customer response to dissatisfaction

Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Customer response to dissatisfaction: A synthesis of literature andconceptual framework

Jodie L. Ferguson a,⁎, Wesley J. Johnston b,1

a Department of Marketing, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284-4000, United Statesb Center for Business and Industrial Marketing, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3991, Atlanta, GA 30302-3991, United States

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 804 828 3201; fax:E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.L. Ferguson)

(W.J. Johnston).1 Tel.: +995 404 413 7851.

0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.05.002

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 3 October 2008Received in revised form 7 April 2010Accepted 13 April 2010

Keywords:Customer dissatisfactionExitResponse behaviorWord-of-mouthVoice

Business-to-business customers who are dissatisfied with services or products may respond by voicingcomplaints, by exiting the transaction relationships, by spreading negative word-of-mouth (WOM) abouttheir experiences, and/or by continuing the transactional relationships as they are. The authors synthesizeextant customer (dis)satisfaction response behaviors in the organizational buyer behavior literature, anddiscuss within-firm and third-party recipients of voicing and negative WOM. A model of customer responsebehavior is disclosed featuring possible influences of exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM: number ofalternative suppliers, past complaint response behavior, number of years in relationship, and type ofpurchase. Propositions are provided on the effects of influence variables on response behavior relationships.

+1 804 828 0200., [email protected]

l rights reserved.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In Sheth's (1973) general model of industrial buying behavior, hesuggested that consumers' satisfaction with past buying experiencesinfluences their future purchase decisions. Similarly, their dissatis-faction with their past buying experiences should also influence theirfuture purchase decisions. Unlike satisfaction, however, dissatisfac-tion has the potential to cause negative future decisions, not simplyfuture purchase decisions such as declining to repurchase, but alsodecisions to complain and to spread negative word-of-mouth (WOM)that will damage the business or reputation of the offending provideror supplier.

Suppliers have a great stake in lessening such harm by under-standing dissatisfied customers' potential responses and understand-ing what factors cause them to respond in certain ways. Companiesmust be aware that dissatisfied customers may wreak damagedepending on the behavior they choose in responding to dissatisfac-tion. They may simply complain about their dissatisfaction, or theymight terminate the transaction relationship, severing future reven-ues, dissolving the company's relational investment, and costing thecompany dissolution expenses, sanctions for future business, and set-up outlays to establish new relationships (Tahtinen & Vaaland, 2006).

Negative WOM is one extreme hazard with far-reaching con-sequences. Money, Gilly, and Graham (1998) demonstrated thatcurrent customers responding to dissatisfactory experiences mayspread negative WOM to a supplier's existing and potential

customers. Negative WOM may cause the supplier to lose credibilityor suffer a tarnished reputation, which can mean substantial revenueloss from multiple sources. With the proliferation of the Internet,negative WOM on trade organization websites could blanket theentire industry, potentially crippling the supplier. Bonoma, Zaltmanand Johnston (1977)) reported that firms rely on WOM communica-tion within firms to make buying decisions. Negative WOM can notonly ruin the supplier's reputation for the buying center involved, butcan spread to other buying centers within the firm, causing lostrevenues for the supplier in other departments.

In this paper, the authors strive to accomplish the followingobjectives: (1) to define business customer dissatisfaction with apurchase experience, (2) to synthesize the extant research on businesscustomer (dis)satisfaction and subsequent behavioral responses todissatisfaction, (3) to provide a conceptual framework for examiningbusiness customer dissatisfaction response behavior, (4) to explore thepotential recipients of complaining and negativeWOM in a business-to-business context, (5) to proposition potential influences on the businesscustomer dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship, and (6) tosuggest propensities for individual members of buying centers toengage in response behaviors.

1. Business customer (dis)satisfaction

As the role of the business relationship and focus on the customerhas come to the foreground, the business-to-business literature haspaid increasing attention to customer satisfaction (see Emerson &Grimm, 1999; Tikkanen & Alajoutsijarvi, 2002; Tikkanen, Alajoutsi-jarvi, & Tahtinen, 2000). The satisfaction literature derives its concept

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.05.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00198501

Table 1Summary of business-to-business research relevant to (dis)satisfaction and response behaviors.

Author(s) Variables involved Outcomes and responses behaviors Key findings

Backhaus and Bauer (2000) Presence of critical incidents,satisfaction

• Critical incidents impact satisfactionformation.

Barksdale, Powell, and Hargrove(1984)

Purchase price, number ofsuppliers, types of purchase,relationship with supplier

Voicing (complaining) • Conjoint analysis shows that purchasersfall into three categories for decidingindustrial complaining behavior: somedo not use consistent rules, some use asingle rule (e.g., price), and some use priceand number of suppliers.

Blois (2008) Business-to-business exchanges Exit, voice, and loyalty, andfinancial implications toresponse behaviors

• Hirschman's (1970) model of customerresponse behavior is applied to business-to-business markets from an IMP perspective.

• Exploration of financial implications toresponse behaviors.

Emerson and Grimm (1999) Satisfaction, firm, and environmentalvariables

Loyalty • Product line growth rate and supplierflexibility are found to influence the customerservice–satisfaction relationship.

Giller and Matear (2001) Interaction between trigger eventand existing state of the relationship

Relationship termination • Perspectives on relationship terminationare discussed and a model of inter-firmrelationship termination presented withsupport through four case studies.

Hansen, Samuelsen, and Silseth(2008)

Customer perceived value Word-of-mouth and searching foralternatives

• Customer perceived value is positivelyrelated to word-of-mouth (positive) andnegatively related to searching for alternatives.

Hansen, Swan, and Powers (1996a) Expertise, jurisdictionaldisagreement, vendor–buyercommunications, dependency;dissatisfaction

Do nothing, complain, warn others,third-party action

• A typology of dissatisfaction style groups:squawker, complainer, activist, and waitand squawk.

Hansen, Swan, and Powers (1996b) Effectiveness of complaint actions Types of complaint actions: positive(seeking vendor assistance) and negative(switching, negative WOM, complaintsthat harm firm reputation, wait and see)

• Buyers experience problems in differentproblem categories (e.g., delivery).

• Survey of buyers to estimate theeffectiveness of 13 complaint actions.

Heide and Weiss (1995)* Pace of technology change,technology heterogeneity,experience, technologicalcompatibility, vendor-relatedswitching costs, importance ofpurchase, formalization,centralization

Vendor consideration and switchingbehavior

• Buyers' decision processes studied inhigh-technology markets. Pace of technology,vendor-related switching costs, andformalization all positively affect switchingbehavior, while experience and centralizationnegatively affect switching behavior.

