The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Engaging in complaint behaviour

An Indonesian perspective
Ian Phau and Riana Puspita Sari
School of Marketing, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
Keywords Complaints, Consumer behaviour, Indonesia Abstract This paper investigates the various factors affecting consumer complaint behaviour in Indonesia. The main objective is to determine the various demographic variables and to prole complainers and non-complainers with regard to psychographic variables, attitudes towards businesses in general, product attributes and attribution of blame. It provides a comprehensive comparison with the other studies in the literature which were mainly conducted in Northern America and Europe. The research suggests that complainers in Indonesia had a higher level of income and education. Complainers tended to exhibit greater self-condence and individualistic characters. They were more willing to take risk and had a positive attitude toward complaining. Consumers were more likely to complain when the unsatisfactory product was expensive, and used frequently and over a long time. In addition, complainers were more inclined to make a complaint when they blamed sellers and manufacturers for their bad purchase experiences. It was also noted that both complainers and non-complainers possessed poor attitudes towards businesses in general. Managerial implications are discussed.

Engaging in complaint behaviour 407

Introduction Firms normally consider consumer complaints of any kind to be indispensable indicators of unsatisfactory performance. Without consumers feedback, they will be unaware of their problems and thus unable to improve their performance (Davidow and Dacin, 1997). More importantly, rms can remedy complaints and retain their customers (Crie and Ladwein, 2002). Lau and Ng (2001) found that dissatised consumers who complained had a higher level of repurchase intention than those who did not complain. However, previous studies have also shown that many unsatised consumers prefer to change brands or suppliers and tell friends or families about their bad purchase experience than to voice their dissatisfaction to companies (Day and Ash, 1979). This form of negative word-of-mouth communication may be more detrimental to rms (Grifn et al., 1991). Negative information gets more attention simply because it is unexpected and therefore is more likely to be believed (Richins, 1984). In sufcient numbers, consumer complaints may stimulate regulatory action against a company and destroy a product, dilute or erode brand equity and in the process, the market share (Jacoby and Jaccard, 1981). For these reasons, it is clearly evident that consumer complaint behaviour (CCB) needs serious attention. Studies in CCB tend to treat consumerism activity as a phenomenon of developed advanced Western economies (Kaynak et al., 1992, p. 1). Most studies of CCB have been conducted in the USA (e.g. Dearden and Mason, 1984; Day, 1984; Davidow and Dacin, 1997; Gronhaug and Kvitastein, 1991), Canada (e.g. Barnes and Kelloway, 1980), and European countries such as Norway (e.g. Gronhaug and Arndt, 1980; Sto and Glefjell, 1990), The Netherlands (Morel et al., 1997), Germany (Meffert and Bruhn, 1983) and, with respect to advertising in particular, the UK (Crosier et al., 1999; Crosier and Erdogan, 2001). Consumer complaint issues in Asian countries are inherently decient

Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 22 No. 4, 2004 pp. 407-426 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503 DOI 10.1108/02634500410542770

MIP 22,4

408

and need to be further explored (Kaynak et al., 1992; Keng et al.,1995; Watkins and Liu, 1996). In particular, East Asian countries are growing in afuence and hold a great inuence in the global business arena. Consumer orientation must be emphasized, as it is extremely important for its survival. Further, many of these developing countries are likely to be the greatest source of future global growth (Engardio, 2001). The only Asian study to date was conducted in Singapore by Keng et al. (1995). Their results showed that CCB in Singapore was not very different from its counterpart in the USA. One argument could be that Singapore is a highly industrialized country and heavily inuenced by the US lifestyles. Indonesia, on the other hand, is still very much a developing nation with a highly homogenous and collectivistic ethnic and religious culture. It is likely that the ndings will differ signicantly from prior ndings and thus be highly useful and relevant to potential investors in the global business arena. In developed markets, every sales person has been trained to handle consumer complaints. In addition, products bought can be exchanged or returned in a certain period of time (the cooling off period) if consumers are not satised with the products. This is not the case in most developing or less developed countries. Although consumer protection is not a new issue there, comprehensive consumer protection legislation in Indonesia is still in its infancy (Consumers International, 2002). In 1999, Indonesia released a new consumer protection law that regulates consumers rights. These include the right to choose products and services; to use or consume them safely, to obtain the right information about products or services and obtain compensations for product or service failures as well as to be treated fairly and honestly (Lusia, 2002). The growth of independent consumer organizations in Indonesia such as the Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia (YLKI) is a reection of the countrys commitment to consumer protection. Today, Indonesian consumers are more aware of their rights. According to the Complaining and Law Department of YLKI, approximately 20 people register their complaints every day and the number is growing (Lusia, 2002). Obviously, as more individuals are educated about their rights, more will come forward. This paper therefore sets out to understand CCB in a developing country in an Asian context Indonesia. The rst objective is to determine demographic variables that affect complaint behaviour of consumers in Indonesia. Second objective is to prole complainers and non-complainers in Indonesia with regard to psychographic variables, attitudes towards businesses in general, product attributes and attribution of blame. Third, the paper aims to compare results with prior ndings in Northern America and Europe. A fourth objective is to solve an inherent gap in the literature. Research has reported that complainers tend to be younger, with a better income and education than non-complainers (e.g. Barnes and Kelloway, 1980; Dearden and Mason, 1984; Singh, 1990). However, little is known if these variables are related to each other in determining complaining actions. For example, whether complainers are not only younger but also have higher levels of education. In summary, the research will advance current knowledge of CCB. The relevant literature CCB dened CCB is dened as responses triggered by perceived dissatisfaction which is neither psychologically accepted nor quickly forgotten with consumption of a product or

