Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav.

12: 32–41 (2013)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1403

Transitory bias as a source of customer dissatisfaction: An exploratory

investigation
PHILIP J. TROCCHIA* and MICHAEL G. LUCKETT
Marketing, USF St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

ABSTRACT

Previous literature has identified sources of customer dissatisfaction in the forms of poor product performance, discrimination, and universal
mistreatment (i.e., broad-based mistreatment of customers). This article proposes the existence of a fourth source of perceived customer
dissatisfaction, termed transitory bias, which is based upon fleeting customer characteristics and actions. Using a critical incident approach, this
exploratory study analyzes customer narratives of 230 negative experiences. After writing their narratives, consumer informants completed a
quantitative survey pertaining to their experience. Some sources of transitory bias were found to be customer complaining, negotiation, special
requests, and underpurchasing. Transitory bias was found to drive perceptions of negative customer experiences in 29.1 per cent of the narratives.
This was fewer than the number of cases involving universal mistreatment (50%) but more than those involving poor product performance
(18.3%) and discrimination (2.6%). Results showed that satisfaction, repeat purchase likelihood, recommendation likelihood, and word of mouth
were similar to those found in narratives where universal mistreatment and discrimination were primary drivers of dissatisfaction. This article
creates awareness of the transitory bias construct and allows academicians the opportunity to study it as a source of customer dissatisfaction.
Retail and service establishments should be aware of customer perceptions of transitory bias because it impacts key performance metrics.
Managers may wish to train employees to better identify and respond to sources of transitory bias.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION customer expectations of product quality may be misaligned

with the actual delivery of the good or service without any
Marketers continually seek to improve customer satisfaction feelings of mistreatment. A framework commonly used to
because that metric is linked to repeat sales and loyalty, identify discrepancies between customer perceptions and
market share, positive word of mouth, and profitability (Nasir, managerial actions in service and retailing organizations is
2004; Baker et al., 2008; Li et al., 2008). Clearly, when the SERVQUAL gap model, which identifies five gaps that
consumers feel they are treated poorly by the people they do can cause problems in service delivery and influence
business with, satisfaction and patronage suffer. Multiple customer evaluations of service quality (Parasuraman et al.,
sources of customer dissatisfaction have been described in 1988; Zeithaml et al., 2006). Gap 1 in the SERVQUAL
the literature. These include poor product performance model describes differences between what customers want
(Crie, 2003), idiomatic forms of perceived mistreatment based and what management thinks their customers want. Gap 2
on uncontrollable customer characteristics such as age, race, or reflects the difference between what management thinks
gender (Crockett et al., 2003), and feelings of mistreatment customers want and the quality specifications that manage-
that have nothing to do with the customer’s individual traits ment develops to provide the service. Gap 3 comprises the
(Helms and Mayo, 2008). This paper seeks to add another void between the service quality specifications and the
source of customer dissatisfaction, termed transitory bias, to service that is actually provided, whereas Gap 4 describes
the literature, one that is based upon perceptions of mistreatment the difference between what the company actually provides
stemming from temporary customer characteristics or behav- and what the customer is told it provides. Finally, customer
iors. In this case, consumers play an active role (whether perceptions of poor product performance could potentially
intentionally or unintentionally) in creating feelings of be viewed as the difference between what customers expect
dissatisfaction. Although similar phenomena have been and what they actually receive, or Gap 5 in the SERVQUAL
discussed in the literature, such as complaining (Park et al., gap model (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
2008), negotiation (Trocchia, 2004), deviant behaviors Customers may be dissatisfied if they believe a good fails to
(Reynolds and Harris, 2009), informal attire (Schaffer, 2000), perform as expected (e.g., a motor vehicle proves to be a
and customer loyalty (Jensen, 2011), no study has grouped lemon), if tangible elements of a service are subpar (e.g., a
interactive customer behaviors that influence their own smallish dance floor in a rented banquet room), or if a service
dissatisfaction. In the succeeding discussions, we describe proves unreliable (e.g., an airline loses luggage), but the
extant sources of dissatisfaction in further detail before customer is unlikely to feel mistreated as long as the establish-
elaborating on the taxonomy presented in this article. ment’s agents behave appropriately. In most instances, percep-
One source of dissatisfaction may result from customer tions of mistreatment are found to occur from interpersonal
perceptions of poor product performance. In these instances, interaction with company employees instead of from a core
product failure (Hunt et al., 1988; Fram and Callahan, 2001).
*Correspondence to: Philip J. Trocchia, Marketing, USF St. Petersburg, St.
Petersburg, FL, USA. Unlike cases of dissatisfaction involving poor product
E-mail: [email protected] performance, feelings of perceived customer mistreatment do

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 Transitory bias: An exploratory investigation 33

