The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

E-business
E-business complaint complaint
management: perceptions and management
perspectives of online credibility
653
Jan Breitsohl, Marwan Khammash and Gareth Griffiths
Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK Received April 2010
Revised June 2010
Accepted July 2010
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate public online consumer complaint responses
from three different perspectives: the complainer, the company and third party consumers. Consumer
complaint behaviour and management has been studied in various streams of literature, yet the
subsequent processes triggered by a company complaint response have not been studied so far. In
particular, this paper seeks to divert from examining complaint participants in isolation by
recognising interrelated communication effects of complaint dialogue and public media.
Design/methodology/approach – Looking at credibility perceptions as a theoretical construct for
measuring the utility of a complaint as well as attitude-orientation as an evaluative moderator, the
paper highlights the ambiguity of meaning transfer in an online complaint forum.
Findings – It is hypothesised that credibility and congruence in attitude orientation positively
enhance complaint utility perceptions and strongly bias complaint dialogue evaluations.
Originality/value – The paper highlights that expected relevant results for online complaint
managers and marketers alike are the inclusion of post-complaint communication into corporate image
and relationship management as well as using credibility perceptions as a benchmark for online
customer satisfaction and potential positive electronic word-of-mouth.
Keywords Electronic commerce, Complaints, Consumer behaviour, Response time,
Organizational behaviour, Online operations
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
the complaint behaviour and management literature has undergone a recent
e-commerce-induced rejuvenation (Strauss and Hill, 2001; Hansen et al., 2010).
Researchers have found asynchronous communication media such as online opinion
forums to be particularly suited to complaint communication seeing that the sender is
in full control over the point of time, content and subsequent extent of exchange of
his/her complaint behaviour (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Hong and Lee, 2005).
At their core, consumer complaints are based on a dissatisfying product or service
experience, which may cause negative word-of-mouth (WOM) behaviour or consumer
exit and will definitely prove detrimental to a company’s reputation or sales if
unresolved (Nyer and Gopinath, 2005, Burton and Khammash, 2010). Yet, a public
complaint voiced online which is adequately resolved (as perceived by the consumer) is
likely to entail an increase in consumer loyalty, satisfaction levels and positive WOM Journal of Enterprise Information
(Hong and Lee, 2005). A satisfactory public company response is therefore not only Management
Vol. 23 No. 5, 2010
crucial in terms of customer retention, but also in the form of increasing corporate pp. 653-660
reputation and brand equity generated by third-party online consumers who read q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0398
about positive complaint resolution and hence may perceive less risk and cognitive DOI 10.1108/17410391011083083
JEIM dissonance (Burton and Khammash, 2010; Hansen et al., 2010). Consequently, this
23,5 research will investigate complaint behaviour from three perspectives:
(1) the company as sender of a complaint response;
(2) the author of the complaint as receiver of the company feedback; and
(3) third-party consumers as observers of this communication dialogue.
654
To explore complaint responses, this paper will adopt the concept of source and
message credibility (Metzger et al., 2003) in order to determine whether complaints are
accepted by the sender and positively received by third parties. “Source credibility” is
here defined as the combined perception of trustworthiness and expertise (Cheung et al.,
2008). “Message credibility” relates to argument/information quality, which will here
be defined by its comprehensiveness, relevance and accuracy. Source and message
credibility are overlapping concepts (Metzger et al., 2003) and taken together determine
perceived “information usefulness (Sussman and Siegal, 2003), which in the context
investigated here will be termed “complaint utility”, (CU) as it defines the perceived
usefulness of a complaint process (Kowalski, 1996).
The core contribution this research adds is thus the use of credibility as a
conceptual framework to explore what type of complaint response induces perceptions
of credibility in the author and how third parties evaluate complaint dialogues with
regards to credibility perception of each party (sender and receiver) involved. With
consideration to the growing importance and impact of virtual community
communication (Watts and Dodds, 2007), negative electronic WOM and rival
company online propaganda (Mayzlin, 2006), online marketers and complaint
managers may be well advised to understand their communication efforts as an
inter-textual, two-way-company-representation with meaning being ultimately
determined by an inter-related online audience (Cheung et al., 2008).

2. Problem statement
This article attempts to explore complaint behaviour and responses from a holistic
perspective beyond examining the act of complaining, subsequent company feedback
or third party readers in isolation but with a focus on their cascading interrelation.
Unlike contemporary online complaint literature seems to imply, the complaint process
and related credibility-perceptions do not end with the act of complaining but continue
with complaint response perceptions and third party observers incorporating an entire
dialogue into their credibility assessment set.
Although researchers have looked at potential online complaint response strategies,
subsequent reader and sender perceptions have not been explored. Whereas Metzger
et al. (2003) promote the credibility benefits of company interference with consumer
opinion statements, Dellarocas (2006) expresses the concern that participation leads to
scepticism and loss of credibility for eWOM communication in general. What,
therefore, determines and enhances the credibility of a company complaint response?
Can complainers’ perceptions of company responses be influenced? And how do third
parties interpret and relate to both complainer and company response?
3. Hypotheses E-business
The central objective of this study is to investigate credibility perceptions of company complaint
complaint responses (i.e. standard, matter-of-fact feedback messages) from the
perspective of the complainer, the company, and third-party observers. Previous management
research has shown that credibility causes informational usefulness perceptions
(Sussman and Siegal, 2003) which in turn encourage consumers to complain as
complaint utility symbolises expectations of success and corporate responsiveness 655
(Kowalski, 1996). In addition, Conlon and Murray (1996) found credibility to impact
positively on consumer complaint reactions. Furthermore, if a complaint response
appears sincere, consumers are more satisfied than they would have been if no
complaint had occurred at all (Hong and Lee, 2005). Based on Cheung et al.’s (2008)
findings, the hypothesis therefore reads as follows:
H1. The more credible (i.e. trustworthy, expert, relevant, comprehensive and
accurate) the complaint response is perceived to be, the higher the complaint
utility for the complainer.
Cheung et al. (2008) further suggest that due to the anonymity of online information
senders, source credibility and accuracy have less impact on the overall information
utility than comprehensiveness and relevance. Accordingly, one may presume that
third-party observers retrieving two credibility statements from a complaint dialogue
will generally perceive the company response to have higher complaint utility: its
identity is known and may entail an assumed expertise (as a manufacturer/seller of the
product concerned) and some form of pre-existing trustworthiness (otherwise the
customer would not have considered a purchase in the first place). Corporate trust was
found to be based on reputation perceptions and to be a determining force in
manifesting online credibility (Corritore et al., 2003). In relation, eWOM researchers
have found that familiarity leads to perceptions of corporate competence and trust
(Harrison-Walker, 2001) whilst anonymity is suggested to negatively influence
credibility perceptions (Brown et al., 2007; Rains, 2007). Hence, the following is
hypothesised:
H2. For third-party observers, company complaint response induces higher
credibility perceptions and complaint utility than the original complaint.
When decoding a message, the reader’s attitude orientation is likely to play a
pre-selecting role in message elaboration likeliness, as noted in the persuasion
psychology literature (e.g. Petty et al., 1983). See et al. (2008) propose that a message
may either be evaluated based on its cognitive (i.e. rational, informational) or affective
(i.e. personal, belief-based) value. Slama et al. (1993) and Chelminski and Coulter (2007)
suggest that complaining can be related to cognitive evaluations (e.g. the need for
uniqueness and opinion-leader status), whilst others highlight complainers’ emotional
involvement (Alicke et al., 1992; Smith et al., 2005). In fact, since the beginning of
complaint behaviour research it is widely accepted that the act of complaining itself
tends to involve both cognitive appraisal processes and emotional elements such as
anger, sadness or guilt (Lazarus, 1993; Stephens and Gwinner, 1998; Soscia, 2007).
The difference in orientation may moderate the receiver’s (here the complainer’s and
the observer’s) credibility judgement regarding the company’s complaint response.
JEIM Consequently, this research will distinguish between two different message decoding
23,5 orientations (MDO):
(1) cognition-based message decoding orientation (CMDO); and
(2) affect-based message decoding orientation (AMDO).

CMDO implies a solution-focused motivation (Metzger et al., 2003), which in the context
656 of the complaint exchange investigated here is likely to enhance credibility and
complaint utility perceptions. AMDO entails a problem-focused motivation which in
this case may lead to persuasion resistance (Metzger et al., 2003) and hence lower
credibility and complaint utility perceptions. Thus, there will be two possible
conditions (see Table I).
In relation, the following is proposed:
H3. Information-oriented (IO) complainers show higher credibility and complaint
utility perceptions than emotion-oriented (EO) complainers.
Since the observer evaluates a complaint dialogue for his/her credibility assessment,
four different conditions are possible (Table II).
As noted in H2, higher source credibility judgements are likely to be induced for the
company due to familiarity-related assumptions. Yet, if the observer’s MDO is matched
by that of the complainer, a moderating effect may occur due to perceived likeness
effects (Metzger, 2007). Hilligoss and Rieh (2007) suggest that credibility judgements
may either be based on heuristics such as source familiarity or interaction effects such
as evoked emotions. In relation, Park and Kim (2008) suggest that cognitive fit theory
– i.e. matching an information type with an information processing (i.e. decoding)
strategy – leads to stronger persuasive effects. In cases where the message orientation
is not congruent, a negative bias effect may lead to an enhanced credibility assessment
of the company’s response (or lower credibility assessment of the complainer’s
message). This leads to the following:
H4. Congruency in message orientation between complainer and observer leads to
observers making higher credibility and complaint utility judgements than in
case of message incongruence.

Table I.
MDO conditions of MDO-condition
complainer when
receiving a company Company response AMDO-complainer
response statement Company response CMDO-complainer

Complaint dialogue MDO-condition

Table II.
MDO conditions of third EO-complainer-Company response AMDO-observer
party consumers EO-complainer-Company response CMDO-observer
observing a complaint IO-complainer-Company response AMDO-observer
dialogue IO-complainer-Company response CMDO-observer
4. Research importance E-business
A crucial dilemma for contemporary complaint managers is the anonymity, publicity complaint
and low credibility of e-commerce participants and the internet as medium itself (Hong
and Lee, 2005). By thus experiencing constraint complainer information, an management
empowerment of message content and cues as well as a conspicuous, ongoing and
multiple decoding of the complete complaint communication process, a company’s
credibility represent one of the most important factors in consumer satisfaction 657
perceptions, customer relationship management and corporate image considerations.
The enormous increase in electronic WOM and the inter-textual online environment
necessitates modern marketers actively to guide, if not control, any company-related
information-dissemination processes and official communication channels.
This research contributes to the online complaint management literature by
exploring the perceptions of communication participants and bystanders, i.e. all
potential direct WOM agents. So far, company complaint responses have not been
investigated from such a holistic post-complaint perspective that recognises the
inter-relation of communication dialogue taking place in a public online environment.
The results are expected to indicate crucial determinants of consumers’ credibility
perceptions, the related significance of attitude orientation and effects of complaint
dialogue dynamics on observing third-party consumers. This may significantly
educate current credibility research that has established that high credibility can
moderate persuasion resistance towards company interference in online opinion
forums (Metzger et al., 2003). In relation, attitude-orientation has long been recognised
by persuasion psychologist to crucially impact on consumer information adoption and
search processes, identity-enactment and corporate image perceptions for instance
(Petty et al., 1983). Moreover, effective attitude-communication observed by third-party
consumers (i.e. opinion seekers) may lead to positive WOM and purchase intention
cascade effects in online opinion forums (Watts and Dodds, 2007).
The resulting concept of complaint utility may act as an indicator of successful
complaint management, which so far has been grossly neglected. In relation, marketing
managers may gain insights as to what extent e WOM credibility should be linked to
complaint response communication in order coherently to reflect desired corporate
credibility and brand equity perceptions. Additionally, retail management may gain
insights into the extent to which interactive communication power should be left to
their suppliers by allowing them to respond to complainers via the retailer’s website.

5. Conclusions
Considering the significant benefits of satisfactory complaint responses and positive
online credibility perceptions, the credibility measurements and complaint utility
perceptions promoted in this research are expected to reveal that distinct (i.e. cognitive
or affective) and carefully configured (including sender and receiver perspectives)
complaint response messages are necessary for successful online corporate image
management. Further research may investigate how pre-existing corporate reputation
perceptions (Metzger et al., 2003) and prior knowledge (Sussman and Siegal, 2003) of
participating consumers may influence credibility assessments. This research’s results
will also require further verification across different product categories, cultures and
online platforms. Finally, future research may investigate an adaptation of the
JEIM company complaint response, i.e. offering two different responses based on each type
23,5 of attitude-orientation, which was not taken into account in the standardised complaint
response message.

References
658 Alicke, M.D., Braun, J.C., Glor, J.E., Klotz, M.L., Magee, J., Sederhoim, H. and Siegel, R. (1992),
“Complaining behaviour in social interaction”, Personality and Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 286-95.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.J. and Lee, N. (2007), “Word of mouth communication within online
communities: conceptualizing the online social network”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20.
Burton, J. and Khammash, M. (2010), “Why do people read reviews posted on consumer-opinion
portals?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 230-55.
Chelminski, P. and Coulter, R. (2007), “The effects of cultural individualism and self-confidence
on propensity to voice: from theory to measurement to practice”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 94-118.
Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O. and Rabjohn, N. (2008), “The impact of electronic word of mouth”,
Internet Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 229-47.
Conlon, D.E. and Murray, N.M. (1996), “Customer perceptions of corporate responses to product
complaints: the role of explanations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 1040-56.
Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B. and Wiedenbeck, S. (2003), “Online trust: concepts, evolving themes, a
model”, International Journal of Human-computer Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 737-58.
Dellarocas, C. (2006), “Strategic manipulation of internet opinion forums: implications for
consumers and firms”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 1577-93.
Hansen, T., Wilke, R. and Zaichkowsky, J. (2010), “Managing consumer complaints: differences
and similarities among heterogeneous retailers”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 6-23.
Harrison-Walker, J. (2001), “E-complaining: a content analysis of an Internet complaint forum”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 397-412.
Hilligoss, B. and Rieh, S.Y. (2007), “Developing a unifying framework for credibility assessment:
construct, heuristics, and interaction”, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 1467-84.
Hong, J.Y. and Lee, W.N. (2005), “Consumer complaint behaviour in the online environment”,
in Gao, Y. (Ed.), Web Systems Design and Online Consumer Behaviour, Idea Group
Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 90-105.
Kowalski, R.M. (1996), “Complaints and complaining: functions, antecedents, and consequences”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 179-96.
Lazarus, R.S. (1993), “From psychological stress to the emotions: a history of changing outlooks”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-22.
Mayzlin, D. (2006), “Promotional chat on the internet”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25, pp. 155-63.
Metzger, M. (2007), “Making sense of credibility on the web: models for evaluating online
information and recommendations for future research”, Journal of the American Society of
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, pp. 2078-91.
Metzger, M., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R. and McCann, R. (2003), “Credibility in the E-business
21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the
contemporary media environment”, in Kalbfleisch, P. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27, complaint
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 293-335. management
Nyer, P.U. and Gopinath, M. (2005), “Effects of complaining versus negative word of mouth on
subsequent changes in satisfaction: the role of public commitment”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 937-53. 659
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), “Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 135-46.
Rains, S.A. (2007), “The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in
computer-mediated group communication: a test of two competing hypotheses”,
Communication Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 100-25.
See, Y.H.M., Richard, E.P. and Leandre, R.F. (2008), “Affective and cognitive meta-bases of
attitudes: unique effects on information interest and persuasion”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 938-95.
Slama, M., D’Onofrio, M. and Celuch, K. (1993), “Consumer complaint behaviours of market
mavens”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behaviour,
Vol. 6, pp. 176-81.
Smith, D., Menon, S. and Sivakumar, K. (2005), “Online peer and editorial recommendations,
trust, and choice in virtual markets”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 15-37.
Soscia, I. (2007), “Gratitude, delight, or guilt: the role of consumers’ emotions in predicting
postconsumption behaviours”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 871-94.
Stephens, N. and Gwinner, K. (1998), “Why don’t people complain? A cognitive-emotive process
model of consumer complaint behaviour”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 172-89.
Strauss, J. and Hill, D. (2001), “Consumer complaints by e-mail: an exploratory investigation of
corporate responses and customer reactions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sussman, S.W. and Siegal, W.S. (2003), “Informational influence in organizations: an integrated
approach to knowledge adoption”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, pp. 47-65.
Watts, D.J. and Dodds, P.S. (2007), “Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 441-58.

About the authors

Jan Breitsohl is a PhD candidate at Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. He
obtained his first degree in Psychology from Aberystwyth University and completed his MSc in
Business with Consumer Psychology from Bangor University. He was awarded a Bangor
University 125th anniversary scholarship to pursue his PhD in Marketing and Psychology at
Bangor Business School. He has presented his research at international conferences such as
EMAC and IADIS.
Marwan Khammash is a Lecturer at Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor,
UK. He worked in marketing for several years after completing his undergraduate studies. He
earned an MA in Marketing from the University of Nottingham. Thereafter, he obtained his PhD
from the University of Manchester (Manchester Business School), where he also taught
marketing modules. Marwan Khammash was a Visiting Research Scholar at the University of
JEIM Washington, USA, and a Visiting Lecturer at Braunschweig University, Germany. He has
published his research in peer-reviewed academic journals (such as Journal of Marketing
23,5 Management) and has presented his work at international conferences and workshops (such as
INFORMS, EMAC, BAM, ESOMAR and IADIS), where he was also asked to act as a reviewer
and track chair.
Gareth Griffiths is a Senior Lecturer at Bangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor,
UK. He is a specialist in strategic information systems and has held both academic and
660 commercial positions in this area. Over the last ten years he has also been heavily involved in the
development and management of MBA programmes and is an international assessor for the
Association of MBAs (AMBA). He was MBA Programme Director and Head of International
Relations at Aston Business School in Birmingham. Prior to academia he was a Consultancy
Manager with Hewlett Packard. He has taught at business schools in Belgium, Poland, the Czech
Republic and Bulgaria, and is a member of the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School
Advisory Board. Gareth Griffiths is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
gareth.griffiths@bangor.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints