Description
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether complaint behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery based on the justice theory are different among customers from
collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. A secondary purpose is to find which service recovery
strategies are appropriate for different culture-based complaint behavior intentions
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Complaint behavior intentions and expectation of service recovery in individualistic and collectivistic
cultures
Seul Gi Park Kyungmi Kim Martin O’Neill
Article information:
To cite this document:
Seul Gi Park Kyungmi Kim Martin O’Neill , (2014),"Complaint behavior intentions and expectation of service recovery in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp.
255 - 271
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-12-2013-0084
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 83 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 575 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Tammo H.A. Bijmolt, Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh, Adriana Krawczyk, (2014),"Effects of complaint behaviour and service recovery
satisfaction on consumer intentions to repurchase on the internet", Internet Research, Vol. 24 Iss 5 pp. 608-628 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2012-0056
Min Gyung Kim, Chenya Wang, Anna S. Mattila, (2010),"The relationship between consumer complaining behavior and
service recovery: An integrative review", International J ournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 Iss 7 pp.
975-991http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111011066635
Defang Zhao, Ingrid Y. Lin, (2014),"Understanding tourists’ perception and evaluation of inter-cultural service encounters: a
holistic mental model process", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 290-309http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-09-2013-0070
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Complaint behavior intentions and
expectation of service recovery in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures
Seul Gi Park, Kyungmi Kim and Martin O’Neill
Seul Gi Park is an
Assistant Professor
based at Department of
Hotel Management,
Baekseok University,
Cheonan, South Korea.
Kyungmi Kim is an
Associate Professor
based at Keimyung
University, Taegu, South
Korea. Martin O’Neill is a
Professor and
Department Head based
at Department of
Nutrition, Dietetics and
Hospitality Management,
Auburn University.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate whether complaint behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery based on the justice theory are different among customers from
collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. A secondary purpose is to ?nd which service recovery
strategies are appropriate for different culture-based complaint behavior intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey was conducted at universities, and the survey
population consisted of college students, who are known to be frequent users of fast-food
restaurants. A total of 304 usable questionnaires were collected. Con?rmatory factor analysis was
conducted to verify the validity of the items, Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients were used to examine the
internal consistency of the factors, and an independent sample t-test was used to analyze
differences in complaint behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts in terms of
cultural difference.
Findings – The results of this study indicated that South Koreans revealed more voice complaint
behavior intentions than Americans did. However, there were no signi?cant differences in expectations
of service recovery efforts between them. Second, American customers who indicated voice and
private complaint behavior intentions expected distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice in
complaint-handling procedures. South Korean customers who indicated voice complaint behavior
intentions expected distributive and procedural justice, and South Korean customers who indicated private
complaint behavior intentions anticipated interactional justice in complaint-handling procedures.
Research limitations/implications – Understanding customers’ complaint behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery based on the justice theory and cultural differences will suggest
practical implications to hospitality industry managers for effective service quality management.
Originality/value – Understanding customers’ complaint behavior intentions and expectations of
service recovery based on the justice theory and cultural differences will suggest practical implications
to hospitality industry managers for effective service quality management.
Keywords Collectivism–individualism, Complaint behavior intention, Cultural difference,
Expectation of service recovery, Individualistic cultures, Collectivist cultures
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
To survive in more and more complex markets, it is crucial for companies to identify not only
customers’ needs and wants but also their satisfaction or dissatisfaction after purchasing
goods and services. Yavas et al. (2003) recommended that companies should focus on
customer satisfaction because it is closely related to growth of revenues, reduction of
costs, improvement of service quality and establishment of market shares. For sustainable
market success, companies should pay attention not only to satis?ed customers but to
dissatis?ed customers because consumers’ dissatisfaction can lead to complaints,
negative word of mouth and suspension of repurchase (Yavas et al., 2003; Yuksel et al.,
2006). As such, complaints are useful resources for companies to correct problems and to
increase consumer satisfaction (Nyer, 2000).
Received 14 December 2013
Revised 25 February 2014,
31 May 2014
Accepted 9 June 2014
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-12-2013-0084 VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014, pp. 255-271, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 255
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mistakes and service failures are unavoidable in service delivery procedures due to the
characteristics of the service industry, such as simultaneous production and consumption,
numerous service encounters, consumers’ subjective assessment of the service quality,
etc. If service providers fail to respond to service errors promptly, the consumers’
dissatisfaction may be expressed through actions, such as spreading negative word of
mouth or switching companies. Therefore, it is crucial for companies to make appropriate
and timely responses to consumers’ complaints (Tax and Brown, 1998). Consumers who
are satis?ed with a company’s service recovery efforts spread more positive word of mouth
and show higher retention, loyalty to and trust in the company (Kau and Loh, 2006; Tax and
Brown, 1998). Service recovery is a fundamental factor in maintaining a company’s overall
quality management (Smith et al., 1999). Understanding consumers’ complaint behaviors
and perceptions of service recovery efforts is very important for building post-purchase
management and customer relationship marketing (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995).
However, consumers in different regions may show different complaint behaviors in similar
situations (Huang et al., 1996; Liu and McClure, 2001), and these cultural differences have
a tremendous effect on the success of service recovery methods (Mattila and Patterson,
2004). Therefore, international companies who want to sustain their business in the
globalized market and to extend their market share need to understand the cultural differences
of global consumers (Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000). Companies which have been expanding
internationally need to identify the cultural multiplicity of their consumers and create localized
strategies for service recovery to ?t diverse customers’ complaint behaviors.
Many researchers have studied consumer complaints and perceptions of service recovery
methods in the hospitality industry (Mueller et al., 2003), focusing on Western (USA and
European) consumers (Liu and McClure, 2001). Therefore, questions have been raised
about whether research on consumer complaint behavior in Western cultures can be
applied to consumer complaint behavior in non-Western cultures (Kanousi, 2005; Mattila,
2000; Mattila and Patterson, 2004; Ngai et al., 2007; Yuksel et al., 2006). For this reason, this
study compared complaint behaviors and expectations of service recovery in Western and
non-Western cultures, focusing on the fast-food industry. The fast-food industry was
chosen because it has expanded internationally through franchising and it gives a familiar
dining-out experience to people from different cultures by providing common menus,
identical restaurant interiors and exteriors and similar service. These similarities make it
easier to identify how customers from different countries respond to the same situation and
simplify the comparison of expectations of service recovery. Furthermore, this study goes
beyond the existing research by showing the relationship between customers’ speci?c
complaint behavior intentions and their expected service recovery method. Speci?cally,
this study focuses on complaint behavior intention and preferred service recovery methods in
two distinct cultures, South Korea and the USA. This research will suggest ways for international
companies to identify different types of complaints from different cultures and provide
adequate service recovery methods for service companies operating in different countries.
Literature review
Complaint behavior
It is a well-known premise that customers’ satisfaction is the most important component of
companies’ success. For this reason, the service industry has focused on improving
service quality and keeping customers satis?ed with the service. Nonetheless, errors or
mistakes in the service delivery process are inevitable due to interpersonal interaction
between the employees and consumers in numerous service encounters. The
simultaneous nature of service delivery and consumption is the main cause of customer
dissatisfaction. Dissatis?ed customers react to companies’ problems and initiate
complaints (Day, 1984). Consumers’ dissatisfaction with service failure damages a
company’s reputation and results in negative responses and discontinuance of
repurchasing goods and services (Mattila, 2001).
PAGE 256 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Researchers have classi?ed complaint behaviors into several different categories.
Complaint behavior is commonly described as consisting of three dimensions:
1. complaining directly to service providers;
2. complaining to acquaintances rather than to service providers; and
3. complaining to a consumer agency or taking legal action (Hartini and Aventina, 2013).
For example, Singh (1988) suggested three complaint behavior dimensions: voice, private
and third-party responses. First, voice responses are customers’ external expressions of
dissatisfaction toward managers or sellers. Second, private responses occur when
dissatis?ed customers do not complain directly to the company, but tell friends and families
about their dissatisfaction, quit purchasing the products or post their complaints on
Websites. Third, third-party responses occur when customers express dissatisfaction using
indirect ways, such as reporting to a consumer agency or taking legal action. Similarly,
Yuksel et al. (2006) classi?ed the three dimensions of complaint behavior as voice, loyalty
and switch. The voice dimension consists of complaining to employees, involving
managers, writing complaint letters and conveying dissatisfaction to others and to third
parties. The loyalty dimension includes actions, such as not revisiting the service outlet in
the future or not recommending it to others. The switch dimension involves not voicing a
complaint, but switching to another service outlet. On the other hand, Rogers et al. (1992)
categorized ?ve consumer complaint behaviors. To the three dimensions previously
described, they added two more: changing future behavior, which means not using the
item or the seller in the future and doing nothing, which means ignoring the dissatisfaction.
When companies do not handle complaints properly, the results can be disastrous,
including unfavorable word of mouth and suspension of repurchase. However, complaints
can also be opportunities to redress service failure incidents and improve service
performance (Lovelock, 1994). To deal with the complaints, service practitioners need to
design and build service recovery strategies to retain dissatis?ed customers.
Service recovery and justice theory
Previous researchers have studied the impact of interpersonal handling, service recovery
procedures and compensation on service recovery evaluations (Kanousi, 2005; Mattila and
Patterson, 2004). Researchers have found that effective service recovery satis?es
customers and keeps a sustainable relationship with them (Miller et al., 2000; Sparks and
McColl-Kennedy, 2001; Tax and Brown, 1998). Service recovery is de?ned as service
providers’ proactive efforts and responses to service failures that lead to customers’
dissatisfaction with services or products (Johnston, 1995). Examples of effective service
recovery in the service industry include room upgrades, discounts, free food and beverage
offerings, explanations, efforts to ?x problems and reengineering service delivery
procedures (Bitner et al., 1990; Lewis and Spyrakopoulos, 2001; Yavas and Yasin, 2001).
Practitioners and researchers have focused on managing customer retention and invested
in ?nding effective complaint-handling strategies because retaining existing customers can
be more pro?table than attracting new customers (Reichheld, 1996). Convenient and timely
complaint-handling efforts are especially important factors in the service industry because
of the simultaneous consumption and production of service, and effective complaint
handing methods can enhance and rebuild customers’ trust in the service providers (Tax
et al., 1998). When dissatis?ed consumers complain, they may reassess the situation
based on the company’s complaint-handling processes, such as suitable compensation,
proper procedures and staff’s interpersonal attitudes toward them (Tax et al., 1998). If
consumers do not perceive appropriate service recovery efforts from the company, they
may never return to the company (Yavas et al., 2003). However, if consumers are satis?ed
with service recovery, their satisfaction can be a vital in?uence on their con?dence in and
commitment to the company (Tax et al., 1998). Service recovery strategies that change
dissatis?ed customers into satis?ed ones lead to customer retention, loyalty, positive word
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 257
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of mouth, repurchase intention and long-term relationship marketing (Kelley et al., 1993;
Levesque and McDougall, 2000; Spreng et al., 1995).
To evaluate the effectiveness of service recovery strategies and the fairness of treatment,
the justice theory is useful (Tax and Brown, 2000). Justice “pertains not merely to outcome
distributions, but also to how the distribution is arrived at and the manner by which it is
implemented” (Austin, 1979, p. 24). Justice consists of three dimensions: distributive
justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. First, distributive justice means the
allocation of outcomes (Deutsch, 1985), such as modi?cations of charges, refunds, repairs,
replacements, compensation, etc. (Kelley et al., 1993), which have been proved to have a
signi?cant effect on customer satisfaction (Clemmer, 1993; Mattila, 2001). Second,
procedural justice includes service recovery procedures, such as timeliness and refund
policies and how fair customers perceive these procedures to be (Lind and Tyler, 1988).
According to Kau and Loh’s (2006) study, distributive justice and procedural justice had a
signi?cantly positive relationship with consumer satisfaction with service recovery. Third,
interactional justice means how fairly consumers feel that the staff treated them during the
service recovery procedures (Gilliland, 1993). Interactional justice related to service
providers’ efforts: courtesy and adequacy of language are critical components in
consumers’ evaluation of service quality and satisfaction (Blodgett et al., 1997; Goodwin
and Ross, 1992; Hartline et al., 2000). Many studies have documented the positive
relationship between customer satisfaction and the staff’s efforts to correct problems (Mohr
and Bitner, 1995), as well as the effectiveness of interpersonal behavior, such as an
employee’s communication skills, politeness and honesty toward customers (Goodwin and
Ross, 1992) because employees in service encounters are strongly involved in service
recovery procedures and can handle complaints ef?ciently and adequately (Boshoff and
Allen, 2000). The three dimensions of justice can be considered together because they are
interrelated in a customer’s evaluation of service recovery. Customers’ perceptions of
service recovery can be in?uenced simultaneously by tangible compensations and the
interpersonal relationship with employees (Levesque and McDougall, 2000). For example,
Mattila (2001) suggested that an apology with tangible compensation was an effective
service recovery strategy, and Tyler and Bies (1990) mentioned that the staff’s
interpersonal and interactive handling of complaints has a positive impact on customers’
evaluation of procedural justice. When customers perceive that proper compensation for
service failures is accompanied by an impartial process, they can positively evaluate
distributive justice (Folger, 1984). Additionally, timely and suitable explanations of unfair
and uncomfortable situations can help customers positively assess procedural justice
(Conlon and Murray, 1996). Thus, companies’ efforts to handle service failures are positively
connected to improving consumers’ evaluation of the three dimensions of justice (Smith and
Bolton, 2002). Much research has been conducted on complaint behaviors and service
recovery, but little research exists about the relationship between complaint behaviors and
service recovery efforts based on the justice theory. Identifying this relationship would be
helpful in designing adequate service recovery strategies for various complaint behaviors.
Cultural differences in complaint behavior and service recovery
Multinational companies have been expanding all over the world because globalization
brings new markets and larger market shares to make more pro?ts for the companies. This
trend has emerged in fast-food chain restaurants (e.g. McDonald’s, KFC and Burger King).
The USA has expanded the world’s largest fast-food industry, with American fast-food
restaurants located all over the world. The American fast-food restaurant industry has
recently targeted the Asian market for global expansion, expecting big growth
opportunities (Burger King Corporation, 2012). To be successful in international market
expansion, multinational companies need to understand foreign markets along with diverse
cultures because each country has speci?c characteristics (Fisher, 1984). Therefore, to
penetrate foreign markets and compete favorably, multinational companies need to identify
local favorites and adapt to local conditions. For example, in the Chinese market, fast-food
PAGE 258 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
chains, such as KFC and McDonald’s, have tried to learn and absorb characteristics of
Chinese food, such as its own fragrance, ?avor and color based on the traditional food and
beverage culture (China Daily, 2004). Additionally, Burger King has developed new menus
with chicken to expand into the Indian market, which has a religion-based aversion to beef
(Euromonitor International, 2007). These implementations have been very successful for
these companies. These examples show the necessity of modifying products and services
for foreign markets and having the ?exibility to adapt to different cultures. As Pizam and
Sussmann (1995) pointed out, different cultures and nationalities have a moderating or
intervening role in consumer behavior, and cross-national differences in?uence the actions
of consumers and marketers of multinational companies (Yuksel et al., 2006). Thus,
multinational companies need to identify and utilize the inherent diversity of foreign markets
for sustainable management.
Just as menus are localized for markets in different cultures, international companies
should pay attention to customers’ behaviors in different cultures and their expectations for
service delivery. Different cultures have different types of complaint behaviors and attitudes
about complaints (Day, 1984; Singh and Widing, 1991). Therefore, restaurant chains need
to identify complaint-behavior patterns in different cultures and create localized strategies
for service recovery according to the characteristics of different markets.
When researchers study cultural differences, they usually adopt Hofstede’s (1980) four
major cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty
avoidance. Hofstede (1980) developed a scoring system which measures the degree to
which a culture demonstrates each dimension, with higher numbers indicating a higher
acceptance of that dimension. For example, the USA scores 91 on individuality, meaning
that the USA has a very high degree of individualistic culture (Clearly Cultural, 2013). Of the
four dimensions, the most widely studied is individualism and its opposite, collectivism.
Many researchers have empirically tested this dimension and have repeatedly proved its
usefulness in studying cross-cultural behavior (Hofstede, 1980; Kim, 1994; Triandis, 1994).
According to Hofstede (1980), individualistic cultures are societies in which individuals are
primarily concerned with their own interests and the interests of their immediate family,
while collectivist cultures assume that individuals belong to an extended family, clan or
other organization from which they cannot detach themselves.
Individualism versus collectivism can also be de?ned as the extent to which individuals are
incorporated into groups (Huang et al., 1996). In individualistic cultures, people tend to
consider their independence and self-suf?ciency more and think in terms of “I”.
Individualists are likely to consider self-esteem important and express themselves more
than collectivists (Markus and Kitayama, 1990). In collectivist cultures, however, people are
inclined to conform to the social norms for harmony among the members of the in-groups
and think in terms of “we” (Hofstede, 1980). In addition, collectivist societies give more
weight to social status than to individual competence (Bond and Hwang, 1986), and
collectivists are also more likely to avoid con?ict with others (Leung, 1987). Researchers
generally agree that collectivistic cultures include Asian countries, such as China
(individuality score, 20), Japan (individuality score, 46) and South Korea (individuality
score, 18), while individualistic cultures include non-Asian countries such as the USA
(individuality score, 91), Australia (individuality score, 90), France (individuality score, 71)
and Germany (individuality score, 67) (Becker, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Clearly Cultural,
2013).
The unique characteristics of individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures have
substantial impacts on people’s attitudes and behaviors. Consumers from different cultures
express different complaint behaviors and different perceptions of service recovery efforts
(Huang et al., 1996; Liu and McClure, 2001; Patterson et al., 2006). Several studies have
identi?ed different complaint behaviors in different cultures (Huang et al., 1996; Liu and
McClure, 2001; Ngai et al., 2007; Patterson et al., 2006; Yuksel et al., 2006). For example,
Richins and Verhage (1985) demonstrated that Americans, members of a strongly
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 259
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
individualistic culture, frequently complained about unsatisfactory service and thought that
complaints held the company accountable and could make the service quality better.
Huang et al. (1996) compared the role of cultural differences in the complaint behaviors of
American and Japanese consumers and suggested that American consumers had a
greater tendency to express their complaint to the hotel management than did Japanese
consumers, who had a greater tendency to ignore unsatisfactory service. On the other
hand, Asian consumers from strongly collectivistic cultures were less inclined to complain
because they did not want to “lose face” and were more inclined to choose negative word
of mouth and quit repurchasing (Foxman et al., 1990; Patterson et al., 2006). Liu and
McClure (2001) compared complaint behaviors between South Korean and American
culture and found that South Korean consumers in a collectivist culture seem to make
private responses more than American consumers in an individualist culture. American
consumers expressed dissatisfaction to the companies more frequently than South Korean
consumers did. In addition, Ngai et al. (2007) found that Asians were more likely to ascribe
service failures to hotel employees and to caution family or friends about their
unsatisfactory hotel experiences as private complaint behaviors than non-Asians did.
Consequently, complaint behaviors between individualistic and collectivistic cultures
present differently. Therefore, the cultural dimension of collectivism versus individualism
can explain complaint behavior and perceptions of service recovery in different cultures
(Patterson et al., 2006). For this reason, this study adopts this cultural dimension of
collectivism versus individualism to investigate cultural differences in complaint behavior
and expectation of service recovery in fast-food restaurants.
Researchers have also indicated that customers in different cultures have different
expectations of service quality (Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000; Lorenzoni and
Lewis, 2004; Mattila, 1999; Patterson and Smith, 2003; Schutte and Ciarlante, 1998).
Studies have proved that consumers from individualistic cultures prefer individual gains,
while consumers from collectivistic cultures are more interested in avoiding losses (Briley
and Wyer, 2002; Markus and Kitayama, 1990). For example, Hui and Au (2001) studied the
effects of complaint handling strategies and post-complaint behaviors in China, a
collectivist culture, and Canada, an individualist culture. They concluded that the most
important part of the service recovery in China was to provide opportunities for customers
to communicate their dissatisfaction with the company and employees, while in Canada,
the most critical part of service recovery was offering compensation. The results were line
with Mattila’s (1999) study, which indicated that consumers from Canadian culture
preferred tangible cues like compensation more than those from Chinese culture did.
Furthermore, Mattila and Patterson (2004) indicated that cultural difference was related to
satisfaction with service recovery methods; for example, Americans were more satis?ed
with compensation than East Asians were. Consequently, culture moderates how
consumers perceive service failures and evaluate service recovery efforts (Brockener et al.,
2001; Hui and Au, 2001).
Previous research has focused on concepts of complaint behavior and perceptions of
service recovery in different cultures. However, little cross-cultural research has examined
the relationship between complaint behavior intention and expectations of service recovery
based on the justice theory. Identifying the relationship between complaint behavior
intention and expectations of service recovery in different cultural settings is essential for
marketers to understand global consumers. For this reason, this study proposes to examine
how consumers’ complaint behavior intention and expectations of service recovery efforts
differ in individualist versus collectivist cultures. It also examines whether certain types of
complaint behavior intentions are associated with particular types of service recovery
efforts and, ?nally, recommends ways for managers to provide adequate service recovery
strategies to ?t culturally diverse customer groups. Based on the literature review, three
hypotheses are suggested.
PAGE 260 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
H1. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures will show different complaint-behavior
intentions.
H2. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures will show different expectations of service
recovery efforts.
H3. Complaint-behavior intentions in different cultures will be associated with speci?c
expectations of service recovery efforts.
Methodology
Sample
The purpose of the study was to investigate complaint behavior intentions and expectations
of service recovery efforts from two different cultures in the fast-food restaurant industry. A
survey was conducted at universities in a southern US state and Seoul, South Korea, in the
spring of 2012. The survey population was consisted of college students, who are known
to be frequent users of fast-food restaurants. The USA was selected as an example of an
individualistic culture because it scores 91 on Hofstede’s scale of individualism, the highest
score in the world, while South Korea was selected as an example of a collectivistic culture
because it scores 18 on Hofstede’s scale of individualism, one of the lowest scores in the
world (Clearly Cultural, 2013). American students who consented to participate in the
on-site survey were given a self-administered questionnaire in class. The Korean students
who voluntarily participated in the online survey were able to read and fully understand the
objectives of the study and survey questionnaires in English; therefore, an original English
questionnaire was used for the entire survey. The respondents were asked to read a
scenario of service failures in a fast-food restaurant setting and report their
complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts. A total of 304
usable questionnaires were collected from the on-site and online survey, 214 from
American students and 90 from Korean students.
Procedure and measurement
The objectives of this study were to examine whether culturally different complaint-behavior
intentions exist between Americans as an individualistic culture and South Koreans as a
collectivistic culture and to identify which service recovery efforts were expected by the two
groups. To accomplish the objectives, the study used a scenario-based experimental
design conducted by Smith and Bolton (1998) and DeWitt and Brady (2003). University
students were asked to describe their responses to service failures in a fast-food
restaurant, such as having only one counter open despite long lines, servers chatting or
orders ?lled incorrectly. A scenario-based method was chosen because this method has
been proved to avoid the biases related to retrospective self-reports, such as rationalization
tendencies and consistency factors. It is a successful tool to assess service failure and
recovery (Smith and Bolton, 1998) and has been used by multiple researchers (Mattila,
2001; Yuksel et al., 2006) to identify consumers’ complaint behaviors toward service
failures in the hospitality industry.
This study focused on the fast-food restaurant industry and college students for the
following reasons. First, American fast-food restaurants have been expanding
internationally and consumers in other countries are highly exposed to this type of
restaurant. Second, slow service and incorrect orders are routine mistakes in the restaurant
industry (Tax et al., 1998); therefore, consumers who use fast-food restaurants may face
similar service failures regardless of country. Third, regardless of country, fast-food
restaurant users include all ages, incomes and occupations, unlike full-service or luxury
restaurant users. Finally, the bene?t of using university students is that they tend to have
similar demographic characteristics (e.g. age, educational level, occupation) that may
impact consumer behaviors. Controlling for these characteristics improves sampling
equivalence and reduces compounding factors from different cultures (Furrer et al., 2000;
Mattila and Patterson, 2004).
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 261
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Participants were asked to read a written scenario describing a service failure at a fast-food
restaurant, answer the survey’s questions about complaint behavior intentions and
describe their expectations of service recovery efforts. The questionnaire for this study was
composed of two parts. The ?rst part asked about respondents’ demographic information,
including nationality. The second part consisted of the scenario, 10 items measuring
complaint behavior intention by Singh (1988) with 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and 11 items measuring expectations of service recovery
efforts in terms of the distributive, procedural and interactional justice dimensions used by
Smith et al. (1999) with 5-point scales ranging from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very
important).
Analysis and results
Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Table I shows the demographic characteristics of the American and South Korean
respondents. There were 304 usable questionnaires. Of the respondents, 70 per cent were
American and 30 per cent were South Korean. In the American sample, the majority of the
respondents were female (70.1 per cent) and were undergraduate students (94.9 per cent).
Around 79 per cent of American respondents were in the 19-21 age group and ? 60 per
cent of them visit fast-food restaurants weekly. In response to the survey question about
their reasons for dining at fast-food restaurants, most American respondents said that they
chose fast-food restaurants because they were quick, convenient and cheap. In the South
Korean sample, around half of the respondents were male (52.2 per cent) and were
undergraduate students (62.2 per cent). Around 30 per cent of Korean respondents were
in the 19-21 age group and about 49 per cent of the respondents visited fast-food
restaurants weekly. Most Korean respondents said that they visited fast-food restaurants
because the service was quick, the taste was good and the restaurants were convenient.
Table I Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Demographic variables
American (n ? 214) South Korean (n ? 90)
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 64 29.9 47 52.2
Female 150 70.1 43 47.8
Age
19 to 21 years old 170 79.4 28 31.1
22 to 24 years old 37 17.3 26 28.9
25 to 27 years old 4 1.9 18 20.0
? 28 years old 3 1.4 18 20.0
Education level
Undergraduate students 203 94.9 56 62.2
Graduate students 11 5.1 22 24.4
Others 0 0.0 12 13.3
Use frequency
Daily 33 15.4 4 4.4
Weekly 136 63.6 44 48.9
Monthly 32 15.0 27 30.0
Seldom 13 6.1 15 16.7
Reasons to dine at fast food restaurants
Quickness 112 52.3 37 41.1
Convenience 34 15.9 12 13.3
Cheapness 28 13.1 7 7.8
Just eating 12 5.6 11 12.2
Good taste 7 3.3 17 18.9
Others (easy access, do not want to cook, traveling, little
availability to eat food on campus, social) 21 9.9 6 6.6
PAGE 262 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Validity and reliability test
It is necessary to verify the validity and the reliability of the survey items before hypotheses
are tested. Validity means the degree to which an item really measures what it claims to
assess, and reliability means the consistency of an instrument with other populations.
Twenty-one items were used to measure two constructs, complaint-behavior intentions and
preferred service recovery methods. Con?rmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
verify the validity of the items. The ?rst CFA resulted in deleting one item of complaint
behavior intention (“forget about the incident and do nothing”) because its value of
standardized item loading estimate was negative (?0.516).
A second CFA was then conducted for 20 items. Table II summarizes the results of the
second CFA, including standardized item loading estimates, factor names and Cronbach’s
alpha coef?cients. The overall model ?
2
is 354.590 with 155 df (p ? 0.01). Root mean
square residual is 0.069; goodness of ?t index is 0.887; incremental ?t index is 0.942;
normed ?t index is 0.901; Tucker–Lewis index is 0.928; comparative ?t index is 0.941; and
root mean square error of approximation is 0.065. Model ?t index was fair to use all 20
variables for further analysis.
To examine convergent validity and discriminant validity, covariance structure analysis was
used (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Baozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Critical value ratio (CR) (t-value) should be ? 1.96 (p ? 0.05) for convergent validity
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The construct reliability should be ?0.7, and AVE (average
variance extracted) should be ? 0.5 for convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As
shown in Table II, the variables belonging to each of the six constructs had t-values ? 1.96
and factor loadings ? 0.5 (Baozzi and Yi, 1988), except for one variable (C5) whose factor
loading value was 4.97. However, this item (C5) was included for further analysis because
its factor loading value was very close to 0.5. Also, all 6 construct reliability values were
higher than 0.7, and the AVE value was ? 0.5. Therefore, the convergent validity of the
constructs was con?rmed. To evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs, shared
variances between constructs (the squared correlation between two constructs) were
computed and summarized in Table III. The discriminant validity of the constructs was
veri?ed because the shared variance value between constructs was smaller than the AVE
value by each factor (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients were used
Table II The result of con?rmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis
Factors V FL SE CR Construct reliability AVE Cronbach’s alpha
Voice complaint-behavior intention C2 0.605 0.094 7.152 0.715 0.564 0.691
C4 0.873 – –
Private complaint-behavior intention C3 0.649 0.070 9.815 0.760 0.533 0.729
C5 0.497 0.055 7.912
C6 0.964 – –
Third-party complaint-behavior intention C7 0.818 0.079 14.701 0.867 0.623 0.854
C8 0.662 0.098 11.567
C9 0.891 0.078 15.898
C10 0.769 – –
Distributive justice S11 0.764 0.061 15.200 0.888 0.664 0.887
S12 0.812 0.059 16.597
S13 0.842 0.054 17.508
S14 0.839 – –
Procedural justice S15 0.819 0.092 12.002 0.823 0.611 0.806
S16 0.857 0.090 12.385
S17 0.654 – –
Interactional justice S18 0.799 0.103 12.722 0.870 0.628 0.863
S19 0.892 0.095 13.938
S20 0.775 0.089 12.371
S21 0.691 – –
Notes: V: variables; FL: factor loadings; SE: standard error; CR: critical ratio (t-value); AVE: average variance extracted
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 263
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to examine the internal consistency of the factors. Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients for all
factors were ?0.6 (Nunnally, 1978), which means that the factors were adequate to use for
further analysis. The results supported the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity for all variables used in the study. Thus, all factors were kept and used for further
analysis to test the hypotheses.
Analysis of differences in complaint behavior intentions and expectations of service
recovery efforts in terms of cultural difference
To use an independent sample t-test, the assumptions of independence of two groups,
normal distribution and homogeneity of variance should be satis?ed (https://statistics.
laerd.com). The data for this study satis?ed these assumptions with two independent
groups (US students and South Korean students), normal distribution by sample size ?
endent sample t-test could be carried out. Independent sample t-test was carried out to
determine whether signi?cant differences existed in complaint-behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery efforts by comparing the means of each construct
between Americans and South Koreans. Findings are reported in Table IV. Americans and
South Koreans showed statistically signi?cant differences in their complaint-behavior
intentions, including voice, private and third-party complaint behavior. Surprisingly, South
Koreans expressed stronger complaint-behavior intentions for all three categories (voice,
private and third-party complaint behavior) than Americans did; so H1 was supported.
However, there were no signi?cantly different expectations of service recovery efforts
between Americans and South Koreans; thus, H2 was not supported.
Analysis of correlation between complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service
recovery efforts in terms of cultural difference
Table V shows which complaint-behavior intentions of American respondents were
signi?cantly related to which service recovery efforts based on the justice theory. There
Table III Correlations between constructs
Factors Mean SE Voice Private Third party Distributive Procedural
Voice 2.9490 1.0693
Private 3.4013 0.9041 0.328* (0.107)
a
Third party 2.1579 0.9174 0.461* (0.212) 0.439* (0.192)
Distributive 3.9852 0.7740 0.157* (0.024) 0.151* (0.022) ?0.018 (0.000)
Procedural 3.7632 0.8457 0.198* (0.039) 0.222* (0.049) 0.080 (0.006) 0.709* (0.502)
Interactional 3.9219 0.8085 0.184* (0.033) 0.209* (0.043) 0.067 (0.004) 0.697* (0.485) 0.760* (0.577)
Notes: *p ? 0.01;
a
squared multiple correlation; Voice complaint-behavior intention (voice); private complaint-behavior intention
(private); third-party complaint-behavior intention (third party); distributive justice (distributive); procedural justice (procedural);
interactional justice (interactional)
Table IV Mean differences in complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts between
Americans and South Koreans
Factors Americans (n ? 214) South Koreans (n ? 90) t-value Signi?cance (2-tailed)
Complaint-behavior intentions
Voice complaint-behavior 2.780 3.350 ?4.365 0.000*
Private complaint-behavior 3.179 3.929 ?7.819 0.000*
Third-party complaint-behavior 1.915 2.733 ?7.753 0.000*
Service recovery efforts
Distributive justice 4.000 3.950 0.514 0.608
Procedural justice 3.727 3.848 ?1.268 0.206
Interactional justice 3.907 3.955 ?0.532 0.595
Note: *p ? 0.01
PAGE 264 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
were signi?cant correlations between voice complaints and expectations of all service
recovery efforts (distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice) and between private
complaint behavior and expectations of all three efforts. Third-party complaint behavior of
American respondents showed no signi?cant correlations with any of the three justice
dimensions. Higher correlations were shown between private complaint behavior and
procedural justice and between private complaint behavior and interactional justice.
Table VI shows which complaint-behavior intentions of South Korean respondents were
signi?cantly related to which expected service recovery efforts. There were signi?cant
correlations between voice complaint behavior and expectations of distributive and
procedural justice and between private complaint behavior and interactional justice. All
correlations were stronger for the South Korean group than for the American group; among
them, the highest correlation was between voice complaint behavior and procedural
justice. Taken together, the results indicated that H3 was supported.
Discussion and conclusion
This study attempted to identify cultural differences in complaint-behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery efforts based on the justice theory. Unlike the previous
studies that have investigated the relationship between complaint behavior and service
recovery among different cultures, this study investigated whether consumers who express
a speci?c type of complaint-behavior intention prefer any speci?c type of service recovery
effort, whether distributive, procedural or interactional justice. The ?ndings of this study
suggested that when managers are handling a certain type of complaint behavior, they
need to base their service recovery efforts on consumers’ cultural setting. First, the results
indicated that the most common type of complaint behavior for both groups was private
complaint behavior, followed by voice and third-party complaint behavior. As shown in
previous studies of consumers in collectivistic cultures (Foxman et al., 1990; Ngai et al.,
2007; Patterson et al., 2006), South Koreans showed stronger private complaint-behavior
intentions than other types of complaint-behavior intentions. But unlike previous studies
which showed that consumers in individualistic cultures are more likely to express voice
complaints than other types of complaint behaviors (Huang et al., 1996; Richins and
Table V Correlation between complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts in Americans
Correlation
Voice complaint-behavior
intention M: 2.780
SD: 1.029
Private complaint-behavior
intention M: 3.179
SD: 0.887
Third-party
complaint-behavior
intention M: 1.915
SD: 0.808
Distributive justice, M: 4.000, SD: 0.798 0.146** 0.169** ?0.016
Procedural justice, M: 3.727, SD: 0.903 0.156** 0.223* 0.036
Interactional justice, M: 3.907, SD: 0.870 0.183* 0.210* 0.080
Notes: M: mean, SD: standard deviation; *p ? 0.01; **p ? 0.05
Table VI Correlation between complaint-behavior intention and expectations of service recovery efforts in South
Koreans
Correlation
Voice complaint-behavior
intention M: 3.350
SD: 1.061
Private complaint-behavior
intention M: 3.929
SD: 0.705
Third-party
complaint-behavior
intention M: 2.733
SD: 0.908
Distributive justice, M: 3.950, SD: 0.715 0.231* 0.197 0.017
Procedural justice, M: 3.848, SD: 0.687 0.292* 0.173 0.123
Interactional justice, M: 3.955, SD: 0.639 0.193 0.233** 0.012
Notes: M: Mean, S.D.: Standardized deviation; *p ? 0.01; **p ? 0.05
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 265
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Verhage, 1985), this study indicated that Americans also showed stronger private
complaint behavior than other types of behaviors. The result of this study may have been
in?uenced by the fact that most of the participants were in their 20s and accustomed to
using the Internet, social media or smartphones when sharing dining experiences or ?nding
information about restaurants. Due to this trend, the American group’s private
complaint-behavior intention may have been stronger than their voice complaint-behavior
intention. Therefore, future research needs to consider private complaint-behavior types
that have been increasingly expressed online.
Second, the results of the study revealed that there were signi?cant cultural differences in
complaint-behavior intentions between Americans and South Koreans. In contrast to prior
studies (Foxman et al., 1990; Huang et al., 1996; Liu and McClure, 2001), South Koreans
showed more intentions of all types of complaint behavior than did Americans. The result
may have been affected by the survey method, which used service failure scenarios to
measure intentions of complaint behavior rather than studying actual complaint behavior in
real settings. Even though South Koreans from a collectivistic culture may be dissatis?ed
with the service intend to complain, they may not actually do so. Customers from
collectivistic cultures tend to avoid face-to-face con?ict and to use more indirect complaint
behaviors (i.e. no action or private complaint behavior) (Le Clarie, 1993). South Koreans
consider that a public argument is a way to lose face and hinders interpersonal harmony.
Other Asian countries, such as China and Japan, have similar collectivistic cultures.
Therefore, this study may point out Asians’ unrevealed emotion: that is, even if Asians have
higher complaint behavior intentions, they may not complain directly in real service failure
situations due to their concerns about losing face or breaking harmony (Leung, 1987).
Consequently, when managers and practitioners handle Asian consumers’ complaints,
they need to develop easy and accessible routes that allow consumers to express their
complaints without revealing them to others.
Third, the results indicated that there were no signi?cant differences in expectations of
service recovery efforts. These results can be interpreted to mean that both Americans and
South Koreans think that all types of service recovery efforts, whether distributive,
procedural and interactional justice, are important and valuable in handling their
complaints. Although there were no signi?cant differences between the two groups,
Americans considered distributive justice (e.g. monetary compensation offered during
solving service failures) to be the most important, followed by interactional justice (e.g.
employees’ efforts) and procedural justice (e.g. appropriate procedures to handle service
failures), while South Koreans valued interactional justice most highly, followed by
distributive and procedural justice. The results are in line with the studies of Mattila (1999)
and Hui and Au (2001). These results can be helpful for practitioners to determine which
efforts they should give weight to in terms of different cultures.
Fourth, the correlations between complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service
recovery efforts were different for consumers in different cultures. In American
(individualistic) culture, voice and private complaint-behavior intentions were interrelated
with expectations of all three dimensions of justice. In other words, when consumers in
individualistic cultures express feelings of dissatisfaction toward managers or sellers, tell
friends and families about their dissatisfaction or quit purchasing the products, they can be
satis?ed by any type of response from the company, whether distributive, procedural or
interactional justice. However, when American customers express their complaints to third
parties (by reporting to a consumer agency or bringing a lawsuit), they do not expect much
from the company. When companies confront customers’ voice or private complaints, they
need to react quickly to solve the problems by using all three recovery methods. Among the
three complaint behaviors, the private complaint-behavior intention of American
respondents was the most strongly associated with procedural justice. Therefore,
practitioners need to provide timely resolution efforts with fair procedures to solve problems
and keep customers informed of the service recovery process after handling the
PAGE 266 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
complaints to prevent unrevealed private complaint behavior. On the other hand, in South
Korean (collectivistic) culture, voice complaint-behavior intention was highly interrelated
with expectations of distributive and procedural justice and private complaint-behavior
intention was correlated with expectations of interactional justice. When consumers in
collectivistic cultures complain directly to managers about service failure, companies
should focus on monetary compensation or on speedy and fair resolutions to handle their
complaints. Additionally, the results showed that private complaint behavior intention was
signi?cantly associated with interactional justice. Therefore, companies operating in
collectivistic cultures need to train employees to show good communication skills, sincere
efforts and courtesy to prevent private complaint behavior.
Fifth, the results showed that third-party complaint behavior had no signi?cant relationship
with any type of justice from both cultures. These results may imply that when consumers
of any cultures express complaints to other public organizations, they do not expect any
compensation from the company. Therefore, practitioners need to put extra effort into
addressing voice and complaint behavior because such efforts will help prevent third-party
complaint behavior in the long run. Recently, social media has become important for
companies to communicate with global consumers. According to the National Restaurant
Association’s (2012) Restaurant Trends Survey, nine out of ten restaurant operators believe
that social media and smartphone applications will play a more critical role in marketing
tools in the future. Thus, social media and smartphone applications may be very useful for
practitioners to track customers’ private complaints and to promptly handle negative word
of mouth as well as receive speedy customer feedback.
Taken together, the ?ndings of this study contributed to the globalized hospitality industry
by identifying consumers’ different complaint-behavior intentions and their expectations for
service recovery efforts based on different cultures and by suggesting managerial
guidelines to handle different types of complaints. The results of this study imply that
international companies need to identify local market characteristics and adapt themselves
to develop proper service recovery strategies to maintain sustainable success in the global
market.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
The study has several limitations and suggestions for future research. First, the data
depended on participants’ subjective complaint behavior intentions after reading the
hypothetical scenario of service failure. Consumers’ evaluation of service quality and
service standards may not be identical in different cultures even if reading the same
scenario. Therefore, more objective evaluation methods are needed for understanding
consumers’ complaint-behavior intentions and perceptions of service recovery efforts in
real service failure situations. Second, the scenario was limited to one type of restaurant,
fast-food restaurants and college students; hence, the generalization of this study’s results
is limited. Future research is recommended to study different types of restaurants and
diverse customer groups. Third, the sample size of the two nationalities was not identical,
and this fact might in?uence the results. Therefore, future research needs to use similar
sample sizes for the two different cultures for clearer and more reliable results.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Austin, W.G. (1979), “Justice, freedom and self-interest in intergroup relations”, in Austin, W.G. and
Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Coles, Belmont, CA,
pp. 20-37.
Baozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Becker, C. (2000), “Service recovery strategies: the impact of cultural differences”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 526-538.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, M.B. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997), “The effects of distributive, procedural and interactional
justice on post complaint behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 185-210.
Bond, M.H. and Hwang, K.K. (1986), “The social psychology of Chinese people”, in Bond, M.H. (Eds),
The Psychology of the Chinese People, Oxford University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 213-266.
Boshoff, C. and Allen, J. (2000), “The in?uence of selected antecedents on frontline staff’s
performance”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 63-90.
Briley, C.A. and Wyer, R.S., Jr (2002), “The effect of group membership salience on the avoidance of
negative outcomes: implications for social and consumer decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 400-415.
Brockener, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Francesco, A., Leung, K. and Bierbrauer, G. (2001),
“Culture and procedural justice: the in?uence of power on reactions to voice”, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 300-315.
Burger King Corporation (2012), 2011 10-K SEC Filing, available at:http://investor.bk.com/burgerking/
web/conteudo_en.asp?idioma?1&conta?44&tipo?43575
China Daily (2004), “KFC and McDonald’s-a model of blended culture”, available at: www.chinadaily.
com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/01/content_335488.htm
Clearly Cultural (2013), “Making sense of clearly cultural dimension”, available at: www.clearlycultural.
com/ (accessed 2 October 2013)
Clemmer, E.C. (1993), “An investigation into the relationship of fairness and customer satisfaction with
service”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace – Approaching Fairness in Human
Resources Management Series in Applied Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 193-207.
Conlon, D.E. and Murray, N.M. (1996), “Customer perceptions of corporate responses to product
complaints: the role of expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 1040-1056.
Day, R.L. (1984), “Modeling choices among alternate responses to dissatisfaction”, Association of
Consumer Research Proceedings, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 496-499.
Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
DeWitt, T. and Brady, M.K. (2003), “Rethinking service recovery strategies”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 193-210.
Donthu, N. and Yoo, B. (1998), “Cultural in?uences on service quality expectations”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 178-186.
Euromonitor International (2007), “Burger King aiming for Asian expansion”, Euromonitor International,
4 September.
Fisher, A.B. (1984), “The ad biz gloms onto global”, Fortune, Vol. 12, pp. 77-80.
Folger, R. (1984), “Emerging issues in the social psychology of justice”, in Folger, R. (Ed.), The Sense
of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 3-24.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foxman, E.R., Raven, P.V. and Stem, D.E. Jr. (1990), “Locus of control, fatalism, and responses to
dissatisfaction: a pilot study”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 21-28.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and service quality
perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 355-371.
Gilliland, S.W. (1993), “The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 694-734.
PAGE 268 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Goodwin, C. and Ross, I. (1992), “Consumer responses to service failure; In?uence of procedural and
interactional fairness perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 149-163.
Hartini, S. and Aventina (2013), “Complaint behavior: relationships individualism, self con?dence and
voice intention with gender as moderating variable”, Journal of Economics, Business, and
Accountancy Ventura, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 443-456.
Hartline, M., Maxham, J. III and McKee, D. (2000), “Corridors of in?uence in the dissemination of
customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64
No. 2, pp. 35-50.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Huang, J.H., Huang, C.T. and Wu, S. (1996), “National character and response to unsatisfactory hotel
service”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 229-243.
Hui, M.K. and Au, K. (2001), “Justice perceptions of complaint-handling: a cross-cultural comparison
between PRC and Canadian customers” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 161-173.
Johnston, R. (1995), “Service failure and recovery: impact, attributes and process”, Advances in
Services Marketing and Management: Research and Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 211-228.
Kanousi, A. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the role of culture on service recovery expectations”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Kau, A.K. and Loh, W.Y. (2006), “The effects of service recovery on consumer satisfaction: a
comparison between complainants and non-complainants”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 101-111.
Kelley, S.W., Hoffman, K.C. and Davis, M.A. (1993), “A typology of retail failures and recoveries”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 429-452.
Kim, U. (1994), “Individualism and collectivism: conceptual clari?cation and elaboration”, in Kim, U.,
Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,
Method, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 19-40.
Le Clarie, K.A. (1993), “Chinese complaints behavior”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 73-92.
Leung, K. (1987), “Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for con?ict resolution a
cross-national study”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 898-908.
Levesque, T. and McDougall, G. (2000), “Service problems and recovery strategies: an experiment”,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
Lewis, B.R. and Spyrakopoulos, S. (2001), “Service failures and recovery in retail banking: the
customers’ perspective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New
York, NY.
Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer complaint
behavior and intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 54-74.
Lorenzoni, N. and Lewis, B.R. (2004), “Service recovery in the airline industry: a cross-cultural
comparison of the attitudes and behaviors of British and Italian front-line personnel”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Lovelock, C.H. (1994), Product Plus, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Maheswaran, D. and Shavitt, S. (2000), “Issues and new directions in global consumer psychology”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 59-66.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1990), “Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
Mattila, A.S. (1999), “The role of culture in the service evaluation processes”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 250-261.
Mattila, S.A. (2000), “The impact of culture and gender on customer evaluations of service
encounters”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 263-273.
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 269
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mattila, S.A. (2001), “The effectiveness of service recovery in a multi-industry setting”, The Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 583-596.
Mattila, S.A. and Patterson, P.G. (2004), “The impact of culture on consumers’ perceptions of service
recovery efforts”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 196-206.
Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W. and Karwan, K.R. (2000), “Service recovery: a framework and empirical
investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387-400.
Mohr, L.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1995), “The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service
transactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-252.
Mueller, R.D., Palmer, A., Mack, R. and McMullan, R. (2003), “Service in the restaurant industry: an
American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 395-418.
National Restaurant Association (2012), “Restaurant Industry Forecast”, available at: www.
restaurant.org
Ngai, E.W.T., Heung, V.C.S., Wong, Y.H. and Chan, F.K.Y. (2007), “Consumer complaint behavior of
Asians and non-Asians about hotel services: An empirical analysis”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1375-1391.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Nyer, P.U. (2000), “An investigation into whether complaining can cause increased consumer
satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-19.
Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T. (2003), “A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and propensity to
stay with service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Patterson, P., Cowley, K. and Prasongsukarn, K. (2006), “Service failure recovery: the moderating
impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 263-277.
Pizam, A. and Sussmann, S. (1995), “Does nationality affect tourist behavior”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 901-917.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), “Learning from customer defections”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 2,
p. 56.
Richins, M. and Verhage, B.J. (1985), “Cross-cultural differences in consumer attitudes and their
implications for complaint management”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 197-206.
Rogers, J.C., Ross, S.C. and Williams, T.G. (1992), “Personal values and purchase dissatisfaction
response”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 5,
pp. 81-92.
Schutte, H. and Ciarlante, D. (1998), Consumer Behavior in Asia, Mcmillan Business, Hampshire.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-271.
Singh, J. (1988), “Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: de?nitional and taxonomical issues,
consumer complaint intentions and behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 93-107.
Singh, J. and Widing, R.E. (1991), “What occurs once consumers complain? A theoretical model for
understanding satisfaction/dissatisfaction outcomes of complaint responses”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 30-46.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (1998), “An experimental investigation of customer reactions to service
failure and recovery encounters”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (2002), “The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service failures
on their recovery evaluations and satisfaction judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of customer satisfaction with service
encounters involving failure and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 356-372.
Sparks, B.A. and McColl-Kennedy, J. (2001), “Justice strategy options for increased customer
satisfaction in a services recovery setting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 209-218.
PAGE 270 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Spreng, R.A., Harrell, G.D. and Mackoy, R.D. (1995), “Service recovery impact on satisfaction and
intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Tax, S.S. and Brown, S.W. (1998), “Recovering and learning from service failure”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Tax, S.S. and Brown, S.W. (2000), “Service recovery”, in Iacobucci, D. and Swartz, T.A. (Eds),
Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 271-285.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), “Customer evaluations of service complaint
experiences: implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 60-76.
Triandis, H.C. (1994), “Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and
individualism”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism
and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 41-51.
Tyler, T.R. and Bies, R.J. (1990), “Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural
justice”, in Garroll, J. (Ed), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings, Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 77-98.
Yavas, U. and Yasin, M.M. (2001), “Enhancing organizational performance in banks: a systematic
approach”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 444-453.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T. and Tekinkus, M. (2003), “Antecedents and outcomes of service
recovery performance: an empirical study of frontline employees in Turkish banks”, The International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 255-265.
Further reading
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness”, in
Sheppard, B. (Ed), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, JAI Press Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Triandis, H.C. (1989), “The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 506-520.
Yuksel, A., Kilinc, U.K. and Yuksel, F. (2006), “Cross-national analysis of hotel customers’ attitudes
toward complaining and their complaining behaviors”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Corresponding author
Kyungmi Kim can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 271
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. M. S. Balaji, Subhash Jha, Marla B. Royne. 2015. Customer e-complaining behaviours using social media. The Service
Industries Journal 35, 633-654. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_660975597.pdf
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether complaint behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery based on the justice theory are different among customers from
collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. A secondary purpose is to find which service recovery
strategies are appropriate for different culture-based complaint behavior intentions
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Complaint behavior intentions and expectation of service recovery in individualistic and collectivistic
cultures
Seul Gi Park Kyungmi Kim Martin O’Neill
Article information:
To cite this document:
Seul Gi Park Kyungmi Kim Martin O’Neill , (2014),"Complaint behavior intentions and expectation of service recovery in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp.
255 - 271
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-12-2013-0084
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 83 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 575 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Tammo H.A. Bijmolt, Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh, Adriana Krawczyk, (2014),"Effects of complaint behaviour and service recovery
satisfaction on consumer intentions to repurchase on the internet", Internet Research, Vol. 24 Iss 5 pp. 608-628 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2012-0056
Min Gyung Kim, Chenya Wang, Anna S. Mattila, (2010),"The relationship between consumer complaining behavior and
service recovery: An integrative review", International J ournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 Iss 7 pp.
975-991http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111011066635
Defang Zhao, Ingrid Y. Lin, (2014),"Understanding tourists’ perception and evaluation of inter-cultural service encounters: a
holistic mental model process", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 290-309http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-09-2013-0070
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Complaint behavior intentions and
expectation of service recovery in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures
Seul Gi Park, Kyungmi Kim and Martin O’Neill
Seul Gi Park is an
Assistant Professor
based at Department of
Hotel Management,
Baekseok University,
Cheonan, South Korea.
Kyungmi Kim is an
Associate Professor
based at Keimyung
University, Taegu, South
Korea. Martin O’Neill is a
Professor and
Department Head based
at Department of
Nutrition, Dietetics and
Hospitality Management,
Auburn University.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate whether complaint behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery based on the justice theory are different among customers from
collectivistic versus individualistic cultures. A secondary purpose is to ?nd which service recovery
strategies are appropriate for different culture-based complaint behavior intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey was conducted at universities, and the survey
population consisted of college students, who are known to be frequent users of fast-food
restaurants. A total of 304 usable questionnaires were collected. Con?rmatory factor analysis was
conducted to verify the validity of the items, Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients were used to examine the
internal consistency of the factors, and an independent sample t-test was used to analyze
differences in complaint behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts in terms of
cultural difference.
Findings – The results of this study indicated that South Koreans revealed more voice complaint
behavior intentions than Americans did. However, there were no signi?cant differences in expectations
of service recovery efforts between them. Second, American customers who indicated voice and
private complaint behavior intentions expected distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice in
complaint-handling procedures. South Korean customers who indicated voice complaint behavior
intentions expected distributive and procedural justice, and South Korean customers who indicated private
complaint behavior intentions anticipated interactional justice in complaint-handling procedures.
Research limitations/implications – Understanding customers’ complaint behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery based on the justice theory and cultural differences will suggest
practical implications to hospitality industry managers for effective service quality management.
Originality/value – Understanding customers’ complaint behavior intentions and expectations of
service recovery based on the justice theory and cultural differences will suggest practical implications
to hospitality industry managers for effective service quality management.
Keywords Collectivism–individualism, Complaint behavior intention, Cultural difference,
Expectation of service recovery, Individualistic cultures, Collectivist cultures
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
To survive in more and more complex markets, it is crucial for companies to identify not only
customers’ needs and wants but also their satisfaction or dissatisfaction after purchasing
goods and services. Yavas et al. (2003) recommended that companies should focus on
customer satisfaction because it is closely related to growth of revenues, reduction of
costs, improvement of service quality and establishment of market shares. For sustainable
market success, companies should pay attention not only to satis?ed customers but to
dissatis?ed customers because consumers’ dissatisfaction can lead to complaints,
negative word of mouth and suspension of repurchase (Yavas et al., 2003; Yuksel et al.,
2006). As such, complaints are useful resources for companies to correct problems and to
increase consumer satisfaction (Nyer, 2000).
Received 14 December 2013
Revised 25 February 2014,
31 May 2014
Accepted 9 June 2014
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-12-2013-0084 VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014, pp. 255-271, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 255
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mistakes and service failures are unavoidable in service delivery procedures due to the
characteristics of the service industry, such as simultaneous production and consumption,
numerous service encounters, consumers’ subjective assessment of the service quality,
etc. If service providers fail to respond to service errors promptly, the consumers’
dissatisfaction may be expressed through actions, such as spreading negative word of
mouth or switching companies. Therefore, it is crucial for companies to make appropriate
and timely responses to consumers’ complaints (Tax and Brown, 1998). Consumers who
are satis?ed with a company’s service recovery efforts spread more positive word of mouth
and show higher retention, loyalty to and trust in the company (Kau and Loh, 2006; Tax and
Brown, 1998). Service recovery is a fundamental factor in maintaining a company’s overall
quality management (Smith et al., 1999). Understanding consumers’ complaint behaviors
and perceptions of service recovery efforts is very important for building post-purchase
management and customer relationship marketing (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995).
However, consumers in different regions may show different complaint behaviors in similar
situations (Huang et al., 1996; Liu and McClure, 2001), and these cultural differences have
a tremendous effect on the success of service recovery methods (Mattila and Patterson,
2004). Therefore, international companies who want to sustain their business in the
globalized market and to extend their market share need to understand the cultural differences
of global consumers (Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000). Companies which have been expanding
internationally need to identify the cultural multiplicity of their consumers and create localized
strategies for service recovery to ?t diverse customers’ complaint behaviors.
Many researchers have studied consumer complaints and perceptions of service recovery
methods in the hospitality industry (Mueller et al., 2003), focusing on Western (USA and
European) consumers (Liu and McClure, 2001). Therefore, questions have been raised
about whether research on consumer complaint behavior in Western cultures can be
applied to consumer complaint behavior in non-Western cultures (Kanousi, 2005; Mattila,
2000; Mattila and Patterson, 2004; Ngai et al., 2007; Yuksel et al., 2006). For this reason, this
study compared complaint behaviors and expectations of service recovery in Western and
non-Western cultures, focusing on the fast-food industry. The fast-food industry was
chosen because it has expanded internationally through franchising and it gives a familiar
dining-out experience to people from different cultures by providing common menus,
identical restaurant interiors and exteriors and similar service. These similarities make it
easier to identify how customers from different countries respond to the same situation and
simplify the comparison of expectations of service recovery. Furthermore, this study goes
beyond the existing research by showing the relationship between customers’ speci?c
complaint behavior intentions and their expected service recovery method. Speci?cally,
this study focuses on complaint behavior intention and preferred service recovery methods in
two distinct cultures, South Korea and the USA. This research will suggest ways for international
companies to identify different types of complaints from different cultures and provide
adequate service recovery methods for service companies operating in different countries.
Literature review
Complaint behavior
It is a well-known premise that customers’ satisfaction is the most important component of
companies’ success. For this reason, the service industry has focused on improving
service quality and keeping customers satis?ed with the service. Nonetheless, errors or
mistakes in the service delivery process are inevitable due to interpersonal interaction
between the employees and consumers in numerous service encounters. The
simultaneous nature of service delivery and consumption is the main cause of customer
dissatisfaction. Dissatis?ed customers react to companies’ problems and initiate
complaints (Day, 1984). Consumers’ dissatisfaction with service failure damages a
company’s reputation and results in negative responses and discontinuance of
repurchasing goods and services (Mattila, 2001).
PAGE 256 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Researchers have classi?ed complaint behaviors into several different categories.
Complaint behavior is commonly described as consisting of three dimensions:
1. complaining directly to service providers;
2. complaining to acquaintances rather than to service providers; and
3. complaining to a consumer agency or taking legal action (Hartini and Aventina, 2013).
For example, Singh (1988) suggested three complaint behavior dimensions: voice, private
and third-party responses. First, voice responses are customers’ external expressions of
dissatisfaction toward managers or sellers. Second, private responses occur when
dissatis?ed customers do not complain directly to the company, but tell friends and families
about their dissatisfaction, quit purchasing the products or post their complaints on
Websites. Third, third-party responses occur when customers express dissatisfaction using
indirect ways, such as reporting to a consumer agency or taking legal action. Similarly,
Yuksel et al. (2006) classi?ed the three dimensions of complaint behavior as voice, loyalty
and switch. The voice dimension consists of complaining to employees, involving
managers, writing complaint letters and conveying dissatisfaction to others and to third
parties. The loyalty dimension includes actions, such as not revisiting the service outlet in
the future or not recommending it to others. The switch dimension involves not voicing a
complaint, but switching to another service outlet. On the other hand, Rogers et al. (1992)
categorized ?ve consumer complaint behaviors. To the three dimensions previously
described, they added two more: changing future behavior, which means not using the
item or the seller in the future and doing nothing, which means ignoring the dissatisfaction.
When companies do not handle complaints properly, the results can be disastrous,
including unfavorable word of mouth and suspension of repurchase. However, complaints
can also be opportunities to redress service failure incidents and improve service
performance (Lovelock, 1994). To deal with the complaints, service practitioners need to
design and build service recovery strategies to retain dissatis?ed customers.
Service recovery and justice theory
Previous researchers have studied the impact of interpersonal handling, service recovery
procedures and compensation on service recovery evaluations (Kanousi, 2005; Mattila and
Patterson, 2004). Researchers have found that effective service recovery satis?es
customers and keeps a sustainable relationship with them (Miller et al., 2000; Sparks and
McColl-Kennedy, 2001; Tax and Brown, 1998). Service recovery is de?ned as service
providers’ proactive efforts and responses to service failures that lead to customers’
dissatisfaction with services or products (Johnston, 1995). Examples of effective service
recovery in the service industry include room upgrades, discounts, free food and beverage
offerings, explanations, efforts to ?x problems and reengineering service delivery
procedures (Bitner et al., 1990; Lewis and Spyrakopoulos, 2001; Yavas and Yasin, 2001).
Practitioners and researchers have focused on managing customer retention and invested
in ?nding effective complaint-handling strategies because retaining existing customers can
be more pro?table than attracting new customers (Reichheld, 1996). Convenient and timely
complaint-handling efforts are especially important factors in the service industry because
of the simultaneous consumption and production of service, and effective complaint
handing methods can enhance and rebuild customers’ trust in the service providers (Tax
et al., 1998). When dissatis?ed consumers complain, they may reassess the situation
based on the company’s complaint-handling processes, such as suitable compensation,
proper procedures and staff’s interpersonal attitudes toward them (Tax et al., 1998). If
consumers do not perceive appropriate service recovery efforts from the company, they
may never return to the company (Yavas et al., 2003). However, if consumers are satis?ed
with service recovery, their satisfaction can be a vital in?uence on their con?dence in and
commitment to the company (Tax et al., 1998). Service recovery strategies that change
dissatis?ed customers into satis?ed ones lead to customer retention, loyalty, positive word
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 257
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of mouth, repurchase intention and long-term relationship marketing (Kelley et al., 1993;
Levesque and McDougall, 2000; Spreng et al., 1995).
To evaluate the effectiveness of service recovery strategies and the fairness of treatment,
the justice theory is useful (Tax and Brown, 2000). Justice “pertains not merely to outcome
distributions, but also to how the distribution is arrived at and the manner by which it is
implemented” (Austin, 1979, p. 24). Justice consists of three dimensions: distributive
justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. First, distributive justice means the
allocation of outcomes (Deutsch, 1985), such as modi?cations of charges, refunds, repairs,
replacements, compensation, etc. (Kelley et al., 1993), which have been proved to have a
signi?cant effect on customer satisfaction (Clemmer, 1993; Mattila, 2001). Second,
procedural justice includes service recovery procedures, such as timeliness and refund
policies and how fair customers perceive these procedures to be (Lind and Tyler, 1988).
According to Kau and Loh’s (2006) study, distributive justice and procedural justice had a
signi?cantly positive relationship with consumer satisfaction with service recovery. Third,
interactional justice means how fairly consumers feel that the staff treated them during the
service recovery procedures (Gilliland, 1993). Interactional justice related to service
providers’ efforts: courtesy and adequacy of language are critical components in
consumers’ evaluation of service quality and satisfaction (Blodgett et al., 1997; Goodwin
and Ross, 1992; Hartline et al., 2000). Many studies have documented the positive
relationship between customer satisfaction and the staff’s efforts to correct problems (Mohr
and Bitner, 1995), as well as the effectiveness of interpersonal behavior, such as an
employee’s communication skills, politeness and honesty toward customers (Goodwin and
Ross, 1992) because employees in service encounters are strongly involved in service
recovery procedures and can handle complaints ef?ciently and adequately (Boshoff and
Allen, 2000). The three dimensions of justice can be considered together because they are
interrelated in a customer’s evaluation of service recovery. Customers’ perceptions of
service recovery can be in?uenced simultaneously by tangible compensations and the
interpersonal relationship with employees (Levesque and McDougall, 2000). For example,
Mattila (2001) suggested that an apology with tangible compensation was an effective
service recovery strategy, and Tyler and Bies (1990) mentioned that the staff’s
interpersonal and interactive handling of complaints has a positive impact on customers’
evaluation of procedural justice. When customers perceive that proper compensation for
service failures is accompanied by an impartial process, they can positively evaluate
distributive justice (Folger, 1984). Additionally, timely and suitable explanations of unfair
and uncomfortable situations can help customers positively assess procedural justice
(Conlon and Murray, 1996). Thus, companies’ efforts to handle service failures are positively
connected to improving consumers’ evaluation of the three dimensions of justice (Smith and
Bolton, 2002). Much research has been conducted on complaint behaviors and service
recovery, but little research exists about the relationship between complaint behaviors and
service recovery efforts based on the justice theory. Identifying this relationship would be
helpful in designing adequate service recovery strategies for various complaint behaviors.
Cultural differences in complaint behavior and service recovery
Multinational companies have been expanding all over the world because globalization
brings new markets and larger market shares to make more pro?ts for the companies. This
trend has emerged in fast-food chain restaurants (e.g. McDonald’s, KFC and Burger King).
The USA has expanded the world’s largest fast-food industry, with American fast-food
restaurants located all over the world. The American fast-food restaurant industry has
recently targeted the Asian market for global expansion, expecting big growth
opportunities (Burger King Corporation, 2012). To be successful in international market
expansion, multinational companies need to understand foreign markets along with diverse
cultures because each country has speci?c characteristics (Fisher, 1984). Therefore, to
penetrate foreign markets and compete favorably, multinational companies need to identify
local favorites and adapt to local conditions. For example, in the Chinese market, fast-food
PAGE 258 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
chains, such as KFC and McDonald’s, have tried to learn and absorb characteristics of
Chinese food, such as its own fragrance, ?avor and color based on the traditional food and
beverage culture (China Daily, 2004). Additionally, Burger King has developed new menus
with chicken to expand into the Indian market, which has a religion-based aversion to beef
(Euromonitor International, 2007). These implementations have been very successful for
these companies. These examples show the necessity of modifying products and services
for foreign markets and having the ?exibility to adapt to different cultures. As Pizam and
Sussmann (1995) pointed out, different cultures and nationalities have a moderating or
intervening role in consumer behavior, and cross-national differences in?uence the actions
of consumers and marketers of multinational companies (Yuksel et al., 2006). Thus,
multinational companies need to identify and utilize the inherent diversity of foreign markets
for sustainable management.
Just as menus are localized for markets in different cultures, international companies
should pay attention to customers’ behaviors in different cultures and their expectations for
service delivery. Different cultures have different types of complaint behaviors and attitudes
about complaints (Day, 1984; Singh and Widing, 1991). Therefore, restaurant chains need
to identify complaint-behavior patterns in different cultures and create localized strategies
for service recovery according to the characteristics of different markets.
When researchers study cultural differences, they usually adopt Hofstede’s (1980) four
major cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty
avoidance. Hofstede (1980) developed a scoring system which measures the degree to
which a culture demonstrates each dimension, with higher numbers indicating a higher
acceptance of that dimension. For example, the USA scores 91 on individuality, meaning
that the USA has a very high degree of individualistic culture (Clearly Cultural, 2013). Of the
four dimensions, the most widely studied is individualism and its opposite, collectivism.
Many researchers have empirically tested this dimension and have repeatedly proved its
usefulness in studying cross-cultural behavior (Hofstede, 1980; Kim, 1994; Triandis, 1994).
According to Hofstede (1980), individualistic cultures are societies in which individuals are
primarily concerned with their own interests and the interests of their immediate family,
while collectivist cultures assume that individuals belong to an extended family, clan or
other organization from which they cannot detach themselves.
Individualism versus collectivism can also be de?ned as the extent to which individuals are
incorporated into groups (Huang et al., 1996). In individualistic cultures, people tend to
consider their independence and self-suf?ciency more and think in terms of “I”.
Individualists are likely to consider self-esteem important and express themselves more
than collectivists (Markus and Kitayama, 1990). In collectivist cultures, however, people are
inclined to conform to the social norms for harmony among the members of the in-groups
and think in terms of “we” (Hofstede, 1980). In addition, collectivist societies give more
weight to social status than to individual competence (Bond and Hwang, 1986), and
collectivists are also more likely to avoid con?ict with others (Leung, 1987). Researchers
generally agree that collectivistic cultures include Asian countries, such as China
(individuality score, 20), Japan (individuality score, 46) and South Korea (individuality
score, 18), while individualistic cultures include non-Asian countries such as the USA
(individuality score, 91), Australia (individuality score, 90), France (individuality score, 71)
and Germany (individuality score, 67) (Becker, 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Clearly Cultural,
2013).
The unique characteristics of individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures have
substantial impacts on people’s attitudes and behaviors. Consumers from different cultures
express different complaint behaviors and different perceptions of service recovery efforts
(Huang et al., 1996; Liu and McClure, 2001; Patterson et al., 2006). Several studies have
identi?ed different complaint behaviors in different cultures (Huang et al., 1996; Liu and
McClure, 2001; Ngai et al., 2007; Patterson et al., 2006; Yuksel et al., 2006). For example,
Richins and Verhage (1985) demonstrated that Americans, members of a strongly
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 259
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
individualistic culture, frequently complained about unsatisfactory service and thought that
complaints held the company accountable and could make the service quality better.
Huang et al. (1996) compared the role of cultural differences in the complaint behaviors of
American and Japanese consumers and suggested that American consumers had a
greater tendency to express their complaint to the hotel management than did Japanese
consumers, who had a greater tendency to ignore unsatisfactory service. On the other
hand, Asian consumers from strongly collectivistic cultures were less inclined to complain
because they did not want to “lose face” and were more inclined to choose negative word
of mouth and quit repurchasing (Foxman et al., 1990; Patterson et al., 2006). Liu and
McClure (2001) compared complaint behaviors between South Korean and American
culture and found that South Korean consumers in a collectivist culture seem to make
private responses more than American consumers in an individualist culture. American
consumers expressed dissatisfaction to the companies more frequently than South Korean
consumers did. In addition, Ngai et al. (2007) found that Asians were more likely to ascribe
service failures to hotel employees and to caution family or friends about their
unsatisfactory hotel experiences as private complaint behaviors than non-Asians did.
Consequently, complaint behaviors between individualistic and collectivistic cultures
present differently. Therefore, the cultural dimension of collectivism versus individualism
can explain complaint behavior and perceptions of service recovery in different cultures
(Patterson et al., 2006). For this reason, this study adopts this cultural dimension of
collectivism versus individualism to investigate cultural differences in complaint behavior
and expectation of service recovery in fast-food restaurants.
Researchers have also indicated that customers in different cultures have different
expectations of service quality (Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Furrer et al., 2000; Lorenzoni and
Lewis, 2004; Mattila, 1999; Patterson and Smith, 2003; Schutte and Ciarlante, 1998).
Studies have proved that consumers from individualistic cultures prefer individual gains,
while consumers from collectivistic cultures are more interested in avoiding losses (Briley
and Wyer, 2002; Markus and Kitayama, 1990). For example, Hui and Au (2001) studied the
effects of complaint handling strategies and post-complaint behaviors in China, a
collectivist culture, and Canada, an individualist culture. They concluded that the most
important part of the service recovery in China was to provide opportunities for customers
to communicate their dissatisfaction with the company and employees, while in Canada,
the most critical part of service recovery was offering compensation. The results were line
with Mattila’s (1999) study, which indicated that consumers from Canadian culture
preferred tangible cues like compensation more than those from Chinese culture did.
Furthermore, Mattila and Patterson (2004) indicated that cultural difference was related to
satisfaction with service recovery methods; for example, Americans were more satis?ed
with compensation than East Asians were. Consequently, culture moderates how
consumers perceive service failures and evaluate service recovery efforts (Brockener et al.,
2001; Hui and Au, 2001).
Previous research has focused on concepts of complaint behavior and perceptions of
service recovery in different cultures. However, little cross-cultural research has examined
the relationship between complaint behavior intention and expectations of service recovery
based on the justice theory. Identifying the relationship between complaint behavior
intention and expectations of service recovery in different cultural settings is essential for
marketers to understand global consumers. For this reason, this study proposes to examine
how consumers’ complaint behavior intention and expectations of service recovery efforts
differ in individualist versus collectivist cultures. It also examines whether certain types of
complaint behavior intentions are associated with particular types of service recovery
efforts and, ?nally, recommends ways for managers to provide adequate service recovery
strategies to ?t culturally diverse customer groups. Based on the literature review, three
hypotheses are suggested.
PAGE 260 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
H1. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures will show different complaint-behavior
intentions.
H2. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures will show different expectations of service
recovery efforts.
H3. Complaint-behavior intentions in different cultures will be associated with speci?c
expectations of service recovery efforts.
Methodology
Sample
The purpose of the study was to investigate complaint behavior intentions and expectations
of service recovery efforts from two different cultures in the fast-food restaurant industry. A
survey was conducted at universities in a southern US state and Seoul, South Korea, in the
spring of 2012. The survey population was consisted of college students, who are known
to be frequent users of fast-food restaurants. The USA was selected as an example of an
individualistic culture because it scores 91 on Hofstede’s scale of individualism, the highest
score in the world, while South Korea was selected as an example of a collectivistic culture
because it scores 18 on Hofstede’s scale of individualism, one of the lowest scores in the
world (Clearly Cultural, 2013). American students who consented to participate in the
on-site survey were given a self-administered questionnaire in class. The Korean students
who voluntarily participated in the online survey were able to read and fully understand the
objectives of the study and survey questionnaires in English; therefore, an original English
questionnaire was used for the entire survey. The respondents were asked to read a
scenario of service failures in a fast-food restaurant setting and report their
complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts. A total of 304
usable questionnaires were collected from the on-site and online survey, 214 from
American students and 90 from Korean students.
Procedure and measurement
The objectives of this study were to examine whether culturally different complaint-behavior
intentions exist between Americans as an individualistic culture and South Koreans as a
collectivistic culture and to identify which service recovery efforts were expected by the two
groups. To accomplish the objectives, the study used a scenario-based experimental
design conducted by Smith and Bolton (1998) and DeWitt and Brady (2003). University
students were asked to describe their responses to service failures in a fast-food
restaurant, such as having only one counter open despite long lines, servers chatting or
orders ?lled incorrectly. A scenario-based method was chosen because this method has
been proved to avoid the biases related to retrospective self-reports, such as rationalization
tendencies and consistency factors. It is a successful tool to assess service failure and
recovery (Smith and Bolton, 1998) and has been used by multiple researchers (Mattila,
2001; Yuksel et al., 2006) to identify consumers’ complaint behaviors toward service
failures in the hospitality industry.
This study focused on the fast-food restaurant industry and college students for the
following reasons. First, American fast-food restaurants have been expanding
internationally and consumers in other countries are highly exposed to this type of
restaurant. Second, slow service and incorrect orders are routine mistakes in the restaurant
industry (Tax et al., 1998); therefore, consumers who use fast-food restaurants may face
similar service failures regardless of country. Third, regardless of country, fast-food
restaurant users include all ages, incomes and occupations, unlike full-service or luxury
restaurant users. Finally, the bene?t of using university students is that they tend to have
similar demographic characteristics (e.g. age, educational level, occupation) that may
impact consumer behaviors. Controlling for these characteristics improves sampling
equivalence and reduces compounding factors from different cultures (Furrer et al., 2000;
Mattila and Patterson, 2004).
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 261
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Participants were asked to read a written scenario describing a service failure at a fast-food
restaurant, answer the survey’s questions about complaint behavior intentions and
describe their expectations of service recovery efforts. The questionnaire for this study was
composed of two parts. The ?rst part asked about respondents’ demographic information,
including nationality. The second part consisted of the scenario, 10 items measuring
complaint behavior intention by Singh (1988) with 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and 11 items measuring expectations of service recovery
efforts in terms of the distributive, procedural and interactional justice dimensions used by
Smith et al. (1999) with 5-point scales ranging from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very
important).
Analysis and results
Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Table I shows the demographic characteristics of the American and South Korean
respondents. There were 304 usable questionnaires. Of the respondents, 70 per cent were
American and 30 per cent were South Korean. In the American sample, the majority of the
respondents were female (70.1 per cent) and were undergraduate students (94.9 per cent).
Around 79 per cent of American respondents were in the 19-21 age group and ? 60 per
cent of them visit fast-food restaurants weekly. In response to the survey question about
their reasons for dining at fast-food restaurants, most American respondents said that they
chose fast-food restaurants because they were quick, convenient and cheap. In the South
Korean sample, around half of the respondents were male (52.2 per cent) and were
undergraduate students (62.2 per cent). Around 30 per cent of Korean respondents were
in the 19-21 age group and about 49 per cent of the respondents visited fast-food
restaurants weekly. Most Korean respondents said that they visited fast-food restaurants
because the service was quick, the taste was good and the restaurants were convenient.
Table I Demographic characteristics of the respondents
Demographic variables
American (n ? 214) South Korean (n ? 90)
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 64 29.9 47 52.2
Female 150 70.1 43 47.8
Age
19 to 21 years old 170 79.4 28 31.1
22 to 24 years old 37 17.3 26 28.9
25 to 27 years old 4 1.9 18 20.0
? 28 years old 3 1.4 18 20.0
Education level
Undergraduate students 203 94.9 56 62.2
Graduate students 11 5.1 22 24.4
Others 0 0.0 12 13.3
Use frequency
Daily 33 15.4 4 4.4
Weekly 136 63.6 44 48.9
Monthly 32 15.0 27 30.0
Seldom 13 6.1 15 16.7
Reasons to dine at fast food restaurants
Quickness 112 52.3 37 41.1
Convenience 34 15.9 12 13.3
Cheapness 28 13.1 7 7.8
Just eating 12 5.6 11 12.2
Good taste 7 3.3 17 18.9
Others (easy access, do not want to cook, traveling, little
availability to eat food on campus, social) 21 9.9 6 6.6
PAGE 262 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Validity and reliability test
It is necessary to verify the validity and the reliability of the survey items before hypotheses
are tested. Validity means the degree to which an item really measures what it claims to
assess, and reliability means the consistency of an instrument with other populations.
Twenty-one items were used to measure two constructs, complaint-behavior intentions and
preferred service recovery methods. Con?rmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
verify the validity of the items. The ?rst CFA resulted in deleting one item of complaint
behavior intention (“forget about the incident and do nothing”) because its value of
standardized item loading estimate was negative (?0.516).
A second CFA was then conducted for 20 items. Table II summarizes the results of the
second CFA, including standardized item loading estimates, factor names and Cronbach’s
alpha coef?cients. The overall model ?
2
is 354.590 with 155 df (p ? 0.01). Root mean
square residual is 0.069; goodness of ?t index is 0.887; incremental ?t index is 0.942;
normed ?t index is 0.901; Tucker–Lewis index is 0.928; comparative ?t index is 0.941; and
root mean square error of approximation is 0.065. Model ?t index was fair to use all 20
variables for further analysis.
To examine convergent validity and discriminant validity, covariance structure analysis was
used (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Baozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Critical value ratio (CR) (t-value) should be ? 1.96 (p ? 0.05) for convergent validity
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The construct reliability should be ?0.7, and AVE (average
variance extracted) should be ? 0.5 for convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As
shown in Table II, the variables belonging to each of the six constructs had t-values ? 1.96
and factor loadings ? 0.5 (Baozzi and Yi, 1988), except for one variable (C5) whose factor
loading value was 4.97. However, this item (C5) was included for further analysis because
its factor loading value was very close to 0.5. Also, all 6 construct reliability values were
higher than 0.7, and the AVE value was ? 0.5. Therefore, the convergent validity of the
constructs was con?rmed. To evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs, shared
variances between constructs (the squared correlation between two constructs) were
computed and summarized in Table III. The discriminant validity of the constructs was
veri?ed because the shared variance value between constructs was smaller than the AVE
value by each factor (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients were used
Table II The result of con?rmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis
Factors V FL SE CR Construct reliability AVE Cronbach’s alpha
Voice complaint-behavior intention C2 0.605 0.094 7.152 0.715 0.564 0.691
C4 0.873 – –
Private complaint-behavior intention C3 0.649 0.070 9.815 0.760 0.533 0.729
C5 0.497 0.055 7.912
C6 0.964 – –
Third-party complaint-behavior intention C7 0.818 0.079 14.701 0.867 0.623 0.854
C8 0.662 0.098 11.567
C9 0.891 0.078 15.898
C10 0.769 – –
Distributive justice S11 0.764 0.061 15.200 0.888 0.664 0.887
S12 0.812 0.059 16.597
S13 0.842 0.054 17.508
S14 0.839 – –
Procedural justice S15 0.819 0.092 12.002 0.823 0.611 0.806
S16 0.857 0.090 12.385
S17 0.654 – –
Interactional justice S18 0.799 0.103 12.722 0.870 0.628 0.863
S19 0.892 0.095 13.938
S20 0.775 0.089 12.371
S21 0.691 – –
Notes: V: variables; FL: factor loadings; SE: standard error; CR: critical ratio (t-value); AVE: average variance extracted
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 263
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to examine the internal consistency of the factors. Cronbach’s alpha coef?cients for all
factors were ?0.6 (Nunnally, 1978), which means that the factors were adequate to use for
further analysis. The results supported the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity for all variables used in the study. Thus, all factors were kept and used for further
analysis to test the hypotheses.
Analysis of differences in complaint behavior intentions and expectations of service
recovery efforts in terms of cultural difference
To use an independent sample t-test, the assumptions of independence of two groups,
normal distribution and homogeneity of variance should be satis?ed (https://statistics.
laerd.com). The data for this study satis?ed these assumptions with two independent
groups (US students and South Korean students), normal distribution by sample size ?
endent sample t-test could be carried out. Independent sample t-test was carried out to
determine whether signi?cant differences existed in complaint-behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery efforts by comparing the means of each construct
between Americans and South Koreans. Findings are reported in Table IV. Americans and
South Koreans showed statistically signi?cant differences in their complaint-behavior
intentions, including voice, private and third-party complaint behavior. Surprisingly, South
Koreans expressed stronger complaint-behavior intentions for all three categories (voice,
private and third-party complaint behavior) than Americans did; so H1 was supported.
However, there were no signi?cantly different expectations of service recovery efforts
between Americans and South Koreans; thus, H2 was not supported.
Analysis of correlation between complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service
recovery efforts in terms of cultural difference
Table V shows which complaint-behavior intentions of American respondents were
signi?cantly related to which service recovery efforts based on the justice theory. There
Table III Correlations between constructs
Factors Mean SE Voice Private Third party Distributive Procedural
Voice 2.9490 1.0693
Private 3.4013 0.9041 0.328* (0.107)
a
Third party 2.1579 0.9174 0.461* (0.212) 0.439* (0.192)
Distributive 3.9852 0.7740 0.157* (0.024) 0.151* (0.022) ?0.018 (0.000)
Procedural 3.7632 0.8457 0.198* (0.039) 0.222* (0.049) 0.080 (0.006) 0.709* (0.502)
Interactional 3.9219 0.8085 0.184* (0.033) 0.209* (0.043) 0.067 (0.004) 0.697* (0.485) 0.760* (0.577)
Notes: *p ? 0.01;
a
squared multiple correlation; Voice complaint-behavior intention (voice); private complaint-behavior intention
(private); third-party complaint-behavior intention (third party); distributive justice (distributive); procedural justice (procedural);
interactional justice (interactional)
Table IV Mean differences in complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts between
Americans and South Koreans
Factors Americans (n ? 214) South Koreans (n ? 90) t-value Signi?cance (2-tailed)
Complaint-behavior intentions
Voice complaint-behavior 2.780 3.350 ?4.365 0.000*
Private complaint-behavior 3.179 3.929 ?7.819 0.000*
Third-party complaint-behavior 1.915 2.733 ?7.753 0.000*
Service recovery efforts
Distributive justice 4.000 3.950 0.514 0.608
Procedural justice 3.727 3.848 ?1.268 0.206
Interactional justice 3.907 3.955 ?0.532 0.595
Note: *p ? 0.01
PAGE 264 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
were signi?cant correlations between voice complaints and expectations of all service
recovery efforts (distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice) and between private
complaint behavior and expectations of all three efforts. Third-party complaint behavior of
American respondents showed no signi?cant correlations with any of the three justice
dimensions. Higher correlations were shown between private complaint behavior and
procedural justice and between private complaint behavior and interactional justice.
Table VI shows which complaint-behavior intentions of South Korean respondents were
signi?cantly related to which expected service recovery efforts. There were signi?cant
correlations between voice complaint behavior and expectations of distributive and
procedural justice and between private complaint behavior and interactional justice. All
correlations were stronger for the South Korean group than for the American group; among
them, the highest correlation was between voice complaint behavior and procedural
justice. Taken together, the results indicated that H3 was supported.
Discussion and conclusion
This study attempted to identify cultural differences in complaint-behavior intentions and
expectations of service recovery efforts based on the justice theory. Unlike the previous
studies that have investigated the relationship between complaint behavior and service
recovery among different cultures, this study investigated whether consumers who express
a speci?c type of complaint-behavior intention prefer any speci?c type of service recovery
effort, whether distributive, procedural or interactional justice. The ?ndings of this study
suggested that when managers are handling a certain type of complaint behavior, they
need to base their service recovery efforts on consumers’ cultural setting. First, the results
indicated that the most common type of complaint behavior for both groups was private
complaint behavior, followed by voice and third-party complaint behavior. As shown in
previous studies of consumers in collectivistic cultures (Foxman et al., 1990; Ngai et al.,
2007; Patterson et al., 2006), South Koreans showed stronger private complaint-behavior
intentions than other types of complaint-behavior intentions. But unlike previous studies
which showed that consumers in individualistic cultures are more likely to express voice
complaints than other types of complaint behaviors (Huang et al., 1996; Richins and
Table V Correlation between complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service recovery efforts in Americans
Correlation
Voice complaint-behavior
intention M: 2.780
SD: 1.029
Private complaint-behavior
intention M: 3.179
SD: 0.887
Third-party
complaint-behavior
intention M: 1.915
SD: 0.808
Distributive justice, M: 4.000, SD: 0.798 0.146** 0.169** ?0.016
Procedural justice, M: 3.727, SD: 0.903 0.156** 0.223* 0.036
Interactional justice, M: 3.907, SD: 0.870 0.183* 0.210* 0.080
Notes: M: mean, SD: standard deviation; *p ? 0.01; **p ? 0.05
Table VI Correlation between complaint-behavior intention and expectations of service recovery efforts in South
Koreans
Correlation
Voice complaint-behavior
intention M: 3.350
SD: 1.061
Private complaint-behavior
intention M: 3.929
SD: 0.705
Third-party
complaint-behavior
intention M: 2.733
SD: 0.908
Distributive justice, M: 3.950, SD: 0.715 0.231* 0.197 0.017
Procedural justice, M: 3.848, SD: 0.687 0.292* 0.173 0.123
Interactional justice, M: 3.955, SD: 0.639 0.193 0.233** 0.012
Notes: M: Mean, S.D.: Standardized deviation; *p ? 0.01; **p ? 0.05
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 265
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Verhage, 1985), this study indicated that Americans also showed stronger private
complaint behavior than other types of behaviors. The result of this study may have been
in?uenced by the fact that most of the participants were in their 20s and accustomed to
using the Internet, social media or smartphones when sharing dining experiences or ?nding
information about restaurants. Due to this trend, the American group’s private
complaint-behavior intention may have been stronger than their voice complaint-behavior
intention. Therefore, future research needs to consider private complaint-behavior types
that have been increasingly expressed online.
Second, the results of the study revealed that there were signi?cant cultural differences in
complaint-behavior intentions between Americans and South Koreans. In contrast to prior
studies (Foxman et al., 1990; Huang et al., 1996; Liu and McClure, 2001), South Koreans
showed more intentions of all types of complaint behavior than did Americans. The result
may have been affected by the survey method, which used service failure scenarios to
measure intentions of complaint behavior rather than studying actual complaint behavior in
real settings. Even though South Koreans from a collectivistic culture may be dissatis?ed
with the service intend to complain, they may not actually do so. Customers from
collectivistic cultures tend to avoid face-to-face con?ict and to use more indirect complaint
behaviors (i.e. no action or private complaint behavior) (Le Clarie, 1993). South Koreans
consider that a public argument is a way to lose face and hinders interpersonal harmony.
Other Asian countries, such as China and Japan, have similar collectivistic cultures.
Therefore, this study may point out Asians’ unrevealed emotion: that is, even if Asians have
higher complaint behavior intentions, they may not complain directly in real service failure
situations due to their concerns about losing face or breaking harmony (Leung, 1987).
Consequently, when managers and practitioners handle Asian consumers’ complaints,
they need to develop easy and accessible routes that allow consumers to express their
complaints without revealing them to others.
Third, the results indicated that there were no signi?cant differences in expectations of
service recovery efforts. These results can be interpreted to mean that both Americans and
South Koreans think that all types of service recovery efforts, whether distributive,
procedural and interactional justice, are important and valuable in handling their
complaints. Although there were no signi?cant differences between the two groups,
Americans considered distributive justice (e.g. monetary compensation offered during
solving service failures) to be the most important, followed by interactional justice (e.g.
employees’ efforts) and procedural justice (e.g. appropriate procedures to handle service
failures), while South Koreans valued interactional justice most highly, followed by
distributive and procedural justice. The results are in line with the studies of Mattila (1999)
and Hui and Au (2001). These results can be helpful for practitioners to determine which
efforts they should give weight to in terms of different cultures.
Fourth, the correlations between complaint-behavior intentions and expectations of service
recovery efforts were different for consumers in different cultures. In American
(individualistic) culture, voice and private complaint-behavior intentions were interrelated
with expectations of all three dimensions of justice. In other words, when consumers in
individualistic cultures express feelings of dissatisfaction toward managers or sellers, tell
friends and families about their dissatisfaction or quit purchasing the products, they can be
satis?ed by any type of response from the company, whether distributive, procedural or
interactional justice. However, when American customers express their complaints to third
parties (by reporting to a consumer agency or bringing a lawsuit), they do not expect much
from the company. When companies confront customers’ voice or private complaints, they
need to react quickly to solve the problems by using all three recovery methods. Among the
three complaint behaviors, the private complaint-behavior intention of American
respondents was the most strongly associated with procedural justice. Therefore,
practitioners need to provide timely resolution efforts with fair procedures to solve problems
and keep customers informed of the service recovery process after handling the
PAGE 266 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
complaints to prevent unrevealed private complaint behavior. On the other hand, in South
Korean (collectivistic) culture, voice complaint-behavior intention was highly interrelated
with expectations of distributive and procedural justice and private complaint-behavior
intention was correlated with expectations of interactional justice. When consumers in
collectivistic cultures complain directly to managers about service failure, companies
should focus on monetary compensation or on speedy and fair resolutions to handle their
complaints. Additionally, the results showed that private complaint behavior intention was
signi?cantly associated with interactional justice. Therefore, companies operating in
collectivistic cultures need to train employees to show good communication skills, sincere
efforts and courtesy to prevent private complaint behavior.
Fifth, the results showed that third-party complaint behavior had no signi?cant relationship
with any type of justice from both cultures. These results may imply that when consumers
of any cultures express complaints to other public organizations, they do not expect any
compensation from the company. Therefore, practitioners need to put extra effort into
addressing voice and complaint behavior because such efforts will help prevent third-party
complaint behavior in the long run. Recently, social media has become important for
companies to communicate with global consumers. According to the National Restaurant
Association’s (2012) Restaurant Trends Survey, nine out of ten restaurant operators believe
that social media and smartphone applications will play a more critical role in marketing
tools in the future. Thus, social media and smartphone applications may be very useful for
practitioners to track customers’ private complaints and to promptly handle negative word
of mouth as well as receive speedy customer feedback.
Taken together, the ?ndings of this study contributed to the globalized hospitality industry
by identifying consumers’ different complaint-behavior intentions and their expectations for
service recovery efforts based on different cultures and by suggesting managerial
guidelines to handle different types of complaints. The results of this study imply that
international companies need to identify local market characteristics and adapt themselves
to develop proper service recovery strategies to maintain sustainable success in the global
market.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
The study has several limitations and suggestions for future research. First, the data
depended on participants’ subjective complaint behavior intentions after reading the
hypothetical scenario of service failure. Consumers’ evaluation of service quality and
service standards may not be identical in different cultures even if reading the same
scenario. Therefore, more objective evaluation methods are needed for understanding
consumers’ complaint-behavior intentions and perceptions of service recovery efforts in
real service failure situations. Second, the scenario was limited to one type of restaurant,
fast-food restaurants and college students; hence, the generalization of this study’s results
is limited. Future research is recommended to study different types of restaurants and
diverse customer groups. Third, the sample size of the two nationalities was not identical,
and this fact might in?uence the results. Therefore, future research needs to use similar
sample sizes for the two different cultures for clearer and more reliable results.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Austin, W.G. (1979), “Justice, freedom and self-interest in intergroup relations”, in Austin, W.G. and
Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Coles, Belmont, CA,
pp. 20-37.
Baozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Becker, C. (2000), “Service recovery strategies: the impact of cultural differences”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 526-538.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, M.B. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997), “The effects of distributive, procedural and interactional
justice on post complaint behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 185-210.
Bond, M.H. and Hwang, K.K. (1986), “The social psychology of Chinese people”, in Bond, M.H. (Eds),
The Psychology of the Chinese People, Oxford University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 213-266.
Boshoff, C. and Allen, J. (2000), “The in?uence of selected antecedents on frontline staff’s
performance”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 63-90.
Briley, C.A. and Wyer, R.S., Jr (2002), “The effect of group membership salience on the avoidance of
negative outcomes: implications for social and consumer decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 400-415.
Brockener, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Francesco, A., Leung, K. and Bierbrauer, G. (2001),
“Culture and procedural justice: the in?uence of power on reactions to voice”, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 300-315.
Burger King Corporation (2012), 2011 10-K SEC Filing, available at:http://investor.bk.com/burgerking/
web/conteudo_en.asp?idioma?1&conta?44&tipo?43575
China Daily (2004), “KFC and McDonald’s-a model of blended culture”, available at: www.chinadaily.
com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/01/content_335488.htm
Clearly Cultural (2013), “Making sense of clearly cultural dimension”, available at: www.clearlycultural.
com/ (accessed 2 October 2013)
Clemmer, E.C. (1993), “An investigation into the relationship of fairness and customer satisfaction with
service”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace – Approaching Fairness in Human
Resources Management Series in Applied Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 193-207.
Conlon, D.E. and Murray, N.M. (1996), “Customer perceptions of corporate responses to product
complaints: the role of expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 1040-1056.
Day, R.L. (1984), “Modeling choices among alternate responses to dissatisfaction”, Association of
Consumer Research Proceedings, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 496-499.
Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
DeWitt, T. and Brady, M.K. (2003), “Rethinking service recovery strategies”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 193-210.
Donthu, N. and Yoo, B. (1998), “Cultural in?uences on service quality expectations”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 178-186.
Euromonitor International (2007), “Burger King aiming for Asian expansion”, Euromonitor International,
4 September.
Fisher, A.B. (1984), “The ad biz gloms onto global”, Fortune, Vol. 12, pp. 77-80.
Folger, R. (1984), “Emerging issues in the social psychology of justice”, in Folger, R. (Ed.), The Sense
of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 3-24.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foxman, E.R., Raven, P.V. and Stem, D.E. Jr. (1990), “Locus of control, fatalism, and responses to
dissatisfaction: a pilot study”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 21-28.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and service quality
perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 355-371.
Gilliland, S.W. (1993), “The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 694-734.
PAGE 268 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Goodwin, C. and Ross, I. (1992), “Consumer responses to service failure; In?uence of procedural and
interactional fairness perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 149-163.
Hartini, S. and Aventina (2013), “Complaint behavior: relationships individualism, self con?dence and
voice intention with gender as moderating variable”, Journal of Economics, Business, and
Accountancy Ventura, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 443-456.
Hartline, M., Maxham, J. III and McKee, D. (2000), “Corridors of in?uence in the dissemination of
customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64
No. 2, pp. 35-50.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Huang, J.H., Huang, C.T. and Wu, S. (1996), “National character and response to unsatisfactory hotel
service”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 229-243.
Hui, M.K. and Au, K. (2001), “Justice perceptions of complaint-handling: a cross-cultural comparison
between PRC and Canadian customers” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 161-173.
Johnston, R. (1995), “Service failure and recovery: impact, attributes and process”, Advances in
Services Marketing and Management: Research and Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 211-228.
Kanousi, A. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the role of culture on service recovery expectations”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Kau, A.K. and Loh, W.Y. (2006), “The effects of service recovery on consumer satisfaction: a
comparison between complainants and non-complainants”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 101-111.
Kelley, S.W., Hoffman, K.C. and Davis, M.A. (1993), “A typology of retail failures and recoveries”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 429-452.
Kim, U. (1994), “Individualism and collectivism: conceptual clari?cation and elaboration”, in Kim, U.,
Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,
Method, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 19-40.
Le Clarie, K.A. (1993), “Chinese complaints behavior”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 73-92.
Leung, K. (1987), “Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for con?ict resolution a
cross-national study”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 898-908.
Levesque, T. and McDougall, G. (2000), “Service problems and recovery strategies: an experiment”,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 20-37.
Lewis, B.R. and Spyrakopoulos, S. (2001), “Service failures and recovery in retail banking: the
customers’ perspective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New
York, NY.
Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer complaint
behavior and intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 54-74.
Lorenzoni, N. and Lewis, B.R. (2004), “Service recovery in the airline industry: a cross-cultural
comparison of the attitudes and behaviors of British and Italian front-line personnel”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Lovelock, C.H. (1994), Product Plus, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Maheswaran, D. and Shavitt, S. (2000), “Issues and new directions in global consumer psychology”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 59-66.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1990), “Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
Mattila, A.S. (1999), “The role of culture in the service evaluation processes”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 250-261.
Mattila, S.A. (2000), “The impact of culture and gender on customer evaluations of service
encounters”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 263-273.
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 269
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Mattila, S.A. (2001), “The effectiveness of service recovery in a multi-industry setting”, The Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 583-596.
Mattila, S.A. and Patterson, P.G. (2004), “The impact of culture on consumers’ perceptions of service
recovery efforts”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 196-206.
Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W. and Karwan, K.R. (2000), “Service recovery: a framework and empirical
investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387-400.
Mohr, L.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1995), “The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service
transactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-252.
Mueller, R.D., Palmer, A., Mack, R. and McMullan, R. (2003), “Service in the restaurant industry: an
American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 395-418.
National Restaurant Association (2012), “Restaurant Industry Forecast”, available at: www.
restaurant.org
Ngai, E.W.T., Heung, V.C.S., Wong, Y.H. and Chan, F.K.Y. (2007), “Consumer complaint behavior of
Asians and non-Asians about hotel services: An empirical analysis”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1375-1391.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Nyer, P.U. (2000), “An investigation into whether complaining can cause increased consumer
satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-19.
Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T. (2003), “A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and propensity to
stay with service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Patterson, P., Cowley, K. and Prasongsukarn, K. (2006), “Service failure recovery: the moderating
impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 263-277.
Pizam, A. and Sussmann, S. (1995), “Does nationality affect tourist behavior”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 901-917.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), “Learning from customer defections”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 2,
p. 56.
Richins, M. and Verhage, B.J. (1985), “Cross-cultural differences in consumer attitudes and their
implications for complaint management”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 197-206.
Rogers, J.C., Ross, S.C. and Williams, T.G. (1992), “Personal values and purchase dissatisfaction
response”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 5,
pp. 81-92.
Schutte, H. and Ciarlante, D. (1998), Consumer Behavior in Asia, Mcmillan Business, Hampshire.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-271.
Singh, J. (1988), “Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: de?nitional and taxonomical issues,
consumer complaint intentions and behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 93-107.
Singh, J. and Widing, R.E. (1991), “What occurs once consumers complain? A theoretical model for
understanding satisfaction/dissatisfaction outcomes of complaint responses”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 30-46.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (1998), “An experimental investigation of customer reactions to service
failure and recovery encounters”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (2002), “The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service failures
on their recovery evaluations and satisfaction judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of customer satisfaction with service
encounters involving failure and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 356-372.
Sparks, B.A. and McColl-Kennedy, J. (2001), “Justice strategy options for increased customer
satisfaction in a services recovery setting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 209-218.
PAGE 270 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Spreng, R.A., Harrell, G.D. and Mackoy, R.D. (1995), “Service recovery impact on satisfaction and
intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Tax, S.S. and Brown, S.W. (1998), “Recovering and learning from service failure”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Tax, S.S. and Brown, S.W. (2000), “Service recovery”, in Iacobucci, D. and Swartz, T.A. (Eds),
Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 271-285.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), “Customer evaluations of service complaint
experiences: implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 60-76.
Triandis, H.C. (1994), “Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and
individualism”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism
and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 41-51.
Tyler, T.R. and Bies, R.J. (1990), “Beyond formal procedures: the interpersonal context of procedural
justice”, in Garroll, J. (Ed), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings, Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 77-98.
Yavas, U. and Yasin, M.M. (2001), “Enhancing organizational performance in banks: a systematic
approach”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 444-453.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T. and Tekinkus, M. (2003), “Antecedents and outcomes of service
recovery performance: an empirical study of frontline employees in Turkish banks”, The International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 255-265.
Further reading
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness”, in
Sheppard, B. (Ed), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, JAI Press Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Triandis, H.C. (1989), “The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 506-520.
Yuksel, A., Kilinc, U.K. and Yuksel, F. (2006), “Cross-national analysis of hotel customers’ attitudes
toward complaining and their complaining behaviors”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Corresponding author
Kyungmi Kim can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 271
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. M. S. Balaji, Subhash Jha, Marla B. Royne. 2015. Customer e-complaining behaviours using social media. The Service
Industries Journal 35, 633-654. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_660975597.pdf