arise when customer dissatisfaction is attributed to one of the respect afforded to the customer for being human is overridden
following sources. by the boundary spanners’ ignorance, fear, or inherent dislike of
A second source of customer dissatisfaction may be referred a particular group of people, which causes them to behave in a
to as universal mistreatment. In this instance, customers negatively biased fashion (Baird and Rosenbaum, 1999). In
believe that the mistreatment they perceive from company virtually all instances, this prejudicial behavior is a deviation
employees occurs not because of their own individual from the prescribed company policies and training, similar to
characteristics but from a more systemic cause. For example, Gap 3 of Parasuraman et al. (1988), where service quality
call center representatives may be evaluated on the number specifications differ from the service that is actually provided.
of calls they complete per hour, which may result in increased In this paper, we identify a fourth source of customer
customer perceptions of brusque treatment or lack of empathy; dissatisfaction termed transitory bias. Transitory bias is
this is reflected by Gap 2 in the SERVQUAL gap model defined as perceived differential treatment emanating from
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). Management may perceive that temporary and controllable customer characteristics and
customers want services to be completed as quickly as possible behaviors. Examples may include customers’ verbal and
and are often incentivized to serve a maximum number of nonverbal communication, demonstration of product category
customers with minimal resources. Customers, on the other knowledge and experience (or lack thereof), and personal
hand, may feel that the service provider, although efficient, grooming (Schaffer, 2000). In each of these incidences,
is curt and impersonal, thus violating established civil customers play a role in their own dissatisfaction regardless
norms such as courtesy and warmth, and sacrificing a basic of the justification for their behavior. For instance, complaining
level of respect. about cold French fries is reasonable; however, it could
Researchers have distinguished between two types of potentially result in poor service after the complaint, even if
respect: recognition respect and performative respect. Whereas expressed politely. Similarly, lacking knowledge or experience
the former type of respect is afforded simply for being human, in automotive repair is not outside the norm but could result in
the latter is earned as a result of one’s actions (Bird, 2004; the car owner being spoken to in a patronizing manner by
Ward and Ostrom, 2006). In instances of universal mistreat- his mechanic. Transitory bias is further distinguished from
ment, consumers feel that companies are denying them the universal mistreatment in that the customer believes that she or
recognition respect they deserve simply for being a customer. he has been singled out for one of these more fleeting personal
Similar conceptions of universal mistreatment have been characteristics or behaviors. Previous research on deviant
described as “unreasonably slow service,” “unavailable consumer behavior focuses primarily on negative or abnormal
service,” “hold disasters,” and “bad information” (Bitner behaviors (Reynolds and Harris, 2009), which fail to capture
et al., 1990; Kelley et al., 1993). Universal mistreatment can the more encompassing term of transitory bias, which
also include instances whereby management introduces a type addresses both negative and “normal” customer behaviors.
of institutional runaround with such devices as automated In the case of transitory bias, consumers feel a denial of
phone systems, multiphase rebate programs, and deceptive respect on the basis of their intentional or unintentional actions
advertisements (Hess and Gerstner, 1998). Customers may in the retail environment or during the service delivery process
attribute their poor treatment to the manager’s dishonesty (i.e., performative respect). Although elements of transitory
through bait and switch tactics (Hess and Gerstner, 1998), bias have previously been addressed in the literature, the
marketing personnel bringing their personal problems to the concept has lacked systematic and comprehensive exploration.
workplace, or socializing instead of paying attention to Kelley et al. (1993), for instance, referred to a group of retail
customer needs (Helms and Mayo, 2008). Under these failures termed Employee Response to Customer Needs and
circumstances, patrons realize that, although being treated Requests, where the retail personnel response to the incident
poorly, they are not being singled out; in fact, everyone dictated the level of customer satisfaction experienced.
appears to receive equally poor service. Hence, customer Universal mistreatment, discrimination, and transitory bias
perceptions of mistreatment may result from some combina- all share a common thread: customers feel as if they have
tion of factors such as poor hiring decisions, lack of been disrespected. A contextual framework for transitory bias
employee training and supervision, unethical managerial in terms of customers’ perceptions of mistreatment and
decision making, and cost-cutting measures (Gerstner and individualized attention can be found in Table 1. Also noted
Libai, 2006). is the existence of positive service bias and expected product
A third source of dissatisfaction is discrimination, which performance. In the first instance, the employee’s conduct
emanates not from perceptions of universal but rather from is perceived as favorably biased towards the customer. One
idiosyncratic mistreatment. Discrimination has been the example of this found in the literature is that of service
subject of significant negative media attention and lawsuits, sweethearting, whereby employees give unauthorized free or
often with negative financial consequences and alienation discounted goods or services to a friend or acquaintance
of one’s customer base (French, 2005; Kirchgaessner, (Brady et al., 2012). In the latter case, customers perceive a
2010). Here, consumers feel they are mistreated on the basis satisfactory level of professionalism and execution in the
of fixed and relatively unchangeable primary characteristics transaction. However, because both of these concepts relate
such as their age, race, ethnicity, physical/mental ability, to positive outcomes in service transactions, they are not
sexual orientation, and/or gender identity (Crockett et al., discussed further in this paper.
2003; Snipes et al., 2006; Squires and Kubrin, 2006; Baker The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the
et al., 2008). In the case of discrimination, recognition existence and pervasiveness of transitory bias as a source

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
34 P. J. Trocchia and M. G. Luckett

Table 1. Contextual framework for transitory bias

Do customers perceive they are being singled out by the service provider?
Yes No
Do customers perceive Yes Discrimination Universal mistreatment
they are being • Based upon permanent customer Ex: Institutional runaround (automated
mistreated by the characteristics phone systems, multiphase rebate programs,
service provider? Ex: Poor restaurant service because and deceptive advertisements); or indifferent
of one’s race; or female customers service from socializing staff
deceived into paying for unnecessary
auto repairs
Transitory bias
• Based upon temporary customer
characteristics
Ex: Complaining about a cell phone
bill leads to rude treatment by customer
service representative; a customer who
orders an inexpensive entrée receives
slow service; infrequent patronage at
hair salon results in a longer wait time;
or hardball price negotiation leads to
perfunctory customer walkthrough
No Positive service bias Poor product performance
Ex: Nightclub cover charges waived for Ex: Motor vehicle proves to be a lemon; small
attractive customers; extra discounts received dance floor in a rented banquet room; or airline
by flirting with service personnel; or sweetheart loses luggage
deals obtained by personally knowing employees
Expected product performance
Ex: Flight arrives on time; mechanic performs
proper repair; or physician correctly diagnoses
ailment

of perceived customer dissatisfaction distinctive from poor The students were instructed to provide a detailed self-report
product performance, universal mistreatment, or discrimination. narrative of both positive and negative service encounters
Although the latter concepts are perhaps more broadly that they had personally experienced within the past year.
accepted, transitory bias is also a potentially common issue Specific details, such as the company name, a description
facing marketers. Accordingly, our research propositions for of the product sought, the dollar amount spent, and the
this study are as follows: number of people in the party, were required for full class
credit. This methodology is patterned after the critical
Research Question 1. Can transitory bias be found in consumer incident technique used in prior studies (e.g., Bitner et al.,
accounts of their own negative experiences? 1990; Yan and Lotz, 2009; Zhang et al., 2010). Although
Research Question 2. Is transitory bias a common form of both positive and negative narratives were collected, only
customer dissatisfaction, relative to poor product performance, the negative cases were examined for this study.
discrimination, and universal mistreatment?
Research Question 3. Are there subcategories of transitory bias,
and if so, what are they?
Table 2. Sample characteristics
Research Question 4. How do instances of transitory bias
compare with poor product performance, discrimination, Demographic variables Number Percentage
and universal mistreatment in terms of such dependent Gender:
measures as level of satisfaction, likelihood of repeat Male 122 53.0
purchase, likelihood of recommending the service to Female 108 47.0
others, and word-of-mouth behavior? Age (years):
18–24 121 52.6
25–34 78 33.9
35–44 19 8.3
METHOD 45–54 10 4.3
55 and older 2 0.9
Race/ethnicity:
Data were collected via a sample of 235 students as part of an Asian 16 6.9
undergraduate course requirement at a large, southeastern Black 20 8.7
university. Five narratives were eliminated from the sample Hispanic 9 3.9
because of missing information, allowing for a usable sample White (non-Hispanic) 180 78.3
Other 5 2.2
of 230 responses. (See Table 2 for sample characteristics.)

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Transitory bias: An exploratory investigation 35

The sample represents a wide range of retailers. Almost On the basis of the categories assigned by the two
half (48.3%), 111 of the 230 episodes described, pertained independent coders, a proportion of interjudge agreement of
to a restaurant dining/bar experience or automotive repair. 90.8 per cent (209 agreed out of 230 cases) with an associated
The remaining narratives involved purchases at traditional reliability of 94 per cent (using four categories as determined
and online retailers, hairstylists, telecommunication firms, by Rust and Cooil, 1994) resulted. This percentage of
and doctors’ offices. (See Table 3.) convergence between coders indicates a reasonable degree
In order to analyze the data, the authors used an iterative of rigor for the conceptualization and delineation of the
process similar to Creswell’s (2006) narrative approach. To classifications (c.f., Luna et al., 2005; Pracejus et al., 2006).
generate a common classification system, the narratives were In addition, 94 per cent reliability exceeds Nunnally’s (1978)
individually coded by the two authors to identify themes and rule of thumb of 0.70 for exploratory work and meets his
patterns from the data. This initial coding resulted in the recommendation of 0.90 or better for more advanced practice.
identification of several thematic categories and subcategories. The 21 disagreed-upon narratives were then jointly
Each narrative was first classified as containing either customer categorized after individual discussion. The jointly and
perceptions of mistreatment or poor product performance individually coded narratives were then combined, and those
without mistreatment as the root cause of the customer’s featuring transitory bias were identified and further analyzed.
dissatisfaction. Those narratives describing mistreatment were The 67 incidents identified as resulting from some form of
further classified as either biased or nonbiased forms of transitory bias were then coded into one of the 10 subcate-
mistreatment. Narratives deemed biased were classified as gories described in the Results section and presented in
resulting from either discrimination or transitory bias. Those Figure 1.
identified as nonbiased were classified as cases of universal Besides writing the descriptions of their negative encounters,
mistreatment. In this initial round of coding, disagreements the students were also asked to complete a brief questionnaire
on initial categorization were set aside; these cases were then asking their demographic information as well as dependent
jointly classified after the merits of each argument were measures pertaining to their negative experiences. Three of
considered and resolved. the dependent items (likelihood of repeat purchase, overall
Once the classification system had emerged, in order to service satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending the firm
address coder objectivity (Kassarjian, 1977), the authors to others) were measured using a seven-point Likert scale.
selected and trained two independent judges (advanced The fourth, word-of-mouth behavior, required respondents to
graduate students) to code all of the narratives by using answer the question, “Approximately how many people did
author-identified thematic categories: poor product perfor- you tell about your negative experience?” Results of the quan-
mance, universal mistreatment, discrimination, and transitory titative section were analyzed using multivariate analysis of
bias. The narrative in its entirety constituted the unit of analysis. variance (MANOVA) in SPSS 19.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
If the coders identified more than one cause of dissatisfaction,
they were instructed to use a number of methods to determine
the primary source, including thematic repetition, descriptive
length, and strength of language, and contextual cues. This RESULTS
was carried out to avoid over-representing those narratives
with multiple sources of dissatisfaction and to capture the In regard to Research Question 1: “Can transitory bias be found
driving force behind the customer’s discontent, for example, in consumer accounts of their own negative experiences?”
if a participant had her or his luggage lost by an airline and results indicate the existence of this phenomenon in 67
was also treated rudely by an airline representative; the coders (29.1%) of the consumer narratives of negative product
relied on the narrative itself to properly code the cause of encounters. In these cases, customers described encounters
dissatisfaction. So, if the inconvenience of lost luggage and where their actions, whether intentional or unintentional, were
not the rude behavior was the focus of the narrative, then perceived to cause some form of bias against them.
poor product performance was selected as the principal source In response to Research Question 2: “Is transitory bias
of dissatisfaction. a common form of customer dissatisfaction, relative to
poor product performance, discrimination, and universal
mistreatment?” findings revealed discrimination in only six
Table 3. Frequency of service type in negative customer narratives narratives (2.6%), and 115 descriptions (50%) featured universal
mistreatment. Although universal mistreatment was the most
Type of service Frequency Percentage Median ($)
commonly described source of poor service, transitory bias
Restaurant/bar 68 29.6 25.00 was far more prevalent than discrimination. Additionally,
Automotive repair 43 18.7 295.00 narratives describing transitory bias were broadly distributed
Brick and mortar retail 27 11.7 80.50 across product categories, prices paid, and customer characteris-
Hair and nail salon/barber 25 10.9 40.00
Telecommunication 16 7.0 85.00 tics. Although all narratives described negative experiences, 42
Transportation 9 3.9 250.00 (18.3%) lacked any indication that the customer felt mistreated;
Medical services 9 3.9 95.00 these instances of poor product performance usually featured
Internet retail 7 3.0 80.00 little or no negative interaction with boundary spanners.
Miscellaneous services 26 11.3 134.50 Examples include defective products, dirty facilities, and other
Total 230 100.0
problems fixed without conflict (Table 4).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
36 P. J. Trocchia and M. G. Luckett

Customer Dissatisfaction
(n = 230)

Perceived Mistreatment Poor Product

(n = 188) Performance
(n=42)

Universal Discrimination Transitory Bias

Mistreatment (n=6) (n=67)
(n=115)

Intentional Customer Unintentional Customer

Actions Actions

Complaining Lacking Product

Refusing Expert Category
Advice Sophistication
Negotiating Reporting “Phantom”
Violating Protocol Problems
Making Special Underpurchasing
Requests Infrequent Patronage
Displaying
Condescension

Figure 1. Sources of customer dissatisfaction.