Hibbard, Kumar, and Stern (2001)* Destructive act intensity, supplierattribution, self-attribution, externalattribution, relationship quality, totaldependence and relative dependence

Disengagement, constructive discussion,passive acceptance, venting; performance(supplier's perspective) and relationshipquality

• Responses to destructive acts in channelssetting examined.

• Cognitions about the destructive act andrelationship characteristics to influenceengagement in responses to the destructive act.

Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty(2002)

Switching costs Repurchase intentions • Switching costs examined and six dimensionsproposed: lost performance costs, uncertaintycosts, pre-switching search and evaluation costs,post-switching behavioral and cognitive costs,set-up costs, and sunk costs.

Liu (2006) Customer value Switching costs • Firms can influence perceptions of switchingcosts by increasing perceptions of customer value.

Liu, Leach, and Bernhardt (2005) Customer value; customersatisfaction and perceivedswitching costs

Share-of-business intention • Customer value, comprising three dimensions(economic value, value of core services, and valueof support services), customer satisfaction, andperceived switching costs influence share-of-business repurchase decisions.

Patterson, Johnson, and Spreng(1997)

Expectations (influenced by novelty,importance, decision complexity)and performance (influenced bystake holding and uncertainty),disconfirmation, fairness;satisfaction

Intentions • The disconfirmation paradigm for determiningsatisfaction can be applied to industrial buyingsituations.

• A model of satisfaction is tested;all but two hypothesized relationshipsare confirmed.

Perkins (1993) Satisfaction • An approach to measuring customersatisfaction, using product and servicecharacteristics.

Ping (1993)* Investment in relationship,witching costs, alternativeattractiveness, satisfaction

Loyalty, voice, exiting, opportunism,neglect

• Negative associations found betweensatisfaction and exit and neglect andbetween investment and neglect.

• Positive associations found betweenalternative attractiveness and exit, neglect,and opportunism; between investment andvoice; between satisfaction and voice; andbetween switching cost and loyalty.

Ping (1994)* Alternative attractiveness;relationship satisfaction(moderator)

Exit • Relationship satisfaction has a nonlinearmoderating effect of alternative attractivenesson exit behavior in a channels setting.

(continued on next page)

119J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118–127

Table 1 (continued)

Author(s) Variables involved Outcomes and responses behaviors Key findings

Ping (1997)* Satisfaction, cost of exit,partnering firm demographics

Voice • In B2B relationships, satisfaction, cost of exit,and partnering firm demographics affectvoicing behavior.

Schellhase, Hardock, and Ohlwein(1999)

Customer satisfaction • Measurement for customer satisfaction inB2B marketing.

• Specifically developed for retail organizationsand their suppliers.

Sharma (2006) Dissatisfaction, marketers'relational assets, buyer's relationalassets, quality of alternatives,buyer's knowledge of key accountpersonnel, lack of innovation,social/personal bonds, environment

Key account success • Dissatisfaction leads to lower key accountsuccess.

Tikkanen and Alajoutsijarvi (2002) Customer satisfaction • Discussion of current procedures for trackingcustomer satisfaction. Three steps proposed (theinner context of a business relationship, theconnected network of the customer–supplierrelationship, and the outer context of theconnected network) that must be consideredfor industrial customer satisfaction.

Tikkanen et al. (2000) Critical incidents; (dis)satisfaction • Case study demonstrates that criticalincidents affect buyer satisfaction anddissatisfaction.

Trawick and Swan (1981) Follow-up required, actual responseequals desired, prior complaintresponse, buyer firm larger thansupplier, buyer firm a majorcustomer, another supplieravailable; satisfaction with firmresponse to complaining behavior

Intentions to reorder, reorders • Satisfaction with firm response is affectedby follow-up, actual/desired response, priorcomplaining handled satisfactorily, and thebuyer firm being a major customer.

• Satisfaction with firm response tocomplaining behavior significantly impactedactual reordering.

Williams and Rao (1980) Dissatisfaction, individual aspectsof behavior, problem situation,structural variables, types of purchase

Organizational buyer complaintbehavior

• A model proposed of organizational buyercomplaint behavior

*From the marketing channels literature.

120 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118–127

of (dis)satisfaction from Oliver's “disconfirmation” between perceivedpost-purchase outcomes (i.e., supplier performance) and pre-purchaseexpectations (Oliver, 1980). The disconfirmation affects the customer'slevel of satisfaction. Although satisfaction can vary in degree, from lessto more (i.e., resulting in a continuum), generally speaking, a positivedisconfirmation results in satisfaction and a negative disconfirmationresults in dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Customers may respond tosatisfaction by spreadingpositiveWOMor purchasing and repurchasingmore frequently. Dissatisfied customers, however, may refuse torepurchase from the supplier, or may undertake malicious attempts to“get even” or harm the supplier, such as by spreading negative WOM.Therefore, in this paper the authors focus on framing customerresponses to dissatisfaction, which may help suppliers better under-stand dissatisfied customers' negative responses and better devisemeasures to prevent or modify such responses.

Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that one cross-sectional negativeoccurrence may not cause customers to become dissatisfied; rather aseries of dissatisfactory incidences may cause them to becomedissatisfied holistically with the supplier. Similarly, when a companyfails to meet purchasing consumers' expectations in one or severalaspects of the buying process, they may become dissatisfied with thewhole purchase experience. Perkins (1993) suggested several failuresthat may lead to customer (dis)satisfaction: service (e.g., sales service,and technology support), product specifications (e.g., technicalquality, and reliability), and operations (e.g., price, on-time delivery,and availability).

Webster and Wind (1972), in their general model of buyingbehavior, discussed the concept of the buying center within a buyer(i.e., customer). Because the buying process can be so complex andinvolve multiple persons, multiple goals, and potentially conflictingdecision criteria, to handle the buying process a company creates abuying center, which comprises all organizational members involvedin the buying process, including users, influencers, deciders, buyers,and gatekeepers. Buying center members may have different levels of

expectations for the product/service purchased (Williams & Rao,1980), and they may each have different experiences that shape theirperceptions of supplier performance, depending on their involvementin aspects of service, product specifications, and/or operations. Withtheir differences in expectations and perceived outcomes, individualsmay experience dissatisfaction while others are content. For example,Bob Buyer's experience with the supplier's sales representative mayexceed his expectations, while Ursula User's experience with thesupplier's late delivery may fail to meet her expectations. In thissituation, the buyer is satisfied but the user is dissatisfied. Businesscustomer dissatisfaction results when at least one member of thebuying center is dissatisfied with a purchase experience, because thatone dissatisfied member can respond with behaviors that harm thesupplier.