service (Day, 1977; Day et al., 1981; Singh, 1988, 1990). This is also underlined by expectancy disconrmation theory, which holds that argues that dissatisfaction leading to CCB is a result of the gap between consumers expectation and the actual performance of the product or service (Oliver, 1980). Consumers expectation is found to be a major factor affecting consumers evaluation of their purchase experiences (Day, 1977). Generally, consumers become dissatised when their expectations are not met by the current performance of a product or service, direct or indirect expenditures and benets in obtaining a product or service. Firms indulging in excessive promotions may increase consumers expectations and as a consequence increase sales. However, if actual performance does not meet consumers expectations, they will be disappointed and engage in complaining behaviour (Mowen and Minor, 1998). Complaining reactions Consumers have various alternatives to express their dissatisfactions (Singh, 1988; Krishnan and Valle, 1979). Several typologies have been proposed (such as Masson and Himes, 1973; Pfaff and Blivice, 1977; Singh, 1990, etc.) to differentiate complainers from non-complainers (Crie and Ladwein, 2002). Generally, four sets of actions can be summarized from the literature. First, dissatised consumers can take no actions following bad buying experiences. Doing nothing or not repurchasing a rms product or services are legitimate responses to dissatisfaction (Day, 1984; Day et al., 1981; Richins, 1983). Singh (1990) classies consumers engaging in such behaviour as passives. Second, consumers can also take some form of private actions. Private actions refer to actions involving only people inside the consumers group in informal ways. This may include changing the brand/supplier, ceasing to use the product or service, or warning family and friends. Private actions are more likely to be driven by getting even and punitive aims (Singh and Wilkes, 1996, p. 9). This group is classied as voicers (Singh, 1990). Third, consumers can take some form of public actions. Public actions involve people and organizations outside the consumers group in more formal ways. These may be seeking redress directly from the seller or manufacturer and taking legal action against the seller or manufacturer. They may also be registering a complaint with the seller or manufacturer, a public consumer protection agency, or a private consumer organization (Davidow and Dacin, 1997). Complainers may also create a new company to provide a better product or service (Mowen and Minor, 1998). The main purpose of these consumer complaints is to recover economic loss by getting an exchange or a refund and rebuild self-image (Krapfel, 1985, p. 2). This group is classied as irates (Singh, 1990). Finally, consumers may take a variety of different private and public actions. Consumers may blame sellers and manufacturers for their unsatisfactory product or service. They may choose to boycott sellers and manufacturers by ceasing to use their products or services and spread negative information about their products or services. (Singh and Wilkes, 1996). This last group is classied as activists (Singh, 1990). Consumers who take public actions offer more benets to companies than those who take private actions since public actions not only make companies aware of the problems they face, but also provides an opportunity for them to retain their customers (Davidow

Engaging in complaint behaviour 409

MIP 22,4

410

and Dacin, 1997). Retaining current customers is important for companies as they are likely to show their loyalty by using a variety of the companies products or services. Their positive word of mouth will attract new consumers and they are likely to feel sympathetic when companies face a problem such as product or service failures (Hofmeister et al., n.d.). They may also inuence the non-complaining silent majority, by a form of osmosis or memetic diffusion (Crosier et al., 1999; Crosier and Erdogan, 2001). Many researchers have attempted to investigate why some people tend to voice their dissatisfactions while others do not. Research found that CCB is a complex phenomenon inuenced by a multiplicity of factors in the choice of a particular complaining action (Dearden and Mason, 1984). These include consumers demographics (Crosier et al., 1999; Crosier and Erdogan, 2001; Day, 1977; Davidow and Dacin, 1997; Lau and Ng, 2001), psychographics and attitudes toward complaining (Richins, 1982), general attitudes towards businesses (Lau and Ng, 2001) and product attributes (Day, 1977, 1984; Richins and Verhage, 1985), and attribution of blame (Krishnan and Valle, 1979; Weiner, 2000). The following sections will deal with each of these in turn. Consumer demographics Consumers expectations about a product or service performance and their responses to their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a product or service are affected by several factors (Day, 1977). Demographic variables such as age, income and education are found to inuence complaint behaviour. Previous studies showed that those who complained were younger in age, had better education and higher income (Barnes and Kelloway, 1980; Day and Landon, 1977). Dearden and Mason (1984) found that there is a positive relationship between CCB, and education and income. However, CCB is found to be inversely related to age. In addition, Keng et al. (1995) found that females were more likely to complain than males. It can be expected that while Indonesian consumers may be different in social and cultural fabric, they may reect similar traits as documented in the literature. Hence, it is hypothesized that: H1. Indonesian complainers are females, younger in age, and have higher education and income than non-complainers. Psychographics and attitudes towards complaining Davidow and Dacin (1997) showed that psychographic factors incorporating personality and attitudes were the major reasons of complaint behaviour and thus different people will show different responses when they face unsatisfactory situations. Generally, consumers who complain are more likely to be self-condent, socially responsible (Lau and Ng, 2001), assertive (Dearden and Mason, 1984; Richins, 1982), individualistic and independent (Morganosky and Buckley, 1986), and willing to take risks such as the risk of embarrassment when complaining (Keng et al., 1995). Self-condence generally refers to an individuals belief of his/her overall competence (Coopersmith, 1967). Socially responsible people tend to complain as they believe others will gain benets from the complaint (Lau and Ng, 2001). Assertiveness is dened as behaviors emitted by a person in an interpersonal context which express that persons feelings, attitudes, wishes, opinions or rights directly, rmly and honestly while respecting the feelings, attitudes, wishes, opinions, and rights of other persons (Galassi and Galassi, 1977). Consumers who complain are more assertive and able to stand up for

their rights (Fornell and Westbrook, 1979). Unlike aggressiveness, assertiveness does not involve the use of violent actions to maintain rights. However, an assertive person may become aggressive if his/her assertive approach in complaining fails to accomplish the purpose of the complaint. This usually happens when the purpose of the complaint is to rebuild self-image (Richins, 1983; Krapfel, 1985). Richins (1982) has suggested three dimensions of attitude towards complaining: (1) personal norms concerning complaining; (2) perception of societal benets from complaining; and (3) net worth benets from complaining. People are more likely to complain if they perceive complaining as an appropriate behaviour. Some people may hesitate to voice their dissatisfactions if others show negative reactions to complaint behaviour. This is supported by Dearden and Mason (1984) who found that complainers generally have positive attitudes towards complaining. Building from the preceding discussion, it is hypothesized that: H2. Indonesian complainers are less conservative, more self-condent, assertive, risk-taking, have more positive attitudes towards complaining and a sense of justice than non-complainers. Attitudes towards businesses Attitudes towards businesses represent an individuals feelings about the marketplace, the behaviour of rms and the consumption of products and services (Singh and Wilkes, 1996). Factors such as the sellers reputation in terms of quality and service, speed and commitment of the sellers response to dealing with complaints and the sales pressure exerted by sales personnel all add to the complexity (Keng et al., 1995). Firms that are strongly committed to service and quality are more likely to encourage consumers to seek for redress. Richins and Verhage (1985) support this in their study where a positive correlation was found between responsiveness and complaining. Crie and Ladwein (2002) have also shown that the quality of service offered by a mail order rm must be permanent and updated regularly with every new transaction as the image is based on the last purchase. Similarly, Keng et al. (1995) showed evidence that a positive attitude established towards complaints would encourage a closer relationship between the rm and the consumers. In the same vein, Lau and Ng (2001) found that attitudes towards businesses had a signicant effect on Singaporean respondents complaint behaviour. However, this was in contrast to another study, which found that attitudes towards businesses did not affect Canadian respondents complaint behaviour signicantly (Barnes and Kelloway, 1980). Integrating the attitudes towards businesses and attitudes towards complaining, it is anticipated that: H3. Indonesian complainers have a more positive attitude towards businesses in general than non-complainers. Product attributes Often consumers make a decision of a purchase based on its price. They tend to perceive a high priced product/service as having high quality. However, if the actual quality is below expectations, they become dissatised. The higher the price of a product or service, the higher is the expectations to perform well (Day, 1977). In

Engaging in complaint behaviour 411

MIP 22,4

412

addition, indirect benets and expenditures in obtaining a product or service such as time and effort to shop for a product or service, opportunity cost, and the reactions of peers to the product/service that consumers use (Day, 1977) also affects consumers expectations and complaint behaviour. Luxury products, for example, are a reection of the users status. Consumers are more likely to complain if the actual performance of the product dilutes their status (Day, 1977). Keng et al. (1995) found that consumers were likely to engage in complaint behaviour when there was an increase in price of a frequently used product or service: H4. Indonesian complainers are more inclined to make a complaint than non-complainers when the price of an unsatisfactory product is expensive, the product is used frequently, seen by others and to be used over a long period of time. Attribution of blame When consumers are dissatised with a product or service, they will either blame themselves (internal responsibility attribution) for making a poor choice or blame others (external responsibility attribution) such as sellers or manufacturers for providing such a poor product or service. Internal responsibility attribution inuences CCB negatively while the external responsibility attribution inuences CCB positively (Krishnan and Valle, 1979). However, research suggests that people are likely to blame others for a product or service failure. For example OMalley (1996) found that car owners and car mechanics blamed each other for car damage. In addition, Belk et al. (1981) found that only 3 per cent of respondents (11 out of 359) blamed themselves for their problems. According to Weiner (2000), there are three factors affecting consumers judgement about the degree of the company responsibility for a product or service failure. These factors will in turn determine the variety of consumer complaining actions (Krishnan and Valle, 1979). The rst factor is the locus of responsibility, which is the degree to which a product or service failure is caused by a company. Consumers who feel dissatised because they made the wrong choice when making a purchase will react differently to those who feel that the seller/manufacturer is responsible for the failure. The second factor is controllability, which describes whether a company has control to avoid the failure. Bad weather that delays a ight, for instance, is something unavoidable by the company. The third factor is stability, which describes whether the company is likely to experience the same failure in the future (Weiner, 2000). Consumers who perceive a product or service failure as caused and controllable by a company are more likely to ask for a replacement or refund and apology (Weiner, 1980, 1990). Those who perceive the failure as a stable problem prefer to get a refund than a replacement as it may produce the same failure (Folkes, 1984): H5. Indonesian complainers blame the sellers and manufacturers for an unsatisfactory product more than non-complainers. Methodology Data collection Data were collected through questionnaires administered at a major shopping mall in Jakarta, Indonesia. The systematic sampling procedure was employed to ensure that

sample included different demographic and socio-economic groups. The researcher approached every fth shopper that crossed an imaginary line at the main entrance of the shopping mall. Out of 400 questionnaires distributed, only 272 were included in the nal analysis. Those rejected involved consumers who had not encountered dissatisfaction with a shopping purchase in the past 12 months. Instrument The instrument was rst designed in English and pilot tested to check for ambiguities and incomprehensiveness. Changes were incorporated into the nal version where it was translated back into Bahasa Indonesian as this is the dominant language used in Jakarta. Respondents were given the English version if they requested it. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The rst contained questions regarding demographic characteristics of the respondents such as their gender, age, the highest level of their education and their gross personal income per month. In the second section, respondents were asked to recall an unsatisfactory purchase experience within the last 12 months. They were then asked to state the product or service and to specify the complaint actions they had taken in response to the dissatisfaction. The list of the actions was adapted from Krishnan and Valle (1979). Based on the respondents action, they were categorized into complainers and non-complainers. Non-complainers are those who do not take action at all or only take private actions, while complainers are those who take private and/or public actions (Keng et al., 1995). The third section contained questions regarding respondents complaint actions, attribution of blame, psychographic variables (consumer assertiveness, self-condence, conservatism, sense of justice, risk-taking attitude, and attitude towards complaining), attitudes towards businesses in general, and product attributes. The questions for psychographic variables, attitudes towards businesses and product attributes were adapted from a study by Keng et al. (1995) and measured using a ve-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Attributions of blame was adapted from a study by Grifn et al. (1991) in Gorden et al. (2001) and measured by four items using a ve-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (no responsibility at all) to 5 (completely responsible). Because the attribution construct was formulated as a formative measure, the responses to the four items were summed after reverse scoring so that higher values indicated that the providers were responsible for the problem. Data analysis Reliability estimates Cronbachs alpha was used to assess measurement reliability. The internal consistency estimates ranged from 0.70 for risk-taking attitude to 0.76 for attitude towards business in general. The item complaining is a consumers right under assertiveness was dropped from analysis to increase its reliability marginally. Table I shows the reliability of the measures in this study. Prole of respondents Table II shows the distribution of the respondents by demographic variables and chi-square tests for demographic variables. The sample contained roughly equal numbers of male and female respondents, more than 80 per cent in the age range 17-36. They were

Engaging in complaint behaviour 413

MIP 22,4

Scale Attribution of blame variables Self-condence and individualism variables Conservatism variables Assertiveness variables Risk-taking attitude variables Attitude toward complaining variables Sense of justice variables Attitude towards business in general variables Product attribute variables Note: a One item deleted

Number of items 4 6 4 4 4 4 3 10 4

Alpha coefcient 0.7072 0.7027 0.7214 0.7159a 0.6974 0.7000 0.7093 0.7558 0.7047

414
Table I. Reliability of measures

Variables Gender Male Female Age (years) , 17 17-26 27-36 37-46 . 46 Education Senior high school Some college Bachelors degree Masters degree Income (Rp million) ,2 2-3.99 4-5.99 . 5.99

Complainers (n) (per cent) 82 66 3 63 64 15 3 9 24 94 21 31 42 39 36 58.2 50.4 100 63.6 50 49.9 30.0 32.1 43.6 60.3 63.6 39.7 56.0 65.0 61.0

Noncomplainers (n ) (per cent) 59 65 36 64 17 7 19 31 62 12 47 33 21 23 41.8 49.6 36.4 50 53.1 70 67.9 56.4 39.7 36.4 60.3 44.0 35.0 39.0

Pearson chi-square value 1.655 10.049

Signicance (two-sided)* 0.198 0.040

Minimum expected cell frequencya 59.72 1.37

11.453

0.010

12.76

10.591

0.014

26.90

Table II. Chi-square tests for demographic variables

Notes: * Signicant at p , 0.05; a Expected cell frequency for each variable should be at least 5 in order for the chi-square test to be considered reliable

mostly educated to at least college level. Income was distributed fairly evenly across the earning brackets used, the small majority falling into the lower half of the scale. The types of dissatisfaction are shown in Table III and the types of consumer complaining actions are shown in Table IV. About half of the non-complainers warn friends and families about their dissatisfaction. About 85 per cent of complainers seek redress directly.

Chi square tests were performed on complainer and non-complainer group. The tests indicated that out of four demographic variables, three variables age, level of income and education attained were found to have a signicant relationship with complaint behaviour at p , 0.05 level. The raw data suggest that the ndings are consistent with prior research (such as Keng et al. (1995) and Barnes and Kelloway (1980)). However, the chi-square test revealed that the minimum expected cell frequency for the age variable was 1.37, substantially less than ve, so the result of the test for the variable must be interpreted with great caution. Hence, H1 is partially supported. To investigate whether combining the demographic variables above can rene their associations with complaining behaviour, chi-square tests were performed. Various combinations of three variables (type of complaining actions and two demographic variables) were tested. It was nally noted that the combination of income, gender, and type of complaining actions gave the best result. The introduction of income as the third variable rened the relationship between gender and type of complaining actions. As shown by Table V, the test demonstrated that male complainers appeared to have a higher level of income than male non-complainers. Group differences Independent t-tests were performed on psychographics, attitudes towards businesses, attribution of blame, and product attribute variables, to determine the signicance of the difference between the mean scores of the two groups. Psychographic statements were subdivided into six areas: self-condence and individualism, conservatism, risk-taking attitude, attitude towards complaining and sense of justice.
Valid Unsatisfactory products Unsatisfactory services when respondents bought products Both Total Frequency 87 70 115 272 Valid (per cent) 32.0 25.7 42.3 100.0

Engaging in complaint behaviour 415

Table III. Respondents type of problems

Category label Non-complainer actions (124 valid cases) a Take no action Change brand/supplier Stop using product/service Warn friends/families Total responses Complainer actions (148 valid cases) a Change brand/supplier Stop using product/service Warn friends/families Seek redress directly Write a complaint letter Total responses Note: a Respondents can choose more than one action

Count 4 70 26 99 199 5 3 11 148 7 174

Percent of responses 2.0 35.2 13.1 49.7 100.0 2.9 1.7 6.3 85.1 4.0 100.0

Table IV. Respondents type of complaining actions

MIP 22,4
Gender Male (income) (Rp million) ,2 2-3.99 4-5.99 . 5.99 Female (income) (Rp million) ,2 2-3.99 4-5.99 . 5.99 Complainers Non-complainers

Pearson chi-square value

Signicance Minimum expected (2-sided)* cell frequencya

416

14 20 25 23 17 22 14 13

19 19 6 15 28 14 15 8

10.644

0.014

12.97

5.684

0.128

10.42

Table V. Chi square test for income, gender, and type of complaining actions

Notes: * Signicant at p , 0.05; a Expected cell frequency for each variable should be at least 5 in order for the chi-square test to be considered reliable; income is in million Rupiah

Psychographic statements. As shown in Table VI, all items under self-condence and individualism statements except for the item I will not buy anything that my friends dislike indicated that complainers were likely to be more self condent and individualistic when compared to their non-complaining counterparts. Complainers were more willing to take every chance that they had and preferred people who take risks in their life (risk-taking attitudes). As for attitude towards complaining, they did not consider complaining as distasteful and embarrassing. On the other hand, non-complainers seemed to believe that everything is changing too fast and avoided doing things in unusual ways (conservatism). They were more likely to be unassertive. They preferred to leave everything to fate and felt the inability to determine their future and destiny. As for the sense of justice, non-complainers were less bothered than complainers to complain about an unsatisfactory product. Therefore, H2 is partially supported. General attitudes towards business. Table VII shows the results of the t-tests for attitudes towards businesses variables. Both groups were found to possess negative attitudes towards businesses. They did not display many differences except for the item most rms make an effort to ensure good condition of their goods. The results are in contrast to the literature discussed. Consequently, H3 is not supported. Attribution of blame and product attributes. Complainers were also more inclined to make a complaint than non-complainers when they blamed sellers/manufacturers for their bad purchase experiences (attribution of blame), and when the price of an unsatisfactory product is expensive, the product is used frequently, or used over a long period of time (product attribute). Table VIII shows the results of the t-tests. H4 and H5 are partially supported. Prole of complainers based on psychographic variables A step-wise discriminant analysis was undertaken to determine variables which discriminated the differences between complainers and non-complainers. Since they were

Variables Psychographic statements Self-condence and individualism No. 1 I like to receive attention No. 2 I like to be different from others No. 3 I prefer to be different rather than to do things the way other people do No. 4 I like product that are different and unique No. 5 I will not buy anything that my friends dislike (r) No6 I have more self condence than most people Conservatism No. 7 I always listen to advice given by my elders No. 8 Everything is changing too fast today No. 9 I like stick to the unusual ways of doing things No. 10 Conforming to social norms is very important to me Assertiveness No. 11 I always stand up for what I believe in No. 12 I like to leave everything to fate (r) No. 14 I feel unable to determine my future and destiny (r) No. 15 I am an assertive person Risk-taking attitude No. 16 I like taking chances No. 17 I like people who take risks in life without fear of what happens No. 18 If you want big gains, you have to take risks No. 19 Investing in the stock market is too risky for me (r) Attitude towards complaining No. 20 I always complain when Im dissatised because its my right No. 21 Complaining is done by people with little else to do (r) No. 22 Complaining about anything is distasteful to me No. 23 I nd it embarrassing to complain (r) Sense of justice No. 24 Complaining about an unsatisfactory product is my duty

Independent t-test Levenes test for Complainers Non-complainers equality of (mean) (mean) variances Sig.

Engaging in complaint behaviour 417

3.34 3.70 3.67 3.71 4.05 3.47

2.51 2.52 2.60 2.87 2.83 2.77

0.270 0.540 0.077 0.388 0.000 0.073

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.57 3.88 3.24 3.80 4.46 4.14 3.64 4.01 4.26 3.61 4.36 3.36 3.86 4.06 3.53 3.70

3.69 4.20 3.53 3.98 3.50 3.06 2.75 2.95 2.40 2.42 3.69 1.98 3.56 3.85 2.76 2.97

0.759 0.460 0.058 0.034 0.000 0.064 0.361 0.063 0.417 0.162 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.809 0.809

0.401 0.004 0.036 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.650 0.000 0.000 Table VI. Independent t-tests for psychographic variables

3.21

3.15

0.495

0.670 (continued )

MIP 22,4
Variables No. 25 It bothers me if I dont complain about an unsatisfactory product No. 26 People have a responsibility to inform the seller about a defective product

Independent t-test Levenes test for Complainers Non-complainers equality of (mean) (mean) variances Sig.

418

3.57 4.09

3.11 3.94

0.232 0.285

0.001 0.252

Table VI.

Notes: *Signicant at p , 0.05; Scale used ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); (r) reverse scoring; the result of the t-test can be used if Levenes test has a probability greater than 0.05

Variables Attitude toward business in general No. 27 Store employees are often quite unpleasant to customers who return unsatisfactory products(r) No. 28 Firms usually are willing to replace faulty products No. 29 Most rms make an effort to ensure good condition of their products No. 30 Firms do not notice of complaint made (r) No. 31 Most businesses will cheat you if you dont stand up for your rights (r) No. 32 Firms are usually willing to provide refunds for faulty products No. 33 Advertisements usually present a true picture of the product No. 34 Firms take a long time to respond to a complaint (r) No. 35 Most stores say they want their customers satised but they are not willing to stand behind their words (r) No. 36 Firms are usually willing to provide repairs for faulty products

Complainers (mean)

Noncomplainers (mean)

Independent t-test Levenes test for equality of variances Sig

1.87 2.76 3.10 2.74 2.67 2.51 2.41 2.09

1.97 2.69 2.65 2.65 2.52 2.35 2.34 2.23

0.544 0.646 0.479 0.519 0.711 0.632 0.236 0.044

0.469 0.580 0.000 0.458 0.296 0.266 0.597 0.306

2.45 2.81

2.40 2.67

0.219 0.447

0.719 0.316

Table VII. Independent t-tests for attitude towards business variables

Notes: * Signicant at p , 0.05; scale used ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); (r) reverse scoring; the result of the t-test can be used if Levenes test has a probability greater than 0.05