Addressing Research Question 3: “Are there subcate- Some customers believe that lodging complaints may cause
gories of transitory bias, and if so, what are they?” results trouble or retaliatory action in either their present or future
revealed several distinct categories of transitory bias. Incidents encounters. Hence, patrons are sometimes reluctant to express
were classified into two general categories: intentional and negative opinions or criticize; prior research has found that as
unintentional customer actions. In other words, some few as five per cent of dissatisfied customers actually complain
consumer narratives indicate awareness that their actions (Harari, 1992). Consumers who risk complaining have been
(or inaction) may be a source of potential bias by the service found to differ from noncomplainers on the basis of personality
provider, thus contributing to the negative encounter, whereas characteristics such as higher levels of perceived control over
others indicate no such awareness. Within each of these two others and lower levels of self-control (Bodey and Grace,
broad types of transitory bias, several subclassifications were 2006) and are thus more likely to induce transitory bias in their
also identified and are discussed as follows. encounters. Interestingly, although the literature clearly
addresses consumer retaliation against companies (Bougie
Intentional customer actions as sources of transitory bias et al., 2003), there is scant literature documenting employees’
Intentional customer actions were defined as those behaviors in and firms’ retaliation against their customers. Two major
which the customer knowingly engaged, often in the hopes categories of complaining behavior were identified: hierarchi-
of achieving a positive outcome while risking potentially cal and direct.
negative consequences. These actions ranged from seemingly A type of customer complaint that surfaced in the narra-
mild requests to customers’ admittedly rude behavior. Within tives, the hierarchical complaint, pertained to instances where
this set of consumer narratives, the following intentional the objection went over the head of the individual rendering
sources of transitory bias were identified: complaining, the service and was made directly to an authority figure
refusing expert advice, negotiating, violating protocol, making (e.g., restaurant manager or automotive service supervisor).
special requests, and displaying condescension. For example, one respondent and her husband, after being
ignored for an extended time by their server, decided to leave
the restaurant but stopped on their way out, stating, “We
Complaining
explained our situation to a manager and she politely
A common source of perceived transitory bias pertained to
apologized. We declined her offer to stay because we felt as
reactions from the firms in response to customer complaining.
though we were now marked as the couple that complained.”
Table 4. Frequency customer dissatisfaction in negative customer (Deborah H.) In this case, the couple appeared to be concerned
narratives that the restaurant staff might have retaliated in subtle ways.
A second type of complaint, the direct complaint, was
Service failure Frequency Percentage
intended for the individual(s) with whom customers had their
Universal mistreatment 115 50.0 primary interactions (e.g., the restaurant server or mechanic).
Transitory bias 67 29.1 In such instances, respondents sometimes felt that they had
Discrimination 6 2.6 agitated their service providers, who, in turn, treated their
Poor product performance 42 18.3
customers with newfound rudeness. Correct handling of

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Transitory bias: An exploratory investigation 37

customer complaints is critical because failed service told him no because I just had gotten them done last time. . ..
recovery efforts can result in even greater levels of distrust I felt very uncomfortable and unwelcomed.”
and negative word of mouth from dissatisfied complaintants
than from noncomplaintants (Kau and Wan-Yiun Loh, Negotiating
2006). For instance, when one respondent noticed problems Consumers often believe that if they engage in retail price
with the amount and terms of her rental car agreement and haggling, they may face some form of retaliation at a later
questioned the representative’s findings, she noted that the date (Trocchia, 2004). This may manifest itself by the firm
once cordial representative abruptly changed her demeanor, cutting corners in terms of the quality of future repair work
“She seemed irritated that I would question her or the (e.g., plumbing or electrical services), quality of materials
computer.” (Nina T.) Fear of retaliation, often based upon used (e.g., automotive repair or catering), or promptness in
common hearsay or urban legend, can cause consumers to completing a job (e.g., home construction). For example,
hesitate to complain. In this instance, Michelle B. expressed after bargaining for a second skimmer during the construction
her reluctance to complain about a hair found in her burger of a new pool, one respondent felt, “Since I had negotiated with
and onion rings, “I normally hate to send food back because them (the pool company) and cut their margins, they were
I’m afraid of what they will do with it.” doing less to accommodate me when these issues came up.”
Some direct complaints may be boomeranged, where the (Barry S.)
service provider responds to the complaint by placing the
blame for the service failure on the customer’s shoulders. Violating protocol
Whether the problem is in fact the fault of the customer or Service protocols are expected standards of behaviors from all
not, his or her reaction is likely to include disbelief and a parties in the delivery of a good or service; their importance has
sense of disrespect. One respondent described how his been recognized in the literature (Mittal and Baker, 1998).
request to have his Volkswagen’s rattling problem fixed at Product delivery often involves active customer participation
a specialty repair shop for German cars resulted in the service along a series of routine exchanges with the provider
manager accusing him of being a bad driver, “The manager (Bettencourt, 1997; Kellogg et al., 1997; Blazevic and
was trying to put the blame on me. He said that they would Lievens, 2008). The relative degree of success or failure for
‘fix’ it one more time and that I needed to drive better.” customer outcomes often depends upon all participants
(Joe S.) adhering to their respective roles and duties (Bitner et al.,
Some complaints are received with suspicion based upon 1997). Both the customer and the retailer or service provider
perceived fraud. One source of suspicion arises when the have expectations regarding each stage of the product
customer’s complaints are perceived to have an economic delivery process. If these expected actions differ from
motive. The timing of the customer complaint can also established norms, problems can arise.
generate suspicion from the service provider. For instance, For example, in many cultures, leaving a gratuity has been a
if a customer reports a problem with a meal after eating most long-held social norm (Hornik, 1992; Azar and Tobol, 2008),
of his meal, the reaction from the restaurant may be less than and when this expectation is breached, conflict between parties
sympathetic. Although no examples of such an incident may arise. One respondent, who felt her party received poor
were found, one respondent described an instance where a service, conveyed this sentiment, “We left exact change with
problem occurred and the report, having been made in a no tip and got up and left. The waiter came out of the door after
timely fashion, eliminated the suspicion. Alison V. stated, us yelling obscenities about how we were horrible for not
“As I was tossing the salad I noticed something that tipping him.” (Cynthia P.) According to the respondent, the
resembled a cockroach and sure enough it was a nasty cut- waiter was so incensed by their protocol violation that he
in-half cockroach!!! I almost through [sic] up at the table. I followed the party on foot for nearly three city blocks.
showed my server the salad with the cockroach in it and Another violation of protocol uncovered in the narratives
she proceeded to say, ‘Oh it’s a good thing you showed it involves the customer arriving at a retail establishment just
to me now, or else they might not let me take it off the bill.’” prior to closing time and expecting normal levels of service.
Irritations for staff and management can arise from such late
arrivals because the nightly closing process has often already
Refusing expert advice begun in anticipation of closing quickly and going home. Here,
Sometimes professionals recommend the purchase of items Nate W. related that he found the doors at Taco Bell locked
that consumers feel are unnecessary. The refusal to follow earlier than the posted time. “I asked the drive-thru lady what
the recommendation may be based upon knowledge (or lack time they closed the dining room. She said 10:00 PM. I said
thereof), poor explanation on the part of the expert, or when I got here it was 9:57. And the doors were locked. She
suspicion of being oversold (Taylor and Bower, 2004). Such just looked away and ignored my question.”
refusal may be perceived as offensive to the provider,
because their expert judgment has been rejected. In some Making special requests
cases, the provider may be substituting his or her professional Empowering employees to accommodate special requests,
judgment in lieu of the customer’s expressed wishes. In this ranging from the commonplace to the extraordinary, can
instance, Nicole B. described her confrontation with her enhance the customer experience (Bitner et al., 1990). The
dentist after refusing a second request for a dental X-ray, “He impact of special requests has been found to vary significantly
then started to yell at me and tell me that I needed them and I across cultures on the basis of whether the special request

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
38 P. J. Trocchia and M. G. Luckett

offered a strong or legitimate reason and the existence to worry about. Even though I didn’t know anything about cars
of personal ties between the employee and the customer and would probably believe anything they told me I didn’t
(Hui et al., 2004). However, Sarah B. provided one example appreciate them treating me like I was stupid.”
of a seemingly innocuous special request that resulted in
conflict with the server. “Each of the couples in our group Reporting “phantom” problems
wanted separate bills and when we asked her to separate Most consumers are familiar with the situation where they
them, she answered with a sigh and annoyed look.” are sure in their minds that a problem exists, but they are
The respondent later added, after the party lingered, the unable to reproduce the problem for diagnosis (e.g., computer
server’s “angry glares told us that we had better get going glitch, cable TV picture quality, and medical symptoms),
or else.” which we term a “phantom” problem. A variety of reasons
may explain this phenomenon, including an idiosyncratic or
Displaying condescension sporadically occurring issue, a consumer lacking the proper
In some instances, our respondents were willing to admit that vocabulary to identify a problem, or perhaps an individual’s
their own boorish behavior played a significant role in unrealistically high expectations for product performance.
creating their own dissatisfaction. Harris and Reynolds Unable to provide proof that a problem is occurring,
(2004) described this type of customer as the Ego Hunter, a consumers may feel like their judgment, credibility, and even
type of orally abusive customer who seeks to enhance sanity are being questioned. Here, one respondent described
perceptions of self-worth by using condescending language a “phantom problem” involving his truck, “Of course, the
on staff including questioning work-related skills and rattling wasn’t present when the service technician got in the
knowledge, doubting the service provider’s credibility or truck so I went home. Because the rattling occurred irregularly,
their ability to resolve problems, and using blatantly I couldn’t get the truck to do it whenever the service technician
disparaging personal attacks. In one instance, Sean D. admitted got in. I was dismissed as being overly concerned.” (Steven C.)
that his behavior contributed to a poor service experience when
his table poked fun at a waiter who overheard their comments,
saying things such as “‘He’s stoned.’ ‘What is he stupid or Underpurchasing
something? He can barely say his own name.’ After, I was sure A type of a signaling behavior that we term underpurchasing
he was going to spit in my food.” In another, our respondent occurs when a patron’s actions leave the impression that she
David W. impugns a cable company’s customer service or he will generate a low profit for the firm, the salesperson,
experience by asking, “‘Are you new?’ Who do I need to talk and/or the server. The use of customer value as a customer
to for product support?’ She responded, ‘I AM product selection and resource allocation metric has been used as a
support.’ And hung up on me.” source of competitive advantage for firms. Purchase volume
and dollar amount are often used as signals for the level
Unintentional sources of transitory bias of service firms are willing to provide (Woodruff, 1997;
Unintentional sources of transitory bias were defined as Venkatesan and Kumar, 2004). In certain instances, customers
those situations where consumers unknowingly engaged in who watch their higher-profit counterparts receiving better
behaviors that induced transitory bias. Within this set of service presumably feel as if they are not being afforded the
consumer narratives, these unintentional sources of transitory respect they deserve as paying customers or perhaps even as
bias were identified as lacking product category sophistication, human beings. In this example, one respondent’s party ordered
reporting “phantom” problems, underpurchasing, and infre- three sandwiches and a salad only to discover that their
quent patronage. These sources of transitory bias resulting inexpensive choices were trumped by another table’s order
from unintentional customer actions are discussed as follows. for four lobsters. Cathy T. stated, “It was very offensive that
the kitchen chose to make the more expensive dinners first
Lacking product category sophistication and I cannot believe they actually confessed this.”
Consumers’ sophistication levels in the purchasing and use of
goods and services can vary widely (Garry 2007). In fact, Infrequent patronage
Sproles et al. (1978) found the sophistication level of A final instance of transitory bias resulting from unintentional
consumers to be an intervening variable in the use of customer actions emanates from infrequent patronage. In
information, with novice consumers requiring greater levels several instances, respondents felt that they received rather
of information than their more experienced counterparts. poor treatment because they were seen as either new or
Likewise, high-knowledge customers have also been shown infrequent customers. Certainly, relationship marketing is
to more quickly determine the usefulness of product bundling emphasized in a wide variety of firms (Berry, 1995), and
choices (Basu and Vitharana, 2009). When dealing with companies frequently reward their loyal customers (Brandau,
novice buyers, the sales associate or service representative 2009). Perceived bias against new customers may manifest
may grow impatient when asked to explain basic concepts itself in such ways as longer wait times (e.g., at a restaurant
and be perceived as disrespecting or talking down to the or doctor’s office), less-experienced personnel performing the
customer. In this example, Jamie H. dropped her car off for a service (e.g., hair cutting), or less desirable accommodations
routine oil change and was told she needed new wheel bearings (e.g., hotels). Madi S. indicated that not being recognized as
costing $800. She related, “Another mechanic told me that a regular customer caused her to receive lesser treatment from
there was nothing wrong with the car at all and it was nothing a retail clothing manager, “The new manager didn’t recognize

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Transitory bias: An exploratory investigation 39

me, so that must have given her the right to treat me like I gender discrimination allegations) and attendant loss of
didn’t belong. I hadn’t felt belittled like that in a while.” customer patronage (Kearney, 2011; Steinmetz, 2011).
Addressing Research Question 4: “How do instances of This exploratory research study supports the existence of
transitory bias compare with poor product performance, a fourth type of customer service failure termed transitory
discrimination, and universal mistreatment in terms of such bias that results in feelings of mistreatment. Whereas most
dependent measures as level of satisfaction, likelihood of service providers seek to improve the customer experience
repeat purchase, likelihood of recommending the service to (making universal mistreatment a poor business strategy)
others, and word-of-mouth behavior?” because six of the and create greater awareness and avoidance of discriminatory
12 correlations between the dependent variables were behaviors by company personnel (which in our study was
significant, a MANOVA was selected as the most appropriate found to be the least common form of mistreatment), the
tool to determine possible differences between the four sources transitory bias concept may be an important focal point for
of dissatisfaction in terms of the four dependent measures. companies’ efforts to improve negative customer attitudes
Results of the MANOVA revealed no significant differences and behaviors. We believe it may be a more important
between any of the four sources of dissatisfaction: universal concept, managerially, than the other sources of mistreatment
mistreatment, discrimination, transitory bias, and poor product (e.g., discrimination and universal mistreatment described
performance (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.951, F(12, 571.8) = 0.906, earlier) because the concept has been largely overlooked.
p = 0.541). The three 7- point Likert scale items revealed Bitner et al. (1990) argued that it is the level of respect
uniformly low repeat purchase likelihood, overall satisfaction, shown by employees towards customers during a service
and likelihood of recommending the firm to others, regardless failure that determines customers’ perceptions of the
of the type of negative experience described. This was not encounter. Employees, trained to recognize and address
unexpected. As respondents were all describing bad encounters, transitory bias issues respectfully, will be better equipped to
their variability in terms of outcomes was naturally low. provide a satisfactory customer experience and deliver
Regarding word of mouth, respondents reported telling improved attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The fact that
an average of between 9.4 (discrimination) and 15.5 (universal instances of transitory bias occurred with much greater
mistreatment) people of their bad service experiences. frequency than those involving discrimination addresses the
(See Table 5 for details.) The fact that individuals experiencing merits of its study as well.
universal mistreatment reported their encounters to a large It is important for service providers to understand the
number of people is understandable, as they may have done sources of transitory bias and accept them as areas deserving
so to warn others about the establishment. And, although serious attention. DeWitt and Brady (2003) argued that
customers perceiving discrimination might be expected to recovery strategies are reactive in nature but that proactive
discuss their experiences with larger numbers of friends measures are likely to strengthen customer affect for the
and family, the small number of individuals perceiving company and mitigate potential future dissatisfaction. One
discrimination in the sample, only six, limits the conclusions such proactive measure is employee training. This training
that can be drawn. should focus on providing a high level of service (thus
reducing universal mistreatment), increasing awareness of
an employee’s legal and ethical duties (thus reducing
discrimination), and creating an awareness and avoidance
DISCUSSION of transitory bias (addressing the issue found in Research
Question 4). Examples of such training activities include
The marketplace is the ultimate arbiter for the level of service stress management workshops for service providers, customer–
demanded and delivered in a particular product category. employee role playing, and the use of mystery shoppers
Routinely treating customers poorly or providing substandard who intentionally engage in transitory bias-inducing behaviors
deliverables are ineffective business strategies in a competitive (e.g., complaining, negotiating, and underpurchasing). Whether
environment. Similarly, discrimination based upon primary or not the customer is the genesis of the dissatisfaction is
individual characteristics such as age, race, or gender is often largely irrelevant if the negative consequences of the failure
illegal and the reduction of it an object of civic concern. primarily fall on the firm.
Allegations of discrimination can result in public relations Results of the quantitative portion of the study revealed
nightmares (e.g., Denny’s racial discrimination and Walmart’s virtually no difference in terms of any of the four types of

Table 5. Means of repeat purchase likelihood, overall service satisfaction, likelihood of recommending to friends, and reported word of mouth
Type of mistreatment Repeat purchase likelihooda Overall service satisfactiona Recommend to othersa Reported word of mouth
Universal mistreatment 1.91 1.29 1.60 15.5
Transitory bias 2.17 1.36 1.82 13.6
Discrimination 2.33 1.17 1.83 9.4
Poor product performance 2.10 1.64 1.90 13.0
Overall mean 2.03 1.38 1.73 14.3
a
A seven-point Likert scale was used where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
40 P. J. Trocchia and M. G. Luckett

customer dissatisfaction. This may be seen as a reflection that transitory bias can actually serve as a customer relationship
transitory bias is a problem deserving of the same attention enhancing experience. Customer characteristics such as high
from service management as discrimination and universal frequency of patronage, a generous reputation, or appearance
mistreatment. of wealth can perhaps serve to create positive transitory bias.
This paper offers several contributions to the academic However, because of space limitations, this issue needs to be
literature. First, we introduce the term transitory bias. This addressed in a further study.
term more precisely defines several different types of Finally, it is possible that some sources of dissatisfaction
behaviors and characteristics whereby individuals negatively may be more prevalent in certain retail contexts than others.
influence their own level of satisfaction. Secondly, we have This may be a result of the relative frequency with which
provided a contextual framework for transitory bias relative consumers make certain purchases (i.e., restaurants, automotive
to other previously identified sources of customer dissatisfac- repairs, and hair care) or perhaps indicate that certain service
tion. Finally, transitory bias has been further delineated into types (i.e., credence services such as medical treatment) have
several subcategories, allowing researchers to more fully qualities that lend themselves more easily to particular sources
examine the highly nuanced customer–firm relationship and of dissatisfaction than others. Further research involving
offer prescriptive remedies for improving performance. interviews with both customers and frontline employees may
help reveal which sources of bias are most prevalent in which
industries and why.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
One limitation of the study is the use of a student sample.
Younger patrons frequently have insufficient resources to Philip Trocchia received his doctoral degree in Marketing from the
purchase expensive items or lack product category sophisti- University of Alabama. He is currently an Associate Professor of
Marketing at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. He has
cation, making themselves more susceptible to negative published in journals such as Journal of Services Marketing;
actions on the part of the firm. Whereas younger consumers International Journal of Service Industry Management, Psychology
may be poorly treated because of these deficiencies, older & Marketing; and European Journal of Marketing. Dr. Trocchia’s
and wealthier consumers may influence their own percep- research interests include services marketing, consumers’ adoption
tions of dissatisfaction by having more discerning taste and of technology, and marketing education.
being more demanding. Because our students are undeniably Michael Luckett is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the University
consumers, whose purchase behavior reflects a diversity of of South Florida St. Petersburg. He received his doctoral degree from
goods and services, and expenditures (Tables 1 and 2), we the University of Georgia. Dr. Luckett has published in journals such
as Journal of Retailing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
believe that the study’s mission of uncovering sources of Marketing Letters, and Journal of Business Research. Luckett’s research
transitory bias was sufficiently accomplished. interests include traditional and online shoppers, as well as consumer
Interestingly, one source of transitory bias that we satisfaction and services marketing issues.
anticipated finding in the narratives was a factor we would
have termed “personal grooming,” which would include such
individual characteristics as clothing style and condition; hair
color, style, and length; body odor; makeup; jewelry; and REFERENCES
accessories. These issues can be changed with relatively little
effort on the part of the individual (i.e, haircut, more Azar OH, Tobol Y. 2008. Tipping as a strategic investment in service
appropriate clothing, and improved hygiene). Literature quality: an optimal-control analysis of repeated interactions in the
has shown such characteristics can influence people’s service industry. Southern Economic Journal 75(1): 246–260.
Baird RM, Rosenbaum SE. 1999. Hatred, Bigotry, and Prejudice:
perceptions in either a positive manner or a negative manner Definitions, Causes, and Solutions. Prometheus Books:
(Johnson et al., 2010). The absence of this phenomenon may Amherst, NY.
result from a growing public acceptance of a wider diversity of Baker TL, Meyer T, Johnson JD. 2008. Individual differences in per-
personal styles, a lack of self-awareness, or the homogenous ceptions of service failure and recovery: the role of race and dis-
nature of the sample (which may be less likely to include criminatory bias. Academy of Marketing Science 36(4): 552–564.
Basu A, Vitharana P. 2009. Impact of customer knowledge
nonconforming individuals). heterogeneity on bundling strategy. Marketing Science 28(4):
Further, our sample yielded only six instances of discrim- 792–803.
ination. However, we feel that this low number may simply Berry L. 1995. Relationship marketing of services—growing interest,
reflect that retail employees have been sufficiently trained emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
not to discriminate and that perhaps individuals in today’s Science 23(4): 236–245.
Bettencourt LA. 1997. Customer voluntary performance: customers as
society are less inclined to express prejudiced attitudes based partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing 73(3): 383–406.
on demographics than their predecessors. It should also be Bird C. 2004. Status, identity and respect. Political Theory 32(2):
noted that the sample, although consisting of students, was 207–232.
roughly as diverse as the general population in terms of Bitner MJ, Booms BH, Stanfield Tetreault M. 1990. The service
gender and ethnicity. (See Table 2.) encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents.
Journal of Marketing 54: 71–84.
Further, as part of the same student assignment, data were Bitner MJ, Faranda WT, Hubbert AR, Zeithaml VA. 1997. Customer
collected for both positive and negative customer encounters. contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal
An initial review of those narratives appears to suggest that of Service Industry Management 8(3): 193–205.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Transitory bias: An exploratory investigation 41

Blazevic V, Lievens A. 2008. Managing innovation through customer Kelley SW, Hoffman KD, Davis MA. 1993. A typology of retail
coproduced knowledge in electronic services: an exploratory failures and recoveries. Journal of Retailing 69(4): 429–452.
study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 138–151. Kellogg DL, Youngdahl WE, Bowen DE. 1997. On the relationship
Bodey K, Grace D. 2006. Segmenting service “complainers” and between customer participation and satisfaction: two frame-
“non-complainers” on the basis of consumer characteristics. works. International Journal of Service Industry Management
Journal of Service Marketing 20(3): 178–187. 8(3): 206–219.
Bougie R, Pieters R, Zeelenberg M. 2003. Angry customers don’t Kirchgaessner S. 2010. AIG lenders pay customers $6 million in
come back, they get back: the experience and behavioral discrimination case. Financial Times, March 5: 6.
implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services. Journal of Li D, An S, Yang K. 2008. Exploring Chinese consumer repurchasing
the Academy of Marketing Sciences 31(4): 377–393. intention for services: an empirical investigation. Journal of
Brady MK, Voorhees CM, Brusco MJ. 2012. Service sweethearting: Consumer Behaviour 7(6): 448–460.
it’s antecedecedents and customer consequences. Journal of Luna D, Lerman D, Peracchio LA. 2005. Structural constraints in
Marketing 76(2): 81–96. code—switched advertising. Journal of Consumer Research
Brandau M. 2009. Restaurants reap rewards of loyalty initiatives. 32(3): 416–423.
Nation’s Restaurant News 43(22): 1–3. Mittal B, Baker J. 1998. The services marketing system and customer
Creswell JW. 2006. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing psychology. Psychology and Marketing 15(8): 727–733.
Among Five Approaches (2nd Edition). Sage Publications: Nasir VA. 2004. E-consumer complaints about online stores. Journal
Thousand Oaks, CA. of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining
Crie D. 2003. Consumers’ complaint behavior. Taxonomy, typology, Behavior 17: 68–87.
and determinants: towards a unified ontology. Database Marketing Nunnally JC. 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York.
& Customer Strategy Management 11(1): 60–79. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V, Berry L. 1988. SERVQUAL: a multi-
Crockett D, Grier SA, Williams JA. 2003. Coping with marketplace ple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
discrimination: an exploration of the experiences of black men. quality. Journal of Retailing 64(1): 12–40.
Academy of Marketing Science Review 2003: 1–21. Park O-J, Xinran L, Park J-K. 2008. Service failures and complaints
DeWitt T, Brady MK. 2003. Rethinking service recovery strategies: in the family travel market: a justice dimension approach. Journal
the effect of rapport on consumer responses to service failure. of Services Marketing 22(7): 520–532.
Journal of Services Research 6(2): 193–207. Pracejus JW, Olsen GD, O’Guinn TC. 2006. How nothing became
Fram EH, Callahan A. 2001. Do you know what the customer you something: white space, rhetoric, history, and meaning. Journal
penalized yesterday is doing today? A pilot analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 33(1): 82–90.
of Services Marketing 15(6/7): 496–519. Reynolds KL, Harris LC. 2009. Dysfunctional customer behavior sever-
French R. 2005. Cracker barrel launches programs to rebuild image. ity: an empirical examination. Journal of Retailing 85(3): 321–335.
Marketing News 39(12): 31. Rust RT, Cooil B. 1994. Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory
Garry T. 2007. Consumer sophistication and the role of emotion on and implications. Journal of Marketing Research 31(1): 1–14.
satisfaction judgments within credence services. Journal of Schaffer RA. 2000. An Experimental Investigation of the Influences
Consumer Behaviour 6(6): 383–397. of Superficial Appearance Cues on Product Knowledge on Service
Gerstner E, Libai B. 2006. Why does poor service prevail? Marketing Provider Evaluations of Customers. Doctoral Dissertation, The
Science 25(6): 601–605. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Harari O. 1992. Thank heaven for complainers. Management Review Snipes RL, Thomson NF, Oswald SL. 2006. Gender bias in customer
81(1): 59–60. evaluations of service quality: an empirical investigation. Journal
Harris LC, Reynolds KL. 2004. Jaycustomer behavior: an exploration of Services Marketing 20(4): 274–284.
of types and motives in the hospitality industry. Journal of Sproles GB, Geistfeld LV, Badenhop SB. 1978. Informational
Services Marketing 18(5): 339–357. inputs as influences on efficient consumer decision-making.
Helms MM, Mayo DT. 2008. Assessing poor quality service: Journal of Consumer Affairs 12(1): 88–103.
perceptions of customer service representatives. Managing Service Squires GD, Kubrin CE. 2006. Racial profiling, insurance style.
Quality 18(6): 610–622. Journal of Insurance Regulation 24(4): 33–61.
Hess JD, Gerstner E. 1998. Yes, bait-and-switch really benefits Steinmetz K. 2011. Walmart’s woman problem. Time 177(14): 1.
consumers. Marketing Science 17(3): 283–289. Taylor VA, Bower AB. 2004. Improving product instruction
Hornik J. 1992. Tactile stimulation and consumer response. Journal compliance: “If you tell me why, I might comply”. Psychology
of Consumer Research 19(3): 449–458. and Marketing 21(3): 229–245.
Hui MK, Au K, Fock H. 2004. Reactions of service employees Trocchia P. 2004. Caving, role playing, and staying home: shopper
to organization–customer conflict: a cross-cultural compari- coping strategies in a negotiated pricing environment. Psychology
son. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21(2): and Marketing 21(10): 823–853.
107–121. Venkatesan R, Kumar V. 2004. A customer lifetime value framework
Hunt HK, Hunt HD, Hunt TC. 1988. Consumer grudge holding. for customer selection and resource allocation strategy. Journal of
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Marketing 68(4): 106–125.
Complaining Behavior 119(2): 179–196. Ward JC, Ostrom AL. 2006. Complaining to the masses: the role of
Jensen JM. 2011. Consumer loyalty on the grocery product market: protest framing in customer-created complaint web sites. Journal
an empirical application of Dick and Basu’s framework. Journal of Consumer Research 33(2): 220–230.
of Consumer Marketing 28(5): 333–343. Woodruff RB. 1997. Customer value: the next source for competitive
Johnson SK, Podratz KE, Dipboye RL, Gibbons E. 2010. Physical advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25(2):
attractiveness biases in ratings of employment suitability: tracking 139–153.
down the “beauty is beastly” effect. Journal of Social Psychology Yan R-N, Lotz S. 2009. Taxonomy of the influence of other customers
150(3): 301–318. in consumer complaint behavior: a social–psychological perspec-
Kassarjian H. 1977. Content analysis in consumer research. Journal tive. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
of Consumer Research 4(1): 8–18. Complaining Behavior 22: 107–126.
Kau A-K, Wan-Yiun Loh E. 2006. The effects of service recovery on Zeithaml VA, Bitner MJ, Gremler D. 2006. Services Marketing.
consumer satisfaction: a comparison between complaints and non- McGraw-Hill: New York.
complainants. Journal of Services Marketing 20(2): 101–111. Zhang J, Beatty SE, Mothersbaugh D. 2010. A CIT investigation of
Kearney B. 2011. Denny’s to pay $1.3M to former employees. The other customers’ influence in services. Journal of Services
Daily Record, June 26th. Marketing 24(5): 389–399.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 32–41 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb