An increased corporate emphasis on service often ends up with customers who intend to take advantage of it. Not just imposing financial and social threat to firms, customers’ such behavior has negative influence on the service experience of others i...
An increased corporate emphasis on service often ends up with customers who intend to take advantage of it. Not just imposing financial and social threat to firms, customers’ such behavior has negative influence on the service experience of others in that shop. As proved in previous research, it also sets up bad examples about the company’s reliability and trust. Despite of the impact of customers’ bad behaviors on the others, there have been few studies on how companies should properly react.
This paper is aimed at suggesting, when a customer shows bad behavior in a fashion store, how the company representative could correctly respond in order for the rest of the customers in the shop to find justice out of the situation in a way that contributes to improving their trust and loyalty toward the company. By doing so, this study can suggest the proper way of dealing with the badness that makes the witnessing shoppers see it as right and fair.
To do this, it was examined to understand 1) whether the cause of the customer badness and how the sales person reacts brings out difference in terms of the way the other customers find justice out of the situation; 2) those cause and response impact the customers’ brand attachment; 3) how they perceive justice changes their trust toward the company; and 4) how the justice perception and trust influence customer loyalty.
As an empirical method, a survey was conducted online. The scenarios were based on why the bad customer behavior was introduced and how the sales person reacted. The causes included service outcome failure, service procedural failure and no service failure. To each of these three causes, active reaction and passive reaction were respectively combined, which adds up to 6 scenarios. These hypothetical stories had been verified with face validity by several masters’ or doctoral students majoring in clothing, and was confirmed that they well described the badness situations.
Eighty respondents were allotted for each of the scenarios. The ratio of the female participants was kept consistent throughout the scenarios in order to ensure the reliability of the sample. Data from a valid sample of 480 female subjects were analyzed. As a way of measuring the brand attachment, the scope of the participants was limited to women who have purchased a product at a physical fashion shop for the past six months. Before reading their assigned scenario, in which they were told to assume it as their buying situation, their attachment level was assessed. The results are followed:
First, it was confirmed that the cause of such behavior and representative’s reaction are influential on the justice perception by the witnesses in the shop—similarly significantly on the distributive justice and the procedural and interactional justice. For the service outcome failure in particular, active reaction to the product defects led great improvement of the justice perception. It was also demonstrated that the sales person’s response to the behavior impacted both of the justices significantly. By offering an apology and details, and providing economic compensation for the consequence, both of the justices would enhance. It was showed that the cause of the bad behavior had significant impact only on the procedural and interactional justice. And it was led to lowering the justice under the service procedural failure, which required more restorative efforts than for the other causes. This also underscores preventative measures through right service training for the representatives.
Second, it was proved that the cause of the behavior and the distributive justice is significantly relates to the other customers’ brand attachments. Customers who developed strong brand attachments tended to have a low distributive justice in regard with the bad behavior following the service outcome failure and the service procedural failure. However, with no service failure, the customer group with strong attachment showed high level of distributive justice. This indicates that even if customers have strong brand attachment, they consider obvious service failures negative. Additionally, for the same level of rep reaction, they thought that the strong brand attachment group was less fair than the opposite group. This means that even though the behavior came from another customer, their own brand attachment was applied to how they perceive justice.
Third, the role of trust was confirmed in how the justice perception could change customer loyalty, which suggests a dynamic method to improve customer loyalty through justice perception. Specifically, it was found that trust acted partially for the distributive justice to boost the loyalty, and acted fully for the procedural and interactional justice. In other words, the procedural and interactional justice was more influential on trust and loyalty. Therefore, it is suggested that when a bad behavior occurs from a customer, other shoppers’ perception on justice can be improved through a reaction focused on the procedural and interactional justice.