Variables Product attribute No. 37 The higher the price of the product, the more likely Im to complain No. 38 If the product is meant to be used for a long time, Im likely to complain if it is faulty No. 39 If the faulty product is one which is often seen by my friends, Im more likely to complain No. 40 The more frequently I have to use the product, the more likely Im to complain if it is faulty Attribution of blame a
a

Complainers (mean)

Noncomplainers (mean)

Independent t-test Levenes test t-test for equality of means* for equality of Sig (2-sided) variances Sig

Engaging in complaint behaviour 419

3.28 3.31

3.06 3.08

0.698 0.594

0.043 0.023

4.03

2.65

0.000

0.000

3.66 3.88

2.13 2.38

0.136 0.204

0.000 0.000

Notes: *Signicant at p, 0.05; scale used ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); Scale used ranged from 1 (not responsible at all) to 5 (completely responsible), higher values indicated that the sellers/manufacturers were responsible for the problem; the result of the t-test can be used if Levenes test has a probability greater than 0.05

Table VIII. Independent t-tests for product attribute and attribution of blame variables

only two groups, one discriminant function was possible. Only those signicantly different variables in the t-test analysis were entered into the discriminant analysis in order to identify a subset of these variables that best discriminate between the two groups (Keng et al.,1995). Of the 26 psychographic variables used, 15 were entered into the analysis. Assumptions for the use of discriminant analysis are that there should be no high correlation among the independent variables and there should be equal dispersion and covariance matrices for the groups as dened by the dependent variable. Boxs M test is used to assess the equality of group covariance matrices (Coakes and Steed, 1999). Correlation analysis among the independent variables should show coefcients of less than 0.75 (Sekaran, 2000). Coefcients in this study ranged from 0.018 to 0.425 (Table IX). As such, multicollinearity was unlikely to be a problem. The Box Ms test for this study was not signicant at p , 0.001 and therefore the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices were not violated (shown by Table X). Another assumption for discriminant analysis is that there should be multivariate normality which can be examined using Mahalanobis distance generated in multiple regression. The statistic is equivalent to a chi-square with degrees of freedom equal to the number of independent variables (Coakes and Steed, 1999). As there were only two outlying cases detected from 272 samples, these outliers were retained in the data set. Therefore, discriminant analysis can be adopted. Out of 15 variables, seven were entered into the function. The discriminant function is highly signicant (0.000) and displays a canonical correlation of 0.890.This means that this model can account for 79.21 per cent of the variance in the dependent variable. The results of the discriminant analysis are summarized in Table XI.

MIP 22,4

420

Correlation 0.140 0.167 1.000 0.211 0.098 0.048 0.085 0.20 0.097 0.88 0.108 0.144 0.026 0.043 0.057 0.152 0.119 0.211 1.000 0.095 0.009 0.005 0.032 0.000 0.061 0.004 0.204 0.018 0.042 0.204 0.103 0.056 0.098 0.095 1.000 0.001 0.056 0.028 0.065 0.172 0.128 0.056 0.058 0.06 0.346 0.035 0.90 0.048 0.009 0.001 1.000 0.384 0.030 0.206 0.086 0.134 0.088 0.034 0.171. 0.218 0.209 0.032 0.085 0.005 0.056 0.384 1.000 0.203 0.141 0.128 0.062 0.064 0.031 0.062 0.096 1.59 0.109 0.020 0.032 0.028 0.030 0.203 1.000 0.299 0.065 0.093 0.105 0.089 0.117 0.113 0.024 0.020 0.097 0.000 0.065 0.206 0.141 0.299 1.000 0.50 -0.029 0.068 0.152 0.140 -0.060 0.098 0.003 0.088 0.061 0.172 0.086 0.128 0.065 0.050 1.000 0.0353 0.254 0.068 0.056 0.305

1 2 3 4 6 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 22 23 25

Table IX. Correlation among independent variables (pooled within groups matices) 2 3 4 6 8 9 12 14 15 16 0.120 0.084 0.108 0.004 0.128 0.134 0.062 0.093 0.29 0.353 1.000 0.92 0.082 0.130 0.149 17 0.018 0.53 0.144 0.204 0.056 0.88 0.064 0.105 0.068 0.254 0.092 1.000 0.043 0.12 0.170 22 0.159 0.236 0.026 0.018 0.058 0.034 0.031 0.089 0.152 -0.680 0.082 0.043 1.000 0.425 0.216 23 0.041 0.018 0.043 0.042 0.006 0.171 0.062 0.117 0.140 0.056 0.130 0.012 0.425 1.000 0.122 25 0.083 0.088 0.057 0.204 0.346 0.218 0.096 0.113 0.060 0.305 0.149 0.170 0.216 0.122 1.000

1.000 0.364 0.140 0.152 0.103 0.035 0.209 0.159 0.024 0.98 0.120 0.018 0.159 0.041 0.083

0.364 1.000 0.167 0.119 0.056 0.090 0.032 0.109 0.20 0.003 0.084 0.053 0.236 0.018 0.088

The analysis sample shows 97.3 per cent of cases correctly classied as complainers and non-complainers. This model was validated using a handout sample. The sample shows approximately 89.4 per cent of the respondents are correctly classied as reected in Table XII. The predictive accuracy of the model is measured by the percentage of cases correctly classied (the hit ratio), which is obtained from the classication matrix. A priori chance of classifying individuals without the aid of a Discriminant function
Test results Box M F approx. Df1 Df2 Sig. Note: Tests null hypothesis of equal population covariance matrices 36.204 1.227 28 70682.010 0.190

Engaging in complaint behaviour 421

Table X. Box Ms test of equality of covariance matrices

Variables No. 2 I like to be different from others No. 4 I like products that are different and unique No. 8 Everything is changing too fast today No. 12 I like to leave everything to fate No. 16 I like taking chances No. 17 I like people who take risks in life without fear of what happens No. 22 Complaining about anything is distasteful to me Wilks Lambda Eigenvalues Canonical correlation

Standardized coefcient 0.337 0.261 2 0.220 0.271 0.722 0.244 0.296 0.199 (0.000) Sig. 4.031 0.895 Table XI. Standardized coefcient and canonical correlation of the discriminant function

Types of action Analysis a Complainers Non-complainers Complainers (per cent) Non-complainers (per cent) Handout sample b Complainers Non-complainers Complainers (per cent) Non-complainers (per cent)

Predicted group membership Complainers Non-complainers 80 3 98.8 4.4 58 4 86.6 7.1 1 65 1.2 95.6 9 52 13.4 92.9

Total 81 68 100 100 67 56 100 100

Notes: a 97.3 per cent of original grouped cases correctly classied; b 89.4 per cent of grouped cases correctly classied

Table XII. Classication matrices for analysis and handout sample

MIP 22,4

422

should be considered to analyze the accuracy of a model. Since the group sizes were unequal, the proportional chance criterion was used to calculate the chance classication. No general guideline has been developed to determine how high the classication accuracy should be relative to chance, however it is suggested that the classication should be at least 25 per cent greater than that achieved by chance for the Discriminant function to be meaningful for interpretation (Hair et al., 1995). The criterion level for this model is: 81=1492 68=1492 50:38 per cent which is less than the handout sample (89.4 per cent). Therefore it can be assumed that the model of this study is accurate.

Concluding comments Complainers in Indonesia were found to have a higher level of income and education than their non-complaining counterparts. Companies may be able to solicit constructive feedback from consumers with these demographic characteristics, as they are more willing to give their opinions about companies performance. Complainers also tended to exhibit greater self-condence and individualistic characters. They were more willing to take risk and had a more positive attitude towards complaining. In general, these ndings are not very different from previous research. The analysis showed that there were several psychographic variables discriminating complainers and non-complainers. The item I like taking chances had the highest standardized discriminant function coefcient suggesting that it might be the most important predictor in discriminating between the two groups. Companies complaint management programmes usually focus only on complainers, as they are likely to cause trouble for the company. However, this research revealed that 46 per cent of respondents were non-complainers. The most frequently cited actions (respondents can choose more than one option) were: warned their friends and families about their bad purchase experiences (79.8 per cent) and changed brand/supplier (56.5 per cent). This implies that non-complainers should be considered as important as complainers. In order to encourage consumers to voice their dissatisfaction, companies need to increase consumer awareness of their complaint handling processes and simplify the processes. Although companies may not be able to solve all consumer complaints satisfactorily, consumers need to be convinced that their complaints are not taken for granted and complaining is neither a frightening nor useless action. For example, Carrefour Indonesia encourages consumers to report impolite or unfriendly sales staff by offering them a reward in appreciation. It was noted that both complainers and non-complainers possessed poor attitudes towards business in general. This nding indicates that companies in Indonesia need to improve their business image, especially their reputation in responding to consumer complaints. The research showed that complainers were more likely to complain when they blamed sellers and manufacturers for their bad purchase experiences. However, if companies keep ignoring their complaints, they may eventually choose to exit silently. Companies need to show to their consumers that they are concerned about consumers interests and have every intention to settle their complaints.

Consumers were also more likely to complain when the unsatisfactory product was expensive, to be used frequently and over a long period of time. This suggests that companies selling expensive durable goods may be more susceptible to consumer complaints and thus, their service people should be trained to handle consumer complaints well. In addition, companies need to realize that they should not raise consumers expectations above the level that can be met by the companies, for example by advertising their products/services excessively. This study has certain methodolgical limitations. First, the sample size of the study may not be large enough to represent Indonesian consumers. Second, the surveys were based on self-reports. Respondents memories of their dissatisfactory purchase experiences occurring 12 months ago and complaint behaviour were likely to be inaccurate and inconsistent. Several questions raised by this research warrant further analysis. This study has examined only a small number of factors affecting CCB. Future research can explore other important factors such as consumers product involvement and prior purchase experience. Further, different levels of dissatisfaction will lead to different levels of involvement which will in turn trigger different complaining avenues (such as voicers or activists). Research should also focus on other forms of complaint associated with other motives for complaint (Crie and Ladwein, 2002). The focus of this study was on consumers bad purchase experiences with tangible products. Future research could focus on intangible products. In addition, a cross-national study between Indonesia and other developing countries or developed countries may produce more important and interesting ndings about consumer complaint issues.
References Barnes, J.G. and Kelloway, K.R. (1980), Consumerists: complaining behaviour and attitudes toward social and consumer issues, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 329-34. Belk, R., Painter, J. and Semenik, R. (1981), Preferred solutions to the energy crisis as a function of causal attributions, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 306-12. Coakes, S.J. and Steed, L.G. (1999), SPSS-Analysis Without Anguish Version 7, 7.5, 8.0 for Window, John Wiley & Sons, Singapore. Consumers International (2002), Independent consumer groups have thrived, available at: www.consumersinternational.org/newsletters/232/232-6-1.html Coopersmith, S. (1967), The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, Freeman, New York, NY. Crie, D. and Ladwein, R. (2002), Complaint letters and commitment theory: an empirical approach in mail order selling, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-55. Crosier, K. and Erdogan, B.Z. (2001), Advertising complainants: who and where are they?, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 109-20. Crosier, K., Hernandez, T., Mohabir-Collins, S. and Erdogan, B.Z. (1999), The risk of collateral damage in advertising campaigns, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 837-55. Davidow, M. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), Understanding and inuencing consumer complaint behaviour: improving organizational complaint management, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 450-6.

Engaging in complaint behaviour 423

MIP 22,4

Day, R.L. (1977), Extending the concept of consumer satisfaction, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 149-54. Day, R.L. (1984), Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 469-71. Day, R.L. and Ash, S.B. (1979), Consumer response to dissatisfaction with durable products, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 438-44. Day, R.L. and Landon, E.L. (1977), Toward a theory of consumer complaining behaviour, in Woodside, A.G., Sheth, J.N. and Bennett, P.D. (Eds), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behaviour, North-Holland, New York. NY. Day, R.L., Grabicke, K., Schaetzle, T. and Stanbach, F. (1981), The hidden agenda of consumer complaining, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 86-106. Dearden, W.O. and Mason, J.B. (1984), An investigation of inuences on consumer complaint reports, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 490-5. Engardio, P. (2001), Smart globalization, Business Week, Vol. 27, 27 August, pp. 80-4. Folkes, V.S. (1984), Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional approach, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 398-409. Fornell, C. and Westbrook, R.A. (1979), An exploratory study of assertiveness and consumer complaining behaviour, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 105-10. Galassi, M.D. and Galassi, J.P. (1977), Assert Yourself How to Be Your Own Person, Human Sciences Press, New York, NY. Gordon, C.B., James, K.E. and Hensel, J.S. (2001), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi item Measures, Vol. III, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, p. 100. Grifn, M., Babin, B.J. and Attaway, J.S. (1991), An empirical investigation of the impact of negative public publicity on consumer attitudes and intentions, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 334-41. Gronhaug, K. and Arndt, A. (1980), Consumer dissatisfaction and complaining behaviour as feedback: a comparative analysis of public and private delivery systems, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 324-8. Gronhaug, K. and Kvitastein, O. (1991), Purchases and complaints: a longitudinal analysis, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-35. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hofmeister, A.T., Simon, J. and Sajtos, L. (n.d.), Theoretical background and methodology of customer satisfaction research and value orientation, working paper, Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, Budapest. Jacoby, J. and Jaccard, J.J. (1981), The sources, meaning, and validity of consumer complaint behaviour: a psychological analysis, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 4-24. Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. and Odabasi, Y. (1992), Consumer complaint handling in an advanced developing country-an empirical investigation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 11, p. 813. Keng, K.A., Richmond, D. and Han, S. (1995), Determinants of consumer complaint behaviour: a study of Singapore Consumers, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 59. Krapfel, R.E. (1985), A consumer complaint strategy model: antecedents and outcomes, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 346-50.

424

Krishnan, S. and Valle, A.V. (1979), Dissatisfaction attributions and consumer complaint behaviour, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 445-9. Lau, G.T. and Ng, S. (2001), Individual and situational factors inuencing negative word of mouth behaviour, Revue Canadienne des Sciences de lAdministration, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 163-78. Lusia, A. (2002), Konsumen tidak puas? Complain, dong!, Femina, 15-21 August, p. 86. Masson, J.B. and Himes, S.H. (1973), An exploratory behavioural and socio-economical prole of consumer action about a dissatisfaction with selected household appliances, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 7, pp. 121-7. Meffert, H. and Bruhn, M. (1983), Complaining Behaviour and Satisfaction of Consumers, International Fair in Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining. Morel, K.P.N., Poiesz, T. and Wilke, H. (1997), Motivation, capacity and opportunity to complain: towards a comprehensive model of consumer complaining behaviour, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 464-9. Morganosky, M.A. and Buckley, H.M. (1986), Complaint Behaviour Analysis by Demographics, Lifestyle and Consumer Values, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 223-6. Mowen, J.C. and Minor, M. (1998), Consumer Behaviour, 5th ed., Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Oliver, R. (1980), A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9. OMalley, J.R. (1996), Consumer attributions of product failure to channel members, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 342-5. Pfaff, M. and Blivice, S. (1977), Socioeconomic correlates of consumer and citizen dissatisfaction and activism, in Day, R. (Ed.), Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp. 115-23. Richins, M.L. (1982), An investigation of consumers attitudes toward complaining, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 502-6. Richins, M.L. (1983), An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 73-82. Richins, M.L. (1984), Word of mouth communication as negative information, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 697-702. Richins, M.L. and Verhage, V.J. (1985), Seeking redress for consumer dissatisfaction. the role of attitudes and situational factors, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 29-44. Sekaran, U. (2000), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Singh, J. (1988), Consumer complaint intentions and behaviour: denitional and taxonomical issues, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, January, pp. 93-107. Singh, J. (1990), A typology of consumer dissatisfaction response styles, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 57-99. Singh, J. and Wilkes, R.E. (1996), When consumers complain: a path analysis of the key antecedents of consumer complaint response estimates, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, p. 350. Sto, E. and Glefjell, S. (1990), The complaining process in Norway: ve steps to justice, Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 3, pp. 92-9.

Engaging in complaint behaviour 425

MIP 22,4

426

Watkins, H.S. and Liu, R. (1996), Collectivism, individualism and in-group membership: implications for consumer complaining behaviours in multicultural contexts, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3/4, p. 69. Weiner, B. (1980), Human Motivation, New, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Weiner, B. (1990), History of motivational research in education, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 616-22. Weiner, B. (2000), Attributional thoughts about consumer behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. 382.