Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-69http://d

n Tel.:E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The influence of empathy in complaint handling: Evidence ofgratitudinal and transactional routes to loyalty

Françoise Simon n

HuManiS, Humans and Management in Society, EM Strasbourg Business School, University of Strasbourg, 61 avenue de la Forêt Noire, 67085 StrasbourgCedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 February 2013Received in revised form27 April 2013Accepted 12 May 2013Available online 10 June 2013

Keywords:ComplaintGratitudeSatisfactionReciprocityEmpathyOnline

89/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ax.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.003

+33 3 88 41 88 08.ail addresses: francoise.simon@uha.fr, francois

a b s t r a c t

While most studies on complaint handling are focused on performance outcomes, analysis of theprocesses that reinforce relationship quality is lacking. Building on the relationship marketing theory ofreciprocal behaviours, this research proposes and tests a model of the effects of empathy as a particularrelationship recovery investment. Addressing for the first time the role of gratitude in a complaint-handling context, this model assumes that both gratitude and transactional satisfaction mediate theinfluence of empathy on consumers' trust and commitment. Data from a cross-industry survey of phoneand online complaints confirmed the proposed model.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Experiencing a product or service failure is a highly probableevent for customers (e.g., Orsingher et al., 2010). Although marketersmay not be able to entirely eliminate failures, they can offercustomers the opportunity to complain. Complaint handling inmarketing literature is considered to be a critical stage of therelationship between a company and a customer, with poor recoveryefforts leading consumers to eventually dissolve the buyer–sellerrelationship and to purchase elsewhere (e.g., Schneider and Bowen,1999).

Reflecting the managerial importance of complaint handling,a large body of research has emphasised the crucial role oftransactional satisfaction, which refers to customer satisfactionwith a complaint-handling outcome (see for meta-analysisOrsingher et al., 2010; Gelbrich and Roschk, 2011). According tothis theoretical perspective, transactional satisfaction is assumedto be the main mediator between a company’s recovery invest-ment and post-complaint customer behaviour. While complaint-handling research in a variety of contexts has found that transac-tional satisfaction positively influences repurchase and word-of-mouth behaviour, few studies have analysed transactional satisfac-tion’s influence on relationship quality. Drawing on the theory oftrust and commitment as relationship mediators (Morgan andHunt, 1994), infrequent studies have found that satisfaction is also

ll rights reserved.

e.simon@laposte.net

a significant determinant of key relational variables, includingtrust and commitment (e.g., Tax et al., 1998; Weun et al., 2004;DeWitt et al., 2008). Together, these studies support a perspectiveof complaint handling as a tactical means of reinforcing customerrelationships beyond simply the repurchase horizon.

Integrating relationship marketing literature on reciprocitybehaviours (e.g., Morales, 2005; Palmatier et al., 2009) withtheoretical considerations of customer satisfaction with complainthandling, the purpose of this research is twofold. We first proposethat the influence of recovery investment on trust and commit-ment is mediated by both gratitude and satisfaction derived fromthe complaint-handling process. To our knowledge, this study isthe first to address the role of gratitude in the context of complainthandling. While transactional satisfaction reflects the fulfilment ofconsumer expectation in confirmation/disconfirmation perspec-tive (Oliver, 1980), gratitude is expected to serve as the affectivebasis for a complaining consumer’s reciprocal behaviour (Tsangand McCullough, 2004). Specifically, as the short-term emotionalappreciation for benefits is recognised, gratitude inherentlyimplies a desire to reciprocate that results in the enhancedeffectiveness of relationship investment. As complaining custo-mers are more emotionally involved in, and observant of, companyresponse than they would be during a routine service encounter(Smith et al., 1999, p. 356), they are likely to develop a particularawareness for the actions taken to their benefit during thecomplaint handling. Therefore, complaining customers are goodcandidates for a grateful response and the engagement of recipro-cal behaviour. This suggests that gratitude can be an additionalmediating variable regarding models of post-complaint behaviour.

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608600

Second, we rely on the present model to investigate the effectof empathy as a particular relationship recovery investment.Limited research has formally examined the effect of empathy inthe critical context of complaint handling, although certain studieshave found empathy, or approximated measures, such as atten-tiveness or showing concern, to be manifestations of interactionaljustice (e.g., Tax et al., 1998; Sparks and McColl-Kennedy, 2001;Davidow, 2000, 2003). Many studies, contrastingly, have estab-lished the importance of empathic experience in ensuring success-ful frontline employee–customer interaction (e.g., Drollinger et al.,2006; Giacobbe et al., 2006; Homburg et al., 2009) that in turncontributes to the perception of high-quality service (e.g.,Parasuraman et al., 1988; Iglesias, 2009). Our study seeks to extendthe recovery literature by addressing the lack of research on thespecific impact of empathy. Furthermore, due to the intrinsicallyrelational and benevolent nature of the empathy construct (e.g.,McCullough et al., 2001), empathy bestowed by a customer servicerepresentative is likely to elicit feelings of gratitude from acustomer. Therefore, complaint–empathic interactions constitutean excellent setting for the investigation of how gratitude canconvey the influence of relational organisational responses oncustomer post-complaint behaviour.

Empathy has been considered in the literature only withrespect to face-to-face interactions. The aim of this study thereforeis also to assess the content validity of the construct in an onlinerecovery context. This issue deserves particular attention given theincreasing reliance on electronic media in handling customercomplaints. Furthermore, it is unclear whether empathy will stillaffect customer evaluation outside the offline channel. In thisresearch, we predict that the psychological mechanisms thatunderlie the influence of empathy are intrinsically independentof the nature of the medium used to perform the interaction.

This study makes four key contributions to existing research.We first develop a valid and parsimonious measure of perceivedempathy in the context of complaint handling. Second, we proposeand empirically demonstrate a theoretical framework incorporat-ing the effects of empathy in terms of gratitude and transactionalsatisfaction; these two variables are important antecedents ofrelational outcomes. Third, we empirically establish the validityof our model in the context of two distinct communicationchannels: telephone and email. Lastly, the results lead to action-able managerial recommendations. Our results suggest that cus-tomer gratitude emerging from complaint interactions can berelied on more effectively than transactional satisfaction withrespect to triggering short-term repurchasing and strengtheningthe relationship commitment. Our data also suggest that customerservice practitioners should properly develop an empathic pos-ture, whatever the channel, to ensure high levels of gratitude aswell as transactional satisfaction.

2. Theoretical background on empathy and gratitude

2.1. Empathy

A certain degree of ambiguity exists concerning the contentand scope of empathy in social psychology and marketing litera-ture. Theoretical discussions on the empathy construct generallyfollow one of two traditions: defining empathy as either anemotional reaction to, or a cognitive understanding of, otherpeople’s experiences (Preston and de Waal, 2002; Wieseke et al.,2012). Emotional empathy is considered to include facets such asempathic concern and emotional contagion. Empathic concernrefers to the feelings of concern an individual experiences for thewelfare of others, while emotional contagion occurs when anindividual observing another has a parallel emotional experience

(e.g., McBane, 1995; Duan and Hill, 1996). Conversely, cognitiveempathy is defined as the ability to understand another person’sthoughts and feelings. It is also referred to as “perspective taking”(e.g., Pilling and Eroglu, 1994; McBane, 1995).

Certain psychologists have refuted such a dichotomous view ofthe empathy construct by suggesting definitions that encompassboth the affective and cognitive facets of empathy (e.g., Hoffman,1984; Lazarus, 1991). Notably, Preston and de Waal (2002) proposeda definition of empathy that included processes related toperception-action behaviour. From this perspective, empathy isbroadly viewed as the following: “any process where the intendedperception of the object’s state generates a state in the subject that ismore applicable to the object’s state or situation than to the subject’sown prior state or situation” (Preston and de Waal, 2002, p. 4).

Given the ambiguity in the conceptual definition of empathy,several operationalisations of this concept have been used inmarketing literature. Following Davis (1983), certain studies in themarketing domain used a multidimensional operationalisation ofthe construct (e.g., McBane, 1995; Giacobbe et al., 2006; Homburget al., 2009). Plank et al. (1996), however, developed a one-dimensional scale of perceived empathy. While their scale con-tained both affective and cognitive indicators, a single factor modelwas found to be evident given the high correlation between thefactors. A number of recent studies in marketing measured theempathy construct on a single scale (e.g., Escalas and Stern, 2003;Homburg and Stock, 2005, Mooradian et al., 2008). Drawing on theunified approach advocated by Hoffman and others (Hoffman, 1984;Lazarus, 1991), we further contend that empathy corresponds to areflexive construct, including embedded manifestations related toperspective taking, empathic concern and emotional contagion.

Frontline employee–customer interactions have been consid-ered to be a fruitful area for the exploration of the effect ofdisplayed empathy on marketing performance outcome. Resultsconsistently showed that employee empathy is critical for under-standing and satisfying customer needs (e.g., Aggarwal et al.,2005; Giacobbe et al., 2006; Drollinger et al., 2006). Accordingly,perceived empathy was identified as one of the five dimensions ofthe SERVQUAL scale developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988) tomeasure perceived quality of service. In addition, certain research-ers identified empathy as one of the psychological antecedents ofsatisfaction with complaint handling that needed to be measuredproperly (Miller et al., 2000). Remarkably, empathy was notformally addressed as a distinctive psychometric construct in thecontext of service recovery, even taking into consideration theobvious outcomes in terms of customer satisfaction. As outlined byWieseke et al. (2012), prior research studies in service settingsreveal considerable differences regarding the conceptualisation ofempathy and the construct operationalisation. Empathy wassuggested to some extent as being one possible manifestation ofan interactional justice construct (e.g., Hocutt et al., 1997; Taxet al., 1998). Certain researchers used apology verbiage in vignettematerial (Roschk and Kaiser, 2012). Additionally, service recoverystudies investigated related constructs as attentiveness (e.g.,Davidow, 2003; Karatepe, 2006) or concern (Sparks and McColl-Kennedy, 2001), in which the empathy construct is apprehendedthrough its empathic concern dimension to the exception ofperspective-taking aspects. Moreover, the interactions underinvestigation were confined to face-to-face channels, disregardingother communication formats. Research is lacking as to the validityof the empathy construct, as well as its effectiveness whenperformed in an online context.

2.2. Gratitude

Gratitude is an outcome of human interaction that provides anemotional basis for reciprocal behaviour. As stated by Fredrickson

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608 601

(2004, p. 150), gratitude is a positively valenced emotion “thatarises when an individual (beneficiary) perceives that anotherperson (benefactor) or source (e.g., God, luck, fate) has intention-ally acted to improve the beneficiary’s well-being”. Drawing onpsychological literature concerning gratitude (Weiner, 1985;Becker, 1986; Fredrickson, 2004), the two following aspects ofgratitude appear to be specifically relevant to the purpose of thisarticle: (1) gratitude is dependent on the recognition of aperceived effort exerted by another agent; and (2) gratitude tendsto generate a sense of obligation to reciprocate. Psychologicalresearch has supported the theory that people who have beenmade to feel grateful by the actions of another tend to behaveprosocially toward the benefactor (see for a review Tsang andMcCullough, 2004). In addition, people are more likely to experi-ence gratitude when they perceive that a favour is costly to thebenefactor and given without regards to role-based obligations(Tsang, 2006).

Despite the noticeable absence of marketing research concern-ing gratitude, a number of recent studies have investigated therole of feelings of gratitude on customer behaviour outside thecontext of complaint interaction (e.g., Morales, 2005; Palmatieret al. 2009; Kim and Lee, 2013). Relationship marketing invest-ments, such as investment provided in the context of a shoppingexperience (e.g., a free cup of coffee, extra help, valuable informa-tion), was found to generate short-term feelings of gratitude thatdrive long-lasting performance outcomes, including intentions torepurchase or trust (Palmatier et al., 2009). Overall, these initialstudies are consistent with the contention of researchers inpsychology that gratitude represents the emotional core of reci-procity (Emmons, 2004).

3. Model and hypothesis development

The study introduces a model in which the influence of perceivedempathy in a complaint-handling interaction is fully conveyed bytwo distinct routes: gratitudinal or transactional. In the gratitudinalroute, gratitude is assumed to mediate the influence of empathy oncritical relational outcomes of trust and commitment. In turn, trustand commitment predict repurchase intention. In the transactional

Fig. 1. The hypoth

route, satisfaction is expected to mediate the influence of perceivedempathy on relational outcomes. In the following sections, weformulate specific hypotheses regarding the abovementioned rela-tionships. Fig. 1 depicts our conceptual framework.

3.1. Direct outcomes of empathy

Perceived empathy reflects the extent to which an individualassesses that his or her partner in communication shares his or herfeelings by psychologically placing himself in the partner’s cir-cumstance (Lazarus, 1991). Therefore, the relational process thatconsists of identifying a customer’s internal states and of under-standing customer perspective might be interpreted by consumersas a form of intentional benevolence from a company representa-tive. Feelings of gratitude are the expected affective responsewhen a person receives “benevolence” from another (Palmatieret al., 2009). Accordingly, a customer’s recognition of effort by acustomer service representative to understand emotionally andcognitively the customer’s circumstance during complaint hand-ling – that is, perceived empathy – may cause the customer toattribute good motives to the representative and may lead thecustomer to have subsequent feelings of gratitude toward thecompany. We therefore posit the following:

H1a. Perceived empathy has a positive influence on customergratitude.

According to the confirmation/disconfirmation perspective inthe satisfaction literature (e.g., Oliver, 1980), customer transactionalsatisfaction is expected to develop when the individual‘s expecta-tions regarding the episodic performance of a product or a serviceare met. Consistent with this perspective, the SERVQUAL model ofParasuraman et al. (1988) contends that expectations regardingperceived empathy as a particular dimension of service need to befulfilled to achieve customer satisfaction. Given that the SERVQUALmodel has been confirmed by numerous empirical replications, itoffers a strong argument for considering perceived empathy as asignificant causal factor in transactional satisfaction. Moreover, inthe context of service recovery, concern demonstrated on the partof the service provider, which is an important facet of empathyconstruct, was shown to strongly trigger customer reporting of

esised model.

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608602

transactional satisfaction (Sparks and McColl-Kennedy, 2001).Together, these results suggest that a higher level of empathyshown by a customer service representative will result in higherlevels of customer satisfaction. We therefore posit the following:

H1b. Perceived empathy has a positive influence on transactionalsatisfaction.

3.2. Relational outcomes of gratitude

Social psychology suggests that the affective state of gratitudeserves as a moral motivator and increases benevolent behaviourtoward a benefactor. In reciprocating another’s actions, individualefforts tend to focus on meeting the needs of the other. That is,feeling gratitude motivates the recipient to reward the giver andincreases compliance with any subsequent requests from the giver(e.g., Goei and Boster, 2005; McCullough et al., 2001). In addition,we expect that gratitude is likely to increase customer complianceeven when they are aware that their benefactor pursues commer-cial goals. Previous research has shown that such knowledge doesnot inhibit purchasing behaviour (Kang and Ridgway, 1996).Therefore, for customers who are experiencing feelings of grati-tude due to a company’s effort to maintain a relationship pre-viously altered by some dissatisfaction, we expect that they arelikely to act on their desires to repay the company by engaging ingratitude-based reciprocal behaviours (Palmatier et al., 2009).Such reciprocal behaviours will be pursued because they consti-tute appropriate responses given the expectations that consumersproject concerning the company. Reciprocal behaviours are there-fore expected to include commitment patterns reflecting anenduring motivation to maintain a relationship with the targetcompany (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Thus, we posit the following:

H2a. Gratitude positively influences customer relationshipcommitment.

According to psychological research, gratitude is assumed tohave a significant positive effect on an individual’s evaluation ofthe trustworthiness of a benefactor that results in higher levels oftrust (Dunn and Schweitzer, 2005). More generally, gratitude forbenefits received is assumed to increase a receiver’s positiveemotional perceptions of the giver (Algoe et al., 2008). Thus, ifgratitude induces positive emotional responses regarding thebenefactor, it also should improve perception of that person’strustworthiness. Consistently, increased levels of gratitude havefound to boost judgments of trust in a consumer context(Palmatier et al., 2009). We therefore posit the following:

H2b. Gratitude positively influences customer trust.

3.3. Relational outcomes of transactional satisfaction

Given that complaint handling constitutes a critical stage of therelationship between a company and a customer, we believe that itis of primary importance to stress the direct links betweentransactional satisfaction and the chief relational mediators ofloyalty as trust and relationship commitment. In support of thisreasoning, loyalty, as measured immediately after a complaint, wasfound to depend more on transactional satisfaction than overallsatisfaction that has accumulated over time (Homburg and Fürst,2005). As noted by Orsingher et al. (2010), only infrequent studiesin recovery literature have examined the relational consequencesof satisfaction. The inaugural research from Tax et al. (1998)addressed this gap by showing the negative effects of dissatisfac-tion with complaint handling on trust and commitment. Subse-quent studies (e.g., Kau and Loh, 2006; Weun et al., 2004; Kimet al., 2009) confirmed that transactional satisfaction strongly

affects trust and loyalty. A careful examination of these laterresults suggests that transactional satisfaction explains repurchaseintent or relationship commitment (Weun et al., 2004) to a lesserextent than trust (Kau and Elizabeth Wan-Yium, 2006; Kim et al.,2009).

As satisfaction increases from meeting or exceeding the expecta-tions of good complaint handling, it directly affects trust by strength-ening the company’s perceived reliability. However, transactionalsatisfaction can be insufficient in triggering increasing relationshipcommitment to the same extent. More so than trust, relationshipcommitment relies on an affective basis consisting of emotionalattachment (Mohr et al., 1996; Kim et al., 2011). Similarly, it can beargued that gratitude emerging from complaint handling may have astronger impact on relationship commitment than transactionalsatisfaction. Indeed, gratitude activates reciprocal behaviours from arelational affective appraisal of the interaction that matches thenature of relationship commitment more effectively than transac-tional satisfaction. We therefore posit the following:

H3a. Transactional satisfaction positively influences customerrelationship commitment.

H3b. Transactional satisfaction positively influences customer trust.

H3c. Transactional satisfaction will have a lesser influence onrelationship commitment than on trust.

H3d. Transactional satisfaction will have a lesser influence onrelationship commitment than gratitude.

3.4. Outcomes of relational mediators

We next consider the relationships between trust, commitmentand repurchase intention. The conceptual model in this studyreplicates a classical relationship in which trust and commitmentmediate the effects of relationship investments – for instance,empathy – on customer intention (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; DeWittet al., 2008; Palmatier et al., 2009). We formally hypothesise thesepaths, although we test them empirically as a replication giventhat previous studies of complaint handling have already estab-lished them (e.g., Tax et al., 1998; Weun et al., 2004). We thereforeposit the following:

H4. Customer trust positively affects relationship commitment.

H5. Relationship commitment positively affects repurchase intent.

H6. Customer trust positively affects repurchase intent.

4. Research methodology

4.1. Data collection and sample

Only companies with dedicated customer claim service supportare the object of analysis in the present study, effectively eliminat-ing small firms. This approach provides a higher level of internalvalidity due to the restriction of extraneous differences caused byheterogeneity among organisations. In particular, this choice willhelp to obtain data homogeneity regarding two organisationalaspects of complaint handling: the customer’s direct – and subse-quently easier – access to a company employee who possesses thecapacity to handle the complaint and the professionalisation ofthis type of representative. We chose to study two main commu-nication channels in the customer service context: phone andonline channels.

A survey approach was chosen to examine naturally occurringresponses among customers who had recently experienced aservice or product failure and a recovery encounter. Our research

Table 1Means, standard deviations, average variances extracted and correlations.

Constructs Mean SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Empathy 5.42 2.05 .86 .972. Gratitude 3.77 2.16 .92 .70 .983. Transactional satisfaction 5.57 2.26 .95 .86 .66 .954. Relationship commitment 2.51 1.58 .80 .50 .71 .41 .955. Trust 5.72 1.35 .75 .60 .58 .59 .53 .946. Repurchase intent 5.04 1.91 .87 .52 .57 .45 .59 .70 .95

Correlations are reported below the diagonal; Cronbach’s alphas are reported onthe diagonal.po .001 for all correlations.AVE¼average variance extracted.

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608 603

design permitted a large variety of sector activities to be repre-sented. This aspect of the research design ensured external validityacross organisations in distinct industries. Data were collectedfrom a sample of 148 undergraduate business students enroled ina research methods course. The research was presented as ascientific study of consumer satisfaction from a general perspec-tive. Hence, the nature of the research model and the detailedresearch topic were not described.

We collected data for our study in two steps. In a first step,students were asked to report any dissatisfaction they had experi-enced as consumers during one six-week period. At the end of theperiod, students were asked to name the implicated companies.After the related customer services were examined by a researchsupervisor, they were found in their vast majority to have adedicated customer service accessible via both phone and onlinechannels. Companies that did not meet this criterion were elimi-nated. The remaining companies were randomly assigned to eitherthe customer service’s phone or online channel.

