Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Do Online Complainers Want? An Examination of the Justice Motivations and the Moral Implications of Vigilante and Reparation Schemas

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research aims to understand how two basic schemas—vigilante and reparation—influence online public complaining. Drawing on two experiments, a longitudinal field study and content analysis of online complaints, the current research makes three core contributions. First, we show that for similar service failures, each schema is associated with different justice motivations (i.e., in terms of recovery, revenge, and protection of others), which have different moral implications for consumers. Second, vigilante and reparation complainers write complaints in a different manner and are drawn to different online platforms; this information is helpful to identify complainers using each schema. Third, the schemas moderate the process leading to different post-complaint benefits (i.e., resolution and positive affect). Specifically, perseverance has a greater effect on obtaining a resolution for reparation complainers compared to vigilantes. Additionally, whereas a recovery leads to an increase in positive affect for reparation complainers, vigilantes experience a high level of positive affect simply by posting their complaint (regardless of the resolution). The theoretical, ethical, and managerial implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These authors identify a third schema, the relational model. Complainers using a relational model aim to restore their relationship as it was before the service failure. This schema is unlikely to be used by online complainers who are unlikely to return to the firm if they have sufficient time to find an alternative (Tripp and Grégoire 2011).

  2. “Based on recent evidence that shows that online complaining can occur after both a service failure and a double deviation (Grégoire et al. 2015), our intention is to develop a theory and hypotheses at a broader level, which encompasses both possible contexts. However, because our model for H4 and H5 relies on the assumption that an individual will show perseverance and keep complaining over time, we also believe that a double deviation—in which a firm would have failed in its initial recovery attempts—is a more appropriate context to test this part of our theory. It should be noted that H4–H5 are only tested with Study 2, which is conducted in a double deviation context.”

  3. We controlled for the effects of desire for recovery (F[1, 182] = 6.40; p < .05) and desire for protection of others (F[1, 182] = 0; p = .99) in this tests. It should be noted that the results remain significant even if we do not control for the other motivations (F[1, 184] = 29.82; p < .001).

  4. We controlled for the effects of desire for recovery (F[1, 182] = 43.48; p < .001) and desire for revenge (F[1, 182] = 0; p = .99) in this test. The results remain insignificant even if we do not control for the other motivations (F[1, 184] = .64; p = .43).

  5. H2 cannot be tested in Study 2 because we use the websites as proxies for the schema. This hypothesis was tested in Study 1b.

  6. Two independent coders analyzed the content of the 431 complaints for which we had information. Overall, the level of agreement between coders was high (79.1%), and differences were resolved through discussion. Overall, 17.5% of the complaints were classified as “unspecified recovery stage.” After excluding these instances, 96.2% of the complaints were classified as double deviations. The coders identified only 13 (3.5%) service failures with no recovery request and only one service failure recovery followed by a positive recovery. See Grégoire et al. (2009) for details.

  7. When we examined the effect of the website/schema on a desire for recovery, we controlled for a desire for revenge (F[1, 437] = 44.82; p < .001) and a desire for protection of others (F[1, 437] = 13.19; p < .001). For the same test for a desire for revenge, we controlled for a desire for recovery (F[1, 437] = 44.82; p < .001) and a desire to protect others (F[1, 437] = .95; p = .33). Finally, for the test on a desire to protect others, we controlled for a desire for revenge (F[1, 437] = .95; p = .33) and a desire for recovery (F[1, 437] = 13.19; p < .001).

References

  • Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS ® System: A practical guide. North Carolina: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016a). An extended model of moral outrage at corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016b). Identity bias in negative word of mouth following irresponsible corporate behavior: A research model and moderating effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 583–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, L. J., Whiteside, D. B., & Aquino, K. (2014). To avenge or not to avenge? Exploring the interactive effects of moral identity and the negative reciprocity norm. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 440–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M. B., Kates, S. M., Lindgreen, A., & Chung, E. (2010). Exploring consumer conflict management in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1019–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., Meder, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge? European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 364–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. (2013). 85% of consumers will retaliate against a company with bad customer service. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/14/85-of-consumers-will-retaliate-against-a-company-with-bad-customer-service-report.

  • Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, Y., Salle, A., & Tripp, T. M. (2015). Managing social media crises with your customers: The good, the bad and the ugly. Business Horizons, 58(2), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, S. (1983). Wild justice: The evolution of revenge. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., Devezer, B., & Tripp, T. M. (2013). When do customers offer firms a ‘second chance’ following a double deviation? The impact of inferred firm motives on customer revenge and reconciliation. Journal of Retailing, 89(3), 315–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., & Tripp, T. M. (2016). Customer forgiveness following Service failures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 76–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacewicz, E., Pennebaker, J. W., Davis, M., Jeon, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange. Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M. E., Kurzban, R., & Tabak, B. A. (2013). Putting revenge and forgiveness in an evolutionary context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns. New Scientist, 211(2828), 42–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: liwc. net.

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 547–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porath, C., MacInnis, D., & Folkes, V. S. (2011). It’s unfair: Why customers who merely observe an uncivil employee abandon the company. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 302–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringberg, T., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Christensen, G. L. (2007). A cultural models approach to service recovery. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 194–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Immoral imagination and revenge in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (1988). Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: Definitional and taxonomical issues. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, T. M., & Grégoire, Y. (2011). When unhappy customers strike back on the Internet. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(3), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uniacke, S. (2000). Why is revenge wrong? The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34(1), 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, L., & Walster, W. G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. C., & Ostrom, A. L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeger, S. L., Liang, K., & Albert, P. S. (1988). Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics, 44(4), 1049–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by a large public North American university.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, HEC Montréal, Montreal, QC, H3T 2A7, Canada

    Yany Grégoire, Renaud Legoux & Marie-Louise Radanielina-Hita

  2. Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, 98686-9600, USA

    Thomas M. Tripp & Jeffrey Joireman

  3. Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia

    Jeffrey D. Rotman

Authors
  1. Yany Grégoire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renaud Legoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas M. Tripp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marie-Louise Radanielina-Hita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeffrey Joireman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeffrey D. Rotman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yany Grégoire.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest between this university and the two websites of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Justice Motivations (Studies 1B and 2)

Desire for Revenge (Study 1b: average variance extracted (AVE) = .79; composite reliability (CR) = .96; α = .95) (Study 2: AVE = .84; CR = .96; α = .97)

Indicate to which extent you wanted to:

  • … take actions to get the firm in trouble.

  • … punish the firm in some way.

  • … cause inconvenience to the firm.

  • … get even with the service firm.

  • … make the service firm get what it deserved.

Desire for recovery (Study 1b: AVE = .48; CR = .73; α = .71) (Study 2: AVE = .53; CR = .77; α = .72)

  • … have the firm assume responsibility for its actions.

  • … receive a form of reparation for the failure.

  • … have the firm to fix its mistake.

Desire to Protect Others (Study 1b: AVE = .91; CR = .96; α = .94) (Study 2: AVE = .83, CR = .93, α = .92)

  • … to ensure that others would not go through what I went through.

  • … protect others from this type of situation.

  • … warn others so that they wouldn’t experience a similar failure.

Control Variables in Study 2

Relationship Quality (Second-order construct: Study 2: AVE = .50; CR = .75; α = .73)

  • Trust (AVE = .80; CR = .94; α = .94)

    • I felt that the firm was…

    • …Very undependable (1)–very dependable (7)

    • …Very incompetent (1)–very competent (7)

    • … Of low integrity (1)–of high integrity (7)

    • …Very unresponsive to consumers (1)–very responsive consumers (7)

  • Commitment (AVE = .79; CR = .92; α = .92)

    • I was very committed to my relationship with the service firm.

    • The relationship was something I intended to maintain for a long time.

    • I put efforts into maintaining this relationship.

  • Social Benefits (AVE = .80; CR = .94; α = .94)

    • My relationship with the service firm was based on its ability to…

    • … recognize who I am as a customer.

    • … know my personal needs as a customer.

    • … build a “one-on-one” connection.

    • … make me feel important and appreciated.

  • Dissatisfaction (AVE = .80; CR = .92; α = .90)

    • At the moment of the service failure, I felt (1) dissatisfied, (2) discontented, and (3) displeased.

  • Blame (AVE = .57; CR = .79; α = .71)

    • Overall, the firm was “not at all” (1) vs. “totally” (7) responsible for the poor recovery.

    • The service failure episode was in “no way” (1) vs. “completely” (7) the firm’s fault.

    • To what extent do you blame the firm for what happened? Not at all (1)–completely (7).

  • Failure Severity (AVE = .70; CR = .87; α = .86)

    • The service failures caused me…

    • … minor problems (1)–major problems (7).

    • … small inconvenience (1)–big inconvenience (7).

    • … minor aggravation (1)–major aggravation (7).

  • Procedural Fairness (AVE = .72; CR = .91; α = .91)

    • Despite the hassle caused by the problem, the firm responded fairly and quickly.

    • I feel they responded in a timely fashion.

    • I believe the firm has fair policies and practices to handle problems.

    • With respect to its policies and procedures, the firm handled the problem in a fair manner.

  • Distributive Fairness (AVE = .79; CR = .92; α = .92)

    • Overall, the outcomes I received from the service firm were fair.

    • Given the time, money, and hassle, I got fair outcomes.

    • I got what I deserved.

Appendix 2

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Study 1b)

The psychometric properties of the three justice motivations were assessed with a CFA. This model includes a desire for revenge (five items), a desire for recovery (three items), and a desire to protect others (three items). This 11-item model produced a satisfactory fit with a comparative fit index (CFI) of .96, a Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .95, a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .089, and a χ2 of 101.51 (df = 41, p < .001). In this model, the loadings (λ’s) of the first-order constructs were large and significant (p’s < .001), the average variance extracted exceeded or approached .50 for all constructs, and composite reliability scores and Cronbach’s alphas were greater than the .7 guideline (see “Appendix 1”).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (Study 2)

The psychometric properties of the reflective scales (at time 1) were assessed with one CFA. This model includes a desire for revenge (five items), a desire for recovery (three items), a desire to protect others (three items), dissatisfaction (three items), blame (three items), failure severity (three items), procedural fairness (four items), and distributive fairness (three items). See “Appendix 1” for the detailed items. This 27-item model produced a satisfactory fit with a comparative fit index (CFI) of .96, a Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .96, a root–mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .051, and a χ2 of 608.70 (df = 296, p < .001). In this model, the loadings (λ’s) of the first-order constructs and the second-order construct (i.e., relationship quality) were large and significant (p’s < .001), the average variance extracted exceeded .50 for all constructs, and composite reliability scores and Cronbach’s alphas were greater than the .7 guideline (see “Appendix 1”).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grégoire, Y., Legoux, R., Tripp, T.M. et al. What Do Online Complainers Want? An Examination of the Justice Motivations and the Moral Implications of Vigilante and Reparation Schemas. J Bus Ethics 160, 167–188 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3850-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3850-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation