The typology of illegitimate complaining behavior Confirmatory research on the typology of illegitimate complainants.
Keywords
Loading...
Authors
Issue Date
2021-06-29
Language
en
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Dealing with customer complaints is a common activity for most firms. Although it is assumed that complaints are genuine and reasonable, customers sometimes exaggerate their complaints or wrongly blame the service provider, referred to as illegitimate. Identifying different types of illegitimate complainants can help firms decide whether to invest in the customer or not. The current study aims to empirically test the typology of illegitimate complainants developed by Joosten and contribute to theory by introducing a complete typology that is currently lacking. Therefore, the following question is studied: What is the relation between the drivers, the degree of the illegitimacy, neutralizations, and relationship variables of illegitimate complaints? More specifically, four types of illegitimate complainants (must-, need-, want-, and can-type) were formed based on the drivers motivating these types to complain illegitimately. The types were tested on their differences in the degree of illegitimacy, neutralization techniques used to justify the behavior, and the relationship with the firm influenced by the complaint. Subsequently, an online survey was conducted to find evidence for the hypothesis based on theory.
A MANOVA revealed the following relations of the drivers (lack of morality, loss of control, and injustice) of the must-type: denial of responsibility, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, defense of necessity, denial of negative intent, a low degree of illegitimacy, and the most damaged relationship with the firm. Furthermore, the analyses revealed the following relations of the drivers (anger, disappointment, the contrast effect, and external attribution) of the need-type: denial of responsibility, a low degree of illegitimacy, and a damaged relationship with the firm. Moreover, the drivers (internal attribution, financial greed, pre-planned) of the want-type are related to: claim of entitlement, the highest degree of illegitimacy, and almost no damaged relationship with the firm. To conclude, the drivers (opportunism, liberal redress policy, social norm, attitude) of the can-type are related to: a high degree of illegitimacy and an almost no harmed relationship with the firm.
Based on the findings, practitioners are recommended to minimize the time and costs spend in the must- and need-type and continue investing in the relationship with the can- and want-type of complainants. However, further research is evoked to copy the current study and try to find evidence for the several neutralization techniques which could not be tested. Besides, further research is advised to try to minimize the limitations of the current study. The researcher genuinely hopes for the replication of the study which will contribute to existing knowledge regarding this growing and interesting topic.
Description
Citation
Supervisor
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen