Pasar al contenido principal
Tecnológico de Monterrey Tecnológico de Monterrey
  • ES
  • EN
  • Inicio
  • Nosotros
  • Recursos
    • Tendencias
    • Publicaciones
    • Podcast
    • Suscríbete
  • Servicios
    • Educación ejecutiva
    • Consultorías
    • Pregrado
  • Eventos
  • Contacto
  • ES
  • EN
Measuring customer aggression: Scale development and validation
Artículo científico

Measuring customer aggression: Scale development and validation

Authors:

Gary Mortimer, Shasha Wang, María Lucila Osorio Andrade

 

Abstract:

Despite increasing levels of customer aggression being identified within the retail and services sector, no comprehensive tool has been developed to measure such behaviour, thus limiting empirical examinations of this phenomenon. Five studies were undertaken, comprising a student survey, a Delphi-style expert panel review and three retail worker surveys. The results identify a four-factor, 19-item Customer Aggression scale. The nomological validity of the scale was established by demonstrating the impact of customer aggression on employee emotional exhaustion, job stress, organisational deviance and intention to leave. This research contributes a parsimonious, reliable and valid scale to measure such behaviours, facilitating further scientific inquiry.

Keywords

Retail; Service; Customer aggression; Customer misbehaviour; Incivility; Scale development

 

1. Introduction

Globally, the speed of change associated with modern retail (Grewal et al., 2017) and the growth of retail technologies (Adapa et al., 2020; Grewal et al., 2020) are creating higher levels of stress and frustration within the service experience (Chen et al., 2019; Yang and Hu, 2021). It is not uncommon to witness a customer violently throwing an item at an employee when it fails to scan (reactive-expressive aggression), or yelling to attain a discount or upgrade (proactive-expressive aggression). While such examples are clearly visible, other encounters with aggressive customers may be more subtle or implied. For example, triggered by a negative situational event, such as an unavailable menu item, a customer may react in a less noticeable manner, like staring in a hostile manner at an employee or using their height to intimidate (reactive-inexpressive aggression). Others may proactively employ passive aggressive techniques, i.e., posting false ‘1-star’ Google reviews, in an attempt to garner benefits or discounts (proactive-inexpressive aggression). Such examples appear to indicate the multidimensionality of ‘customer aggression’, which might span a range of expressive and inexpressive, reactive and proactive behaviours. However, none of the exisiting measures of customer aggression cover both the expressiveness and proactiveness aspects, and there is a lack of empirical validations.

Customer aggression continues to be widely reported internationally. A recent survey of 1160 retail and fast-food workers found 56% had experienced an increase in customer abuse (Vromen et al., 2021). An Australian retail workers’ union surveyed 1000 members, finding 80% had experienced customer abuse in the previous 12 months (Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, 2020). A United States survey of nearly 5000 frontline service workers found 3069 were abused, 1326 were threatened and 196 were physically assaulted – more than double the rate of incidents compared to 2019 (Lillis, 2020). Similarly, a recent British survey found 65% of respondents have seen threats toward service staff increase, leading to 1.26 million reported incidents of verbal abuse (Wiggins, 2021). Despite increasing levels of customer aggression being reported within the retail and services sector, to date, no comprehensive tool has been developed to measure the dimensionality of such behaviour, thus limiting empirical examinations of this phenomenon, which may inform ways to mitigate such behaviour. As such, a deeper, more comprehensive examination of customer aggression is vital.

Earlier attempts to understand customer aggression (See Table 1 below) have often focused on simply one element of aggression (e.g., verbal abuse) (Cho et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2011; Pandey et al., 2021) or within single contexts, such as call centres (Li and Zhou, 2013). For example, Grandey et al. (2004) measured only verbal aggression, using a single item, ‘spoke aggressively toward you’. Other attempts (see Huang and Dootson, 2022) have relied on adapted supervisory/management aggression scales, such as Tepper's (2000) Abusive Supervision scale, which has been modified and applied to capture aggressive and abusive customer behaviour (also see Ben-Zur and Yagil, 2005; Karatepe, 2011; Gaucher and Chebat, 2019). However, the power imbalance and relationships between managers versus customers and frontline retail workers vary. The disconnected, random and anonymous interactions between customers and frontline service workers differ from the long-term, relational exchanges retail and service workers would have with managers. Further, items that measure ‘abusive supervision’ (Doesn't give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort”, “Breaks promises he/she makes” and “Lies to me”), do not capture the customer/frontline worker interactions.

Table 1. Earlier measures of customer aggression.

Author/s Measure Context/Sample Method Limitations
Cho et al. (2020). Verbal Aggression Nursing Single online survey, n = 1161. Single study, measure only the ‘frequency’ of verbal abuse by patients, families, or physicians directed toward nurses. Constrained to single context – nursing.
Li and Zhou (2013). Verbal Aggression Chinese Call Centre Employees Single survey, n = 1112. A 13 item Verbal Aggression scale developed, however the standard Churchill (1979) process of scale development not followed. Constrained to single context – Chinese call centres and only related to ‘verbal’ elements of aggression.
Grandey et al. (2004). Verbal Aggression Call Center Employees Interviews, n = 12 Single survey, n = 198. Employed a single item, ‘spoke aggressively toward you’ to measure verbal aggression and its impact on absences (time lost). Constrained to single context – call centres and single item measure of verbal aggression.
Tepper (2000). Abusive Supervision General (non-defined) US-based Employees Two paper based surveys, n = 712 and n = 362. Developed a 13 item measure of sustained ‘supervisory’ hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours directed at employees. Churchill (1979) process of scale development not followed. Measures adapted from earlier supervisory and domestic abuse measures. Accordingly, not relevant in the retail/services context, or the customer/employee relationship. Items not derived from retail or services theories or informed by practice.
Gaucher and Chebat (2019). Interactional Justice US-based retail employees Single M-Turk survey, n = 415. Measures only ‘Interactional Justice’ and ‘uncivil behaviour’ (politeness, dignity, and respect), as a proxy for ‘aggression’, but does not measure ‘aggression’ specifically.
Dormann and Zapf (2004). Customer-Related Social Stressors US-based flight attendants, travel agents and footwear sales associates. Single survey, n = 591. Developed a four-factor measure of Customer-Related Social Stressors – including (1) ‘verbal aggression’, i.e., ‘shout’, ‘attack us verbally’, ‘complain’; and ‘argue’; (2) ‘incivility’, i.e., ‘interrupt’, ‘no sense of humour’ and ‘unpleasant’. Fails to acknowledge the full range of potential aggressive behaviour (pro-active/reactive). Does not measure ‘aggression’ specifically.
Chaouali et al. (2022). Customer Misbehaviour Restaurant diners. Single mall intercept survey, n = 263. Measured the relationship between ‘dark triad personality traits’ and ‘customer misbehaviour’. Misbehaviour measured with a single, open-ended item, “Did you behave in a way that may be judged by others to be inappropriate”. Fails to acknowledge the full range of potential aggressive behaviour (pro-active/reactive). Does not measure ‘aggression’ specifically.
Gong et al. (2022). Customer Misbehaviour Restaurant diners and hotel guests. Survey 1, n = 200, Survey 2, n = 200, Survey 3, n = 300. Measured customers' intention to engage in indirect misbehaviour – including overconsumption, damaging assets, throwing herbage. However, aggression not measured.
Wang et al. (2011). Customers Misbehaviour Chinese Call Centre Employees. Single paper based survey, n = 131. Examined daily customer mistreatment of call centre workers and workers' intention to ‘sabotage’ or engage in counter productive work behaviour as a response. Constrained to single context – Chinese call centres. Fails to acknowledge the full range of potential aggressive behaviour (pro-active/reactive). Does not measure ‘aggression’ specifically.
Yamasaki and Nishida (2009). Proactive-Reactive Aggression Primary school children, grades 4 to 6. Single survey, n = 1581. Developed a three-factor measure of aggressive behaviour in young children. Accordingly, not relevant in the retail/services context or the customer/employee relationship. Items not derived from retail or services theories or informed by practice.
Henry et al. (2004). Classroom Aggression and Violence US-based, Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade students. Pilot survey, n = 236 Single survey, n = 3304. Study adopted the four-item child aggression scale from Dahlberg et al. (1998), which measures youth violence. Not relevant in the retail/services context or the customer/employee relationship. Items not derived from retail or services theories or informed by practice.
Ladd and Profilet (1996). Children's Aggressive, Withdrawn, and Prosocial Behaviors US-based 5-6 year-old children. Single survey, n = 206. Aggression measured with a 7-item ‘Aggressive with Peers’. Accordingly, not relevant in the customer/employee context. Items not derived from retail or services theories or informed by practice.
Ben-Zur and Yagil (2005). Customer Aggression Doctors, nurses, clerical, teachers and sales associates. Single online survey, n = 228. Employed an adapted 13 items adapted from the Abusive Supervision Questionnaire (Tepper, 2000). Specific items used not relevant in the retail/services context, or the customer/employee relationship. Items do not measure ‘customer aggression’, i.e., “Doesn't give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort” and “Breaks promises he/she makes” and “Lies to me”.
Karatepe (2011). Customer Aggression Arab frontline employees at international five-star Dubai hotels. Single online survey, n = 135. Culturally and contextually constrained. Employed an adapted 13 items adapted from the Abusive Supervision Questionnaire (Tepper, 2000). (See above limitations.)
Pandey et al. (2021). Customer Aggression Indian-based retail workers. Interviews, n = 150 Single survey, n = 437. Developed a 6-item, measure of Customer Aggression, however, limited only to ‘Verbal Aggression’ – harsh words, yelling, grumbling, and negative remarks.

Other attempts to measure customer aggression have derived from qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Dormann and Zapf (2004) conducted interviews with employees in shoe stores and travel agencies and with flight attendants, developing themes relating only to ‘ambiguous’ customer expectations and ‘verbal aggression’. This work in itself suggests the complex multidimensionality of customer aggression, yet this line of enquiry was not followed. Instead, Dormann and Zapf (2004) develop a four-factor measure of ‘Customer-Related Social Stressors’, which include (1) ‘verbal aggression’, i.e., ‘shout’, ‘attack us verbally’, ‘complain’; and ‘argue’; and (2) ‘incivility’, i.e., ‘interrupt’, ‘no sense of humour’ and ‘unpleasant’. The work fails to acknowledge the full range of potential proactive/reactive aggressive behaviours at play in a retail and services setting. At a much deeper level, psychological measures of aggression tend to be housed in early childhood and educational literature and not derived from retail or services theories or informed by practice (Yamasaki and Nishida, 2009; Henry et al., 2004; Ladd and Profilet, 1996). Finally, aggression has often been grouped with misbehaviour or incivility (Chaouali et al., 2022; Gong et al., 2022). Harris and Daunt (2011) define misbehaviour as including theft, vandalism and other dishonest actions, while Malvini Redden (2013) suggests customer misbehaviour may also include aggression but does not measure aggression specifically. In contrast to aggression, incivility has been defined as low-intensity deviant behaviour that may include rudeness, being discourteous or disrespectful (Fellesson and Salomonson, 2020), whereas aggression includes displays of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours as well as physical contact (Yamasaki and Nishida, 2009). In all, the literature suggests that customer aggression is potentially a multi-dimensional construct, which sits within a broader suite of abnormal, deviant customer behaviours (Fisk et al., 2010). The aim of the current work is to examine the potential multidimensionality of customer aggression by way of empirically developing a psychometric scale to clearly identify and facilitate the measurement of customer aggression in a retail and services context.

As addressed above, this current research overcomes the limitations of earlier attempts by contributing five studies to develop a four-dimensional Customer Aggression scale, which may serve to more accurately measure the range of customer aggressive behaviours experienced by frontline employees. Once measured, such a tool may guide retail and service sector managers toward prevention and mitigation strategies. Study 1 generates an initial pool of items through a review of extant literature and the results of an open-ended survey conducted with students currently employed in frontline service roles. Study 2 confirms face and content validity through a two-stage expert review process. Study 3 identifies the scale's underlying structure through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which resulted in a parsimonious set of items loading across four dimensions. The four-factor structure of the scale was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This stage also demonstrates the scale's reliability and discriminant validity. Study 4 demonstrates the criterion validity of the scale by testing the association of the developed customer aggression dimensions with related constructs, such as customer incivility, customer misbehaviour and workplace violence. Finally, Study 5 demonstrates the nomological validity of the scale by demonstrating the scales' dimensions behave as they are hypothesised to do, relevant to logical constructs. In this case, it is predicted that sustained incidents of customer aggression will increase employee emotional exhaustion (Mulki et al., 2006), and such emotional exhaustion will lead to greater levels of job stress (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983), organisational deviance and intentions to leave (Mortimer et al., 2021; Raza et al., 2021; Mulki et al., 2006).

2. Theoretical framework

As noted above, previous studies and measurements of aggression have evolved from early childhood and educational psychology literature; that is, understanding aggressive behaviour within a classroom environment (Yamasaki and Nishida, 2009; Ladd and Profilet, 1996). While such literature provides a strong theoretical base, it fails to address several important socially constructed variances germane to the retail service environment: the notion of customer sovereignty (Korczynski and Ott, 2004; McMullen, 2017), the low-status shield held by frontline service employees (Hochschild, 1983; Kolb, 2007) and the disconnected interactions between service employees and customers (Gutek, 1995; Korczynski and Evans, 2013). The idea that the ‘customer is always right’ (customer sovereignty) (Bishop and Hoel, 2008) is often used to explain instances of customer aggression and abuse. Korczynski and Ott (2004) discuss sovereignty as relating to perceived relational superiority. It has been theorised that customer aggression results when ‘customer enchantment’ turns to ‘disillusionment’ (Korczynski, 2002). For example, a customer becomes aggressive when they have declined a request (upgrade, refund) that they believe they are entitled to (because the customer is always right).

The perception of low-level, low-paid, low-status and low-skilled work associated with retail service occupations further conflates aggressive behaviour (Hampson and Junor, 2005). Such retail frontline service roles are generally dominated by individuals with gender, ethnic and social class characteristics considered to be low-status (Vromen et al., 2021). Leidner (1993, p. 132) argues customers are more likely to demonstrate aggressive behaviour toward retail workers who lack a ‘status shield’, such as young female students or migrant workers, rather than toward supervisors. Finally, the service interaction continuum may also elevate customer aggression. Consider the isolated, anonymous interaction with a young checkout operator who has packed your groceries poorly versus the long-term relational exchange you have with a hairdresser or pharmacy assistant; it has been suggested customer aggression is less likely to occur when interactions are designed as relationships but more likely to occur when the service exchanges are simply isolated encounters (Gutek, 1995).

Taking into consideration the ideas of customer sovereignty, low-status shield and isolated service encounters, this current study employs displaced aggression theory to explain and frame customer aggression (Dollard et al., 1939). Marcus-Newhall et al., (2000) meta-analysis of experimental literature confirms that displaced aggression can provide a robust explanation of aggressive behaviours in a retail services context. Their research indicates that angry individuals, who were unable to retaliate against the provocation, are more likely to respond aggressively toward an innocent individual – often referred to as the ‘kicking the (barking) dog effect’ (Bushman et al., 2005). In context, displaced aggression theory explains that when a customer feels unfairly treated (customer sovereignty disillusionment), they may behave aggressively toward an anonymous (isolated service interaction) retail worker (low-status shield) because the source of the provocation (retailer's refund policy) is too powerful, procedurally or legally binding, or may exert retaliation (resulting in a fine or ban from the store).

3. Dimensionality of customer aggression

A key contribution of this current research is the identification of the dimensionality of customer aggression in the retail and services sector. While the idea of frontline worker-directed aggression often conjures up images of physical or verbal altercations, these examples only illustrate extreme instances. This extreme form of aggression connects with the literature pertaining to ‘reactive-expressive’ aggression (REA), which includes reactions of defence and retaliation (Dodge, 1991). Such behaviours are driven by negative emotions such as anger or frustration (Miller and Lynam, 2006). REA is characterised by physical behaviours, including pushing or throwing objects, intended to intimidate or harm frontline service employees (Yagil, 2008, 2017). These visible emotional reactions are often triggered by unexpected situational events, for example the unavailability of an advertised product or perceptions of poor service. However, some customers may behave aggressively toward a frontline service worker not as a reaction to an unexpected situation but to attain a positive outcome for themselves. Referred to as ‘proactive-expressive’ aggression (PEA), the literature defines this behaviour as a premeditated, deliberate, self-serving and goal-oriented form of aggression (Hubbard et al., 2010). For example, yelling, being verbally demeaning, threatening or insulting a frontline service employee to attain a cash refund, exchange, upgrades or benefits. Workplace supervisory abusive behaviour literature indicates proactive aggression is more commonly ‘verbal’ than ‘physical’, as language, tone and voice are often used surreptitiously and in a premeditated manner to ensure compliance (Keashly et al., 1994; Saunders et al., 2007). Conversely, shoving or pushing tends to be associated with a spontaneous reaction.

While the two examples above illustrate customer aggression as a visible expressive occurrence, other forms of customer aggression exist that may be defined as subtle or implied. The first, ‘reactive-inexpressive’ aggression (RIA), similarly stems from an unexpected situation but results in non-verbal, non-physical but threatening behaviours directed toward an individual (Kawabata et al., 2016). It may take the form of covert hostility (Johnston et al., 1991). For example, staring in an aggressive manner, using one's height to intimidate or ignoring reasonable requests. The final form of customer aggression is referred to as ‘proactive-inexpressive’ aggression (PIA), which again is a non-verbal, non-physical form of aggression but involves the deliberate act of initiating indirect or covert aggression designed to attain a goal; that is, to cause a disruption, damage the brand or attain financial outcomes. These PIA behaviours may be the result of customer misbehaviour (Malvini Redden, 2013) and include intentional dishonesty (Harris and Daunt, 2011; Han et al., 2016). Acts may include intentionally falsifying complaints or reviews about the employee to attain a benefit (Baker et al., 2012; Chong and Abawajy, 2015). For example, indicating a 1-Star Google review in the hope of attaining a free meal as compensation. Such behaviour has an adverse impact on employees and retail businesses, as it deliberately persuades other customers to accept the false beliefs that are being shared (Talwar et al., 2020). In bringing these four elements of customer aggression together, we present the Customer Aggression Matrix (see Table 2).

Table 2. Customer aggression matrix.

Reactive-expressive aggression (REA) Proactive-expressive aggression (PEA)
A visible emotional reaction triggered by a situational event that results in direct and intentional physical (or verbal) aggression aimed toward an individual. A visible, goal-oriented emotional demonstration that results in direct and intentional aggression aimed toward an individual, designed to encourage compliance or goal attainment.
Example: Pushing, shoving, throwing objects, yelling aggressively at a retail employee in response to a negative situation (i.e., product unavailability, refund refusal, perceived overcrowding). Example: Intentionally demeaning, yelling or swearing aggressively to attain a cash refund, upgrades or benefits.
Reactive-inexpressive aggression (RIA) Proactive-inexpressive aggression (PIA)
A subtle, implied emotional reaction triggered by a negative situational event that results in direct non-verbal, non-physical, covert hostility aimed toward an individual. A subtle, implied goal-oriented emotional demonstration that results in indirect, non-verbal, non-physical and covert hostility designed to encourage compliance or goal attainment.
Example: Staring in an aggressive manner at a retail employee, entering their personal space, using one's height or build to intimidate, ignoring reasonable directions or requests. Example: Intentionally falsifying complaints, writing fake reviews or spreading rumours about a retail employee's performance to attain benefits or positive outcomes.

4. Methodology

The development of the Customer Aggression scale was informed by accepted scale-development procedures (Churchill, 1979). Five studies were undertaken to attain (1) item generation, (2) item purification, (3) scale dimensionality, (4) scale validation and (5) nomological validity (see Table 3).

Table 3. Customer Aggression scale development process.

Stage Study Items
Stage 1 – Item Generation Study 1: Literature review + open response surveys (n = 211), undergraduate students (currently employed in frontline service roles) over 8 weeks Initial items: 74
Stage 2 – Scale Purification Study 2: Face and content validity – two-stage expert review (n = 3; n = 4) Interim items: 49
Stage 3 – Scale Dimensionality Study 3: EFA (49 interim items) – survey of frontline retail and service employees (n = 251) CFA – convergent and discriminant validity Purified items: 20
Model fit attained – four-factor solution
Stage 4 – Scale Validation Study 4: Survey of frontline retail and service employees (n = 389) to test the extent to which factors are empirically associated with relevant criterion variables. Criterion validity attained – 1 cross-load item removed
Stage 5 – Nomological Validity Study 5: Survey of frontline retail and service employees (n = 391) to test the predictive nature of the customer aggression scale Nomological validity attained
Four-dimensional Customer aggression scale established
Final items: 19

4.1. Stage 1: item generation – study 1

To ensure a deeper understanding of the customer aggression phenomenon, as presented above, a thorough review of the related literature was undertaken to identify the four dimensions of customer aggression (Table 1). A domain sampling method was used to generate a large pool of initial measurement items (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994, p. 217). This was achieved through a series of open-response surveys administered over 8 weeks to 211 undergraduate students. The sample comprised 58% females, 41% males and 1% other, who were aged 18–32 years old (M = 21.2 years) and had an employment length of between 18 months and 12 years (M = 3.4 years). Students were screened to ensure they were currently employed in frontline service roles. Students were presented with one instruction: “Please briefly describe a recent negative or unpleasant service experience with a customer.” Responses included experiences such as being yelled or sworn at, being ignored, having items thrown toward them, being ‘stood over’ or having fake poor reviews or negative comments posted on social media. Through a deductive approach, the researchers then analysed the responses in line with the literature and theoretically derived definitions of the ‘customer aggression’ construct, as presented in Table 1. After removing illegible or incomplete responses, an initial pool of 74 items was attained.

4.2. Stage 2: scale purification – study 2

Item reduction was facilitated via a Delphi-style expert review in two stages. Firstly, the initial 74 items were refined by three marketing academics, selected based on their field of research (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Each expert was asked to clarify ambiguous items and allocate these items into the theoretical categories presented above (Table 1). Once agreement was attained, six items were discarded, and the remaining 68 items were classified into four categories: reactive-expressive aggression (REA), proactive-expressive aggression (PEA), reactive-inexpressive aggression (RIA) and proactive-inexpressive aggression (PIA). Secondly, the remaining 68 categorised items were then sent to a futher four academic experts from two external universities for further refinement. Herein, the experts were asked to rate each item on how it represented each dimension. Only those items rated as ‘clearly’ or ‘somewhat representative’ by the majority were retained. A total of 49 items remained after this stage of refinement.

4.3. Stage 3: scale dimensionality – study 3

To identify the underlying factor structure and refine the interim items, data were collected directly from frontline retail and service workers. A commercial research organisation was employed to survey panel participants. Participants were screened to confirm they currently worked within a retail or services frontline role. A survey link containing the 49 randomised items, two integrity-check questions and sample demographic items was forwarded to participants, who indicated their responses for each item on a scale of strongly disagree/never (1) to strongly agree/always (7). Participants who failed either or both integrity-check items, completed the survey too quickly or responded to items consistently across the entire survey were removed, resulting in a final sample of n = 251. The sample comprised 55% female, 42% male, 3% undisclosed; 18–24 years 16%, 25–35 years 32%, 36–45 years 35%, 46–55 years 8%, 56–65 years 6%, over 65 years 2%, not disclosed 1%; fulltime 24%, part-time 37%, casual 38%, other 1%; employed within retail 36%, hospitality/food service 32%, tourism 8%, personal services 20%, clerical 4%; earning less that AUD$30,000 3%, AUD$30,001-$50,000 12%, AUD$50,001-$70,000 38%, AUD$70,001-$90,000 32%, AUD$90,001-$110,000 8%, AUD$110,001-$130,000 4%, over AUD$130,000 2%, and 1% not disclosed.

To examine the underlying structure of the Customer Aggression scale, EFA was carried out on the data. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) results showed that the sample was adequate to conduct the factor analysis. Without any item deduction, the initial EFA resulted in a seven-factor structure which accounted for 73% of the total variance. Several poorly loaded items (<0.6) were excluded through an interactive EFA approach (Hair et al., 2006), resulting in a four-factor solution which accounted for 78% of the total variance. All factor loadings were greater than 0.60 (Table 4), with an acceptable range of commonalities from 0.67 to 0.85 (Hair et al., 2006). The item-to-total correlation ranged from 0.49 to 0.82. The Cronbach's alpha values for the combined 20-item scale were very good (0.95), and the individual alpha values for the four factors were also above the threshold level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006).

Table 4. EFA results.

Empty Cell Empty Cell PEA PIA REA RIA
PEA1 Customers make direct verbal threats to get a refund. 0.700      
PEA2 To ‘get what they want’, customers yell aggressively. 0.791      
PEA3 To obtain benefits they are not entitled to, customers will raise their voices in a threatening manner. 0.795      
PEA4 Shouting at me is how customers end up ‘getting their own way'. 0.726      
PEA5 Customers seek to ‘get something for nothing’ by using hostile language. 0.778      
PEA6 Customers swear to obtain more favourable outcomes. 0.787      
PEA7 To get financial benefits, customers can be insulting. 0.740      
PIA1 To get their own way, customers will make misrepresentations about the service they receive.   0.701    
PIA2 I know customers post false reviews about their service experience to obtain benefits.   0.814    
PIA3 To attain better service outcomes, customers falsely complain about the way they were served.   0.833    
PIA4 Dishonestly complaining is a way customers get what they want.   0.787    
PIA5 To obtain an advantage, customers put in false complaints about the way they were served.   0.856    
PIA6 To take advantage, customers will proactively post fake comments about the service they received.   0.797    
REA1 When customers believe their problems are not resolved, their reaction is to become physically aggressive.     0.862  
REA2 In response to perceived poor service, customers have reacted aggressively by throwing things.     0.794  
REA3 Customers will become physically hostile when they are not satisfied with the service they receive.     0.866  
REA4 Getting ‘physically aggressive’ is becoming the norm when complaints aren't handled well.     0.816  
RIA1 Customers simply ignore reasonable requests when they believe something has gone wrong.       0.780
RIA2 My advice is ignored by customers when they believe a service failure has occurred.       0.786
RIA3 Customers just disregard my suggestions when I am trying to serve them.       0.685
  Eigen Value 10.858 2.336 1.39 1.015
  Variance Explained 25.157 24.148 16.822 11.872

 

Note: PEA - Proactive-Expressive Aggression; PIA - Proactive-Inexpressive Aggression; REA - Reactive-Expressive Aggression; RIA - Reactive-Inexpressive Aggression.

Using AMOS 18, CFA was employed to confirm the four-factor Customer Aggression scale structure approach (Churchill, 1979). CFA models should satisfy a set of the goodness-of-fit indicators, including goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and incremental fit index (IFI) values to be greater than 0.80, comparative fit index (CFI) to be greater than 0.90, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be less than 0.08 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The model had good model fit with χ2 (162) = 265.240, χ2/df = 1.637, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.973, NFI = 0.943, CFI = 0.977, IFI = 0.977 and RMSEA = 0.05. A set of reliability and validity measures for the latent constructs were then assessed and are presented in Table 5. Cronbach's alpha values for all the dimensions were above the cut-off value of 0.70 (ranging from 0.871 to 0.949) (Hair et al., 2006). Factor loadings (greater than 0.70), composite reliability (greater than 0.70), and average variance extracted (AVE; greater than 0.50) were all above the threshold limits. Thus, convergent validity was achieved. Discriminant validity of the scale was also attained as the square root of AVE was greater than the inter-construct correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 5. CFA results – Study 3.

Empty Cell Empty Cell Standardised loadings Cronbach's Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Explained
Proactive-Expressive Aggression   0.949 0.949 0.728
PEA1 Customers make direct verbal threats to get a refund. 0.825      
PEA2 To ‘get what they want’, customers yell aggressively. 0.899      
PEA3 To obtain benefits they are not entitled to, customers will raise their voices in a threatening manner. 0.898      
PEA4 Shouting is how customers end up ‘getting their own way'. 0.757      
PEA5 Customers seek to ‘get something for nothing’ by using hostile language. 0.868      
PEA6 Customers swear to obtain more favourable outcomes. 0.884      
PEA7 To get financial benefits, customers can be insulting. 0.831      
Proactive-Inexpressive Aggression   0.940 0.939 0.721
PIA1 To get their own way, customers will make misrepresentations about the service they receive. 0.818      
PIA2 Customers post false reviews about their service experience to obtain benefits. 0.867      
PIA3 To attain better service outcomes, customers falsely complain about the way they were served. 0.886      
PIA4 Dishonestly complaining is a way customers get what they want. 0.838      
PIA5 To obtain an advantage, customers put in false complaints about the way they were served. 0.871      
PIA6 To take advantage, customers will proactively post fake comments about the service they received. 0.811      
Reactive-Expressive Aggression   0.902 0.905 0.706
REA1 When customers believe their problems are not resolved, their reaction is to become physically aggressive. 0.867      
REA2 In response to perceived poor service, customers have reacted aggressively by throwing things. 0.732      
REA3 Customers will become physically hostile when they are not satisfied with the service they receive. 0.927      
REA4 Getting ‘physically aggressive’ is becoming the norm when complaints aren't handled well. 0.822      
Reactive-Inexpressive Aggression   0.871 0.876 0.703
RIA1 Customers simply ignore reasonable requests when they believe something has gone wrong. 0.886      
RIA2 My advice is ignored by customers when they believe a service failure has occurred. 0.866      
RIA3 Customers just disregard my suggestions when I am trying to serve them. 0.758      
Discriminant Validity
Empty Cell PEA PIA REA RIA
Proactive-Expressive Aggression (PEA) 0.853      
Proactive-Inexpressive Aggression (PIA) 0.722 0.849    
Reactive-Expressive Aggression (REA) 0.559 0.379 0.840  
Reactive-Inexpressive Aggression (RIA) 0.738 0.652 0.541 0.838

 

Note: The diagonal values are the square root of AVE and the half-diagonal values are inter-construct correlations.

Common method bias (CMB) was examined in two ways. Harman's single-factor test was employed as a post-hoc test, with results indicating the variance extracted by the first factor accounted for only 25.16% of the variance, mitigating CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As Harman's single-factor approach often produces false positives (Fuller et al., 2016), the researchers introduced a marker variable method. This method is superior to Harman's single-factor test and the partial correlation approach (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The marker variable chosen was uncorrelated to the proposed constructs in the current study. As shown in Table 6, there is no significant ꭓ2 change between the baseline model and the constrained models or between the restricted models and the constrained/unconstrained models; therefore, CMB was not present.

Table 6. Marker variable test for CMB – Study 3.

Model ꭓ2(df) CFI RMSEA (90% CI) Comparison Model Likelihood Ratio test of ꭓ2 change
CFA with marker variable 347.201 (218) 0.973 0.049 (0.039, 0.058)
Baseline 349.227 (225) 0.974 0.047 (0.037, 0.056)
Constrained 348.982 (224) 0.973 0.048 (0.038, 0.057) vs Baseline 0.245, df = 5, p = 0.999
Unconstrained 339.273 (205) 0.972 0.051 (0.041, 0.061) vs Constrained 9.709, df = 19, p = 0.960
Restricted 1 348.982 (230) 0.975 0.045 (0.036, 0.055) vs Constrained 0, df = 6, p = 1.000
Restricted 2 339.281 (211) 0.973 0.049 (0.039, 0.059) vs Unconstrained 0.008, df = 6, p = 1.000

 

Note: df - Degree of Freedom; CI – Confidence Interval.

4.4. Stage 4: scale validation – study 4

To evaluate the criterion validity of the Customer Aggression scale, the researchers returned to the literature pertaining to customer ‘misbehaviour’, ‘incivility’ and ‘workplace violence’ to validate the constructs associated with the four dimensions of customer aggression. As presented above, customer aggression is often associated with customer incivility, misbehaviour and, in the extreme, violence. To test the criterion validity of the Customer Aggression scale, we used the 10-item Incivility scale by Wilson and Holmvall (2013), the four-item Customer Misbehaviour scale (Daunt and Harris, 2014), and the 10-item Workplace Violence scale (Dupré et al., 2014).

A commercial research organisation was employed to survey panel participants, ensuring the same respondents to the first survey were not invited to participate in the second survey. Participants were screened to confirm they currently worked within a retail or services frontline role. A survey link containing the 20 customer aggression items, 10 incivility items (Wilson and Holmvall, 2013), four customer misbehaviour items (Daunt and Harris, 2014), and 10 workplace violence items and sample demographic items were forwarded to participants. Further, a duration check was included to remove participants who answered the survey too quickly, two integrity-check questions and a marker variable were added to ensure the veracity of responses and control for CMB. Participants who failed either or both integrity-check items, completed the survey too quickly or responded to items consistently across the entire survey were removed from the final sample of n = 389. The sample comprised 53% female, 44% male, 1% other, 2% undisclosed; 18–24 years 12%, 25–35 years 34%, 36–45 years 37%, 46–55 years 9%, 56–65 years 6%, over 65 years 1%, not disclosed 1%; fulltime 18%, part-time 41%, casual 39%, other 2%; employed within retail 32%, hospitality/food service 37%, tourism 5%, personal services 24%, clerical 2%; earning less that AUD$30,000 7%, AUD$30,001-$50,000 10%, AUD$50,001-$70,000 34%, AUD$70,001-$90,000 37%, AUD$90,001-$110,000 7%, AUD$110,001-$130,000 3%, over AUD$130,000 2%.

Another round of CFA was undertaken to confirm the measurement models. During this process, one PEA item (PEA4) was removed due to a cross-loading issue. The model had good model fit with χ2 (164) = 454.423, χ2/df = 2.771, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.890, TLI = 0.951, NFI = 0.935, CFI = 0.957, IFI = 0.958 and RMSEA = 0.068. Cronbach's alpha values for PEA (0.937), PIA (0.947), REA (0.933) and RIA (0.837) were above the cut-off value of 0.70. The Cronbach's alpha for the customer incivility, misbehaviour and workplace violence scales were 0.955, 0.906 and 0.990, respectively. Pearson's correlations are used to test the associations between the customer aggression dimensions and the three constructs. Specifically, PEA correlated significantly with all the criteria (customer incivility, misbehaviour and workplace violence), with coefficients of 0.700 (p < 0.001), 0.378 (p < 0.001) and 0.124 (p < 0.01), respectively. PIA also correlated significantly with customer incivility, misbehaviour and workplace violence, with coefficients of 0.719 (p < 0.001), 0.384 (p < 0.001) and 0.155 (p < 0.01), respectively. REA correlated significantly with these same criteria, with coefficients of 0.466 (p < 0.001), 0.153 (p < 0.01) and 0.154 (p < 0.01), respectively. Finally, RIA correlated significantly with customer incivility, misbehaviour and workplace violence, with coefficients of 0.707 (p < 0.001), 0.401 (p < 0.01) and 0.192 (p < 0.01), thereby establishing criterion validity of the four dimensions of the Customer Aggression scale.

4.5. Stage 5: nomological validity – study 5

Nomological validity is the extent to which the construct of interest – in this case, customer aggression – behaves as it should with other constructs that are hypothesised to be related to that concept (Bagozzi, 1981; Campbell, 1960). It is predicted that sustained incidents of customer aggression will increase the emotional exhaustion employees experience (Mulki et al., 2006). Such emotional exhaustion will lead to greater levels of job stress (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983), which will increase organisational deviance and intentions to leave (Mortimer et al., 2021; Raza et al., 2021; Mulki et al., 2006).

4.5.1. Customer aggression and emotional exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion is defined as being over-extended, fatigued or psychologically drained of emotional energy (Wright and Cropanzano, 1998). Sustained customer incivility and misbehaviour have been demonstrated to lower self-efficacy and increase job dissatisfaction and emotional exhaustion (Chan et al., 2022; Hur et al., 2015; Torres et al., 2017). Recent studies have evidenced that customer incivility results in significant negative psychological outcomes for retail workers (Hur et al., 2022). As presented previously, incivility, in contrast to aggression, has been defined as ‘low-intensity’ deviant behaviour that may include rudeness or being discourteous (Han et al., 2016). The researchers extend this idea, suggesting that logically proactive, reactive, expressive and inexpressive forms of customer aggression should also increase frontline retail employees' emotional exhaustion. Accordingly, we hypothesise:

H1

Proactive-expressive aggression (PEA) positively impacts (increases) retail frontline employees' emotional exhaustion.

H2

Proactive-inexpressive aggression (PIA) positively impacts (increases) retail frontline employees' emotional exhaustion.

H3

Reactive-expressive aggression (REA) positively impacts (increases) retail frontline employees' emotional exhaustion.

H4

Reactive-inexpressive aggression (RIA) positively impacts (increases) retail frontline employees' emotional exhaustion.

4.5.2. Emotional exhaustion and job stress

Job stress, in contrast to general stress, combines organisational-related elements, such as company policies, workplace relationships and customer interactions (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983). Job stress is defined as a frontline employee's psychological reaction caused by sustained unpleasant feelings of being drained, over-extended or emotionally exhausted (Montgomery et al., 1996). Ashill et al. (2015) evidenced that job-related stress is an outcome of emotional exhaustion. Accordingly, we follow the common practice of using emotional exhaustion as the antecedent of job stress, as it provides the most consistent relationship within its nomological network (Halbesleben and Bowler, 2007) and is most readily portable to other contexts (Sun and Pan, 2008). As such, we hypothesise:

H5

Retail frontline employees' emotional exhaustion will positively impact (increase) their job stress.

4.5.3. Outcomes of retail employee job stress

Potentially, job stress will impact frontline retail employees' behaviours (workplace deviance) and relationships (intention to leave) with their retail organisation. Beginning with workplace deviance, according to the role stress model (Behrman and Perreault, 1984) and coping theory (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), elevated stress levels are associated with increased deviant behaviours (Swimberghe et al., 2014). Frontline service employees exposed to sustained customer mistreatment will experience job stress, which motivates them to engage in ‘rule breaking’ (Gaucher and Chebat, 2019). Recent research has confirmed retail employees are motivated to deviate from company policies to save time or avoid protracted emotionally distressful arguments (Fazel-e-Hasan et al., 2019; Mortimer et al., 2021; Mortimer and Wang, 2021). It is predicted job stress will increase employees' intentions to engage in deviant workplace behaviours. It is further determined that facing regular abuse leaves retail employees feeling emotionally exhausted, stressed and unlikely to continue their job (Lindblom et al., 2020; Pandey et al., 2021). According to the conservation of resources theory, employees attempt to gain, or at least retain, social and personal conditions (a supportive, friendly and safe work environment), which helps mitigate stressful workplace situations (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Exposure to sustained episodes of customer aggression will increase job stress, reducing these conditions, which may encourage employees to leave. Accordingly, positive relationships between the employee's job stress and their intention to engage in organisational deviance or leave the organisation are hypothesised:

H6

Retail frontline employees' job stress positively impacts (increases) their organisational deviance behaviours.

