1
Do you feel embarrassed? The influence of ‘who paid’ on customers’
complaint intentions
ABSTRACT
This article examines the effect of ‘who paid’ on consumer complaint behavior (CCB) when encountering service failure and whether consumers’ embarrassment avoidance is the psychological mechanism behind differences in complaint intentions. The empirical data demonstrate that paying customers have higher complaint intentions when they are alone than when in groups when facing a service failure situation. Moreover, customers encountering service failures are more likely to voice complaints when they are payers than when they are partial payers (either splitting the group check equally or going Dutch), and the latter customers have higher complaint intentions than when they are non-paying customers. More importantly, the findings of studies 1 and 2 support the view that embarrassment avoidance mediates the effect of ‘who paid’ on customers’ complaint intentions.
Keywords: Embarrassment avoidance, consumer complaint behavior, group consuming, social influence
2
1. Introduction
In the field of consumer behavior, research has primarily focused on individual consumption,
followed by group consumption. In past research, the consumer and the payer are always one person.
However, the term “customer” defined by Heinonen and Strandvik (2015) has various meanings, covering the actor, buyer, consumer, client, or user who purchases and uses the products and/or services.
Through a choice of hotels and restaurants by salesmen with travel expense accounts reimbursed by their companies, Bon and Pras (1984) demonstrated that the functions of buying, paying and
consuming when carried out by separate individuals or by a single person have different influences on buying behavior. The function of paying, when carried out by one individual or everyone in a
consuming group, affects people’s expectations and related attitudes differently (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). Unfortunately, the potential effect of paying on consumer complaint behavior (CCB) under social influence has been neglected. In the hospitality services, the presence of other customers is an indispensable part of the consumption experience in restaurants, hotels, theme parks, coffee shops and movie theaters.
The importance of social influence has been addressed in the field of consumer behavior, with the focus on interpersonal influence (Yan and Lotz, 2009). Recent related literature emphasizes acquainted customers with whom the consumer has a level of intimacy (Huang et al., 2014), unacquainted customers (Van Vaerenbergh et al., 2013), the relationship between an interactive and non-interactive social presence (Argo et al., 2005), the in- and out-group in a cross-cultural setting (Kim and Lee, 2012;), group size (Huang and Wang, 2014), and social environment such as online business
environment (Sridhar and Srinivasan, 2012). To our knowledge, the influence of ‘who paid’ in group consumption on reaction to service failures in consumer complaint behavior has received little attention, although numerous studies have shown that the presence of others can affect people’s attitudes,
intentions and behavior (Huang and Wang, 2014; Huang et al., 2014; Fan et al., 2015). Moreover, prior literature has not examined the psychological mechanism explaining the difference between when
3
customers experienced service failure alone or with social companions.
Thus, this article focuses on three aspects: firstly, examining the effect of ‘who paid’ on CCB when encountering service failure alone versus being with social companions; secondly, to investigate the difference of the payer, part payer (i.e. share equally/go Dutch) and non-payer on reacting to service failures; thirdly, to explore whether embarrassment avoidance acts as the psychological mechanism behind the above differences in complaint intentions.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Customer roles in group consuming
Consumer behavior study is based on consumer buying behavior, with the customer playing the three distinct roles of consumer, payer and buyer (Bon and Pras, 1984). “Consumer” has a broad meaning, covering the actor, buyer, customer, client, or user who purchases and uses the offering. The distinction between consumer roles is stressed by Bon and Pras (1984); they posit that buying behavior requires at least three roles played by the consumer: purchase a product (i.e. buyer/purchaser); pay for it (i.e. payer); and use or consume it (i.e. consumer). The user or consumer, as one person, actually uses the product or receives the benefits of the service; the payer is the person who finances the purchase;
and the buyer is one who participates in getting products or services in the market. The buyer, payer and user need not be the same actor; these different roles can be separate elements of the consumer concept. Heinonen and Strandvik (2015) state that these roles can be played by the same person and any one of them makes the person into a consumer. Moreover they argue that the consumer unit can vary from consumers to business customers and from a single entity (consumer, firm, or organization) to a collective (of consumers, firms, or organizations).
In a situation such as a group dinner, one can define three basic roles about paying the bill: payer, partial payer and non-payer; the payer pays the group’s bill, the partial payer pays either by dividing the group bill equally or just for what he or she ordered (i.e. going Dutch), the non-payer is treated by
4
someone else. In the buying process, Bon and Pras (1984) demonstrate that the basic roles of payer, partial payer and non-payer when held by separate individuals have different influences on buying behavior. Regarding the gender-related literature, researchers found differences in consumers’
expectations and behavior between the one paying and the one going Dutch with a social companion (Muelenhard et al., 1985; Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010).
In group consuming, the effect of ‘who paid’ on dissatisfied customers’ complaint behavior has not been adequately researched. Specifically, the basic roles of payer, partial payer and non-payer when played by separate individuals with the presence of other customers who share the same service environment has been overlooked in the hospitality services, even though it has been found that these other customers (acquainted and unacquainted) determine how customers react to a service failure (Huang and Wang, 2014; Fan et al, 2015; Huang et al., 2014; Mattila et al., 2014; Huang, 2010; Van Vaerenbergh et al., 2013; Kim and Lee, 2012). Building on the notion that different role playing by customers about payment in group consuming triggers distinct reactions to service failures, in the present study, we examine the influence of ‘who paid’ on a focal consumer’s propensity to voice a complaint after a service failure.
2.2 Interpersonal influence on consumer behavior
Social influence has been shown to play a critical role in the consumption process (Argo et al., 2005).
Most of the research in this area has focused on these interactive or non-interactive social situations (Childers and Rao, 1992; Argo et al., 2005), interpersonal influence from acquainted customers with whom the consumer has a certain relationship (Moschis, 1985; Luo, 2005) and unacquainted customers (Kim and Lee, 2012; Mattila et al., 2014; Huang, 2010; Van Vaerenbergh et al., 2013), the presence of physical or imagined others (Dahl et al., 2001 ), the individualism-collectivism culture (Fan et al., 2015;
Chan et al., 2009), in- and out-group (Huang and Wang, 2014; Huang et al., 2014), and consumers’
online behavior (Sridhar and Srinivasan, 2012; Rafaeli and Noy, 2002).
In the service context, the presence of other customers can dramatically influence a focal customer’
5
s experience and evaluation, as well as alter his or her behavior (Miao, 2014; Dahl et al., 2001).
Recently, a number of studies have shown that people who are part of a group act and respond differently than they would as individuals (Argo et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2014; Huang and Wang, 2014; Fan et al., 2015). There is limited and mixed empirical evidence between services experienced with companions and service experienced alone. Using impression management, for example, Huang et al. (2014) suggest that customers who encounter service failures have higher complaint intentions when they are with others than when they are alone. In cases of other-customer failure, Huang and Wang (2014) report that services experienced with companions show a higher level of dissatisfaction toward the service provider compared to services experienced alone. Conversely, Fan et al. (2015) found that Chinese customers with their family (in-group) have lower complaint intentions than when they are alone (out-group: stranger) following a service failure. Based on theories of social facilitation effects from social psychology and interpersonal influence from consumer behavior, Yan and Lotz (2009) have justified this mixed empirical evidence.
Based on a qualitative study via a modified critical incident technique, Yan and Lotz (2009) identify four categories consisting of 17 subcategories of interpersonal influence on CCB. Their findings suggest that the mere presence (physical and mental) of other customers (acquainted and unacquainted) may play an important role in consumers’ decisions to make complaints in the service context;
moreover, sources of others’ influences on complaint decisions are identified. In a review of social facilitation, research offers a comprehensive framework that identifies five major factors that affect how the presence of others influences a focal consumer’s behavior (Aiello and Douthitt, 2001); they include presence factors, situational factors, individual factors, task factors and performance factors.
The current study examines the influence of consumer role plays about payment in group consuming when reacting to service failures.
2.3 The source of others’ influences on CCB
Grounded in the social psychology, social facilitation effects have been found in the field of
6
consumer behavior. Depending on the situations, social facilitation can have positive or negative effects on consumption behavior (Gaumer and LaFief, 2005). Zajon’s (1965) social facilitation theory
recognizes the importance of the social environment on individuals’ behavior and posits that the mere presence of others can affect an individual’s behavior. The presence of others may either enhance or impair an individual’s performance (Yan and Lotz, 2009). Yan and Lotz (2009) further propose that consumers’ decisions to make complaints may be dependent on their perceptions of other customers’ presence. Relative to the sources of the effects of others on consumers’ complaint behavior and whether these sources appear to encourage or discourage complaint decisions, Yan and Lotz (2009) provide a summary of factors or sources of different types of influence revealed that may explain social facilitation and interpersonal effects of others on complaint behavior. These sources include:
communication from others, group size, perceptions, individual characteristics, and concern for others.
The perceptions consists of concern about the impressions of others (or self-image), social comparisons and the desire to make an impression.
Embarrassment avoidance plays a critical role in “concern about impressions of others” among the five sources of interpersonal influence on CCB (Yan and Lotz, 2009). Embarrassment is a
self-conscious emotion that is associated with conscious thoughts about oneself (Lewis, 1993).
Embarrassment involves a threat to an individual’s presented self, resulting from unwanted evaluations by other customers (Miller and Leary, 1992); it is a socially occurring phenomenon driven by a concern for what others are thinking about us (Dahl et al., 2001). Furthermore, to be embarrassed, one must be aware of the evaluating social audience (Schlenker and Leary, 1982). Through the use of a field study approach, Dahl et al. (2001) found that the social presence of another individual or group of individuals during purchase can create embarrassment for consumers. Similar to impression management, losing face due to a service failure in front of other customers induces embarrassment, which is strongly linked to complaint behaviors (Mattila and Wirtz, 2004). Thus, the extent of embarrassment avoidance might depend on whether or not the other customers who are present are part of that person’s in-group when encountering service failures; in addition, it might be a psychological mechanism behind the
7 difference in complaint intentions.
Argo et al. (2005) argue that while consumers’ tendencies to manage impressions appear to be attenuated when they are alone during a product purchase. Chinese customers who value
interdependence might not want to jeopardize social harmony by complaining about a service failure when in-group members are present (Fan et al., 2015). Previous research revealed that being at the
center of attention is sufficient to produce embarrassment (Sabini et al., 2000). Yan and Lotz show that
“embarrassment avoidance occurs when consumers feel uncomfortable in making complaints because
they are accompanied by other acquainted customers and do not want to bring perceived negative attention to themselves” (2009, p.114). The lower likelihood of complaints appears to be caused by the potential damage to a focal consumer’s self-image and/or reputation. Buck et al. (1992) found that the expression of negative emotion was inhibited when one is with a friend rather than alone. Moreover, some people might decide not to make complaints because they think other companions will join in when they are in a group consuming situation (Yan and Lotz, 2009); this is referred to as diffusion of responsibility. Therefore, people might tend to feel less embarrassment to make a complaint in response to service failure when they are alone.
The studies discussed above show that the presence of social others can help to inhibit the negative emotions and complaint intentions due to embarrassment avoidance and diffusion of responsibility.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect that when customers suffer from a service failure, those who are accompanied by social others will report a lower level of complaint intentions than if they are alone.
Thus, we put forth the following hypothesis:
H1. The paying consumers (splitting the group bill equally or going Dutch) who encounter service failures will have higher complaint intentions when they are alone than when they are with social companions.
We further argue that embarrassment avoidance is the psychological mechanism explaining why customers will not voice a complaint, particularly in front of social companions. Prior research
8
emphasized the presence of others and their evaluations in inducing embarrassment (Manstead and Semin, 1981; Zajonc, 1965). The presence of others can make the focal individual feel embarrassed due to unwanted self-exposure (Robbins and Parlavecchio, 2006) or fear of being at the center of attention (Sabini et al., 2000). Miller and Leary suggest that “the possibility of being embarrassed seems to dictate and constrain a great deal of social behavior; much of what we do and, perhaps more
importantly, what we don’t do is based on our desire to avoid embarrassment” (1992, p.210). Therefore, when a service failure occurs in group consuming, the predominant embarrassment avoidance might inhibit complaint behaviors. People might tend to focus on what their social companions are thinking about them. On the other hand, people dining alone might tend to focus on themselves. Consequently, embarrassment avoidance becomes less salient. Taken together, we put forth the following predictions:
H2. Embarrassment avoidance will mediate the effect of who paid (paid with social companions or alone) on customers’ complaint intentions.
3. Study 1
3.1 Method
The purpose of study 1 was to test whether the paying consumers who encounter service failures have higher complaint intentions when they are alone than when they are part of group consuming. A scenario-based experiment was used to test the proposed hypotheses in a hospitality industry setting.
This scenario-based approach is often chosen because it has special advantages, such as eliminating ethical considerations associated with observation or enactment of service failures in real life (Smith and Bolton, 1998), and reduced biases from memory retrieval when using recall-based designs (Smith et al., 1999).
Sample and procedure: 130 college students from the Division of Continuing Education of Taiwan participated in this experiment for a credit reward. The average age of the participants was 20 years (31.5% male and 68.5% female). The mean rating for scenario realism was 6.45 (with 10 indicating
9
“extremely realistic”). When asked to rate how often they go to similar restaurants within six months,
the mean rating was 2.71 times per month. The scenario was taken from Smith et al. (1999).
“You and some friends go to the restaurant for dinner. You are seated at your table. The waiter comes to take your orders. You place your orders. The waiter brings your beverages and entrees
and leaves without asking if you need anything else. The waiter never brings your beverages, and he doesn’t stop back to check on you while you’re eating. He drops off the group bill without asking if you want anything more” (i.e. the in a group condition). For the alone condition, it describes “You go to a restaurant for dinner alone…….”.
Manipulation checks: To manipulate the alone/in-group situation, participants were asked “Do you go to a restaurant for dinner alone? Yes: I am alone/ No: with some friends” In-group situation, participants were asked “How do you usually deal with the group bill? Go Dutch or share the group
bill.” The 2-item failure severity measure was used to assess the failure severity and account for potential variation (Smith et al., 1999): “This failure was a severe service problem” and “This failure was a significant service failure” (r =.77, p=.000).
Dependent measures: The single-item complaint intention used in this study was derived from Hui et
al. (2011). Participants were asked to rate: “What do you think are the chances of your making a complaint about the service provider’s service?” A 10-point semantic differential scale from 1
(definitely will not) to 10 (definitely will) was attached to this item. The embarrassment avoidance was cited from Dahl et al. (2001). Participants then indicated their feelings of embarrassment if they make a complaint on a three-item, ten-point embarrassment scale (not embarrassed at all/ very embarrassed, not uncomfortable at all/very uncomfortable, and not awkward at all/very awkward; Cronbach’s α
=.93). A 10-point semantic differential scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) was attached to each item.
10 3.2 Results
Manipulation Check: The manipulation of the imagined scenario of dining alone (n=46) or in-group
(n=84) was effective (Pearsonχ2=130.0, p=.000). For the in-group scenario, 50 participants usually pay the bill by going Dutch and 34 participants by sharing the group bill. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the measure of failure severity as the dependent variable produced a non-significant effect (Mgo Dutch = 6.96, Msharing = 6.81, Malone = 6.53, F(2,127) = .736, p>.05).
Complaint intention: H1 predicts that complaint intention will be greater for participants in-group consuming than when alone. A t-test was conducted and there was a significant difference (Malone = 5.57, SD = 1.67; Min-group = 4.10, SD = 2.14; t = 4.04, p<.001) between the two scenarios of complaint
intention. However, there was a non-significant difference (Mgo Dutch = 4.18, Msharing = 3.97, t = .439, p
=.66) between participants in the go Dutch and sharing the group bill. This supports H1.
An ANOVA was run to test for difference in the items that examined the embarrassment avoidance between alone and in-group (go Dutch and sharing). The result showed a significant difference (F(2,127)=6.37, p<.001) among three conditions. The scenario depicting having dinner alone had the lower score for embarrassment avoidance (M=4.24) than either the go Dutch condition (M=5.61) or sharing condition (M=5.56), the last two exhibit a non-significant difference.
Multiple regression was conducted to test whether embarrassment avoidance acted as a mediator between the scenarios and complaint intention. First, the regression result for the mediator
(embarrassment avoidance) on the independent variable (scenarios) confirmed that the scenarios had an effect on embarrassment avoidance (β1=1.35, p<.01). The regression of the dependent variable (complaint intention) on the independent variables (scenarios) into the regression also showed a linear relationship (β2=-1.47, p<.01).Both scenarios and embarrassment avoidance were then added as independent variables into the regression;β1 dropped from 1.348 toβ′1 =-.316, p<.01, andβ2 dropped from -1.470 toβ′2 =-1.044, p<.01). These results were confirmed with a significant partial mediation effect (Baron and Kenny, 1986). This supports H2.
11 3.3 Discussion
The results of study 1 showed that participants had higher complaint intention when they had dinner alone than in-group consuming, in which they paid the bill either by going Dutch or by sharing. This finding contradicts prior literature (Huang et al., 2014; Huang and Wang, 2014). They suggest that the presence of companions has a facilitating effect on negative response or evaluation to a service failure.
However, the findings of study 1 are consistent with Fan et al. (2015) and Yan and Lotz (2009). Fan et al. (2015) indicate that people who value interdependence might not want to jeopardize social harmony by complaining about a service failure when in-group members are present. Based on diffusion of responsibility, similarly, Yan and Lotz (2009) suggest that people will not make a complaint to service providers because they their companions will also do it when they are in group consuming.
A possible reason for the mixed evidence is that embarrassment avoidance could be a psychological mechanism behind the difference between when people dine alone or in-group. The multiple regression results indicate that embarrassment avoidance acts as a partial mediator of complaint intention.
Specifically, the findings from study 1 support that participants have more embarrassment avoidance when they are in-group consuming than when they are alone. The findings also reveal no significant differences between the complaint intentions of those paying with go Dutch and those paying with shared payment.
4. Study 2
“Interpersonal scripts act as the link between individual attitudes and societal norms” (Hynie et al.,
1998, p. 2). Within the context of group consuming, interpersonal scripts provide the bridge between what the group members want and what they believe is deemed to be socially appropriate and
normative for a co-consuming party. Interpersonal scripts involve personal behavioral enactment based on what one wants to do, juxtaposed with what is socially acceptable. Behaviors that fall outside the zone of behavioral ‘acceptability’ are often perceived as deviant. Within the context of group
12
consuming, attitudes and behaviors among individuals likely vary regarding propriety as it relates to
‘who paid’.
In group consuming, customers can play the three distinct roles of paying consumer, partial-payer consumer (go Dutch or share the bill equally), and non-payer consumer. When a service failure occurs in group consuming, a focal customer may have conflicting feelings: one is his own negative feelings and the other is what his companions will think if he voices a complaint (i.e. embarrassment avoidance).
The supposed conflicts can be solved in various ways (Thomas, 1975) according to what degree the customer experiences a service failure, or takes others’ feelings into consideration versus his own. The conflict resolutions are classified into domination, integration, negligence and appeasement (Thomas, 1975).
1. Domination. If the paying consumer, a host, suffers a service failure, he might take not only his own negative feelings but also others’ into consideration. Due to his domination in group party, he might show greater complaint intention.
2. Appeasement or negligence. If a service failure occurs involving the non-payer consumer, a guest, he might take little account of his own feelings and attach great importance to the feelings of the payer (embarrassment avoidance). Based on appeasement or negligence, it might discourage him from making a complaint decision.
3. Integration. If the partial-payer consumer experiences a service failure, he attaches great importance both to his own feeling and to those of his companions. In an integration case, the extent of complaint intentions he could make is higher than the non-payer consumer’s, but lower than that of the paying consumer. Thus, we hypothesize the following
H3a. In a service failure, payers will have higher complaint intentions than partial payers.
H3b. In a service failure, partial payers will have higher complaint intentions than non-payers.
4.1 Method
13
Sample and procedure: 118 college students from the Division of Continuing Education of Taiwan
participated in this experiment for a credit reward. The average age of participants was 21 years (25.4%
male and 74.6% female). The mean rating for scenario realism was 5.56 (with 10 indicating “extremely realistic”). When asked to rate how often they go to similar restaurants in last six months, the mean
rating was 3.26 times per month. As in study 1, the service failure part of the scenario was cited from Smith et al. (1999). For the “Payers” condition, participants read “For celebrating your promotion, you
invited and treated a couple of friends to join the party”, as preceded the scenario in study 1. For the
“Non-payers” scenario, participants read “You were invited and treated by your companion to join
his/her promotion party”. The “Partial payers” scenario is the same in-group scenario as in study 1.
Manipulation Check: To manipulate the Payers/Non-payers/Partial payers situations, participants were asked “How do you deal with the group bill?” I paid the group bill / My companion paid / paid by
sharing / we went Dutch.
4.2 Results
Manipulation Check: The manipulation of the imagined scenario of Partial payers (n=40),
Non-payers (n=39) and Payers (n=39) was effective (Pearsonχ2=236.0, p=.000).
Complaint intention: An ANOVA was conducted, and there were significant differences (F(2,115) = 29.13, p<.001) among the three scenarios. The further LSD results demonstrated a significant effect between Partial payers / Payers (Mpartial payers=4.53, SD = 2.06 vs. M payers = 6.77, SD=2.06, p<.001), Partial payers / Non-payers (Mpartial payers=4.53 vs. M non-payers = 3.67, SD = 1.34; p<.05), and Payers / Non-payers (M payers = 6.77 vs. M non-payers = 3.67, p<.001) among the three scenarios of complaint intention. Thus, H3a and H3b were supported.
Embarrassment avoidance: An ANOVA was conducted and there was a significant difference (F(2,115)
= 9.14, p<.001) among the three scenarios. The further LSD results indicated that there was a significant effect between Partial payers / Payers (M partial payers=5.50, SD = 2.42 vs. M payers = 4.48, SD=2.23, p<.05), Partial payers / Non-payers (M partial payers=5.50 vs. M non-payers = 6.48, SD = 1.40;
14
p<.05), and Payers / Non-payers (M payers = 4.48 vs. M non-payers = 6.48, p<.001) among the three scenarios of embarrassment avoidance.
Multiple regression was conducted to test whether embarrassment avoidance acted as a mediator between scenarios and complaint intention. First, the within-subjects variables: Payers vs. Partial payers vs. Non-payers, were coded as dummy variable 1 (Payers=1; other samples=0) and dummy variable 2 (Non-payers=1; other samples=0). Next, the regression result for the mediator
(embarrassment avoidance) on the independent variable (scenarios: dummy variables 1 & 2) confirmed that the scenarios had effects on embarrassment avoidance (dummy variable1:β11=-1.02, SD11=0.47, p<.05; dummy variable 2:β12=0.98, SD12=0.47, p<.05). The regression of the dependent variable (complaint intention) on the independent variables (dummy variables 1 & 2) into the regression also showed a linear relationship (dummy variable 1:β21=2.24; SD21=0.42, p<.001 ; dummy variable 2:β
22=-0.86, SD22=0.42, p=.042).The dummy variables 1 and 2, and embarrassment avoidance were then added as independent variables into the regression, andβ21 dropped from 2.24 toβ′21 =1.95 ,SD=0.41, p<.001, andβ22 dropped from -0.86 toβ′22 =-0.58, SD=0.40, p>.1). These results of dummy variable 1 (Payers vs. other samples) indicated that there is a significant partial mediation effect. The other results of dummy variable 2 (Non-payers vs. other samples) were confirmed with a significant full mediation effect (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Thus, the results of study 2 confirm H2.
4.3 Discussion
The findings from this study demonstrate the impact of roles played by the consumer about payment on his or her complaint intentions. When the customer was dining in group consuming, Payers (versus Non-payers and Partial payers) were more likely to complain following a service failure. For
consumers who encounter service failures, the complaint intention is higher when they are partial payers than non-payers. Non-payers have greater embarrassment avoidance than either Payers or Partial payers. When people are non-payers in group consuming, the presence of other companions
15
triggered more embarrassment avoidance, which led to inhibiting their complaint intentions.
Furthermore, this study examines the mediating role of embarrassment avoidance between roles played by the consumer about payment and complaint intentions. Compared to the benchmark group (Payers and Partial payers), the Non-paying condition has a full mediation effect between consumer roles about payment and complaint intentions. Payer condition has a partial mediation effect between consumer roles about payment in group consuming and complaint intentions, compared to the benchmark group (Non-payers and Partial payers).
5. General discussion
5.1 Theoretical implications
Built on existing interpersonal influence research, this paper has yielded some new insights regarding social influence on customers’ responses to service failures. Evidence from prior studies has
suggested that the presence of other companions has higher consumers’ complaint intention than being alone (Huang et al., 2014; Huang and Wang, 2014). However, in the current study, we found that people dining with other companions does not magnify consumer’s complaint intentions compared to when they are alone; conversely, consumers who encounter service failures have higher complaint intentions when they are alone than when they are with other companions. This result is consistent with previous findings on social inhibition of expression (Buck et al., 1992; Fan et al., 2015). A possible reason for the mixed evidence is that embarrassment avoidance could be a psychological mechanism behind the difference between two situations (when people dine alone or in-group). Specifically, we found that the presence or absence of other companions impacts consumers’ embarrassment avoidance and subsequent complaining intentions differently. Similar evidence of the potential drivers of
embarrassment was found by Wu and Mattila (2013), who demonstrate that the elicitation of consumer embarrassment is socially shaped by the presence of fellow customers.
This paper also contributes to the literature by separating the payer from the consumer. Previous
16
research has largely ignored the roles played by the consumer about payment in group consuming on customer complaint behavior resulting from service failure. Bon and Pras (1984) demonstrate that the functions of buying, paying and consuming when played by separate individuals have different influences on buying behavior. In group consuming, moreover, the function of paying when carried out by a single person or everyone affects people’s related attitudes differently (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). The results of our studies, however, extend the above research by demonstrating that Payers, Partial payers and Non-payers have different influences on consumer complaint behavior (CCB) following a service failure.
The findings of this study indicate that the four classifications of conflict resolution in Thomas (1975): domination, negligence, appeasement and integration seem appropriate for understanding the psychological mechanism behind the differences among Payers, Partial payers and Non-payers in a failed service situation. More specifically, the findings of this paper indicate that embarrassment avoidance acts as the psychological mechanism behind differences in complaint intentions following service failures. Prior literature emphasizes studying the role of discrete emotions in hospitality marketing (Wu and Mattila, 2013); however, our paper contributes to the literature as initial research examining how consumer embarrassment mediates the effect of pay in group consuming on customer complaint behavior in the field of hospitality management.
5.2 Managerial implications
The findings of our research have several implications for hospitality service practitioners. Firstly, service providers should pay more attention to customers in group consuming, as they exhibit more embarrassment avoidance and are less likely to complain following failures. Improving customer satisfaction is an important goal in the hospitality industry. However, the effective service recovery strategies are limited to situations in which service firms become aware of the occurrence of their failures. If affected customers do not bother to complain, many firms will lose a significant number of disgruntled customers without having the chance to recover from the service failure. In order to
17
decrease customers’ embarrassment avoidance stemming from the presence of other companions, and increase their complaint intentions following failures, restaurant managers can provide multiple private complaint channels to the potential complainers such as a satisfaction questionnaire, toll-free number, e-mail, private verbal inquiries, etc. On the other hand, customers dining alone are less affected by embarrassment avoidance from the presence of other companions. They tend to voice their
dissatisfaction when service failures occur. When serving customers dining alone, service providers might want to streamline their complaint channels in order to facilitate the complaint process.
Secondly, Payer-consumers who might have an attitude of domination have less embarrassment avoidance and greater complaint intentions following service failures than the Partial payers whose attitude could be integrative, and Partial payers have less embarrassment avoidance and greater complaint intentions than the Non-payer consumers who might have an attitude of appeasement or negligence. In distinguishing the roles played by customers about payment in group dining, service providers can ask customers about the bill after placing their orders, such as “what kind of bill do you need, a group bill or separate the bill for everyone?” or “Who will take care of paying the bill?” This is particularly important for recognizing non-payer consumers because they have higher embarrassment avoidance and less complaint intention.
Thirdly, disgruntled consumers tend to engage in negative word-of-mouth (WOM). In order to achieve the goal of maximizing the capture of all implied customer complaints before they voice a negative WOM or even exit, the first line employee should offer proactive service instead of reactive
service. For example, in the process of delivering services, frontline staff might actively and politely ask “Everything ok? Sir/Madam” to encourage customers to voice their opinions, especially Non-payer
consumers. Due to more embarrassment avoidance stemming from the presence of other companions, Non-payer consumers tend to inhibit their complaint intentions after the failures. Those customers are likely to engage in negative WOM as a way of expressing dissatisfaction. Similar proactive services are more important to Non-payers.
18 5.3 Limitations and future research
There are several limitations in this research that provide direction for future investigations. First, we focused on the specific sample (undergraduate students from Division of Continuing Education of Taiwan) and one type of service setting (restaurant dining). Our experimental design meets the purpose of theory building by maximizing internal validity, but its external validity might be limited. Thus, the findings of our study may not be generalizable to other types of samples and other service contexts. In addition, hypothetical scenarios can either over- or under-elicit the desired emotion. Using vignettes might not be as effective as a field study for measuring emotions such as embarrassment. Future research should use more types of hospitality settings and different methodologies to replicate the findings of this study, and to extend the current findings. Moreover, our data were collected from collectivist Chinese, which produces the question of the transferability of our results to individualist Americans. The role of culture needs to be further examined. Fan et al. (2015) found that American customers dining out with the presence of in-group members (versus Chinese) are more likely to voice complaints about service failures.
Second, the service failure occurring on either one in-group member or all is likely to influence consumer complaint behavior differently. For example, if the service messed all in-group orders or just one member’s. Future research could explore the interactive effect of who paid and the scope of failure (either on all or one in-group member) on complaint intentions, and test for moderated mediation to examine the mediating role of embarrassment avoidance on the interactive effect.
Finally, this study only examined a single situation factor (i.e. who paid) on consumer reaction to service failures. Nevertheless, there are situational influences that play an important role on examining how customers evaluate their dissatisfaction with the service provider or complaint intentions
following service failures when they are accompanied by social companions (Huang and Wang, 2014;
Huang et al., 2014). Huang and Wang (2014) and Huang et al. (2014) have investigated how situational contexts, such as group size, tie strength (level of closeness), companions of the same gender or
19
opposite gender, and consumption goals (utilitarian vs. hedonic) influence customers’ reactions to service failures. In light of the extensive results for the significance of situational factors that emerged in prior research, the present study it would be extended if future research designs were specifically structured to systematically investigate situational factors.
20
References
Aiello JR, Douthitt EA (2001) Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 5: 163–180.
Argo JJ, Dahl DW, Manchanda RV (2005) The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context.
Journal of Consumer Research 32: 207–212.
Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.
Bon J, Pras B (1984) Dissociation of the roles of buyer, payer and consumer. International Journal of Research in Marketing 1: 7-16.
Buck R, Losow JI, Murphy MM, Costanzo P (1992) Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 962–968.
Chan H, Wan LC, Sin LYM (2009) The contrasting effects of culture on consumer tolerance:
interpersonal face and impersonal fate. Journal of Consumer Research 36: 292–304.
Childers TL, Rao AR (1992) The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 19: 198–211.
Dahl DW, Manchanda RV, Argo JJ (2001) Embarrassment in consumer purchase: the roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research 28 : 473–81.
Emmers-Sommer TM, Farrell J, Gentry A, Stevens S, Eckstein J, Battocletti J, Gardener C (2010) First date sexual expectations: the effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender.
Communication Studies 61: 339–355.
Fan A, Mattila. AS, Zhao X (2014) How does social distance impact customers’ complaint intentions?
a cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management 47:35-42.
Gaumer CJ, LaFief WC (2005) Social facilitation: affect and application in consumer buying situations.
Journal of Food Products Marketing 11: 75–82.
Heinonen K, Strandvik T (2015) Customer-dominant logic: foundations and implications. Journal of Services Marketing 29: 472-484.
Huang MCJ, Wu HC, Chuang SH, Lin WH (2014) Who gets to decide your complaint intentions? the influence of other companions on reaction to service failures. International Journal of Hospitality Management 37:180-189.
Huang WH, Wang YC (2014) Situational influences on the evaluation of other-customer failure.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 36: 110-119.
Hynie M, Lydon JE, Côté S, Wiener S (1998) Relational sexual scripts and women’s condom use:
The importance of internalized norms. The Journal of Sex Research 35: 370–380.
Kim N, Lee M (2012) Other customers in a service encounter: examining the effect in a restaurant setting. Journal of Services Marketing 26: 27-40.
Lewis M, (1993) Self-conscious emotions: embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In: Lewis M, Haviland JM (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions. Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 563–573.
21
Luo X (2005) How does shipping with others influence impulsive purchasing? Journal of Consumer Psychology 15: 288–294.
Manstead ASR, Semin GR (1981) Social transgressions, social perspectives, and social emotionality.
Motivation and Emotion 5: 249-261.
Mattila A, Hanks L, Wang C (2014) Others’ service experiences: emotions, perceived justice, and behavior. European Journal of Marketing 48: 552-571.
Mattila AS, Wirtz J (2004) Consumer complaining to firms: the determinants of channel choice.
Journal of Services Marketing 18:147-155.
Miao L (2014) Self-regulation and “other consumers” at service encounters: a sociometer perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 39: 122–129.
Miller RS, Leary MR (1992) Social sources and interactive functions of emotion: The case of
embarrassment. In: M. Clark (ed.), Emotion and social behavior (pp. 202-221). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Moschis GP (1985) The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research 11: 898- 913.
Muelenhard CL, Friedman DE, Thomas CM (1985) Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 9: 297–310.
Rafaeli S, Noy A (2002) Online auctions, messaging, communication and social facilitation: a simulation and experimental evidence. European Journal of Information Systems 11: 196–207.
Robbins BD, Parlavecchio H (2006) The unwanted exposure of the self: a phenomenological study of embarrassment. The Humanistic Psychologist 34: 321-345.
Sabini J, Siepmann M, Stein J, Meyerowitz M (2000) Who is embarrassed by what? Cognition and Emotion 14: 213–240.
Schlenker BR, Leary MR (1982) Social anxiety and self-presentation: a conceptualization and model.
Psychological Bulletin 92: 641–669.
Smith AK, Bolton RN (1998) An experimental investigation of customer reactions to service failure and recovery encounters: paradox or peril? Journal of Service Research 1: 65-81.
Smith AK, Bolton RN, Wagner J (1999) A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research 36: 356-372.
Sridhar S, Srinivasan R (2012) Social influence effects in online product ratings. Journal of Marketing 76: 70-88.
Thomas K (1975) Conflict and conflict management. In: Marvin D. Dunette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Van Vaerenbergh Y, Vermeir I, Larivière B (2013) Service recovery’s impact on customers next-in-line. Managing Service Quality 23: 495-512.
Wu LL, Mattila A (2013) Investigating consumer embarrassment in service interactions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33: 196-202.
22
Yan R-N, Lotz S (2009) Taxonomy of the influence of other customers in consumer complaint behavior:
A social-psychological perspective. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior.22: 107–126.
Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149: 269-274.
