Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why other-customer misbehavior has a negative influence on customer satisfaction with the service firm. Design/methodology/approach -Data for this study were gathered by retrospective experience sampling. Findings -There are several important findings that can be obtained from the results. First, people consider another customer's failure to be the firm's responsibility when they perceive that the failure is under the firm's volitional control (i.e. controllability attribution). This controllability attribution leads to customer expectations of compensation for recovery from dissatisfaction. Second, stability attributions about other-customer failures were not found to be significantly related to the firm's responsibility. Third, the severity of the other-customer failure experience bears no relation to the customer's service recovery expectation, but it is negatively related to satisfaction. Finally, the customer's evaluation of service is not only affected by the other-customer misbehavior, but also by how employees react to situations when other customers are unruly or potentially disruptive. Practical implications -Providing employees with the appropriate coping and problem-solving skills for working with problem customers is a key issue for service providers. More importantly, employees should be trained to help the affected customers, to alleviate any bad feelings caused by the other-customer's misbehavior. Originality/value -The paper suggests that employees in a service-providing firm may need to act as "police officers" to ensure that all their customers behave appropriately.

The purpose of this study is to determine which attribution dimensions concerning dysfunctional other-customer misbehavior most influence customer dissatisfaction toward a service firm. Our research hypotheses were tested using a 2 (Controllability: controllable versus uncontrollable) x 2 (Stability: unstable versus stable) x 2 (Globality: specific versus global) experimental design in a hypothetical restaurant context. Our empirical results demonstrate that when customers feel that the other-customer's misbehavior can be controlled by the firm (i.e., controllability attributions) or is likely to recur (i.e., stability attributions), they render unfavorable service evaluations toward that firm. However, these harmful effects may be mitigated if the customer believes that the same type of dysfunctional customer behavior also occurs during service encounters in other firms (i.e., globality attributions). With a view to diminishing the unsatisfactory experience of other-customer failure, the service organizations need to: (1) act as "police officers" to ensure that their customers behave appropriately; (2) have policies and procedures in place to manage their guests' behavior so as to reduce the recurrence of other-customer failure; and (3) consider communications intended to enhance attributions of globality following an other-customer failure, that will help to buffer the negative impact of controllability and stability attributions on satisfaction and behavioral reactions with the firm. This is the first time that controllability, stability, and globality attributions are clearly shown to be part of the process by which customers transfer their negative response to other-customer misbehavior to the organization

No abstract

No abstract

2015),"Buy four get 30% off: how consumers respond to missing a quantity discount", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Iss 7/8 pp. -Permanent link to this document: http://dx.If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

This study investigates how consumers evaluate and respond to different discount schemes (i.e., one versus multiple price breaks) in the wake of a missed quantity discount. Two field experiments are conducted. The results demonstrate that promotions with multiple price breaks (e.g., 2 for 30% off and 3 for 40% off) will result in a higher likelihood of purchasing one item at the regular price than promotions with only a single price break (e.g., 2 for 30% off) when a quantity discount is missed. The results of Experiment 2 reveal that increasing the number of price breaks (i.e., from two to three) can strengthen the assimilation of the advertised regular price into consumers' internal reference price range when there is a greater interval between the two price breaks (e.g., 2 for 30% off, 5 for 40% off, and 8 for 50% off) and that subsequently raises consumers' purchase likelihood if they are not able to take advantage of the promotional price. Finally, the effect of the discount scheme on purchase likelihood is shown to be mediated by the internal reference price. These observations have important implications for retailers.

No abstract

Investors, like any decision maker, feel regret when they compare the outcome of an investment with what the outcome would have been had they invested differently. We argue and show that this counterfactual comparison process is most likely to take place when the decision maker’s expectations are violated. Across five scenario experiments we found that decision makers were influenced only by forgone investment outcomes when the realized investment fell short of the expected result. However, when their investments exceeded prior expectations, the effect of foregone investment on regret disappeared. In addition, Experiment 4 found that individual differences in the need to maximize further moderated the effects of their expectations, such that maximizers always take into account the forgone investment. The final experiment found that when probed to make counterfactual comparisons, also investments that exceed expectations may lead to regret. Together these experiments reveal insights into the comparative processes leading to decision regret.