conceal information regarding a failed service encounter, thereby incorrectly attributing responsibility to the airline, with a view to obtainingfinancial reward.

V15 Misuse/abuse of Frequent Flyer status A customer who is familiar with airline operations and potential loopholes; for example, uses discounted tickets in situations prohibited by company regulations.

V16 Passengers who collect evidence using digital equipment

Rationally or irrationally, when the service they seek is not immediately provided, such passengers record an entire event with electronic equipment.

V17 Customers who demand to speak to the duty supervisor

Customers who request to see the duty supervisor with the implied intention of intimidating/demeaning the ground staff member.

V18 Sexual predation Use of inappropriate behavior to harass ground staff, including offensive body language, sexual comments and physical harassment.

V19 Black-listed, red-flagged Passengers with probable stowaway record(s) or who constitute a security alert (order), and where thorough examination is compulsory.

assumption, the WINSTEPS 3.58 program (Linacre, 2005) was employed. WINSTEPS helps to deal with polytomous responses by

applying the MasterseAndrich modification of the Rasch

measurement (Masters, 1982). The estimated parameters and

model fit statistics were calibrated via a joint

maximum-unconditional -likelihood estimation procedure (Wright, 1996);

the estimated results for the three airlines are shown inTable 3. The

Rasch measurementsfix the average measure of all item

parame-ters at zero logit to provide a comparative basis for the relative measurements on an interval scale.

This analysis revealed that the average values of the person parameters for airlines B and C were greater than zero logit in

Table 3, indicating that the respondents had relatively high competence in handling UPBs; only a few items presented a chal-lenge to the ground staff. By contrast, the average value of the person parameter for airline A was less than zero logit, indicating that the ground staff of airline A had a lower average competence,

oftenfinding it difficult and arduous to deal with the UPBs that are

commonly encountered at airports, and registering lower scores for those items inTable 1.

Reliability is commonly defined as either the consistency of

responses to a set of items, or the consistency of scores from the same instrument. Reliability is also the degree to which scores are

free from measurement error (Chang & Yang, 2008). The Rasch

model has analog reliability estimates for items evaluated and for

participant measures, namely, the item reliability coefficient and

the person reliability coef_{ficient. These coefficients are similar to}

the Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from zero to one (Wright, 1996; Bond

& Fox, 2007); values above 0.80 are generally considered to indicate

good reliability (Henson et al., 2010). In this study, the item

measures for all airlines were highly reliable (0.96e0.98), and

person measures gave a slightly lower but also generally reliable value (0.83e0.90).

Thefit statistics of the Rasch model can provide evidence for

construct validity. By comparing the expected and observed patterns, thefit statistics aid in quality control and in the identifi-cation of data that do not meet the requirements of the model. Two fit statistics were estimated by WINSTEPS, namely the information-weightedfit (Infit) and outlier- sensitive fit (Outfit) (Smith, 1991).

The Infit and Outfit are expressed as normalized residuals in

Table 3. The Z-standardizedfit statistic (Zstd) was previously used

to select items at the 0.05 significance level. With regard to the

separate models for the three airlines, all In_{fit and Outfit statistics of} the estimated parameters for both persons and items are near zero, implying that the overall validity is acceptable for each model. 4. Findings and interpretation

4.1. Grouping of the items

To refine the analysis and its implications for proper

manage-ment, the three panelists introduced in Section3.1were asked to

group the 17 types of UPB based on their similarities and

differences. During this process, if all panelists concurred regarding

the grouping of a particular item, the classification result was

accepted. In cases of difference of opinion a face-to-face discussion

was conducted to resolve conflicts and adjust the categorizations

accordingly. This process was repeated until a clear consensus emerged, with each group of behaviors sharing common features that were distinct from the other categories. This resulted in clas-sification of the 17 items into six categories (Table 4).

4.2. Findings from item parameters

The separate estimates of individual item parameters for the

three major airlines are shown inTable 5. Thefirst column for each

airline represents the estimated parameter of bifor the ith item of

UPB. The lower the bivalue is, the easier the ith item will be. By

contrast, the higher the bivalue is, the more difficult the ith item will be. Using airline A as an example, V06 had the highest bivalue

(1.04 logits) and thereby appears to be the most difficult UPB to

handle, whereas V03 has the lowest bivalue (1.68 logits) and

appears to be the easiest UPB to manage.

The second and third columns for each airline represent the

mean square (Mnsq) and Z-standardized (Zstd) Infit statistics. The

fourth andfifth columns represent Mnsq and Zstd of Outfit

statis-tics. These statistics are used to examine the validity of each item.

Smith, Schumacker, and Bush (1998) indicated that if the Mnsq statistic for an item is between 0.75 and 1.3 or the Zstd statistic is

between2 and 2, the item does not significantly deviate from the

Guttman scale assumption of the Rasch model (Bond & Fox, 2007).

Thus, from Table 5, we could deduce that the Infit statistics and

Outfit statistics of all 17 items for the three airlines met this

crite-rion. Our data therefore appear tofit the Rasch models well.

Regarding the difficult items (bivalue greater than zero logit) perceived by the ground staff of airlines A, B and C, some items were found to be major challenges for staff of all three airlines (e.g. V01, V02, V08, V16 and V17). However, some items present particular difficulties for the staff of specific airlines (e.g. V06, V13). This complicates interpretation of the overall results, and refor-mulation of the study results is required before systematic comparison can be made across the three major airlines. Thus, the

items whose bivalue is higher than zero logit are highlighted in

Table 5to show that they are recognized by respondents as the

Table 3

Model estimations andfit statistics obtained from Rasch measurements. Item measure Person measure

Airline A B C A B C

Number of observations 17 17 17 179 162 153 Mean of measure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.17 0.13 Mean of model standard error 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.39 0.41 0.43 Mean of infit Zstd 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Mean of outfit Zstd 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 Reliability 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.83 0.87 0.90

Table 4

Groupings of UPBs.

Group No. Item title

I. Behaviors affecting the company’s rights and benefits

V04 Members of disadvantaged minority who take advantage of their status

V05 Illegal travel broker V13 Misuse of social status

V15 Misuse/abuse of Frequent Flyer status II. Behavior causing

service to be interrupted

V01 Violent speech or behavior

V02 Under the influence of alcohol or drugs V03 Crowd stirrer

V08 Customers who are extremely picky or fussy about services

III. Enlarge the scope of the event by causing trouble intentionally

V07 Customers who threaten to go to the media V16 Passengers who collect evidence using digital

equipment

V17 Customers who demand to speak to the duty supervisor

IV. Baggage-related V06 Baggage violations V10 Fraudulent baggage claim V. Selfish and

devious

V12 Selfish, devious and manipulative customers V14 False complaints

VI. Non-compliance with company regulations

V09 Failure to comply with boarding procedure V11 Passengers who do not abide by premier

more difficult situations to handle. The distributions of these highlighted items in the six UPB groups show that:

(1) Group I (Behaviors affecting company’s rights and benefits). The ground staff of both airlines A and B cited V04 (Members of disadvantaged minority who take advantage of their status) and V05 (Illegal travel broker) as more difficult UPBs to handle. The respondents of both airlines B and C considered V15 (Misuse/ abuse of Frequent Flyer status) to be difficult to manage. Airline C also cited V13 (Misuse of social status) as difficult to deal with.

Harris and Reynolds (2003)suggested that UPBs can negatively affect outlet profit and sales growth, as well as have a knock-on

effect on employee profit-related bonus schemes. In other

words, if ground staff are unable to prevent the UPBs from

having a negative financial impact upon the company, this

would be likely to adversely affect future service provision and potentially lead to an increase in transaction costs.

(2) Group II (Behavior causing service to be interrupted). Airlines A, B and C all agreed that V01 (Violent speech or behaviors), V02

(Under the influence of alcohol or drugs) and V08 (Customers

who are extremely picky or fussy about services) are the more

difficult items to handle in this group. Harris and Reynolds

(2004)defined those customers who intentionally and overtly act in an aggressive and violent manner, and who can emotionally or physically harm a front-line employee in order to satisfy non-financial motives, as ‘physical abusers’, and consid-ered that their behaviors ranged on a continuum from the mildly injurious and degrading to severely injurious acts. Furthermore,

Harris and Reynolds (2003)also pointed out that adverse impact of unruly passengers could extend to (a) violence towards an employee, and (b) damage to employee personal property. (3) Group III (Enlarge the scope of the event by causing trouble

intentionally). V16 (Passengers who collect evidence using digital equipment) and V17 (Customers who demand to speak to the duty supervisor) are items that staff of all three airlines

considered difficult to handle. Moreover, airlines B and C

considered V07 (Customers who threaten to go to the media)

difficult to handle. Although the service-quality literature

underlines that it is important for service agents to maintain courtesy at all times, the literature emphasizes that managing UPBs can have a major negative emotional impact upon service

staff (Bailey & McCollough, 2000). Regulations issued by

organizations generally require ground staff to project positive emotion when interacting with customers. However, whether on the surface or repressed, long-term emotional dissonance can cause emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and

reduced personal accomplishment (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001).

When proper back-up from internal or external resources is

lacking, ground staff can experience reduced work efficiency,

burnout, or can feel it necessary to leave their employment (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002).

(4) Group IV (Baggage-related). Only airline A considered V06

(Baggage violations) a difficult item to handle. The other two

airline companies considered that all items in this group were relatively easy to handle.

(5) Group V (Selfish and devious): No item in this group was

difficult to handle for airlines A, B and C.

(6) Group VI (Non-compliance with company regulations). Airlines A and B considered that V09 (Failure to comply with boarding

procedure) was a difficult item to handle, and airlines B and C

considered V11 (Passengers who do not abide by premier

lounge rules) as being difficult to handle. Although these two

items might not affect flight security directly, however, if

passengers’ expectation of service exceeds the authority given

to the ground staff by the company, the ground staff will be

forced tofind a balance between insistence and compromise.

4.3. Itemeperson map for each airline

The item and person parameters were subjected to logarithmic transformation along a logit scale, in which the difference between

the item and person estimates has a consistent meaning (Chang &

Yang, 2008; Yang, Tsou, & Chen, 2011). The itemeperson map (Fig. 1) produced by the WINSTEPS program, which jointly plots the values of all item and person parameters, provides an overall visual representation of construct coverage that aids in the interpretation of the distribution of item calibration estimates, gaps in the

measurement continuum, and population targeting (Handley,

Warholak Jackson, & Jackson, 2008). Thefield on the left of the

map indicates the distribution of respondents’ perceived

compe-tence in handling UPBs; their different degrees of compecompe-tence are

Table 5

Estimates of item parameters for the three major airlines.

Group Item Airline A Airline B Airline C

bi Infit Outfit bi Infit Outfit bi Infit Outfit

Mnsq Zstd Mnsq Zstd Mnsq Zstd Mnsq Zstd Mnsq Zstd Mnsq Zstd I V04 0.14 0.85 1.50 0.85 1.50 0.89 1.00 0.00 0.99 0.10 0.55 0.84 1.50 0.83 1.50 V05 0.50 0.88 1.20 0.89 1.10 0.89 1.00 0.00 0.99 0.10 0.55 0.84 1.50 0.83 1.50 V13 0.70 0.98 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.54 1.06 0.60 1.06 0.60 0.66 0.84 1.60 0.82 1.70 V15 1.30 0.95 0.50 0.96 0.40 0.33 1.01 0.10 1.01 0.10 0.18 1.05 0.50 1.00 0.10 II V01 0.35 1.08 0.90 1.11 1.10 0.00 1.14 1.30 1.19 1.70 0.33 1.00 0.10 1.08 0.80 V02 0.28 1.00 0.10 1.01 0.10 0.17 0.87 1.30 0.87 1.20 1.50 0.98 0.10 0.98 0.10 V03 1.68 1.00 0.10 1.04 0.40 1.11 1.17 1.60 1.24 2.00 0.23 1.01 0.10 1.03 0.30 V08 0.12 1.00 0.10 1.01 0.20 0.17 0.87 1.30 0.87 1.20 1.50 0.98 0.10 0.98 0.10 III V07 0.47 1.11 1.70 1.11 1.20 0.67 0.92 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.62 0.98 0.20 0.95 0.20 V16 0.95 1.03 0.40 1.06 0.50 0.67 0.92 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.62 0.98 0.20 0.95 0.20 V17 0.98 1.03 0.40 1.07 0.50 0.67 0.92 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.62 0.98 0.20 0.95 0.20 IV V06 1.04 0.94 0.70 0.95 0.50 0.28 0.93 0.60 0.93 0.60 0.43 1.09 0.80 1.06 0.50 V10 0.07 0.97 0.20 0.96 0.30 0.28 0.93 0.60 0.93 0.60 0.43 1.09 0.80 1.06 0.50 V V12 0.04 1.08 0.90 1.08 0.80 1.37 0.96 0.40 1.00 0.00 2.13 0.92 0.70 0.88 0.70 V14 0.35 1.03 0.40 1.04 0.40 1.37 0.96 0.40 1.00 0.00 2.13 0.92 0.70 0.88 0.70 VI V09 0.37 1.06 0.70 1.07 0.70 0.50 1.18 1.60 1.18 1.60 0.03 1.14 1.30 1.13 1.20 V11 0.10 0.94 0.60 0.94 0.60 0.00 1.09 0.80 1.08 0.70 0.44 1.20 1.80 1.22 1.90 Note: (1) The highlighted regions indicate the difficult items (bivalue0 logit) perceived by the ground staff;(2) Behavior under Group (I) Affecting company’s rights and

benefits, (II) Causing service to be interrupted, (III) Enlarging the scope of the event by causing trouble intentionally, (IV) Baggage-related, (V) Selfish and devious, and (VI) Non-compliance with company regulations.

ranked from top to bottom (from high to low competence). The field on the right of the map orders item-management difficulty; the higher an item is located on the vertical axis the greater the

challenge it presents to ground staff. InFig. 1, each symbol _“#”

represents two respondents and“.” represents one respondent. The

vertical dash line and the leftmostfigures represent the common

logit scale of respondent’s competence and item difficulty. The

uppercase letters“M”, “S” and “T” on the right side of the dash line

represent the“mean”, “one standard deviation” and “two standard

deviations” of item difficulty estimates, respectively. The lowercase letters“m”, “s” and “t” on the left side of the dash line represent the “mean”, “one standard deviation” and “two standard deviations” of

respondent’s competence estimates, respectively. The figures with

the letter“V” at the right side of the vertical dash line represent

item numbers inTable 5.

Because person and item parameters are both relative, to the mean value of all item parameters is generally anchored at zero, thereby providing a comparative rating for all items deviating from

the mean. The itemeperson maps can then be used to assess the

overall relative levels of item difficulty.

If the ground staff member and item are located at the same

level on the itemeperson map, the ground staff member will have

the probability of 0.5 to handle the UPB corresponding to this item with ease. If the competences of most respondents are located at levels upper than the difficulty measure of a specific item, it implies that this item is considered relatively easy to manage. For example,

few respondents of airlines B and C felt that items V12 (Selfish, devious and manipulative customers) and V14 (False complaints) were major problems. By contrast, most ground staff of airline A perceived that V06 (Baggage violations), V16 (Passengers who collect evidence using digital equipment) and V17 (Customers who

demand to speak to the duty supervisor) were relatively difficult to

handle; airline B’s respondents perceived V04 (Members of

disad-vantaged minority who take advantage of their status) and V05

(Illegal travel broker) difficult to manage, whereas airline C’s

respondents perceived that V02 (Under the influence of alcohol or

drugs) and V08 (Customers who are extremely picky or fussy about services) were difficult to handle.

The itemeperson information provided inFig. 1allows several

conclusions to be reached, summarized below:

(1) Airline A. Of the eight items with negative logit values that

airline A’s respondents consider to be easier to handle, items

V03 (Crowd stirrer) and V15 (Misuse/abuse of Frequent Flyer

status) are located significantly lower than the mean. By

contrast, of the nine items with positive logit values that are

relatively difficult to handle and represent failed service

encounters for ground staff (i.e. V02, V04, V08, V01, V05, V09,

V06, V16 and V17), the three most difficult scenarios were

items V06 (Baggage violations), V16 (Passengers who collect evidence using digital equipment) and V17 (Customers who demand to speak to the duty supervisor).

(2) Airline B. Of the six items with negative logit values that airline B’s respondents consider to be relatively easy to handle, items

V03 (Crowd stirrer), V12 (Selfish, devious and manipulative

customers) and V14 (False complaints) are located close to the two sample standard deviations (T) below mean item measure (M), and few respondents considered these three items to be

difficult to handle. By contrast, of the 11 items with positive

logit values which concentrated on the range between item mean measure (M) and one sample standard deviation (S), items V04 (Members of disadvantaged minority who take advantage of their status) and V05 (Illegal travel broker) were

the most difficult items; only 27% of respondents considered

these to be easy to handle.

(3) Airline C. There are eight items with negative logit values. Of

these, only items V12 (Selfish, devious and manipulative

customers) and V14 (False complaints) are located significantly

below the positions of most ground staff. Moreover, the two

items located at the bottom of the itemeperson map are the

same as for airline B, indicating that ground staff do not consider these two items difficult to handle. For the nine items with positive values that airline C ground staff found relatively difficult to handle, items V02 (Under the influence of alcohol or drugs) and V08 (Customers who are extremely picky or fussy

about services) are the two most difficult items; few ground

staff felt competent in dealing with them.

As shown in the item_{eperson maps for the three airlines, staff of} all three airlines considered that items V01, V02, V08, V16 and V17 were particularly challenging. These include:

(1) V16 and V17. Group III items V16 (Passengers who collect evidence using digital equipment) and V17 (Customers who demand to speak to the duty supervisor) share a common feature

in that, based on game theory, unruly passengers seek to in

flu-ence respondents by employing threatening tactics such as evidence collection or complaints, and with a view to forcing staff members to react and/or to yield to their requests.