In a second step, students were asked to submit a complaintagainst these companies. Students were constrained to respect thecustomer service channel that had previously been specified foreach company. Immediately after performing their first interactionwith the company’s customer service, students were instructed tocomplete a series of scales designed to assess their perceptions ofthe complaint handling. This immediate report had the advantageof reducing the biases from memory lapses common in self-reports of service recovery (Smith et al., 1999). First interactionwith customer service refers to either the first phone conversationwhen considering the phone channel or the reception of the firstelectronic response from a customer service representative whenconsidering the online channel. In the latter case, we made anexception for automatic messages confirming only the complaintreception. In the absence of a response from a customer servicerepresentative after three separate calls over two-minute each orafter a period of 15 days, respectively for phone and onlinechannels, the complaint was described as “unanswered”. Due todifficulties with the scheduling of students’ courses, some phonecalls that had been planned for the end of the semester could notbe performed, resulting in a lower number of interactions for thephone channel than the electronic channel.

In total, 148 students completed the survey: 64 males (43%) and84 females (57%). They were between 21 and 29 years old. Theysubmitted an average of 3.05 complaints each, resulting in 451submitted complaints. Customer service response rates were of88.6% and 76.1%, respectively, for telephone and online channels. Intotal, 365 complaints were answered, subject to acceptable delays:155 by phone and 210 online. With regard to the nature of thefailures, respondents mentioned the following types of dissatisfac-tions: employees’ difficulty in resolving problems and attending toconsumers (34.3%), lack of product quality (29.2%), delays or servicebreakdowns (15.7%), product information and website designinadequacies (12.2%), environmental or consumer health issuesinsufficiently addressed by company policies (5.8%) or other causes(2.8%). The sectors under investigation included financial services(17.4%), convenience goods (16.5%), telephone/Internet (14.9%),retail (11.6%), transportation (10.5%), automotive (10.2%), healthproducts and services (6.9%), housing (4.1%) and others (8%).

4.2. Measures

The participants responded to a series of multi-item Likertmeasures on a nine-point scale ranging from “completely disagree”(1) to “completely agree” (9) to capture the constructs studied. All ofthe items appear in the Appendix. To measure perceived empathywith respect to the complaint encounter, we created a newscale because of the lack of existing scales related to a firm’s

complaint-handling context. Following standard psychometricscale development procedures (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988), wedeveloped our scale based on a literature review. The empathymeasure consists of five items generated from previous research.The items cover such issues as cognitive ability, taking theperspective of a customer, or feeling and expressing an affectiveconcern regarding a customer’s situation. Three items reflectempathic perspective taking and were taken from empathy scalescreated by Plank et al. (1996), Homburg and Stock (2005) and Basilet al. (2008). The other two items refer to the expression ofempathic concern and are derived from Bagozzi and Moore’s(1994) and Giacobbe et al. (2006) empathy scales.

The other scales used in this research have been used in priorstudies that report on their reliability and validity. Items whoseloadings were less than .6 were systematically removed. Custo-mer’s gratitude was assessed using a four-item measure developedby Goei and Boster (2005). Both the scales of trust and relationshipcommitment were originally used by Morgan and Hunt (1994) andthen adapted by Adjei et al. (2010). Five of the seven items of theiradapted trust scale were used. As for relationship commitment,the construct was assessed using their adapted measure with itsfirst item removed by us. Finally, the constructs of repurchaseintent and transactional satisfaction were measured with scalesfrom Maxham and Netemeyer (2003).

5. Results

5.1. Measurement model

We evaluated the psychometric properties of the constructs byconducting confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with AMOS 19.0(Arbuckle, 2010). The fit indexes indicated that the measurementmodel produced adequate fit to the data, with χ2 (260)¼715.974(po .001), comparative fit index (CFI)¼ .965, incremental fit index(IFI)¼ .965, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)¼ .960 and root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA)¼ .068. All factor loadings, whichare reported in the Appendix, were also significant (po .001) insupport of convergent validity. Cronbach’s alphas were .90 orabove, demonstrating good reliability. In addition, we confirmeddiscriminant validity, as the average variance extracted exceededthe square of correlations between constructs (Fornell and Larcker,1981). We list the descriptive statistics and correlations in Table 1.

5.2. Structural model

The hypothesised model, as depicted in Fig. 1, was estimated toassess path and explained variance estimates. The hypothesisedstructural model yielded a good fit, with χ2 (266)¼735.969(po .001), CFI¼ .964, IFI¼ .964, Tucker–Lewis index, TLI¼ .960and RMSEA¼ .069. As Table 2 shows, all paths were significant atpo .001. They support all of the hypotheses from H1 to H6, with

Table 3Assessment of the mediation effects.

Hypothesisedmodel

Nested model including a direct path betweenthe antecedent and repurchase intent

Antecedent– Gratitude Transactional

satisfactionEmpathy

χ2(df)735.97 (266) 734.22

(265)735.76 (265) 733.65

(265)CFI .964 .964 .964 .964TLI .960 .959 .959 .959RMSEA .069 .070 .070 .070

Δχ2(df) test– 1.75 (1),

p4 .1.21 (1), p4 .1 2.32 (1),

p4 .1

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608604

the exception of hypothesis H3a because transactional satisfactionwas found to negatively affect relationship commitment. Tovalidate this counter-intuitive result, we computed standardisedtotal effects approximated from the bias-corrected bootstrappingmethod (e.g., Taylor et al., 2008) to assess the global influence oftransactional influence on relationship commitment. The influenceremained negative but exhibited a weak amplitude (−.17/−.04,po .01). The examination of mean values indicates that transac-tion satisfaction is notably higher than relationship commitment(5.6 versus 2.5) and is at a similar level as that of trust (5.6 versus5.7). Thus, individuals experiencing high levels of transactionalsatisfaction form positive evaluations regarding company reliabil-ity. The episodic positive cognitive assessment reflected by trans-actional satisfaction correlates with less motivation to maintain aclose relationship with the brand. A possible explanation for thiscould be that customers who were previously poorly committedtowards the implicated company are more likely to be favourablyimpressed by the relationship investments provided during thecomplaint handling because their expectations would have beenlower than those of highly committed customers. Yet, in this case,transactional satisfaction is insufficient to change their initialbrand commitment. Overall, the model explained 56% of thevariance in transactional satisfaction, 49% in gratitude, 41% intrust, 55% in relationship commitment and 56% in repurchaseintent. In summary, the hypothesised model depicted in Fig. 1 wasprimarily supported, and the model displayed a significant abilityto explain variance in the final variable.

Table 4Standardised total effects approximated from the bias-corrected bootstrappingmethod.

Dependentvariables

Independent variables

Perceivedempathy

Transactionalsatisfaction

Gratitude Trust Relationshipcommitment

TrustLowerbound

.50 .26 .25 .00 .00

Upperbound

.61 .47 .44 .00 .00

Relationship commitmentLowerbound

.40 −.17 .71 .15 .00

Upperbound

.51 −.04 .84 . 30 .00

Repurchase intentLowerbound

.39 .10 .36 .52 .23

Upperbound

.49 .24 .49 .67 .39

All effects significant at po .01.

5.3. Mediation effects

In addition to testing hypotheses (H1–H6), we conducted post-hoc analyses to gain additional insight into the mediating effects ofgratitude, transactional satisfaction and empathy on the finalvariable. To test for mediation, we compared our hypothesisedmodel to three alternative models that included a direct effectpath from the investigated mediator to repurchase intent (e.g.,Holmbeck, 1997). The results of difference tests (see Table 3)revealed that the addition of the direct effect path did notsignificantly improve model fit over the hypothesised model.These results first indicate that the respective effects of gratitudeand transactional satisfaction on repurchase intent are fullymediated by trust and relationship commitment. Specifically, theinfluence on repurchase intent of each of the episodic mediators ofempathy is completely mediated by trust and commitment accu-mulated over time-variables. Second, the results show that theeffect of empathy on repurchase intent is fully mediated by boththe gratitudinal and transactional chains of mediators, thusvalidating our view of two distinct routes conveying the influenceof this relationship investment.

Building on the results from the mediation analysis, we did notfind any argument in favour of the revision of our hypothesised

Table 2Hypotheses and path coefficients-standardised direct effect of the proposed model.

Hypotheses Standard

H1a. Empathy-Gratitude .70H1b. Empathy-Transactional satisfaction .86H2a. Gratitude-Relationship commitment .70H2b. Gratitude-Trust .35H3a. Transactional satisfaction-Trust .37H3b. Transactional satisfaction-Relationship commitment −.19H4. Trust-Relationship commitment .23H5. Relationship commitment-Repurchase intent .32H6. Trust-Repurchase intent .53

All paths significant at po .001.

model. Given that several mediation effects are involved in ourmodel, we used standardised total effects approximated from thebias-corrected bootstrapping method to assess the influence ofeach predictor in the model (see Table 4). We first investigatedeffects regarding the relative impact of transactional satisfactionand gratitude. The influence of transactional satisfaction on trust isstronger than on relationship commitment (standardised effectcomprised between .26/.47, po .01versus −.17/−.04, po .01), thusconfirming H3c. The hypothesis H3d is also validated sincetransactional satisfaction influences relationship commitment toa lesser extent than gratitude (.71/.84, po .01). Together, theseresults confirm that post-complaint relationship commitment isprimarily reinforced by feelings of gratitude and does not take

ised coefficients t-Values Hypothesis status

16.3 Accepted22.7 Accepted12.9 Accepted6.3 Accepted6.7 Accepted

−3.6 Not accepted4.4 Accepted6.8 Accepted

10.6 Accepted

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608 605

advantage of transactional satisfaction. In contrast, transactionalsatisfaction and gratitude contribute similarly to support post-complaint trust.

Second, we investigated the total effects contributing torepurchase intent. Among the cumulated over time-variables, themost important effect is due to trust (.52 and .67, po .01), withrelationship commitment exerting a more moderate influence (.23and .39; po .01). With respect to episodic variables, empathy andgratitude exhibit noteworthy influences on repurchase intent(.39/.49 and .36/.49, respectively; po .01), while the total effectsdue to transactional satisfaction are modest but remain significant(.10/.24, po .01).

Given that the measures for both the independent and thedependent variables come from the same source, common var-iance may have overstated the strength of the observed relation-ships between the constructs in our model. We controlled for theportion of common variance by re-estimating the structuralmodel. The re-estimation included a directly measured “single-source” first-order factor added to the indicators of all the latentvariables in the model (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To achieve themodel convergence, we specified all loadings of the method factoras being of the same size, reflecting the assumption that commonvariance affects all items equally (Rindfleisch et al., 2008;Homburg et al., 2011). We found that the estimates of ourstructural model remained virtually unchanged after we intro-duced the method factor. The proportion of variance in eachobserved indicator (computed as the square of the item loadings)explained by its focal construct substantially exceeded the var-iance explained by the method factor. Collectively, this analysissuggests that method variance does not materially affect ourconclusions.

5.4. Multi-group analysis: online versus offline

Our hypothesised model encompasses both online and offlineinteractions, building on the assumption that empathy may exhibitconstruct and nomological equivalences across both channels.In support of this postulate, we rely on the social informationprocessing theory of computer-mediated communication (Walther,1992). This theory argues that communicators deploy whatevercommunication cue systems they have at their disposal whenmotivated to form impressions and develop relationships. Whenmost non-verbal cues are unavailable, as is the case in text-basedcommunications, users adapt their language and style, therebyadopting alternative cues for such purposes (Walther et al., 2005).

We tested the factorial and structural equivalence of our model,as suggested by previous literature (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996;Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Cheung and Rensvold, 1999).We first examined the fit of an unconstrained baseline structuralmodel using multi-group analysis in AMOS 19.0. The resultssuggested a satisfactory fit with the data (χ2¼1096.183; df¼532;po .01; CFI¼ .958; IFI¼ .958; TLI¼ .952; RMSEA¼ .054). Second, weexamined a constrained model with factor loadings invariantacross the two groups (measurement weights model). The resultssuggested that the fit was also satisfactory (χ2¼1121.108; df¼551;CFI¼ .957; TLI¼ .957; IFI¼ .953; RMSEA¼ .053). To examine factor-ial invariance, we compared the measurement weights model withthe baseline model by comparing the χ2 difference (Δχ2¼24.925;df¼19; p4 .1). The nonsignificant Δχ2 test ensured the existence offactorial invariance, which allowed us to be confident in compar-ing path coefficients between the two groups. We then specified aconstrained model with all paths and all factor loadings set to beequal between the two groups. We compared this structuralweights model with the measurement weights model. The χ2

difference (Δχ2¼18.379; df¼9; po .05) was found to be statisti-cally significant. Therefore, based on modification indices tests

(Byrne et al., 1989), paths with significant test statistics werereleased stepwise until the further removal of constraints failed toenhance model fit. The resulting model included two parameters(trust-repurchase intent and relationship commitment-repurchase intent) that were released to be different. This modelproduced the following fit statistics: χ2¼1127.567; df¼558;po .01; CFI¼ .958; IFI¼ .958; TLI¼ .952; RMSEA¼ .054. In addition,the χ2 difference test (Δχ2¼6.459; df¼7 and p4 .1) was found notto be statistically significant. This final test confirmed the existenceof structural invariance between telephone and email channels,with the exception of both paths relating trust and relationshipcommitment to repurchase intent. That is, our study shows thatthe influence of perceived empathy may be conveyed in a similarmanner in terms of communication efficiency through phone andtext-based channels as advanced by Walther (1992). Moreover, it ishere suggested that such a congruent pattern can be achievedwithin a single interaction without extended communication time.

6. Discussion

6.1. Research issues

This study demonstrates that the influence of empathy on post-complaint repurchase intent is fully conveyed by two differentroutes involving gratitude and transactional satisfaction. It advancesacademic knowledge regarding service recovery in several ways,including the importance of gratitude, the mediating role of trustand commitment, the differentiated nature of interactional inputand channel invariance.

