Cross-national analysis of hotel customers attitudes toward complaining and their complaining behaviours

Transcription

1 Tourism Management 27 (2006) Cross-national analysis of hotel customers attitudes toward complaining and their complaining behaviours Atila Yuksel, Ugur K. Kilinc, Fisun Yuksel School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Adnan Menderes University, Candan Tarhan Bulvari No. 6, Kusadasi, Aydin, Turkey Received 8 March 2004; accepted 23 July 2004 Abstract Complaint handling can have a significant effect on customer retention rates and word-of-mouth recommendations. Given their vital role, the majority of previous studies have focused on effective recovery strategies. However, to date only a little research has been carried out to examine whether consumer complaining attitudes and behaviours differ across nations. This study employed the concept of nationality to explore similarities and differences in complaining attitudes and behaviours of hotel customers from Turkey, the Netherlands, Britain and Israel. The research instrument involved a scenario and it was administered to 420 respondents. Results have shown that there are more differences than similarities in complaining behaviours of hotel customers from these countries. A moderate relationship between customers attitudes to the act of complaining and their complaining behaviours was found. Managerial implications of the study are discussed. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Complaint handling; Service recovery; Complaining attitude; Complaining behaviour; Cross-national research 1. Introduction Consumer dissatisfaction and consumer complaining behaviour (CCB) have received growing attention both from the tourism industry and researchers for a number of reasons. Consumer complaints provide destinations/ companies with opportunities to improve their management and marketing programmes so as to enhance customer satisfaction and profitability (Huang, Huang, & Wu, 1996). Ineffective handling of customers complaints increases frustration and dissatisfaction, reinforces negative consumer reactions and harms a marketer s reputation (Hoffman & Chung, 1999; Hart, James, & Earl, 1990; Mattila, 2001). In other words, failure to handle consumers complaints promptly provokes consumers negative word-of-mouth or exit Corresponding author. Tel.: ; fax: address: ayuksel@adu.edu.tr (A. Yuksel). intentions and this can have catastrophic effects on an organisation s business. While consumer complaints in the tourism and hospitality industry have received empirical attention, only a fewcross-national studies have been conducted in this area (Mueller, Palmer, Mack, & McMullan, 2003). Much of the previous complaint research to date has been primarily western in its orientation, with US or European customers as the subject of study (Becker, 2000). Only a fewexamples related to non-western cultures are found in the literature (e.g., Mattila, 2000). Dominant western focus in consumer complaint behaviour research raises questions about the applicability of its findings to other non-western markets. Limited research on CCB in non-western cultures is astonishing, as a large number of international corporations have or are preparing to enter markets with non-western cultures (Liu & McClure, 2001). The questions whether attitudes toward the act of complaining differ across nations, whether customers preferences for service recovery strategies are culture-driven and when /$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: /j.tourman

2 12 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) dissatisfied are customers in countries with non-western cultures (e.g., Turkish) more or less likely to engage in complaining, switching, negative word-of-mouth recommendations, or to seek legal action against the firm than those, especially in the west (e.g., the UK)? still remain relatively underexplored. Answers to such questions have become increasingly timely and critical. 2. Purpose of the study Today tourism and hospitality managers need to knowthe parts of the consumer complaining behaviours that are open to cultural influences in contrast with those that remain stable across cultures. In this study, we employ the concept of nationality to explain similarities and differences in complaining attitudes and behaviours of tourists from Britain, the Netherlands, Israel and Turkey. The reasons for choosing British, Dutch, Israeli and Turkish tourists are two-fold. First, Turkish, British, Dutch and Israeli cultures are quite different from one another and the complaining behaviours of tourists from these cultures may be dissimilar. Turkish culture is distinctive in many respects from most of the Asian and western cultures generally studied in the tourism literature. According to Hofstede s (1980, 1983, 1991) study, large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance, moderate femininity and moderate individualism/collectivism characterise the Turkish culture. Small power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance, high individualism and femininity are the key characteristics of Israeli culture, whereas small power distance, high individualism, weak uncertainty avoidance and femininity are the main features of the Dutch culture (Hofstede, 1983). Small power distance, high individualism, weak uncertainty avoidance and strong masculinity are the major characteristics of British culture (Hofstede, 1983). Significant differences between Dutch and Turkish tourists shopping evaluation have already been reported in the literature (Yuksel, in press). Second, British, Dutch and Israeli tourists and domestic tourists account for a significant share of the tourism market in Turkey (Tourism Ministry, 2001). Moreover, Turkish tourists are developing into an attractive market for European operators, as evidenced by a significant increase in outbound travel from Turkey particularly to European destinations (Kultur ve Turizm Bakanligi, 2003). Understanding complaining attitudes/ behaviours of tourists from different countries may benefit better management of customer relations in a business environment that is becoming ever multinational. The results of the present study have demonstrated that there are more differences than similarities in complaining behaviours of customers with different cultural backgrounds. In contrast, only a fewcrossnational differences appeared in customers attitudes toward complaining. 3. Literature review CCB is generally considered to be a set of multiple responses arising out of purchase dissatisfaction (Singh, 1988, 1990). Several different responses, ranging from doing nothing to taking legal action can result from a dissatisfying encounter (Huang et al., 1996). Complaint responses are generally considered to fall into two broad categories: behavioural and non-behavioural. Behavioural responses consist of any or all customer action that conveys an expression of dissatisfaction (Landon, 1977). Non-behavioural responses, such as when the consumer forgets about a dissatisfying episode and does nothing, are also considered as a legitimate CCB response (Day, Grabricke, Schaetzle, & Stavbach, 1981). Singh (1988) notes this to the extent that some people choose behavioural responses whereas others elect non-behavioural responses in relatively similar dissatisfying episodes. Hirschman (1970) suggested that dissatisfaction could provoke two active negative responses: voice and exit. Exit is the voluntary termination of an exchange relationship while voice is actual communication of the complaint to the service provider (Singh, 1988, p. 94). Loyalty a passive response, merely accepting dissatisfaction in the hope that things will improve in the future is one of the responses a customer has to a service failure (Hirschman, 1970). However, loyalty should not be considered as one-dimensional. Customers may stay with a service provider because they have a high opinion of them and see the service failure as an aberration. Even when a problem is not solved, approximately half of the respondents would remain with the firm (Levesque & McDougall, 2000, p. 22). This may be due to switching costs, lack of perceived differentiation of alternatives, locational constraints on choice, time or money constraints, habit or inertia (Hirschman, 1970). Customers may also stay after a service failure because they are spuriously loyal. That is, they feel trapped, are apathetic or there are no alternatives so they do not leave. Hence, dissatisfied customers may choose to remain with a service provider or they may exit, and this is influenced by howthe situation is handled by the service provider (i.e. the service recovery). Maute and Forrester (1993) found strong support for a three-way classification of dissatisfaction responses based on Hirschman s (1970) exit, voice and loyalty responses (loyalty being the decision to remain with the company despite dissatisfaction). Day and Landon (1977, 1997) extended the notion of voice further by stating that voice can be complaining to the service provider, complaining to acquaintances

3 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) (negative word-of-mouth) or complaining to third parties in order to help seek redress. Using factor analysis techniques (both exploratory and confirmatory), Singh (1988) found empirical support that consumer complaint behaviour could be viewed as falling into one of three categories: voice responses, private responses and third-party responses. Voice responses are directed to objects that are external to the consumer s social circle and are directly involved in the dissatisfying exchange (e.g. seeking redress from the seller); private responses are the responses in which the objects are not external to the consumer s social circle and are not directly involved in the dissatisfying experience (e.g. word-of-mouth communication or exit); and third-party responses include objects that are external to the consumer but not directly involved in the dissatisfying transaction (e.g. reporting to a consumer agency or to taking legal action). Based on categories developed by Singh (1988), Rogers, Ross, and Williams (1992) conceptualised consumer complaint behaviour alternatives as follows: change future behaviour: do not buy the item or patronise the seller in the future; private complaining: warn family and friends about the product or seller; voice complaint: complain to service provider; third party: complain to customer group, take legal action, and do nothing: internalise or ignore the dissatisfaction. Customers may choose to do nothing about their dissatisfaction for a number of reasons. Among the reasons include the assumption that their complaints are unwelcome, that no one will listen to them, that they do not know who to complain and that they have to wait a long time for a response (Barlow, 1996). Recently, Lam and Tang (2003) identified four complaint behaviours: personal and urging, bad-mouthing, complaint to management and publicising. This reviewof literature suggests that complaint options may range from seeking redress to contacting third parties. Potential behavioural and non-behavioural responses that a customer may utilise to deal with his/her dissatisfaction were therefore included in the study. These responses were switching patronage, telling friends and relatives about the experience, telling the experience to other customers, complaining to the service employee, demanding manager s intervention, writing a complaint letter to the company headquarters, complaining to an external agency, continuing to do business with the company and do not complain. 4. Nationality, complaint attitude and behaviour Market segmentation has long been recognised as a useful technique in the tourism and hospitality literature. Market segmentation involves dividing the market into distinct and homogenious groups in terms of geographic, socio-demographic, psychographic and/or behavioural characteristics. Several approaches to defining market segments have been suggested in the literature. Chief among them are nationality, social class, tourist role and benefits sought, with nationality being the most controversial segmentation variable to include (Pizam & Sussmann, 1995). Dann (1993) contends that nationality or country of residence cannot be a sole discriminating variable explaining the differences found in the behaviour of tourists. Others however argue that nationality may have a moderating or intervening impact on tourist behaviour and nationality would add significantly to one s understanding of tourist behaviour if properly controlled and/or used with other variables is a common appreciation (Pizam & Sussmann, 1995). The debate as to the relevance of nationality for market segmentation and of understanding cross-cultural differences centres on the issue as to whether or not there is a long-term global trend towards homogenisation or differentiation in cultures (Mykletun, Crotts, & Mykletun, 2001). Some argue that economic convergence associated with the formation of the European Union (EU) has made nationality a less than useful segmentation construct (Wizhard, 1999, in Mykletun et al., 2001). However, many researchers have stated that this is wishful thinking. Their view seems to have been supported by cross-cultural studies, which have shown significant differences in consumers spending patterns, values and lifestyles among EU countries (Wierenga, Pruyn, & Waarts, 1996, in Mykletun et al., 2001). According to previous studies, cross-national differences exist and these can be observed and recorded, and differences have a significant impact on the behaviour of both consumers and marketing decision makers. Previous tourism and hospitality studies have shown that travellers from different countries may have different preferences and expectations for tourism and hospitality services. Significant differences were reported particularly between western and Asian cultures in their destination choice behaviour (Kim & Lee, 2000; Muller, 1991, 1989; McClellan & Foushee, 1983; Summers & McColl-Kennedy, 1998; You, O Leary, Morrison, & Hong, 2000), information search behaviour (Chen & Gursoy, 2000; Sussmann & Rashcovsky, 1997; Uysal, McDonald & Reid, 1990), expectations of services (Armstrong, Mok, Go & Chan, 1997; Becker, Murrmann, Murrmann & Cheung, 1999; McCleary, Choi, & Weaver, 1998; Mok & Armstrong, 1998; Reisinger & Turner, 1998), and perceptions and evaluation of services (Mattila, 2000; Yuksel, in press). Research of Mok and Armstrong (1998) demonstrates that tourists from the UK, USA, Australia, Japan and Taiwan have dissimilar expectations for hotel services. In their study, two of the service quality dimensions tangibles and empathy were significantly different among the five

4 14 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) tourist groups. They suggest that special arrangements may be needed to cater for the specific needs of customers from different cultures. The study of Armstrong et al. (1997) reached a similar conclusion that customer expectations for hotels might be culture-bound rather than culture-free. McCleary et al. (1998) identified significant differences between Korean and US business travellers in the importance placed on specific hotel characteristics. Reisinger and Turner (1998) found that interaction between culturally different Korean tourists and Australian providers was influenced by the differences in their cultural background. Interaction difficulties were induced by the differences in communication style, expressing feelings, establishing relationships and value attitudes. Their study concluded that tourism service providers should undertake cultural awareness training programmes to learn the principles of cross-cultural interaction and communication. The results in Becker et al. s (1999) study provided an overwhelming support for their research hypothesis that customers expectations for restaurant services would differ as a function of cultural orientation. Mattila s (2000) recent study in the hospitality area provides strong support that customers evaluations of service encounters might be culturally bound. She found that Asian travellers gave lower ratings to the service provider. Yuksel (in press) identified significant differences among Turkish, Dutch and Yugoslavian tourists evaluation of their shopping experiences on holiday. Chadee and Mattsson (1996) identified cross-cultural differences when measuring customer satisfaction. Compared to Europeans, Asian respondents were found to derive lower levels of satisfaction from eating out experiences, sightseeing tour and accommodation. The managerial implication of such divergence is of great importance. Hospitality and tourism organisations might benefit from providing cultural training for their customer-contact employees (Mattila, 2000). In summation, these studies suggest that the behaviour of members of the same culture might be predicted to a certain extent (Sussmann & Rashcovsky, 1997). Almost everyone in the tourism and hospitality industry recognises that there might be differences among cultures in what are important to them in destination/hotel selection, activities preferred, interests, expectations and needs. However, very little crossnational research has been undertaken to date to explore the potential influence of culture on customers service recovery evaluations and complaint behaviour. Differences in cultural background may explain why hospitality and tourism customers experience varying degrees of (dis)satisfaction from the same service failure/ recovery experience. Some researchers have argued that differences in power distance, long-term orientation, individualism collectivism, masculinity femininity and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1991) or differences in communication pattern (lowand high context cultures) (Hall, 1969) might be associated with a difference in consumer complaining behaviour. According to Hall, in a high context culture (most Asian cultures), individuals use an implicit way of communication they do not need to explain too much to each other while they behave in a certain way. In low context culture (most western cultures), people use more direct verbal expression in their communication. According to Hofstede (1991), Asian populations tend to score high in power distance and showlowuncertainty avoidance with masculinity and collectivism characteristics. However, Anglo-Saxon societies score lowin power distance and have a high score with masculinity and individualism characteristics. Power distance refers to the amount of respect and deference between those in superior and subordinate positions. In a high-power distance culture, society values obedience, conformity, authority and supervision. In contrast, in a low-power distance culture, society believes that people are equal, and values independence and competition (Reisinger & Turner, 1998). Cultures scoring high on power distance have higher expectations for service (Crotts & Pizam, 2003, in Mueller et al., 2003, p. 402) and report higher satisfaction when the company apologises and/or when people in authority interact during the recovery process (Pasongsukarn & Patterson, 2001, in Mueller et al., 2003, p. 402). Huang et al. (1996) posit that hotel guests from a country with larger power distance are likely to perceive unsatisfactory goods and services as a fact of life and are less prone to complain. Thus, the larger the power distance in a country, the more likely consumers from the country are to take no action. Masculinity femininity is defined as the relative emphasis on the achievement and interpersonal harmony which characterizes gender differences in some national cultures. Masculinity is defined as a situation in which the dominant values in society are success, money and material. Femininity is defined as a situation in which the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. High masculinity cultures are more likely to report dissatisfaction (Crotts & Erdmann, 2002, in Mueller et al., 2003, p. 402). Hotel guests from a society with a high masculinity score are more likely to want to get things straight, resulting in more complaints to the management and third parties. On the contrary, hotel guests from a society with a low-masculinity score are less likely to complain (Huang et al., 1996). Individualism collectivism is about whether one s identity is defined by personal choices and achievements or by the character of the collective groups to which one is more or less permanently attached. The basic societal issue to which it relates is the individual s dependence on the group; his or her self-concept as I or we. In other words, in an individualist society, everyone is

5 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) expected to take care of himself or herself, whereas in a collectivist society strong family and extended family ties exist. Customers from an individualistic society are expected to complain to the hotel or to a third party more than individuals from a collectivist society, who are more likely to warn friends and relatives (Huang et al., 1996). Limited research carried out in cross-cultural complaint behaviour demonstrates that key differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures may exist. Collectivist cultures find it difficult to voice complaints and place higher value on organizationinitiated recovery (Pasongsukarn & Patterson, 2001, in Mueller et al., 2003, p. 402) and customers from individualist countries will expect a more personalised service (Stauss & Mang, 1999, in Mueller et al., 2003, p. 402). When dissatisfied, customers in an individualistic culture are more likely to voice their complaints than those in a collectivist culture; moreover, customers in a collectivist culture are more likely to express private responses than those in an individualistic culture (Liu & McClure, 2001, p. 57). Using cross-cultural data, Liu and McClure (2001) identified that consumers in a collectivist culture (south Korean) were less likely to engage in voice behaviour but were more likely to engage in private behaviour than those in an individualistic culture (American). Individualism collectivism is found to relate to justice perception and post-complaint behaviours of customers in a complaint situation. Hui and Au (2001) reported that Canadians, who are individualist, perceive a higher level of fairness and indicated more favourable post-complaint behaviours than did Chinese, who are collectivists. Huang et al. (1996) found a significant relationship between national character and the type of complaining behaviour in which guests intended to engage. American respondents were more likely to stop patronising the hotel, complain to the hotel management, and warn family and friends than Japanese respondents were. Japanese respondents were more likely to take no action in response to unsatisfactory service (Huang et al., 1996). 5. Attitude toward complaining This reviewsuggests that dissatisfied customers from different countries may engage in specific complaint behaviour(s) and this is probably based on a complex decision-making process, which includes expectancy of outcomes, costs and benefits involved, attributions of blame, and attitude towards the act of complaining (Day, 1984; Singh & Widing, 1991). Attitude toward complaining is defined as the personal tendency of dissatisfied consumers to seek compensation from the firm (Richins, 1980). This attitude is conceptualised as the overall affect of the goodness or badness of complaining to sellers and is not specific to a specific episode of dissatisfaction (Singh & Widing, 1991). Hirschman (1970) posited that voice behaviour is partly dependent on the ability and willingness of the consumer to complain. Consumers with positive attitudes toward complaining, compared with those who are reluctant to seek redress, are expected to be less likely to engage in negative intention and behaviour, such as negative word-of-mouth communication and exit (Day & Landon, 1976). Thus, those consumers who have a more favourable attitude toward complaining are expected to be more likely to express their complaint intention to the firm. Blodgett, Hill, and Tax (1997), in their discussion of the empirical evidence on attitude to complaining, found that consumers who have a favourable attitude to complaining will be more likely to seek redress from a retailer. These authors also posited that consumers who are averse to seeking redress will instead just silently exit and/or engage in negative word-of-mouth behaviour. Kim, Kim, Im, and Shin (2003) found empirical support for their hypothesis that complaint intention is positively influenced by increases in favourable attitudes toward complaining. Some of the negative attitudes that prevent people from complaining could be culture related (i.e., propensity to complain, fear of confrontation, losing face, etc.). Some customers with a specific cultural background may believe that complaining is a necessary, worthwhile and important function of consumerism, others may not. Given the probable relationship between consumer attitudes and behaviours, understanding differences between cultures in their attitudes to complaining is managerially important in order to design actions to impact on consumers tendency to complain directly to the organisation instead of elsewhere (Davidow & Dacin, 1997, in Kim et al., 2003). The reviewed literature illustrates that tourists from different countries may have different attitudes and display dis/similar complaint behaviours. The preceding discussion leads to the propositions that: P1: There will be differences in the complaining attitudes of hotel customers from Turkey, Britain, the Netherlands and Israel. P2: The number of attitudinal differences toward complaining will be greater than the number of similarities. P3: The more favourable the attitude toward complaining, the lower the exit behaviour. P4: There will be differences in the complaining behaviour of hotel customers from Turkey, Britain, the Netherlands and Israel. P5: The number of behavioural differences in unsatisfactory service recovery episodes will be greater than the number of similarities.

6 16 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) Research instrument Table 1 Details of the scenario At the busiest time of the summer season, you made a reservation for a hotel that is part of a domestic hotel chain. You have decided to spend a short vacation at this hotel because it offers many features including a health club, swimming pool, quality restaurants and a reputation for giving a special attention to its guests. When you arrived at 5 p.m. you found that the room would not be available for another day due to a registration mistake. However you received a confirmation number for your reservation with a 3 p.m. check-in time. When you speak to the receptionist about this The receptionist said: I am very sorry for the inconvenience, but there is nothing I can do to help. If you want you may see the manager (A) Please indicate howyou would react to this responsey Complain to the staff Demand immediate and active involvement of a manager Write a complain letter to the headquarters Talk to other customers about the problem Complain to an external agency (travel agency, consumer group, etc.) about the problem Do not complain I would come to this hotel in the future I would recommend this hotel to my friends/relatives Switch to another hotel in the future Each statement was followed by five-point (where 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree) Likert scales (B) This section is designed to measure your attitude towards complaining. Please tick the number that best describes what you think of each statement. Complaining is customers right, not an obligation I always complain when I am dissatisfied because I feel it my duty Complaining is not easy, but it should be done when things are not right For me, complaining usually makes me more frustrated Complaining about anything is distasteful to me People who have little else to do are the ones who complain the most I am embarrassed to complain no matter howbad the product/service was I always feel better once I voice my dissatisfactions through a complaint Each statement was followed by five-point (where 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree) Likert scales The study reported here was one component of a larger project on service failure issues in the hospitality sector. Based on previous studies examining frequent failures in the hospitality industry (McDougall & Levesque, 1999; Yuksel & Kilinc, 2003), the researchers developed a scenario involving a core service failure. The use of core service failure is justified because when asked about to identify service encounters that resulted in quite dissatisfying experiences, customers frequently mentioned core service failures (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990; Kelley, Hoffman, & Davis, 1993). Core service failures are situations where the customer does not receive the basic service promised by the service provider (Levesque & McDougall, 2000). Core service failures, which include lost hotel reservations, were a major reason for customers switching service providers (Keaveney, 1995). Thus, core service failures are relatively serious and customers expect the service provider to rectify the problem (Hart et al., 1990). The use of a scenario is justifiable because this method avoids the problem of intentionally imposing service failures on customers and it minimises memory-bias, which is common in self-reports of service failures (Smith et al., 1999). Mattila (2001) tested the impact of different relationship types on consumers behavioural intentions following a service failure using scenariobased experimental models. The survey was conducted with 700 conveniently selected participants in two locations. Questionnaires were distributed to 500 conveniently selected Turkish, Dutch, British and Israeli tourists staying at hotels situated in Bodrum, Kusadasi and Antalya, and to conveniently selected 200 international tourists at the departure lounge of an international airport. Participants were exposed to a written scenario describing a service failure within the context of lost hotel reservation. The details of the scenario are presented in Table 1. The questionnaire consisted of three sections and it was written in Turkish and English. The questionnaire instructions asked respondents to assume that the situation (scenario) had just happened to them. More specifically, participants attitudes to complaining were measured by eight statements derived from Day (1984), Kim et al. (2003) and Singh & Widing s studies (1991). Participants were required to indicate their level of agreement disagreement with such statements as complaining is customers right not an obligation, complaining about anything is distasteful to me and I am embarrassed to complain no matter howbad the product/service was. Respondents were instructed to indicate their likely behaviour in three different service recovery conditions. Based on different empowerment levels of the frontline employee (none, partial and full), no recovery, assistance, and compensation and assistance the most common and frequently used service recovery strategies reported in the literature (McDougall & Levesque, 1998) were included in the study. Assistance involves action taken to resolve the problem, whereas compensation involves monetary payments for the inconvenience the customer has experienced (McDougall & Levesque, 1999). For this investigation, the primary focus was on the most dissatisfying strategy. Hence, tourists likely complaining behaviour when no recovery was offered by a service provider was examined. No recovery was operationalised as the employee saying: I am sorry for the inconvenience

7 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) but there is nothing I can do to help you. If you want you may see the manager. Customer complaint behaviours were collected from published research reports (Huang et al., 1996; Levesque & McDougall, 2000; Rogers et al., 1992; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996) to measure the diversity of the consumer complaint behaviour construct. These are the behaviours that customers are likely to engage in when they encounter service problems (Hirschman, 1970; Singh, 1988). Following a pre-test with a convenience sample of respondents, a revised scale of nine items was developed to measure respondents likelihood of engaging in switching to another service provider, continuing to do business with the hotel in the future, complaining to the service provider, demanding manager intervention, recommending it to friends and relatives, telling other customers about the problem, telling external agencies and do not complain. A single satisfaction measure assessed respondents satisfaction level with each recovery strategy. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert-type scale to measure responses (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). 7. Data analysis Frequency distribution of the variables was conducted in order to identify the respondents profile, and compute means and standard deviations for each complaint attitude and behaviour variable. A series of one-way ANOVA tests, coupled with post hoc multiple comparisons, were carried out to determine which of the nationality group means were significantly different from each. A series of w 2 tests were conducted in order to assess the nature of any demographic difference among four nationalities. Factor analyses were employed to determine whether the information on attitude and behaviour scales can be summarised into a smaller set of factors. The factor model used was principal component analysis and the method of extraction was orthogonal. The factors were rotated using the Varimax technique. The minimum eigenvalue was set at 1.0 and minimum factor loadings reached Results and discussion There were 420 usable questionnaires. This represents a response rate of 60% (420 of 700). Twenty-nine percent (N ¼ 125) of the respondents were Turkish, 24% (N ¼ 102) were Dutch, 23% (N ¼ 98) were Israeli, and 22% (N ¼ 95) were British. Fifty-three percent of the respondents were male and the mean age was 32 years old. Thirty-five percent of the respondents were married. Overall, respondents considered the scenario as being realistic (a ¼ 4:03) and they indicated that such a failure would annoy them significantly (a ¼ 3:96). The problem depicted in the scenario was found to be important (a ¼ 4:02). w 2 tests revealed that there were no significant differences among the four nationalities in terms of their gender (w 2 ¼ 1:261; p ¼ :738), marital status (w 2 ¼ 1:309; p ¼ :788) and age (w 2 ¼ 13:809; p ¼ :129). Thus, differences identified in the analysis can be attributed to differences in nationality. Results of the analyses are shown in the following tables. 9. Attitudes toward complaining and complaint behaviour The factor analysis run on the attitude scale employed in the study extracted two factors (Table 2), which accounted for 51% of the total variance. Based on its composites, the first factor was labelled as negative attitude to complaining, and the second was named as propensity to complaining. The comparison of overall mean scores on propensity to complaining (mean=3.71) and negative attitude to complaining (mean=2.9) suggests that Turkish, British, Israeli and Dutch tourists sampled in this study had a relatively favourable attitude to complaining. This suggests that in the case of a service failure, tourists from these nationalities are likely to seek redress. An additional principal component factor analysis was run to determine whether nine complaining behaviours measured in this study could be represented by a smaller set of dimensions (Table 3). Similar to Hirschman s classification, the analysis revealed that consumer complaining behaviours could be represented by three factors. These dimensions explained 61% of the total variance. The first dimension consisted of complaining to staff, demanding manager s intervention, writing a complaint letter, telling it to other customers and seeking external agency help. The second dimension comprised recommending to friends and relatives visiting the organisation in the future. The final factor consisted of switching to another organisation and not complaining. Hence, the first factor was labelled voice. Loyalty was chosen to represent the second factor and the third factor was called switch. 10. Relationship between attitudes and behaviour The results of correlation analyses between attitudes and complaining behaviours suggest that there is a statistically significant relationship between propensity to complain and voice behaviour (Table 4). There is also a statistically significant relationship between negative attitude to complaining and switch behaviour (Table 4). This confirms the third proposition of the study, which

8 18 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) Table 2 Dimensions of attitudes toward complaining Negative attitude to complaining Propensity to complain Complaining is customers right, not an obligation.644 I always complain when I am dissatisfied because I feel it my duty.701 Complaining is not easy, but it should be done when things are not right.719 I always feel better once I voice my dissatisfaction through a complaint.623 Complaining about anything is distasteful to me.693 People who have little else to do are the ones who complain the most.719 I am embarrassed to complain no matter howbad the product/service was.815 For me, complaining usually makes me more frustrated.672 Cronbach alpha value Eigenvalue Variance explained Table 3 Dimensions of consumer complaining behaviour Voice Loyalty Switch Complain to staff.601 Manager s intervention.682 Written complaint.750 Tell it to other customers.551 Tell it to third parties.537 Revisit this organization in the future.843 Recommend it to others.835 Do not complain.726 Switch to another organization.851 Cronbach alpha value Eigenvalue Total variance explained: 60.8 suggests that the more favourable the attitude toward complaining, the lower the switch behaviour. In contrast to our expectations stated in the second proposition, there were more similarities than differences in attitudes to complaining among the nationalities. One-way ANOVA tests identified only two significant differences among four nationalities attitudes toward complaining (Table 5). Respondents differed on I always complain when I am dissatisfied because I feel it my duty and I always feel better once I voice my dissatisfaction through a complaint. It appears that compared to Israeli tourists, whose culture features strong individualism, Turkish tourists may feel sad once they voice their dissatisfaction through a complaint. This can be explained by cultural differences in the individualism/ collectivism dimension. Coming from a moderate collectivist and feminine society, where caring for others is much appreciated, Turkish tourists may consider that their complaint may harm the employee in some way. One-way ANOVA tests have shown significant differences in six of the nine complaint behaviours among four nations (po:05) (Table 6). The fourth and fifth propositions of the study are thus confirmed. Respondents did not differ in their loyalty behaviour but they differed in their switch behaviour. Respondents also differed significantly in their voice behaviour. More specifically, British, Dutch, Israeli and Turkish tourists likelihood of voicing their dissatisfaction to the staff, demanding intervention of a manager and writing a complaint letter to the company headquarters was significantly different (F ¼ 3:92; po:05; F ¼ 3:11; po:05 and F ¼ 3:65; po:05; respectively). To control for Type I error, least significant differences (LSD) tests were employed and these tests revealed that British tourists were more likely to voice their dissatisfaction to staff than Dutch tourists (Table 6). This may be due to the wider use of the English language. Turkish tourists were the second group with the highest rating on communicating their dissatisfaction with staff and demanding manager interventions. British tourists were more likely to talk to a supervisor for the resolution of the problem than Dutch and Israeli tourists. Dutch and Israeli tourists were however more likely to demand manager interventions than to communicate their dissatisfaction with staff. Thus, the assumption that only cultures scoring high on power distance will be satisfied when people in authority interact during the service recovery process needs further examination. Verbal complaints to staff and managers should be taken very seriously. The consumer should not be denied voicing their dissatisfaction. By voicing their complaint to the staff or managers, the consumer indicates a wish to remain with the company rather than choose the exit option. As they are likely to be more satisfied if they have the opportunity to express feelings and emotions, the voicing consumers should not experience a frustration effect. That is, voicing should result in positive outcomes. One should remember that once a customer lodges a complaint, the original transaction may become less relevant to the consumer s ultimate satisfaction than events that followthe complaint (Goodwin & Ross,

9 Table 4 Correlation analyses between complaining attitudes and behaviours Voice Loyalty Switch Complaining is customers right, not an obligation I always complain when I am dissatisfied because I feel it my duty.205** Complaining is not easy, but it should be done when things are not right.222** I always feel better once I voice my dissatisfaction through a complaint.298** Complaining about anything is distasteful to me People who have little else to do are the ones who complain the most I am embarrassed to complain no matter howbad the product/service was **.083 For me, complaining usually makes me more frustrated **.284** **Correlation is significant at the.01 level (two-tailed). A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) ). Managers are encouraged to empower their employees since when a service failure occurs, customers would expect immediate and active corrective action. Failure to act relatively quickly and actively will lead to a deterioration of consumer perceptions of the service encounter (Boshoff & Leong, 1998). Asking the guest to wait while staff calls for the manager or other strategies is likely to prolong the response time and unexplained waiting may aggravate the situation. Hence, employees must be empowered to take the necessary action to resolve problems on the spot. Additionally, empowering staff to make decisions on the spot, without seeking approval of a supervisor, will give managers more time to deal with other organisational matters (Yuksel & Kilinc, 2003). As evidenced by high scores in this study, respondents tend to desire a manager s direct involvement in the recovery process. This specific result might be due to the recovery strategy apology only used in the scenario. Some customers however may not feel that the service personnel can handle the complaint better than a manager could. High demand for active involvement of managers in the resolution of a problem may also be related to customers culture. It may be related to the extent of consumerism and sophistication, or previous similar experiences, particularly in which staff could not solve the problem due to a lack of power. Results demonstrated that hotel customers from Britain, the Netherlands, Israel and Turkey tended to differ significantly in demanding intervention of a manager for the resolution of a problem during a dissatisfying recovery encounter (F ¼ 3:112; po:05). British and Turkish tourists gave the highest