(2) V1, V2 and V8. These three items, V1 (Violent speech or

behavior), V2 (Under the influence of alcohol or drugs) and V8

(Customers who are extremely picky or fussy about services), belong to Group II. Although current rules and regulations clearly prohibit interference with, threatening, intimidation, or assault of staff, and forbid any behavior likely to compromise order and discipline within the airplane (e.g. ICAO Doc 8565-LC/152-1, FAR 91.11, The Air Navigation Order, 1995), the number of cabin abnormal incidents (CAIs) is increasing rather than decreasing (ITF, 2000; Rhoden, Ralston, & Ineson, 2008; ICAO, 2009). The

behavior of those affected by alcohol or drugs or those whofind

fault with service, might not appear to violate the law during check-in/boarding and/or check/transit prior to embarkation, but could be a sign of a potential threat to subsequent order and security in the passenger cabin. If ground staff fail to identify or filter out these unruly passengers it is likely that they will go on to cause further trouble once they are inside the aircraft. 4.4. Person competence for different demographic characteristics

The Rasch model also helps us to estimate the person parameter

(i.e. his/her competence)Өkof each respondent. Before evaluating

self-rated competence in handling unruly passengers according to

the demographic characteristics of the respondents we first

examined whether the respondent’s responses fit the Guttman

scale assumption of the Rasch measurement. In this analysis 11.6% of the respondents were excluded from further analysis because

their estimated competence was outside the 2 Zstd tolerance

limits of Infit/Outfit statistics (Smith, 1991). We then applied

independent-sample t tests and one-way ANOVA to determine if

demographic characteristics are a significant determinant of

esti-mated competence. The statistical significance of the mean

differ-ences between groups for each demographic characteristic was further tested by the Duncan post-hoc comparison method; the results are shown inTable 6.

(1) Gender and marital status: Neither the gender nor marital status of ground staff correlated with their competence in managing UPBs.

(2) Age: There was a significant correlation between age and

competence, and older ground staff were more competent in handling different types of unruly passenger than were younger staff.

(3) Work experience: Experienced ground staff were consistently more competent at dealing with UPBs for all the three major airlines.

(4) Education: The three airlines investigated in this study are all transnational enterprises and all their front-line employees have college/university-level education, and a proportion of

them have master’s level education. There was no significant

difference in competence between the two levels of education. (5) Job title. Ground staff with higher job titles were found to have

greater competence in dealing with unruly passengers. (6) Annual income. Competence was found to correlate with

income, and staff with higher incomes had a greater compe-tence in dealing with UPBs. Annual income also correlated with job title and, for all three airlines, managers and deputy managers with higher incomes had the highest competence in dealing with UPBs.

5. Discussion

Based on the study results obtained from the ground service managers through FGDs, as well as from the responses of front-line

staff, this study has identified several important issues regarding

staff competence in dealing with UPBs. These issues have implica-tions for the development of training programs, work plans and

managerial strategies to provide ground staff with appropriate emotional adjustment, and to establish preventive mechanisms and emergency-response techniques for failed service encounters. 5.1. Inter-airline differences in staff competence in dealing with UPBs

The mean values of ground staff competence to handle UPBs for airline B (0.17 logit) and airline C (0.13 logit) were significantly higher than those for airline A (0.20 logit). This indicates that, even though all these three airlines are multinational corporations with route networks covering the globe, the ground staff of airlines B and C are

more confident in dealing with UPBs than those of airline A. In

addition, the ranking of item difficulty differed between the airlines. It is possible that the differences in corporate policies, organizational culture, educational training, and other factors could differentially prepare ground staff for dealing with UPBs. It is recommended that airlines should periodically review the competence of their staff in handling failed service encounters with a view to identifying weak-nesses and taking appropriate action to improve service performance. 5.2. Senior ground staff members are more competent

to handle UPBs

Ground staff members, who are older, with more experience, or

with more senior positions, were found to have significantly greater

competence in dealing with UPBs. Because all three parameters (age, work experience, job position) are highly correlated, one can conclude that senior ground staff members are generally more competent in handling UPBs. Although junior staff could be instructed to ask senior ground staff to manage troublesome UPBs, it is suggested that senior staff should participate in establishing training programs designed to equip more junior staff with appropriate skills in dealing with UPBs.

5.3. Common difficult items for ground staff, and their implications For all three airlines the major challenging UPBs, as highlighted inTable 5, are concentrated in Group II (Behavior causing service to

be interrupted, i.e., V01, V02, V08) and Group III (Enlarge the scope of the event by causing trouble intentionally, i.e., V16, V17). These items share the feature that there is a cognitive gap between the service providers and the customers regarding the quality of service provided by the company. The negative behavior of some unruly passengers can affect staff services, and staff of all three airlines

viewed unruly passengers’ intent on causing disturbance as a major

challenge. For items V01 (Violent speech or behaviors), V02 (Under

the in_{fluence of alcohol or drugs) and V08 (Customers who are}

extremely picky or fussy about services) in Group II, companies might consider informing passengers of the regulations related to boarding and documentation, through tour agents and various measures prior to departure, emphasizing the importance of boarding order, passenger responsibility, and the consequences of failing to comply with regulations, thereby avoiding misunder-standings arising as a consequence of customer unfamiliarity with administrative procedures. Furthermore, to reduce failed service

encounters, front-line service design might include error-proofing

measures, for example by simplifying the forms and the routes of service provision. Concerning items V16 and V17 in Group III, in serious incidents senior ground staff or service managers could take over the failed service encounter in order to avoid interruption of customer service provision.

5.4. Establish a standard operating and auditing procedure

The four items in Group I (Behaviors affecting the company_’s

rights and benefits), V04 (Members of disadvantaged minority who

take advantage of their status) and V05 (Illegal travel broker) were found to be challenging USBs for staff of both airlines A and B; V15 (Misuse/abuse of Frequent Flyer status) was cited by staff of both

airlines B and C; whereas only staff of airline C had difficulty in

dealing with V13 (Misuse of social status).

In Group IV (Baggage-related), only the staff of airline A had

difficulty in dealing with V06 (Baggage violations); staff of the

other two airlines felt themselves to be competent in handling this type of UPB.

As for Group VI (Non-compliance with company regulations), V09 (Failure to comply with boarding procedure) was the most

Table 6

Estimated competence broken down according to demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Demographic characteristic Airline A Airline B Airline C

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Gender a. Male 0.23 ND 0.15 ND 0.12 ND

b. Female 0.18 0.19 0.16

Age (yr) a. Under 20 0.48 c> b > a 0.11 c¼ b > a 0.07 c> b > a

b. 31e40 0.16 0.21 0.14

c. 41e50 0.08 0.24 0.21

Marital status a. Married 0.22 ND 0.17 ND 0.12 ND

b. Single 0.18 0.18 0.14

Work experience a. Under 1 yr 0.49 c¼ d > b > a 0.06 d> c > b > a 0.08 d> c > b > a

b. 1e5 yr 0.32 0.11 0.12

c. 6e10 yr 0.02 0.19 0.15

d.>10 yr 0.03 0.32 0.21

Education b. College/University 0.20 ND 0.18 ND 0.13 ND

c. Master’s 0.19 0.16 0.12

Job title a. Partetime employee 0.51 d> c > b > a 0.07 d> c > b> a 0.07 d> c > b > a

b. Fulletime employee 0.31 0.13 0.11

c. Supervisor 0.01 0.21 0.13

d. Manager/Deputy manager 0.09 0.29 0.20

Annual income (USD) a. Under 7000 0.49 d> c > b > a 0.06 d> c > b > a 0.08 d> c ¼ b > a

b. 7000e15000 0.32 0.13 0.11

c. 15,001e25,000 0.00 0.20 0.13

d. Above 25,000 0.11 0.31 0.22

Note: ND, no significant difference whena¼ 0.05; Mean: mean of estimated competence in dealing with unruly passengers; highlighted boxes denote respondents with higher competence.

common challenge for staff of airlines A and B, whereas V11 (Passengers who do not abide by premier lounge rules) was deemed problematic by staff of airlines B and C.

Interestingly, many items in Groups I, IV and VI are within the internal control of the company concerned and relate to organi-zational regulations or service procedures. Why do some airlines

have greater difficulty in handling these types of troublesome

unruly passenger? This study suggests that companies should examine their business procedures, establish clear standardized guidelines for service provision relating to UPBs, and put in place

quality-control mechanisms to ensure not only that the companies’

rights and benefits are not jeopardized but also that the workload

and emotional well-being of their staff are not compromised by UPBs.

5.5. Staffflexibility and discretion, and complaint mechanisms

For the items in Group III (Enlarge the scope of the event by

causing trouble intentionally), when customers encounter dif

fi-culties they are always eager for an immediate solution. However, front-line staff members are often not authorized to provide the service requested, and are restricted to acting in accordance with ‘regulations’, which can exacerbate customer complaints. Thus, in

the service provision standardization mentioned in Section 5.4,

organizations could specify how much flexibility front-line staff

members have in dealing with challenging situations, and the extent to which they can meet individual passenger needs and/or solve problems (Rust, Zahorik, & Keiningham, 1996). A complaint mechanism incorporated into the service provision could also help ground staff to provide more information to the passengers and propose appropriate remedies.

5.6. Establishment of an unruly passenger database

With regard to unruly passengers with a history of abnormal conduct, and depending on the severity and/or frequency of their anomalous behavior, companies can refuse further service provi-sion or, alternatively, monitor their behavior with a view to taking appropriate precautionary or remedial action. After careful assessment, those with serious negative behavior can be perma-nently barred from traveling with one or more airlines. Airlines can also refuse to take passengers whose behavior suggests they are likely to negatively affect the safety and comfort of other passen-gers and crew on board the plane. A further category includes passengers who are not an immediate threat, but who are considered as special-alert passengers. Their previous irregular behaviors are recorded in the CRS (Computerized Reservation System) and DCS (Departure Control System) to forewarn staff who, nonetheless, should not immediately treat these passengers differently because this could lead to customer complaints. 5.7. Provision of free alcoholic beverages; communications and information feedback between cabin crew and ground staff

Yang et al. (2010)previously listed 16 types of cabin UPBs. When compared with the 17 types of airport UPBs explored in the present

study,five common items are found. These are V01 (Violent speech

or behaviors), V02 (Under the influence of alcohol or drugs), V03

(Crowd stirrer), V12 (Selfish, devious and manipulative customers)

and V13 (Misuse of social status). Regarding V02, consumption of alcoholic beverages tends to reduce blood oxygen supply; the effects of alcohol are exacerbated because cabin pressure at cruise altitude is below mean sea-level pressure, and alcohol consump-tion can therefore negatively affect emoconsump-tional condiconsump-tion and health. Airlines should carefully evaluate the timing and frequency of

providing free alcoholic beverages in the aircraft and/or in airport premier lounges, or introduce charges for alcoholic beverage, with a view to reducing consumption.

For the remaining four items (V01, V03, V12 and V13), organi-zations can invite ground staff and cabin crew to share their experiences, both upstream and downstream of service delivery, to

maximize information feedback.King and Wan (2010)pointed out

that employee job perceptions can directly affect the outcome of service performance. Airlines can also reinforce the emotional intelligence skills of their employees by means of appropriate training, with a view to avoiding overload resulting from chronic emotion suppression, which can result from complying with rules governing emotional demeanor. Such overload can lead to

emotional exhaustion and overextension, depersonalization,

reduced personal accomplishment, burnout, and even self-alienation (Grandey, 2003).

6. Concluding remarks

Customer complaints provide opportunities for enterprises to improve the service they provide, and companies do not regard

every customer who files a complaint as an unruly passenger.

However, if a customer is unreasonable and crosses a dividing line, or based on reasonable assessment their customer lifetime value is significantly lower than the cost of providing services to them, then the customer concerned may be deemed unworthy of the estab-lishment or maintenance of long-term relationship (Janelle & Claus, 2008).

This study offers the following proposals for dealing with UPBs:

(1) record frequent abnormal behaviors and complaints of specific

unruly passengers, as well as the recovery measures and costs, in order to establish a list of barred passengers or service alerts; (2)

develop a passenger profiling system, based on travel documents,

appearance, behaviors and other characteristics of the UPB passenger group, and use this as a basis to develop

risk-identification skills that can be incorporated into training courses

for ground staff; (3) design feedback systems for both employees and passengers to assist managers in identifying ongoing and potential problems in the service procedure and to take decisions concerning how best to resolve such issues, in order to avoid repeated service failure as a result of inadequacies in company

policy; (4) provide employees with the authority to act with

flex-ibility and discretion in demanding situations, thereby permitting them to offer a better overall customer service (King & Wan, 2010), and to ensure that supervisors place employee well-being above

operational/financial considerations; (5) establish appropriate

training courses, including experience-sharing by senior employees and, for example, instruction via role-playing, to equip junior employees with the skills required for dealing with UPBs, including communication skills, EQ (emotional intelligence) training, and familiarity with the law, to strengthen their professional confidence and commitment to the organization.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our gratitude to the three

anonymous reviewers whose comments have considerably

improved the quality of this work. Furthermore,financial support

provided by the National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 97-2410-H-328-006) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psycho-metrika, 43(4), 561e573.

Anderson, C. J., Li, Z., & Vermunt, J. K. (2007). Estimation of models in a Rasch family for polytomous items and multiple latent variables. Journal of Statistical Soft-ware, 20(6), 1e36.

Bailey, J. J., & McCollough, M. A. (2000). Emotional labor and the difficult customer: coping strategies of service agents and organizational consequences. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 20(2), 51e72.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. (1994). Critical service encounters: the

employee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95e106.

Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived

service quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34e49. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of

the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 57e67.

Cathay Pacific Airways. (2010). Airports customer services policies and procedures. Hong Kong: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd.

Chang, H. L., & Yang, C. H. (2008). Explore airlines’ brand niches through measuring passengers’ repurchase motivation: an application of Rasch measurement. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(3), 105e112.

China Airlines. (2010). Passenger service manual. Taipei: China Airlines.

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (1993). Choosing to misbehave: a structural model of aberrant consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 570e574. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of

consumption: consumer misbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 57(11), 1239e1249.

Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (1997). The unmanageable consumer: Contemporary consumption and its fragmentations. London: Sage.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95e110.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When the "show must go on": surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86e96.

Handley, L. I., Warholak Jackson, T. L., & Jackson, T. R. (2008). An evaluation of the validity of inferences made from 3 diabetes assessment instruments: a Rasch analysis. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(1), 67e81. Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer

behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 6(2), 144e161.

Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2004). Jaycustomer behavior: an exploration of types and motives in the hospitality industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(5), 339e357.

Henson, S., Blandon, J., & Cranfield, J. (2010). Difficulty of healthy eating: A Rasch model approach. Social Science and Medicine, 70(10), 1574e1580.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 57e80). New York: Marcel Dekker.

ICAO. (2009). Views of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on recom-mending the formation of a special study group to examine emerging legal issues presented by unruly/disruptive passengers. Legal Committeee 34th session (LC/34-WP/2-4). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organization.http://www.icao. int/icao/en/leb/mtgs/2009/lc34/docs/LC34_wp2-4_en.pdf.

ITF. (2000). Air rage: The prevention and management of disruptive passenger behavior. London: International Transport Workers’ Federation.

Janelle, B., & Claus, M. (2008). A complaint is a gift: Recovering customer loyalty when things go wrong. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Juan, R. O. R., & Vanessa, Y. E. (2007). Perceived environmental uncertainty in tourism: a new approach using the Rasch model. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1450e1463.

Kaipper, M. B., Chachamovich, E., Hidalgo, M. P., Torres, I. L., & Caumo, W. (2010). Evaluation of the structure of Brazilian State-Trait Anxiety Inventory using a Rasch psychometric approach. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68(3), 223e233.

King, Y., & Wan, P. (2010). Exploratory assessment of the Macao casino dealers’ job perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 62e71. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in

recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121e1134.

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personal Psychology, 28(4), 563e575.

Linacre, J. M. (2005). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS Ministep Rasch-Model computer programs. Retrieved 16 June 2005 from.http://www.winsteps.com/winpass. htm.

Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149e174.

Malaysia Airlines. (2009). Ground operations manual: Passenger and baggage. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Airlines.

Nwankwo, S. (1995). Developing a customer orientation. Journal of Customer Marketing, 12(5), 5e15.

Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2005). When service failure is not service failure: An exploration of the forms and motives of "illegitimate" customer complaining. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(5), 321e335.

Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2006). Deviant customer behavior: an exploration of frontline employee tactics. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(2), 95e111.

Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321e335.

Rhoden, S., Ralston, R., & Ineson, E. M. (2008). Cabin crew training to control disruptive airline passenger behavior: a cause for tourism concern? Tourism Management, 29(3), 538e547.

Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., & Keiningham, T. L. (1996). Service marketing. New York: Harper Collins.

Slevitch, L., & Oh, H. (2010). Asymmetric relationship between attribute perfor-mance and customer satisfaction: a new perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 559e569.

Smith, R. M. (1991). The distributional properties of Rasch item fit statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 541e565.

Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean square to evaluatefit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 66e78. Soh, E. Y., & Yuen, B. (2006). Government-aided participation in planning Singapore.

Cities: The International Quarterly on Urban Policy, 23(1), 30e43.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus group: Theory and practice. London: Sage.

Wright, B. D. (1977). Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14(2), 97e116.

Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9(4), 472.

Wu, H. J. (2007). The impact of customer-to-customer interaction and customer homogeneity on customer satisfaction in tourism service: the service encounter prospective. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1518e1528.

Yang, C. H., & Tseng, T. C. (2010). Practice in international airport passenger service. Taipei: Yang-Chih Book Co., Ltd.

Yang, C. H., Wan, K. M., & Lee, Y. C. (2010). Applying the Rasch measurement to explore the abilities and difficulties of Chinese cabin crew in airlines in terms of handling the unruly passengers. Journal of Aeronautics, Astronautics and Avia-tion, Series B, 42(1), 55e66.

Yang, S. C., Tsou, M. Y., & Chen, E. T. (2011). Statistical item analysis of the exami-nation in anesthesiology for medical students using the Rasch model. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 74(3), 125e129.