First, this study supports the role of gratitude in understandingthe effects of a firm’s relational investment in complaint handling,thus extending the research of Palmatier et al. (2009) in thisspecific context. One important finding is that the impact ofgratitude on repurchasing is significantly stronger than that oftransactional satisfaction. This result outlines the modest role oftransactional satisfaction regarding repurchase intent. Despite thesuggestion of a limited influence in previous recovery literature,our study establishes it without resorting to the use of overallsatisfaction in the model that reflects a cumulative satisfactionover time (e.g., Orsingher et al., 2010; Gelbrich and Roschk, 2011).Overall, the study notes that marketing research that neglectsgratitude and focuses exclusively on satisfaction as a key variablemay fail to capture the full effects of service recovery. Our resultsalso suggest that the addition of gratitude to complaint-handlingsatisfaction models may be more effective than overall satisfactionin assessing the immediate effects of customer perception onrepurchasing.

Second, our study indicates that the effects of gratitude andtransactional satisfaction themselves are fully mediated by trustand relationship commitment. To our knowledge, this study is thefirst to estimate how key relational variables, such as trust andcommitment, mediate episodic mediating variables. AlthoughDeWitt et al. (2008) established that trust has a full mediatingrole between perceived justice and loyalty, they have not investi-gated the relationship commitment contribution. The approachused in this study reveals distinct mechanisms of relationalmediation: whereas trust benefits quite similarly from transac-tional satisfaction and gratitude, the role of gratitude unliketransactional satisfaction is crucial in reinforcing post-complaintcommitment. This finding suggests that post-complaint commit-ment relies on a more affective basis than trust and is particularlysensitive to reciprocity appeals, at least in the immediate timefollowing the complaint interaction.

As a third theoretical contribution to recovery literature, weshowed that perceived empathy leads to customer gratitude in

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608606

addition to transactional satisfaction. We provided a valid scale tomeasure the construct in a complaint interaction context. Theexistence of a strong, significant path between empathy andgratitude suggests that customers may interpret the empathyexhibited by a customer service representative as a form ofbenevolence revealing a relational extra effort beyond contractualor role-based obligations (e.g., Morales, 2005; Tsang, 2006). In thatrespect, the interactional aspects of complaint handling may betheoretically distinguished according to the extent to which theycan be understood as satisfying discretionary investment versusmandatory relational requirements such as respect, courtesy orpoliteness, all three of which constitute the core of interactionaljustice (e.g., Bies and Moag, 1986; Karatepe, 2006). It is thereforeexpected that interactional discretionary inputs will contributemore strongly to gratitude than mandatory inputs. Additionally,our results suggest that empathy should not be included as a facetof the interactional justice construct, at least when consideringmodels of which gratitude is a part.

Lastly, the study revealed that both gratitudinal and transac-tional routes are not altered by the electronic versus telephonicnature of the channel, i.e., empathy can be supported by differentchannels other than face-to-face interactions. Thus, customers areable to recognise intention and personal affect when mediated byelectronic devices, implying that customer service representativescan succeed in finding linguistic cues to express their empathicposture. The social information processing theory has postulatedthat extended time is a key determinant in whether computer-mediated communication achieves the same level of intimacy asface-to-face communication (e.g., Walther, 1995; Ramirez et al.,2007). However, given that the strength of the path betweenempathy and gratitude remain unchanged whatever the channel,our results suggest that customers needed no more interaction tocompensate for the absence of non-verbal cues in perceivingempathy and deriving gratitude from it. A partial explanation ofthis result can be found in the expertise of service customeremployees who are trained to write polished and meticulousresponses whether the communication is in the form of a letteror an email.

6.2. Managerial issues

While our research suggests that retailers should strive to offercustomers empathic complaint handling to encourage feelings ofgratitude, it also suggests avenues for affecting customer intent.First, it appears that being empathetic to a customer complaint isso critical that hiring and training processes should be focused onthe ability of customer service representatives to be empatheticand practice empathetic behaviour in complaint-handling inter-actions. Previous research has clearly established that trainingprogrammes send a strong signal to employees regarding topmanagement’s commitment to required behaviours (Babakuset al., 2003). In addition, training can improve technical skills(Karatepe and Karadas, 2012) that will allow them to go beyondexpected formal role requirements when handling empathicinteractions.

Managers should therefore help customer service representativesto clearly distinguish between empathy and classical role-basedcommunication in the customer service support role. That is,empathy must be taught to customer service representatives as amore critical part of interactional performance that includes addi-tional communication roles, such as expressing emotional contagion,whereas politeness, courtesy and a respectful posture should bepresented as a preliminary level of interactional performance.Systematic training is required to help employees master cognitiveand emotional facets of empathic behaviour, i.e., perspective takingand exhibiting emotional concern. Particular attention should be

devoted to the specific requirements necessary for expressingempathy online. Customer service employees must ensure that theiremails or other electronic messages express their understanding andinterest in the customer’s situation in a perceptible way, despite thepropensity of email and other electronic messaging to be moreconcise and less engaging than face-to-face communication. Further-more, customer service employees must be made aware and acceptthe necessity of extended interaction time, including multiple inter-actions, if appropriate, in electronic messaging.

Second, our study takes a firm stand on the need to monitorcustomer gratitude as a key indicator of customer service perfor-mance in the same manner as monitoring customer satisfactionwith complaint handling. Indeed, gratitude is a better trigger ofrepurchasing than transactional satisfaction. Measures of gratitudemust be systematically included in customer satisfaction surveysthat companies regularly issue. In addition, because gratitudepertains to short-term feelings, companies should give customersthe opportunity to reciprocate soon after providing them withcomplaint-handling benefits. For example, companies could con-tact complainants with a coupon offer. This offer would providethe complainant an opportunity to act on his or her feelings ofgratitude and would most likely lead to an immediate repurchase.Furthermore, given that relationship commitment benefits frompost-complaint feelings of gratitude, managers should use thisadvantageous situation by presenting to customers renewedopportunities to join brand-oriented social communities or loyaltyprograms. Given that trust is significantly increased by successfulcomplaint handling, customers would be less concerned byprivacy (Culnan and Armstrong, 1999) and more likely to self-disclose when joining such communities or programs.

7. Limitations and future research

Although this study expands upon our knowledge of complainthandling, it is tempered by some limitations. First, our study uses across-sectional survey method of data collection focusing on asingle interaction with customer service representatives. Thus, theresults neglect possible delayed complementary actions on com-panies’ behalf. A longitudinal approach would be necessary toinvestigate the extent to which feelings of gratitude remainpredictors of repurchase intent over time. Second, the use of astudent sample is a limitation. Compared to other customersegments, students may differently evaluate service recovery dueto socio-demographic characteristics or the more limited scope oftheir consumption experiences (e.g., Orsingher et al., 2010).Although these features do not make students less appropriatefor this study than any other customer group, the method raisesconcern about the generalisability of the effect sizes from thisgiven segment. Third, the fact that the participants were asked tosubmit a complaint may be a limitation, even if their claims wereduly motivated by dissatisfactions that actually emerged in thecourse of their everyday lives. Constrained complainers might bein a different emotional state than spontaneous complainers.Replications of the study with both spontaneous and constrainedcomplainers would help to identify the boundary conditions forthe generalisation of the model.

Future research will need to consider additional variables tobetter understand how feelings of gratitude vary depending on thenature of the perceived properties of a company’s investment.In this respect, the authors recommend studying other interac-tional inputs, such as politeness, courtesy or apology, becausethese constitute major aspects of how companies actually aim tomanage the human aspect of complaint handling. Another ques-tion of interest is the extent to which other investment categories,apart from interactional inputs, are able to elicit gratitude in

Table A1.

Constructs (Scale Sources): Items Standardized loadings t-Values

Perceived empathy (items from respectively Bagozzi and Moore, 1994; Plank et al., 1996; Homburg and Stock,2005; Basil et al., 2008; Giacobbe et al., 2006)My complaint caused the customer service representative to have feelings of concern for me. .90This customer service representative really understood my feelings. .92 29.3This customer service representative tried to adopt my perspective. .97 33.8This customer service representative put himself (herself) in my shoes. .96 33.5This customer service representative seemed to personally care about me a great deal. .89 26.6

Customer’s gratitude (Goei and Boster, 2005)I feel grateful to this company .97I feel thankful to this company .98 60.7I feel appreciative toward this company. .95 47.1I feel a sense of gratitude to this company. .93 39.5

Transactional satisfaction (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003)In my opinion, the customer service provided a satisfactory resolution to my problem on this particular occasion. .96I am not satisfied with the customer service‘s handling of this particular problem.(1) .98 55.8Regarding this particular event (my recent problem), I am satisfied with the customer service. .98 54.0

Repurchase intent (adapted from Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003)I would be willing to purchase products or services from this company again. .94 29.7In the future, I intend to purchase products or services from this company. .97 32.0The likelihood that I would buy products or services from this company again is very high. .89

Trust (Adjei et al., 2010)XYZ can be trusted completely. .87XYZ can be counted on to do what is right. .85 21.9XYZ is a company that I have great confidence in. .87 22.9XYZ is perfectly honest and truthful. .89 23.7XYZ is always faithful .84 21.2

Relationship commitment (Adjei et al., 2010)The relationship that I have with XYZ:…is very important to me. .90 23.0…is something I intend to maintain indefinitely. .88…is very much like being family. .85 23.0…is something I really care about. .89 25.1…deserves my maximum effort to maintain. .95 29.2

(1) Item was reverse-coded.(2) All items were measured using nine-point scales anchored by 1¼ “completely disagree” and 9¼“completely agree”, unless otherwise stated.

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608 607

complaint handling. Therefore, research should also considerprocedural and distributive service recovery investments andassess their different contributions to both the gratitudinal andtransactional routes to loyalty.

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Laurent Grimal, Head of the Marketing Depart-ment at PEPS Faculty in Colmar, France, who encouraged thisresearch.

Appendix

See Table A1.

References

Adjei, Mavis, Noble, Stephanie, Noble, Charles, 2010. The influence of C2C commu-nications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (5), 634–653.

Aggarwal, P., Castleberry, S.B., Ridnour, R., Shepherd, C.D., 2005. Salespersonempathy and listening: impact on relationship outcomes. Journal of MarketingTheory and Practice 13 (3), 16–31.

Algoe, Sara B., Haidt, Jonathan, Gable, Shelly L., 2008. Beyond reciprocity: gratitudeand relationships in everyday life. Emotion 8 (3), 425–429.

Arbuckle, J.L., 2010. IBM SPSS Amos 19 User’s Guide. IBM, Chicago, IL.Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T., 2003. The effect of management

commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performanceoutcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (3), 272–286.

Bagozzi, R.P., Moore, D.J., 1994. Public service advertisements: emotions andempathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing 58 (January), 56–70.

Basil, D.Z., Ridgway, N.M., Basil, M.D., 2008. Guilt and giving: a process model ofempathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing 25 (1), 1–23.

Becker, L.C., 1986. Reciprocity. Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York.Bies, R.J., Moag, J.S., 1986. Interactional justice: communication criteria of faimess.

In: Roy, J., Lewicki, Blair H., Sheppard, Bazerman, Max H. (Eds.), Research onNegotiation in Organizations, vol. 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43–55.

Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., Muthen, B., 1989. Testing for the equivalence of factorcovariance and mean structures:the issues of partial measurement invariance.Psychological Bulletin 105, 456–466.

Cheung, G.W., Rensvold, R.B., 1999. Testing factorial invariance across groups: Areconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management 25,1–27.

Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K., 1999. Information privacy concerns, proceduralfairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organization Science10 (1), 104–115.

Davidow, M., 2000. The bottom line impact of organizational responses to customercomplaints. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24 (4), 473–490.

Davidow, M., 2003. Organizational responses to customer complaints: what worksand what doesn’t. Journal of Service Research 5 (3), 225–250.

Davis, M.H., 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence fora multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44, 113–126.

DeWitt, Tom, Nguyen, Doan T., Marshall, Roger, 2008. Exploring customer loyaltyfollowing service recovery: the mediating effects of trust and emotions.Journal of Service Research 10 (3), 269–281.

Drollinger, Tanya, Comer, Lucette B., Warrington, Patricia T., 2006. Developmentand validation of the Active Empathetic Listening Scale. Psychology andMarketing 23 (2), 161–180.

Duan, Changming, Hill, Clara E., 1996. The current state of empathy research.Journal of Counseling Psychology 43 (3), 261–274.

Dunn, Jennifer R., Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2005. Feeling and believing: the influenceof emotion on trust. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 88 (May),736–748.

F. Simon / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 599–608608

Emmons, Robert A., 2004. The psychology of gratitude: an introduction. In: Robert,A., Emmons, McCullough, Michael E. (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude. OxfordUniversity Press, New York, pp. 3–16.

Escalas, J.E., Stern, B., 2003. Sympathy and empathy: emotional responses toadvertising dramas. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 566–578.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(February), 39–51.

Fredrickson, B.L., 2004. Gratitude like other positive emotions, broadens and builds.In: Emmons, R., McCullough, M.E. (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude. OxfordUniversity Press, New York, pp. 145–166.

Gelbrich, K., Roschk, H., 2011. A meta-analysis of organizational complaint handlingand customer responses. Journal of Service Research 14 (1), 24–43.

Gerbing, David W., Anderson, James C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scaledevelopment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal ofMarketing Research 25 (2), 186–192.

Giacobbe, Ralph W., Jackson Jr., Donald W., Crosby, Lawrence A., Bridges, Claudia M.,2006.A contingency approach to adaptive selling behavior and sales performance:selling situations and salesperson characteristics. Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management 26 (2), 115–142.

Goei, Ryan, Boster, Franklin J., 2005. The roles of obligation and gratitude inexplaining the effect of favors on compliance. Communication Monographs 72(September), 284–300.

Hocutt, Mary, Ann, Goutam, Chakraborty, Mowen, John, 1997. The impact ofperceived justice on customer satisfaction and intention to complain in aservice recovery. Advances in Consumer Research 24, 457–463.

Hoffman, M.L., 1984. Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In: Izard, C.,Kagan, J., Zajonc., R. (Eds.), Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Holmbeck, G.N., 1997. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity inthe study of mediators and moderators: examples from the child-clinical andpediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 65,599–610.

Homburg, C., Fürst, A., 2005. How organizational complaint handling drivescustomer loyalty: an analysis of the mechanistic and organic approach. Journalof Marketing 69 (3), 95–114.

Homburg, C., Müller, M., Klarmann, Martin, 2011. When should the customer reallybe king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in salesencounters. Journal of Marketing 75 (2), p55–p74.

Homburg, C., Stock, R.M., 2005. Exploring the conditions under which salespersonwork satisfaction can lead to customer satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing 22(5), 393–420.

Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., Bornemann, T, 2009. Implementing the marketingconcept at the employee–customer interface: the role of customer needknowledge. Journal of Marketing 73 (4), 64–81.

Iglesias, V., 2009. The attribution of service failures: effects on consumer satisfac-tion. The Service Industries Journal 29 (2), 127–141.

Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. ScientificSoftware International, Chicago.

Kang, Yong-Soon, Ridgway, Nancy M., 1996. The importance of consumer marketinteractions as a form of social support for elderly consumers. Journal of PublicPolicy & Marketing 15 (1), 108–117.

Karatepe, O.M., 2006. Customer complaints and organizational responses: theeffects of complainants’ perceptions of justice on satisfaction and loyalty.International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (1), 69–90.

Karatepe, O.M., Karadas, G., 2012. The effect of management commitment to servicequality on job embeddedness and performance outcomes. Journal of BusinessEconomics and Management 13 (4), 614–636.

Kau, Ah-Keng, Loh, Elizabeth Wan-Yium, 2006. The effects of service recovery onconsumer satisfaction: a comparison between complainants and non-complainants. Journal of Services Marketing 20 (2), 101–111.

Kim, S.K., Hibbard, J.D., Swain, S., 2011. Commitment in marketing channels:mitigator or aggravator of the effects of destructive acts? Journal of Retailing87 (4), 521–539.

Kim, T., Kim, W.G., Kim, H.B., 2009. The effects of perceived justice on recoverysatisfaction, trust, word-of-mouth, and revisit intention in upscale hotels.Tourism Management 30 (1), 51–62.

Kim, S., Lee, J.S., 2013. Is satisfaction enough to ensure reciprocity with upscalerestaurants?: the role of gratitude relative to satisfaction. International Journalof Hospitality Management 33, 118–128.

Lazarus, R.S., 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press, New York.Maxham III, J.G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2003. Firms reap what they sow: the effects of

shared values and perceived organizational justice on customers‘ evaluations ofcomplaint handling. Journal of Marketing 67 (1), 46–62.

McBane, Donald A., 1995. Empathy and the salesperson: a multidimensionalperspective. Psychology and Marketing 12 (4), 349–370.

McCullough, Michael E., Emmons, Robert A., Kilpatrick, Shelley D., Larson, David B.,2001. Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin 127 (March), 249–266.

Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W., Karwan, K.R., 2000. Service recovery: a framework andempirical investigation. Journal of Operations Management 18, 387–400.

Mohr, Jakki, Fisher, Robert J., Nevin, John R., 1996. Collaborative communication ininterfirm relationships: moderating effects of integration and control. Journal ofMarketing 60 (July), 103–115.

Mooradian, Todd A., Matzler, Kurt, Szykman, Lisa, 2008. Empathetic responses toadvertising: testing a network of antecedents and consequences. MarketingLetters 19 (2), 79–92.

Morales, Andrea C., 2005. Giving firms an ‘E’ for effort: consumer responses tohigh-effort firms. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (March), 806–812.

Morgan, Robert M., Hunt, Shelby D., 1994. The commitment–trust theory ofrelationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (July), 20–38.

Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences ofsatisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17 (November), 460–469.

Orsingher, C., Valentini, S, de Angelis, M., 2010. A meta-analysis of satisfaction withcomplaint handling in services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38(2), 169–186.

Palmatier, R.W, Jarvis, C.B., Bechkoff, J.R, Kardes, F.R., 2009. The role of customergratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 73 (5), 1–18.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, Valarie A., Berry, Leonard L., 1988. SERVQUAL:a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 12–40.

Pilling, Bruce K., Eroglu, Sevo, 1994. An empirical examination of the impact ofsalesperson empathy and professionalism and merchandise salability on retailbuyers’ evaluations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 14 (1),45–58.

Plank, Richard E., Minton, Ann P., Reid, David A., 1996. A short measure of perceivedempathy. Psychological Reports 79, 1219–1226.

Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., Lee, Jeong-Yeon, Podsakoff, Nathan P.,2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of theliterature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5),879–903.

Preston, Stephanie D., de Waal, Frans B.M., 2002. Empathy: its ultimate andproximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (February), 1–72.

Ramirez Jr., A., Zhang, S., McGrew, C., Lin, S., 2007. Relational communication incomputer-mediated interaction revisited: three studies comparing participant–observer perspectives. Communication Monographs 74 (4), 492–516.

Rindfleisch, Aric, Malter, Alan J., Ganesan, Shankar, Moorman, Christine, 2008.Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, andguidelines. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (June), 261–279.

Roschk, H.and Kaiser, S. (2012), The nature of an apology: an experimental study onhow to apologize after a service failure, Marketing Letters, 10.1007/s11002-012-9218-x.

Schneider, B., Bowen, D., 1999. Understanding consumer delight and outrage.Sloan Management Review 41, 35–46.

Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N., Wagner, J., 1999. A model of customer satisfaction withservice encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of MarketingResearch 36, 356–373.

Sparks, Beverley A., McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., 2001. Justice strategy options forincreased customer satisfaction in a services recovery setting. Journal ofBusiness Research 54, 209–218.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25 (1), 78–90.

Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W., Chandrashekaran, M., 1998. Customer evaluations of servicecomplaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal ofMarketing 62, 60–76.

Taylor, A.B., MacKinnon, D.P., Tein, J., 2008. Tests of the three path mediated effect.Organizational Research Methods 11, 241–269.

Tsang, Jo-Ann, 2006. The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness.Motivation & Emotion 30 (September), 199–205.

Tsang, J.-A., McCullough, M.C., 2004. Appendix: annotated bibliography of psycho-logical research on gratitude. In: Emmons, R.A., McCullough, M.E. (Eds.),The Psychology of Gratitude. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 291–341.

Walther, J.B., 1992. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction:a relational perspective. Communication Research 19, 52–90.

Walther, J.B., 1995. Relational aspects of computer-mediated communications:experimental observations over time. Organization Science 6 (2), 182–203.

Walther, J.B., Loh, T., Granka, L., 2005. Let me count the ways: the interchange ofverbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity.Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24, 36–65.

Weiner, Bernard, 1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation andemotion. Psychological Review 92 (October), 548–573.

Weun, Seungoog, Beatty, Sharon E., Jones, Michael A., 2004. The impact of servicefailure severity on service recovery evaluations and post-recovery relation-ships. Journal of Service Marketing 18 (2), 133–146.

Wieseke, J., Geigenmüller, A., Kraus, F., 2012. On the role of empathy in customer–employee interactions. Journal of Service Research 15 (3), 316–331.