Thus suppliers should be aware that in business-to-businesspurchases, customers may be dissatisfied with their purchase experi-ence when a supplier fails to meet the expectations of at least onemember of the customer's buying center on one or more aspect ofservice, product specifications, and/or operations.

2. (Dis)satisfaction and response behaviors in the literature

The authors' review of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in theorganizational buyer behavior literature gave insights into businesscustomer dissatisfaction response behavior. Table 1 provides asummary of this literature. Much of the research focused on definingor measuring satisfaction (Backhaus & Bauer, 2000; Perkins, 1993;Schellhase et al., 1999). The research that examined responses to (dis)satisfaction, such as exit behavior, was limited and typically focusedon one or a limited number of response behaviors (Barksdale et al.,1984; Giller & Matear, 2001; Jones et al., 2002). Research by Hansenet al. (1996a) did, however, examine complaining and spreadingnegative WOM behaviors, but only revealed clusters of similarresponding groups. A more complete framework of responses to


business customer dissatisfaction needs to be developed, as exem-plified by Ping (1993, 1994, 1997) and Hibbard et al. (2001) whodeveloped models of response behavior for the marketing channelsand retailing contexts.

Hansen et al. (1996a) adapted Singh's (1990) typology ofconsumer response styles to an industrial market setting bydeveloping four dissatisfaction style groups: squawkers, activists,complainers, and wait and squawkers. The groups were clusteredaccording to their behavioral responses to a dissatisfying experience:doing nothing, complaining, switching suppliers, warning others, ortaking third-party actions. In contrast to categorizing customers bytheir response behaviors, we identified the recipients of the differentresponses to frame the behaviors themselves and their contributions.

Earlier literature on customer complaints focused on complaintsdelivered solely to the supplier (Barksdale et al., 1984; Trawick &Swan, 1981; Williams & Rao, 1980). In their studies, Hansen et al.(1996a,b) included complaint behavior to third-party individuals aswell as positive and negative complaint actions, such as negativeWOM. However, these studies focused on complaints to suppliers (i.e.,the dyadic partner in the transactional relationship). Tikkanen et al.(2000) suggested that the network outside the customer–supplierdyad is crucial in satisfaction. Today's communication options growever more intense, so complaint behavior beyond the supplier and thespread of negative WOM has heightened importance; therefore, wehave included complaining and spreading negative WOM within thedyadic relationship and outside to third parties in our framework ofdissatisfaction response behaviors.

2.1. Hirschman's exit, voice, and loyalty dissatisfaction response model

As early as Hirschman's (1970) response framework, researcherswere focusing on response behavior frameworks. Several socialscience arenas have recognized Hirschman's framework, includingpsychology, political science, consumer behavior, and organizationalbehavior (Singh, 1991). The framework model suggests that custo-mers will behave in one of three general ways in reaction to adissatisfactory purchase experience: exit, voice, or loyalty.

When customers exit, they sever their relationship with the sellingor servicing firm. When they activate the voice option they expresstheir desire to change the undesirable situation and to seeksatisfaction. When they select the loyalty option, they choose tocontinue their current transactional relationship; they omit the choiceof exiting the relationship. Singh (1990) took the framework one stepfurther by introducing another option that was similar to voicing butneeded its own classification: negative WOM, which entails commu-nicating to others but not the supplier about the dissatisfactoryexperience.

The marketing channels literature has somewhat acceptedHirschman's framework since the model is basic for dissatisfactionliterature (Hibbard et al., 2001; Ping 1993, 1994, 1997). These studiesloosely used the exit, voice, and loyalty model and adapted it toinclude additional variables to fit the channels context. Ping (1993,1997) and Hibbard et al. (2001) tested the effects of antecedents onresponse behavior and found support for these effects and for the useof Hirschman's response variables in the channels setting.

Blois (2008) used Hirschman's (1970) model to describe business-to-business responses in eloquently adapting the model of exit, voice,and loyalty to responses, but limited the focus to financial implica-tions of exercising each response behavior.

2.2. Literature summary

Reviewing the literature of dissatisfaction and response behaviorsrevealed multiple opportunities. First, researchers have conductedlimited research on dissatisfaction in a business-to-business context.They have paid some attention to various response behaviors (e.g.,

complaining; Trawick & Swan, 1981), but have provided noframework for classifying most response behaviors in a business-to-business context, particularly as it relates to the buying center. Weneed to more clearly conceptualize the targets of customers' responsebehaviors. Specifically, who is on the receiving end of voicing andnegative WOM? Finally, Hirschman's (1970) model of exit, voice, andloyalty has been adapted in marketing channels and retailingcontexts, has seen limited adaptation in the business-to-businesscontext (with the exception of Blois, 2008), and can be used to morecompletely frame business customer dissatisfaction responsebehavior.

3. Dissatisfaction response behavior framework

In the current paper, our proposed framework focuses on fourresponse behaviors: exit, voice, loyalty (Hirschman, 1970), andspreading negative WOM (Singh, 1990). Blois (2008) summarized anddefined Hirschman's (1970) concepts in the business-to-businesscontext, where exit is “moving from an existing supplier to one of itscompetitors,”where voice is “an attempt to change, rather than escapefrom, an objectionable state of affairs…through general protest,” andwhere loyalty is an optionwhere “a customermay continue to purchasefrom a supplier…in hope that improvement or reform can be achieved‘fromwithin’” (Blois, 2008, p. 3; Hirschman, 1970, pp. 4, 15, 79). Finally,Richins's (1983) premier article on consumers' negative WOM definedspreading negative WOM as “telling others about the unsatisfactoryproduct or [supplier]” (p. 68).

In the next section, we discuss each of the four response behaviorsin more detail. It is important to note that exit, voice, loyalty, andnegative WOM are not mutually exclusive responses (Singh, 1990).Instead, these responses can be engaged individually or together. Forexample, it is possible for a customer to complain (e.g., voice) to thesupplier about poor performance and switch to another supplier (e.g.,exit) when it is time to reorder the product. Also, voicing and negativeWOM are directed actions. The behavior is directed from the customerto or at the supplier, or another individual or group.

3.1. Exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM

When customers choose to exit, they no longer wish to continuetheir transaction relationship with the supplier. Their experience is sosevere that they believe that solely voicing their displeasure will notpersuade thevendor to respond in away thatwill rectify the experience.Their dissatisfactory experience may be the last in a succession ofinadequate responses, possibly being the one to push the customer tosever the transaction relationship. Customers who choose to exit mustfind alternative sources to provide the service.

The exit response does not necessarily mean that the customerexits all transactions with the supplier. In organizational buyingbehavior, a firmmay use a vendor for multiple different products and/or services. Faced with a dissatisfactory situation, the firmmay decideto exit the relationship for that particular product or service, but maydecide to continue as usual with other products or services becausethe same supplier fulfills those needs. For example, Customer Apurchases bolts and fasteners from Supplier B. Supplier B delivers thebolts on time but the fasteners are two weeks late. Customer A maydecide to sever the fastener purchasing part of the relationship butcontinue the bolt purchasing. Because of satisfactory service on thebolt orders, Customer A will continue that portion of the relationshipwith Supplier B, but will exit the fastener portion of the relationship.

Customers who experience dissatisfaction with a supplier cancomplain (i.e., voice) to persuade the supplier to solve the problem;the goal of voicing is to turn the experience from dissatisfactory tosatisfactory (Trawick & Swan, 1981). Voice is an active response todissatisfaction, with intent to seek restitution (Singh, 1991). Voice isoften directed to the supplier but can also be directed toward

Fig. 1. Within-firm voicing and negative word-of-mouth.

Fig. 2. Supplier and third-party voicing and negative word-of-mouth.


individuals within the buying firm (i.e., the customer) or to a third-party. For example, if Bob Buyer is dissatisfied with Suzie Supplier'sprices, he can complain to Suzie to lower the prices, complain to DeanDecider (i.e., within the buying center) to increase the budget, orcomplain to Len Lawyer (i.e., third-party) to sue Suzie for pricegouging.

The loyalty option may seem passive, but may actually be acalculated response on the customer's part. When executing loyalty,the customer chooses to refrain from exiting the relationship; rather,the customer will continue the transactional relationship and statusquo purchases in hopes that the supplier will perform better in thefuture. Blois (2008) suggested that even as customers remain loyal,they may still voice or spread negative WOM.

Spreading negative WOM describes the very active response thecustomer takes to inform others about the dissatisfactory experience(Singh, 1990). Negative WOM is not directed toward the supplier, butinstead is directed to other individuals either within the buying firmor third-party recipients. Voice and negative WOM are similar butthey have distinctions. Voice is an active option where the customerseeks change; negative WOM is active, but not to effect change.Negative WOM can be thought of as venting or as an attempt toexpress frustration.

3.2. Within-firm and third-party recipients

In their exit, voice, and loyalty studies pertaining to marketingchannels, Hibbard et al. (2001) and Ping (1993) examined customers'responses to a single informant only, their responses to the supplier.In reality, customer response behavior could stem from a variety ofindividuals within the buying center and could be directed towardindividuals and/or groups inside or outside the dyadic relationship(i.e., customer–supplier). Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that whenstudying customer satisfaction, one must look at the internal context(i.e., the buyer–seller dyad) as well as the external context (i.e.,industry scene). Along these lines, the response behavior should beconsidered within the buying firm (i.e., the customer), between thetwo firms (i.e., customer and supplier), and within the industrialnetwork. In the following section we discuss these situations.

Voice and negative WOM are distinctive from exit and loyaltybecause voice and negative WOM are directed to a recipient, eitherthe supplier or beyond the supplier. When customers decide to exit orremain loyal, they either sever or keep their relationship. They candirect voice to the supplier, to others within their buying center, or tothird parties. Like voice, they can direct negative WOM to otherswithin the buying firm, beyond the buying center but within theboundaries of the firm (i.e., to other buying centers within the firm),or to third parties (e.g., legal outlets). Fig. 1 illustrates within-firmvoicing and negative WOM, and Fig. 2 illustrates supplier and third-party voicing and negative WOM.

Johnston and Bonoma (1981) suggested that the buying centerexists as a communication network that derives its configuration fromregularized patterns of communication. Among other communicationdimensions, the vertical involvement and lateral involvement implythat communication flows up and down organizational hierarchicallevels and side-to-side among divisions or departments, all withinbuying centers.

Fig. 1 demonstrates that because all members of the buying centercan experience different levels of (dis)satisfaction, all members of thebuying center can also direct both voice and negative WOM to eachother. For example, Ursula User complains to Bob Buyer about aninsufficient supply of product from a purchase in an effort to correctthe delivery. Bob, in turn, must then complain directly to the supplierto correct the problem. Because Ursula complains to Bob, she executesvoice. On the other hand, if Ursula complains to Bob just to expressfrustration while making do with the dissatisfactory delivery, sheexecutes negative WOM.

Fig. 1 also demonstrates how members of the buying center canspread negative WOM beyond the initial buying center and to otherbuying centers within the buying firm.When faced with a dissatisfyingsupplier experience, members of the buying center can vent to otherbuying centers, thereby expressing dissatisfaction with a commonsupplier and executing negative WOM response behavior.

Voice and negativeWOM can also be directed toward third parties.A dissatisfied buying centermembermay decide that voicing to a legaloutlet or suing the supplier is the best response to get restitution.Members of the buying firm's buying center may feel the urge tospread negative WOM about the supplier to friends and colleagueswho may be current or potential customers of the supplier. Anotheroutlet for buying center members to vent may be a neutral third-partysuch as a trade organization. Trade organizations may have blogs,newswires, or chat rooms established for communicating dissatisfac-tion. Similar customers could use trade organizations as a resource tomake purchasing decisions and to learn about other dissatisfiedcustomers' experiences. Fig. 2 depicts the third-party recipientoptions.


4. Influences of the dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship

A number of variables may moderate the business customerdissatisfaction–response behavior relationship more radically thanthe consumer relationship does because both customer and suppliermay have somuchmore at stake. Business-to-business purchasesmaybe worth more money, be more abundant, and have more peopleinvolved in the purchase. Thus, the business customer's decision toengage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, or spreading WOM may havegreater consequences (e.g., loss of productivity or loss of profits) andmay negatively affect more people (e.g., reprimanding or firingsalespersons or other associates).

Limited business-to-business research has explored the factors thatinfluence response behaviors. Hansen et al. (1996a) suggested thatexpertise, jurisdictional disagreement, vendor–buyer communications,anddependencyare variables that influence response behavior.Hibbardet al. (2001) found that intensity of destructive acts, attribution, andrelationship quality all influence response behavior. Although manyadditional moderators may exist, in the next section we propose thatfour moderators may particularly influence the business customer (i.e.,any member of the buying center of a purchasing firm) dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship. Fig. 3 demonstrates the four influencesof dissatisfaction–response behavior.

(1) Number of alternative suppliers. Blois (2008) suggested thatthe number of alternative suppliers available to the customermay influence response behavior; to help persuade thesupplier, customers may threaten exit, even if they fail tofollow through. Thus, the number of supplier alternatives isposited to influence each response behavior.

(2) Past complaint response. When customers want the supplier torepair a dissatisfactory experience, customers are likely torespond depending on how that supplier previously acted torectify complaints. Trawick and Swan (1981) suggested thatsatisfaction with the supplier's previous responses to com-plaints may affect future purchase intentions. Hence, supplierresponse to prior complaining is posited to moderate therelationship between dissatisfaction–response behavior.

(3) Number of years in relationship. In his research of retailers andwholesalers, Ping (1997) found significant relationships be-tween the number of years with partner, satisfaction, and voice.Years of relationship did not directly affect voice, but the lengthof time the customer and supplier have worked together maymoderate the dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship.

(4) Type of purchase. Patterson et al. (1997) found that type ofpurchase influenced the individual factors of satisfaction. Thatis, novelty, complexity, and importance all significantlyimpacted customer expectations and perceptions of perfor-mance. Type of purchase is included as a potential moderator

Fig. 3. Influences on the dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship.

because it may also influence the likelihood of customersparticipating in dissatisfaction response behavior.

4.1. The dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship

When holding constant the number of alternatives, past compliantresponse, length of relationship, and type of purchase, the moredissatisfied a customer themore likely the customerwill exit, voice, orspread negative WOM, and the less likely the customer will remainloyal. A dissatisfied customer may want to exit and find an alternativethat will provide more satisfactory experiences. Also a dissatisfiedcustomermay seek tomake the dissatisfactory experience satisfactoryby voicing complaints or by spreading negative WOM to warn othersor to inflict harm on the supplier by discouraging future customers. Aslevels of dissatisfaction increase, the customer is less likely to continuehoping that the problem will work itself out or that it will not happenagain.

Proposition 1. The greater the level of dissatisfaction,

(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,(b) the more likely the customer will exit,(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM

behavior.

4.2. Number of alternative suppliers

The concentrationof alternative suppliers available to the customer atthe time of dissatisfaction may influence response behavior. This caninclude the ability to fulfill the need internally (i.e., within the means ofthe buying firm), using another supplier, or finding a substitute solution.When the supplier is the only alternative, or one of just a few, thecustomerwill react differently to a dissatisfactory experience. Hirschman(1970) identified that in this competitive situation the seller with littlecompetition has a monopoly or a loose monopoly.

The more alternatives a customer has, the more confident thecustomer will feel, and the less the customer will feel dependent on thesupplier. When faced with a dissatisfying experience, the customer willfeel more confident that alternatives are available if the supplierprovides no restitution. In this case, the customer is likely to solve theproblem by voicing. Other options are available, so the customer canswitch to an alternative if voice fails to rectify the situation. Thecustomer is also more likely to exit and less likely to remain loyalbecause multiple alternatives are available to fill the product or serviceneed. An abundance of alternative suppliers may bring about morenegativeWOM behavior because the customer will feel less pressure toprotect or salvage a relationship with the supplier if the negativeWOMgets back to the supplier. The following proposition suggests theinfluence of the number of alternative suppliers on response behavior.

Proposition 2. The number of alternatives will moderate the businesscustomer dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship. The morealternative suppliers available to the customer,

(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,(b) the more likely the customer will exit,(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM

behavior.

4.3. Past complaint response

A supplier's response to a customer's voice is called complaintresponse behavior, defined as the action the supplier takes to providerestitution. If a customer has filed a complaint (i.e., voiced) with the


supplier in the past, the supplier's response to the complaint mayinfluence the customer's future behavior (Trawick & Swan, 1981). Ifthe supplier responds as the customer desires (e.g., responds in atimely way or gives a refund), then the customer will be satisfied withthe supplier's complaint response behavior. If the supplier fails torespond as the customer desires, then the customer will bedissatisfied with the supplier's complaint response.

Trawick and Swan (1981) found that customers' satisfactionwith acomplaint response affects whether they will reorder from thesupplier. Satisfaction with complaint response behavior could alsoinfluence the customer's response when another dissatisfyingexperience occurs. If the supplier responded satisfactorily to a pastcomplaint, the customer will be likely respond as before (i.e., throughvoice) to future dissatisfactory experiences. If the supplier hasprovided dissatisfactory responses to past complaints, the customerwill be less likely to complain again or to remain loyal, and maychoose to exit or spread negative WOM. The following propositionsregard past complaint response behavior.

Proposition 3. Past complaint responses will moderate the businesscustomer dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship.

(a): When suppliers have given satisfactory responses to past voicing,customers are more likely to respond to dissatisfaction by voicingagain.

(b): When suppliers have given dissatisfactory responses to past voicing,customers are more likely to respond to dissatisfaction by exiting orspreading negative WOM, and less likely to respond by voicing orremaining loyal.

4.4. Number of years in relationship

The number of years in the relationship refers to the number of yearsthe customer and supplier have done business with each other.According to Day (2000), a long-term relationship can range fromtransactional exchanges (e.g., purely contractual or automatedpurchases) to collaborative exchanges (e.g., complete collaborationwith supplier); on one hand, some long-term contracts contain no“emotional commitment to keep the relationship going” (p. 12). Onthe other hand, Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987) suggested thatterminating relationships that have developed over extended periodsmay be similar to termination of personal relationships, resulting in“…psychological, emotional, and physical stress” (p. 19). Evenwithout emotional connection, leaving a long-time supplier mayincur switching costs such as new supplier set-up expenses.

Despite the customer's emotional involvement in the relationship,the number of years of doing business with the supplier is likely toimpact how thecustomer responds todissatisfaction. The customerwhohas been in business with the same supplier for years may feel morecomfortable bringing a problem to the supplier's attention and morehopeful that it will be resolved. Also, because of satisfactory previousexperiences with a long-term supplier, the customer may be morewilling to let thedissatisfyingexperiencepasswithout acting. Finally, if acustomer has remained with a supplier for a long time, the customermay be less likely to spread negativeWOM. The customermay fear thatspreading negative WOMwill cause others to judge that an inadequatesupplier duped the customer into a long-term relationship.

Proposition 4. The number of years in the relationship will moderatethe business customer dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship.The more years of doing business with the supplier,

(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,(b) the less likely the customer will exit,(c) the more likely the customer will remain loyal, and(d) the less likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

4.5. Type of purchase

McQuiston (1989) studied the impact of three types of purchases(i.e., novelty, complexity, and importance) on participation andinfluence variables in an industrial purchase decision. Novelty wasidentified as individuals' lack of experience with similar purchasesituations in the buying center of the buying firm, complexity as howmuch information the customer must gather to accurately evaluate theproduct before making a purchase, and importance as the perceivedimpact of the purchase on organizational profitability and productivity.Novelty, complexity, and importance may influence response behavior.

When involved in novelty purchases, customers may feel lessconfident about their purchase decision. They may feel that theirinexperience could have contributed to the supplier's failure, that theymight have communicated their specifications inadequately, that theycould have failed to understand the supplier's specifications, that theymight be responsible. They may then be less likely to spread negativeWOMbecause they lack confidence in their judgment as to whether thesupplier met their expectations or who is responsible for the situation.They may prefer to voice their dissatisfying purchase experience to thesupplier to reiterate what they need and to help resolve the problem.Also, they may choose to exit instead of remaining loyal in this noveltypurchase situation because with they have so little invested in the newpurchase and may find it simpler to end the transaction relationship.

Proposition 5. The type of purchase will moderate the business customerdissatisfaction–response behavior relationship. For a novelty purchase,

(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,(b) the more likely the customer will exit,(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and(d) the less likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

A highly complex purchase decision involves a great deal ofinvestment on the part of the customer. With so much invested, thecustomerwill want to voice complaints to rectify the problem andwillfind it very difficult to sever the relationship easily. Also, if thepurchase is highly complex and the customer has invested much timein the purchase decision, the customer feels responsible for lettingothers in similar purchase situations know about the dissatisfactoryexperience. Thus, this customer may choose to spread negativeWOM.

Proposition 6. The type of purchase will moderate the business customerdissatisfaction–response behavior relationship. For a highly complexpurchase,

(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,(b) the less likely the customer will exit,(c) the more likely the customer will remain loyal, and(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM

behavior.

Highly important purchases will also find the customer more likelyto file complaints, not only with the supplier but with a legal outlet ifnecessary. A dissatisfactory experience with a highly importantpurchase can be very costly. The customer may also be more likely toexit the relationship to prevent further dissatisfying experiences. Aswith the highly complex purchase, customers will also have investedtime andmoney inmaking the purchase decision for a highly importantpurchase. They may decide to spread negative WOM to inform otherswho are making such important purchase decisions about thedissatisfactory experience.

Proposition 7. The type of purchase will moderate the businesscustomer dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship. For a highlyimportant purchase,

(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,(b) the more likely the customer will exit,

Table 2Propensity to engage in response behavior by role of the buying center.


(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

5. Role in the buying center and response behavior

While the previous section examined influences on a businesscustomer's response behavior (i.e., the general response of the “firm”

or the “organizational buyer”), the individual members of the firm'sbuying center may possess different propensities to engage in exiting,voicing, loyalty, and spreading negative WOM. Table 2 proposesbuying center members' individual propensities to engage in responsebehavior.

Proposition 8. The propensity to engage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, orspreading negative WOM will depend on an individual's role in thebuying center.

The tendency for an individual to choose response behavior maydepend on the amount of vertical and horizontal influence thatmembers of the buying center possess; positions of authority, such asmanagement above the primary functions or senior management,have more vertical influence in purchases (Robey & Johnston, 1977)and more control over whether the firm continues the relationshipwith the seller after the dissatisfactory experience. Therefore, theroles of buyer and decider, who traditionally are managers above theprimary functions, may have the highest propensities among buyingcenter members to exit or remain loyal. While the gatekeeper may notalways possess the ultimate authority to choose which supplier thefirm deals with, a dissatisfied gatekeeper who controls the informa-tion suppliers relay may have moderate ability to engage in exitingand loyalty.

Lateral influence involves communication along an organization'shorizontal structure, such as with multiple users or multipledepartments involved in a purchase situation (Robey & Johnston,1977). Users and influencers are members of the buying center who,through experience or first-hand observation, can provide opinionsabout products and services for business consumption. Thus, usersand influencers may exhibit more lateral influence by complaining(i.e., voicing) and spreading negative WOM within the firm. Usersmay not always possess the authority to make decisions on purchases,but they use the purchases and can judge quality through experience.They can complain about poor quality, hoping to get the dissatisfac-tory product or service rectified, or they can share bad experiencesthat may be considered for future purchases. The role of the influenceris to evaluate and communicate assessments of purchases. Indissatisfactory situations, influencers may choose to complain (i.e.,voice) to other members of the buying center in hopes that thesituation will be resolved, or to spread negative assessments (i.e.,negative WOM) about the situation, which in turn may influencefuture purchase decisions.

Users may also tend to complain directly to the supplier whentheir usage experiences are dissatisfactory, and may also share their

dissatisfactory experiences with acquaintances at other firms. Sincethe buyer deals directly with the supplier, the buyer may be moreprone to voice directly to the supplier or to seek restitution from alegal firm if the experience calls for it. The buyer may also have moreopportunities to spread negative WOM at trade conventions orthrough buyer networking groups.

6. Discussion and future research

The current research makes several contributions to the study ofbusiness customer dissatisfaction. A synthesis of extant business-to-business literature on (dis)satisfaction and response behavior revealsseveral gaps in our knowledge of dissatisfaction and responsebehaviors. First, researchers have examined some business customerresponses to dissatisfaction, but the possible responses should beframed into a cohesive model. Using Hirshman's (1970) exit, voice,and loyalty and Singh's (1990) negative WOM models, we developeda general framework of business customer dissatisfaction–responsebehavior. Also the extant response behavior literature lacks researchon the recipients of voicing and negative WOM behaviors beyond thecustomer–supplier dyad. We discuss and propose both within-firmand third-party recipients of voicing and negative WOM. Potentiallymany variables may influence a dissatisfied customer's responsebehavior. A few of these influences have been demonstrated (e.g.,expertise and dependency, see Hibbard et al., 2001), but other factorsmay also influence responses. Number of alternative suppliers, pastcomplaint responses, number of years in the relationship, and type ofpurchase are all propositioned to moderate the customer dissatisfac-tion–response behavior relationship. Finally, we discuss the propen-sity for individuals to react differently to a dissatisfactory situationbased on their role within the firm's buying center.

While our purpose was to frame the customer dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship and postulate potential influencers ofthat relationship, our propositions remain unverified. To test thismodel, real-world case studies could be used to illustrate a customer'sactual actions. First, critical incidence techniques could get studyparticipants to recall dissatisfactory service or purchase experiences.Then a series of probing questions could expose how they responded.Most of the proposed moderators of response behavior are objectivemeasures (e.g., number of alternate suppliers, number of years inrelationship, type of purchase), and scaled-response questions (i.e.,subjective measures) could be used to measure satisfaction with pastcomplaint responses.

The unique dynamic of multiple buying center members makesexploring dissatisfaction response behavior more complex thanconsumer dissatisfaction response behavior. The effects of multipleresponse behaviors per an individual dissatisfactory experience shouldbe examined. For example, the user may complain directly to thesupplier, while the buyer spreads negative WOM to acquaintances atother firms. Future research should explore the interactive effects of therole in the buying center and influences of response behavior, such astype of purchase.

Additional influences of responsebehavior should be conceptualizedand tested. The level of relationalismcould influence thedissatisfaction–response behavior relationship. Although we proposition that thenumber of years in the relationship influences response behavior,customers who are highly invested in the relationshipwith the supplier(i.e., not just those who have ongoing discrete transactions with thesupplier) may have emotional, social, or idiosyncratic investments thatcould elicit different effects on response behavior (Williamson, 1975).Customers who are more emotionally involved in the transactionrelationship may respond differently from customers who are notemotionally involved. Additionally, customer value, which AndersonandNarus (1998)brought to researchattention,may influence responsebehavior. Liu (2006) and Liu, Leach, and Bernhardt (2005) found that


customer value can impact customers' perceptions of switching costsand ultimately repurchase and exit behaviors.

The dynamic between the response behaviors should bemore fullydeveloped for the business-to-business context. Blois (2008) andHirschman (1970) suggested that in activating one response behavior,a customer may also be more likely to partake in another responsebehavior. For example, loyalty may cause more voicing (Blois, 2008).Therefore, within a business-to-business context, the responsebehaviors may be related to each other. Also, as Trawick and Swan(1981) suggested, the supplier's response to complaining maydetermine satisfaction. Similarly, the response behaviors (i.e., exitingthe relationship) may lead to (dis)satisfaction. For example, if BobBuyer exits the relationship with Suzie Supplier and contracts withSammy Supplier, Bob may feel satisfied with his decision if thetransition goes smoothly. But if Sammy surprises Bob with unexpect-ed set-up costs, hemay feel dissatisfiedwith his decision to exit. Thesereciprocal relationships should be further explored.

Empirical studies are necessary to better understand customerselection of who will be on the receiving end of voicing and negativeWOM. The nature of the buying center produces interesting prospectsas to how inter-firm complaining occurs. Also, the impact of negativeWOMwithin the buying firm, within and between buying centers, andto third parties needs to be further examined. The impact of negativeWOM may be far more intense and detrimental to the supplier thanwe conceptualize. Future research to explore the reach of negativeWOM, perhaps using communication-tracking software such as emailor blogs, could further our understanding of these important responsebehaviors.

7. Managerial implications

When selling products or conducting services in the business-to-business segment, suppliers must be prepared to handle situationswhen customers are dissatisfied. Suppliers should have follow-upservices and procedures for dealing with complaints. They must beprepared for undesirable responses to dissatisfaction such as exit,loyalty, and negative WOM.

Exit translates to loss of current sales plus additional sales thatmayhave come in the future. While loyalty may keep the customer in thetransactional relationship temporarily, undesirable consequencesmay emerge later. If the customer engages in loyalty without voice,the supplier may retain the business for the present but will remainoblivious to the danger lying in wait. Without knowing to correct theproblem (i.e., bring restitution), the supplier will repeat the mistakesthat cause not only the current customer to be dissatisfied but willsimilarly affect other customers. Negative WOM could damage afirm's reputation and evaporate future sales.

Although complaint handlingmay be arduous and costly, suppliersshould want their customers to voice dissatisfactions. According toHansen et al. (1996a), voicing can alert suppliers and allow them tocorrect problems; can bring better products, services, and processes;or improve existing protocols. The optimal response behavior for allparties involved is “friendly” complaint behavior (i.e., Hansen et al.,1996a), or constructive voicing, which involves alerting the supplierof dissatisfaction and allowing the supplier to take appropriate actionto rectify the situation. Customers may bypass the supplier and voiceto a third-party, such as a legal outlet, seeking to legally restore theirsatisfaction and costing the supplier fines and legal fees. Thus,suppliers have a vested interest in encouraging their customers toengage in complaint behavior with the supplying firm when it isneeded. They could encourage their customers to report dissatisfac-tion by communicating easy-to-follow complaining procedures andby offering superior support services with well-trained staff.

To reduce undesirable response behaviors (e.g., exit and negativeWOM) and to encourage loyalty paired with voicing behaviors (e.g.,“friendly complaining”), suppliers must look to influence the

moderators of the dissatisfaction–response behavior relationship.First, if the number of alternative suppliers brings about more exitingand spreading of negative WOM, then the supplier should strive toposition itself as a superior supplier to alternatives, thereby lesseningthe appeal of switching to another supplier. Second, suppliers cancontrol their response to customer complaints in efforts to encouragemore voicing and less exit and negative WOM. Implementing anaggressive response plan to customer complaints, such as fasterturnaround, could influence a dissatisfied customer's decision to issuefuture complaints, knowing that the supplier handled previouscomplaints satisfactorily. Also, if length of the relationship can reduceexit and negative WOM, suppliers should entice customers to reorderand sign extended purchase agreements to increase the time acustomer transacts with the supplier. The supplier may entice thecustomer by offering discount prices for future purchases andproviding services to lessen customer burdens. Finally, suppliers canreduce the influence of type of purchase on response behavior,thereby reducing exit and negativeWOMbymodifying the customer'sperception of the type of purchase. For example, if the purchase is anovelty, the supplier could provide the customer with plenty ofinformation designed to thoroughly explain the purchase procedurefor that product or service. If the purchase is highly important, thesupplier could provide satisfied customer testimonials to demonstratesuccessful completion of purchases of similar magnitude. If thepurchase is highly complex, the supplier could provide easy-to-understand information and personally assist customers as theyspecify their orders.

Dissatisfactory experiences in business purchase situations are anunwanted but undeniable facet of business-to-business transactions.By understanding and attempting to manipulate the influences ofdissatisfaction response behaviors, managers can strive to reduceunwanted response behaviors such as exit and negative WOM andencourage desired response behaviors such as voicing (e.g., friendlycomplaining) and loyalty.

References

Anderson, J., & Narus, J. (1998). Business marketing: Understanding what customersvalue. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 53−65.

Backhaus, K., & Bauer, M. (2000). The impact of critical incidents on customersatisfaction in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business-to-BusinessMarketing, 8(1), 25−54.

Barksdale, H., Jr., Powell, T., & Hargrove, E. (1984). Complaint voicing by industrialbuyers. Industrial Marketing Management, 13, 93−99.

Blois, K. (2008). “Exit, voice and loyalty” in business to business markets. The IMPJournal, 2(1), 2−12.

Bonoma, T., Zaltman, G., & Johnston, W. (1977). Industrial buying behavior. MarketingScience Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Day, G. (2000). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 28(1), 24−30.

Dwyer, F., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987, April). Developing buyer–seller relationships.Journal of Marketing, 51, 11−27.

Emerson, C., & Grimm, C. (1999). Buyer–seller customer satisfaction: The influence ofthe environment and customer service. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,14, 403.

Giller, C., & Matear, S. (2001). The termination of inter-firm relationships. Journal ofBusiness and Industrial Marketing, 16(2), 94.

Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B. M., & Silseth, P. R. (2008). Customer perceived value in B-t-Bservice relationships: Investigating the importance of corporate reputation.Industrial Marketing Management, 34(4), 206−217.

Hansen, S., Swan, J., & Powers, T. (1996). Encouraging “friendly” complaint behavior inindustrial markets: Preventing a loss of customers and reputation. IndustrialMarketing Management., 25, 271−281.

Hansen, S., Swan, J., & Powers, T. (1996). The perceived effectiveness of marketerresponses to industrial buyer complaints: Suggestions for improved vendorperformance and customer loyalty. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,11(1), 77−89.

Heide, J., & Weiss, A. (1995, July). Vendor consideration and switching behavior forbuyers in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing, 59, 30−43.

Hibbard, J., Kumar, N., & Stern, L. (2001, February). Examining the impact of destructiveacts in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 45−61.

Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizationsand states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Johnston, W., & Bonoma, T. (1981). The buying center: Structure and interactionpatterns.Journal of Marketing, 45, 143−156 (Summer).


Jones, M., Mothersbaugh, D., & Beatty, S. (2002). Why customers stay: Measuring theunderlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differentialstrategic outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 55, 441−450.

Liu, A. (2006). Customer value and switching costs in business services: Developing exitbarriers through strategic value management. Journal of Business and IndustrialMarketing, 21(1), 30−37.

Liu, A., Leach, M., & Bernhardt, K. (2005). Examining customer value perceptions oforganizational buyers when sourcing from multiple vendors. Journal of BusinessResearch, 58, 559−568.

McQuiston, D. (1989, April). Novelty, complexity, and importance as causal determi-nants of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 53, 66−79.

Money, B., Gilly, M., & Graham, J. (1998, October). Explorations of national culture andword-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in theUnited States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 62, 76−87.

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

Patterson, P., Johnson, W., & Spreng, R. (1997). Modeling the determinants of customersatisfaction for business-to-business professional services. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 25(1), 4−17.

Perkins, W. (1993). Measuring customer satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management,22, 247−254.

Ping, R., Jr. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting,voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 320−352.

Ping, R., Jr. (1994). Does satisfaction moderate the association between alternativeattractiveness and exit intention in a marketing channel? Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 22(4), 364−371.

Ping, R., Jr. (1997). Voice in business-to-business relationships: Cost-of-exit anddemographic antecedents. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 261−281.

Richins, M. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study.Journal of Marketing, 47, 24−31 (Winter).

Robey, D., & Johnston, W. (1977). Lateral influences and vertical authority inorganizational buying. Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 451−462.

Schellhase, R., Hardock, P., & Ohlwein, M. (1999). Customer satisfaction in business-to-business marketing: the case of retail organizations and their suppliers. Journal ofBusiness and Industrial Marketing, 14(5/6), 416.

Sharma, A. (2006). Success factors in key accounts. Journal of Business and IndustrialMarketing, 21(3), 141−150.

Sheth, J. (1973, October). A model of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37,50−56.

Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigationacross three service categories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1),1−15.

Singh, J. (1991). Industry characteristics and consumer dissatisfaction. Journal ofConsumer Affairs, 25(1), 19−55.

Tahtinen, J., & Vaaland, T. I. (2006). Business relationships facing the end: Why restorethem? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21(1), 14−23.

Tikkanen, H., & Alajoutsijarvi, K. (2002). Customer satisfaction in industrial markets:Opening up the concept. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(1), 25−42.

Tikkanen, H., Alajoutsijarvi, K., & Tahtinen, J. (2000). The concept of satisfaction inindustrial markets: A contextual perspective and a case study from the softwareindustry. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 373−386.

Trawick, F., & Swan, J. (1981). A model of industrial satisfaction/complaining behavior.Industrial Marketing Management, 10(1), 23−30.

Webster, F., Jr., & Wind, Y. (1972, April). A general model for understandingorganizational buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36, 12−19.

Williams, A., & Rao, C. (1980). Industrial buyer complaining behavior. IndustrialMarketing Management, 9, 299−304.

Williamson, O. (1975).Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust implications.NewYork: The Free Press.

Jodie L. Ferguson is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the School of Business,Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Professor Ferguson'sresearch interests include customer and consumer response to firms' decisions inthe marketplace.

Wesley J. Johnston is the CBIM RoundTable Professor of Marketing and director of theCenter for Business and Industrial Marketing in the Robinson College of Business at theGeorgia State University. He is currently the editor of the Journal of Business andIndustrial Marketing. Professor Johnston's research interests include application of thebehavioral sciences to marketing in the areas of business-to-business marketing andcustomer relationship management. His research has been published in the Journal ofMarketing, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of International Business Studiesand numerous other publications.

customer response to dissatisfaction

Documents