ratings. Several explanations can be offered. For example, active manager involvement may convey to the British and Turkish customers that a problem has been recognised and that steps will be taken to ensure that the problem does not recur in the future (Hoffman & Chung, 1999). In effect, management s involvement closes the loop by demonstrating to customers that their complaints will be used as a feedback to develop more efficient delivery systems and that the customer s willingness to express an opinion will make a difference in the firm s future operations (Hoffman & Chung, 1999, p. 81). While management s involvement may enhance the perceived value of the customers suggestions, if the manager is occupied with another customer, it is likely that the customer may viewthis as a service failure (i.e., s/he is made to wait longer than necessary). The managers should develop an approach to respond to complaints cost-effectively, without further alienating the customer. Results have shown that tourists from these countries are not only likely to engage in direct voicing but also indirect means through complaint letters. Compared to Israeli and Turkish customers, the British tourists likelihood of writing a complaint letter to the company headquarters was relatively high (F ¼ 3:654; po:05). Writing a letter to company headquarters about the experience or taking legal action against the firm may be taken as being less confrontational. It may be seen as a way to ensure financial compensation. Results demonstrate that compared to Turkish and British tourists, Dutch and Israeli tourists indicated that they were unlikely to ignore the problem (F ¼ 25:638; po:05). It appears that Israeli and Dutch tourists are unlikely to forget the incident and do not complain, with a mean value of 1.57 for Israelis, 1.76 for Dutch, and a p value of.000. This means that customers from these countries will do something about the dissatisfying experience and engage in switch and will not just let it go. Different from the other nationalities, Turkish tourists together with British tourists scored relatively high in their likelihood of taking legal action (F ¼ 6:184; po:05). Their high scores on third-party behaviour suggest that British and Turkish tourists are keen to go through third parties for the problem. Given the high increase (25% between 1994 and 1998) in British tourists complaining to ABTA for claiming compensation, this is not a surprising finding. There might be other reasons for seeking external help. Previous research suggests that not all dissatisfied

10 20 A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) Table 5 Differences and similarities in the complaining attitudes Nationality Mean scores Std. dev Grand mean F Sig. Propensity to complaining Complaining is customers right, not an obligation British Dutch Israeli Turkish I always complain when I am dissatisfied because I feel it my duty British 3.89 a Dutch 3.24 b.94 a bo.05* Israeli 3.30 c 1.22 a co.05 Turkish 3.81 d 1.02 a do.05* b co.05 b do.05* c do.05* Complaining is not easy, but it should be done when things are not right British Dutch Israeli Turkish I always feel better once I voice my dissatisfaction through a complaint British 3.22 a b 1.14 a b c 1.16 a c d 1.32 a d4.05 b c4.05 b d4.05 c do.05* Negative attitude to complaining For me, complaining usually makes me more frustrated British Dutch Israeli Turkish Complaining about anything is distasteful to me British Dutch Israeli Turkish People who have little else to do are the ones who complain the most British Dutch Israeli Turkish I am embarrassed to complain no matter howbad the product/service was British Dutch Israeli Turkish Dutch 3.06 b 1.14 Israeli 3.43 c 1.16 Turkish 2.64 d 1.32 Five-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree). *Significant at the 0.01 level. customers come forward to the service provider with their complaint. The major factor that determines whether a person seeks redress is the perceived likelihood of success, and that even consumers who would otherwise exit are more likely to seek redress if it is clear that the seller is willing to remedy the problem (Blodgett et al., 1997). Considering that resolution of complaints involving an external agency would be more costly, it is important for service organisations to create an atmosphere that encourages dissatisfied British and Turkish customers to seek redress while they are at the hotel. While there was no significant difference among the four nationalities, Dutch visitors scored high on being unlikely to visit the hotel in the future because of the inconvenience caused by the failure. It appears that Israeli tourists are less likely to recommend it to their friend and relatives than British tourists. This finding

11 Table 6 Differences and similarities in complaining behaviours Nationality Mean Score Std. Dev Grand mean F Sig. Voice Complain to staff British a Dutch b a bo.05* Israeli c a c4.05 Turkish d a d4.05 b co.05* b do.05* c d4.05 Manager s intervention British a Dutch b a bo.05* Israeli c a c4.05 Turkish d a d4.05 b c4.05 b do.05* c d4.05 Write a complaint letter British a Dutch b a bo.05* Israeli c a c4.05 Turkish d a do.05* b c4.05 b d4.05 c d4.05 Tell it to other customers British Dutch Israeli Turkish Tell it to third parties British a Dutch b a b4.05 Israeli c a c4.05 Turkish d a do.05* b c4.05 b do.05* c do.05* Switch Do not complain British a Dutch b a bo.05* Israeli c a co.05* Turkish d a d4.05 b c4.05 b d4.05 c do.05* Switch to another organization British a Dutch b a b4.05 Israeli c a c4.05 Turkish d a do.05* b c4.05 b do.05* c do.05* Loyalty Visit hotel in the future British Dutch Israeli Turkish Recommend it to others British Dutch Israeli Turkish Five-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree). *Significant at the 0.01 level. A. Yuksel et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006)