Ignored or Rejected: Retail Exclusion Effects on Construal Levels and Consumer Responses to Compensation

Abstract

Among the top customer complaints regarding retailers are experiences of exclusionary treatment in the form of explicit condescension or implicit disregard. However, little is known about how consumers respond to different instances of exclusion in retail or service settings. This research focuses on how customers respond cognitively and emotionally when frontline staff reject or ignore them and on how retailers can recover from such service failures. Findings from six studies using exclusion as a hypothetical scenario or a real experience demonstrate that direct negative feedback leads customers to feel rejected and to form concrete low-level mental construals, while a lack of attention leads customers to feel ignored and to form abstract high-level construals. Explicit rejection (implicit ignoring) causes consumers to form more (less) vivid mental imagery of the exclusionary experience and to activate a concrete (abstract) mindset, resulting in preferences for tangible (intangible) and visual (textual) compensation options. Retailers are advised to align their compensation with construal levels to increase post-recovery customer satisfaction, customer reviews, intended loyalty, and brand referral behavior.

The effect of implicit (vs explicit) rejection on the behavioral intentions of online daters

“…Thus, the extent of rejection involves either being directly rejected or passively ignored (Molden et al, 2009). Overall, consumers will perceive explicit rejection experiences as psychologically closer and ignored experiences as psychologically distant (Sinha and Lu, 2019). Dechant et al (2019) assume that ignoring messages causes customer reactions similar to declining, and that unreciprocated interactions and explicit rejections reflect the proposed argument of exerting power, whereas both add to customers' dissatisfaction.…”

“…Although the psychology and consumer behavior literature distinguishes between the extent of rejection (ignoring vs declining) (i.e. (Blackhart et al, 2009;Goodboy and Brann, 2010;Sinha and Lu, 2019), little is known about how daters behave after being explicitly or implicitly rejected. Freedman et al (2016) suggest further research to better understand the effect of rejection on online daters, arguing that relationship characteristics might play a role.…”

“…Considering that people do not always immediately reply to e-mails or text messages, though they may do so later, one may assume that while online daters have not yet received any replies from potential partners, rejection is also not yet assured. Surprisingly, recent works have shown that consumers attribute a higher value to a negative than a no reply (Alba and Slongo, 2020) and activate distinct mindsets, resulting in different preferences (Sinha and Lu, 2019).…”

The Impact of Incomplete Faces of Spokes-Characters in Mobile Application Icon Designs on Brand Evaluations

“…If an individual is rejected by others, its life will be seriously threatened. Social exclusion has two forms: being ignored and being rejected (Molden et al, 2009;Lee and Shrum, 2012;Sinha and Fang-Chi, 2019). Social neglect refers to when an individual is ignored by others or excluded from a group in social communication, which develops negative emotions or evaluations (Williams, 2007).…”

When and Why Saying “Thank You” Is Better Than Saying “Sorry” in Redressing Service Failures: The Role of Self-Esteem

“…Service failures often trigger a domino effect, in which the initial customer dissatisfaction escalates into a plethora of severe downstream consequences, including customer complaints, product returns, negative WOM, customer switching, and even boycotts of the company (Augusto de Matos, Luiz Henrique, and De Rosa 2013; McCollough, Berry, and Yadav 2000). In response to a service failure, regardless of the presence of utilitarian recovery (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999) or its type (tangible vs. intangible [Sinha and Lu 2019]), service providers almost always need to first engage in some kind of symbolic recovery (e.g., apology) to verbally acknowledge the transgression and provide consumers with social and psychological compensation (Bagozzi 1975). In this sense, symbolic recovery constitutes an initial and indispensable part of companies’ recovery effort (Goodwin and Ross 1992; Roschk and Kaiser 2013; Wirtz and Mattila 2004).…”