H7

Retail frontline employees' job stress positively impacts (increases) their intention to leave their organisation.

The outcomes of customer aggression are conceptualised in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

  1. Download : Download high-res image (204KB)
  2. Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 1. Outcomes of customer aggression.

4.5.4. Method

To establish the nomological validity of the Customer Aggression scale, a commercial research organisation was again employed to survey participants confirmed to be working within a retail or services frontline role. Checks ensured the same respondents to the first two surveys were not invited to participate in this survey. A survey link containing 19 customer aggression items, with the Emotional Exhaustion scale (Mulki et al., 2006), the Job Stress scale (Parker and DeCotiis, 1983), the Organisational Deviance scale (Mulki et al., 2006) and the Turnover Intention scale (Raza et al., 2021), and sample demographic items were forwarded to participants. The same integrity and CMB controls were adopted as per Study 3 and Study 4. The final sample (n = 391) comprised 57% female, 39% male, 4% undisclosed; 18–24 years 13%, 25–35 years 28%, 36–45 years 41%, 46–55 years 11%, 56–65 years 5%, not disclosed 2%; fulltime 16%, part-time 40%, casual 44%; employed within retail 31%, hospitality/food service 41%, tourism 3%, personal services 22%, clerical 3%; earning less that AUD$30,000 2%, AUD$30,001-$50,000 25%, AUD$50,001-$70,000 39%, AUD$70,001-$90,000 23%, AUD$90,001-$110,000 6%, AUD$110,001-$130,000 3%, and 2% not disclosed.

5. Data analysis

A CFA was undertaken to examine the measurement models of the study's latent constructs. The same model assessment criteria in Study 3 were used in this study. The final CFA model had good model fit, with χ2 (566) = 1187.933, χ2/df = 2.099, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.851, TLI = 0.945, NFI = 0.910, CFI = 0.950, IFI = 0.951 and RMSEA = 0.053. All the constructs had good reliability with a Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.7, a Composite Reliability greater than 0.7 and an AVE greater than 0.5. All factor loadings were greater than 0.7. Discriminant validity was achieved as all correlations were lower than the square root of AVE (see Table 7).

Table 7. CFA results – Study 5.

Empty Cell Empty Cell Standardised loadings Cronbach's Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Explained
Proactive-Expressive Aggression   0.937 0.937 0.714  
PEA1 Customers make direct verbal threats to get a refund. 0.780      
PEA2 To ‘get what they want’, customers yell aggressively. 0.871      
PEA3 To obtain benefits they are not entitled to, customers will raise their voices in a threatening manner. 0.876      
PEA4 Customers seek to ‘get something for nothing’ by using hostile language. 0.874      
PEA5 Customers swear to obtain more favourable outcomes. 0.843      
PEA6 To get financial benefits, customers can be insulting. 0.820      
Proactive-Inexpressive Aggression   0.947 0.947 0.750  
PIA1 To get their own way, customers will make misrepresentations about the service they receive. 0.823      
PIA2 Customers post false reviews about their service experience to obtain benefits. 0.841      
PIA3 To attain better service outcomes, customers falsely complain about the way they were served. 0.890      
PIA4 Dishonestly complaining is a way customers get what they want. 0.846      
PIA5 To obtain an advantage, customers put in false complaints about the way they were served. 0.914      
PIA6 To take advantage, customers will proactively post fake comments about the service they received. 0.877      
Reactive-Expressive Aggression   0.933 0.933 0.777  
REA1 When customers believe their problems are not resolved, their reaction is to become physically aggressive. 0.854      
REA2 In response to perceived poor service, customers have reacted aggressively by throwing things. 0.868      
REA3 Customers will become physically hostile when they are not satisfied with the service they receive. 0.918      
REA4 Getting ‘physically aggressive’ is becoming the norm when complaints aren't handled well. 0.885      
Reactive-Inexpressive Aggression   0.837 0.843 0.643  
RIA1 Customers simply ignore reasonable requests when they believe something has gone wrong. 0.826      
RIA2 My advice is ignored by customers when they believe a service failure has occurred. 0.867      
RIA3 Customers just disregard my suggestions when I am trying to serve them. 0.704      
Emotional Exhaustion   0.966 0.966 0.804  
EE1 I would feel emotionally drained from my work. 0.881      
EE2 I would feel fatigued in the morning, having to face another day on the job. 0.939      
EE3 I would feel burned out from my work. 0.948      
EE4 I would feel frustrated by my job. 0.901      
EE5 I would feel used up at the end of the workday. 0.896      
EE6 I would feel like I'm at the end of my rope. 0.865      
EE7 I would feel I am working too hard on my job. 0.841      
Job Stress   0.889 0.892 0.674  
JS1 I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job. 0.780      
JS2 My job gets to me more than it should. 0.895      
JS3 There are lots of times when my job drives me right up the wall. 0.838      
JS4 Sometimes when I think about my job, I get a tight feeling in my chest. 0.765      
Organisational Deviance   0.787 0.789 0.556  
OD1 I intentionally worked slower than I could have worked. 0.730      
OD2 I came in late to work without permission. 0.720      
OD3 I put little effort into my work. 0.785      
Turnover Intention   0.877 0.880 0.711  
TI2 I intend to leave this company shortly. 0.912      
TI3 I have decided to quit this organisation. 0.845      
TI4 I am looking at some other jobs now. 0.767      
Discriminant Validity
Empty Cell PEA PIA REA RIA EE JS OD TI
Proactive-Expressive Aggression (PEA) 0.845              
Proactive-Inexpressive Aggression (PIA) 0.716 0.866            
Reactive-Expressive Aggression (REA) 0.514 0.549 0.881          
Reactive-Inexpressive Aggression (RIA) 0.742 0.770 0.544 0.802        
Emotional Exhaustion (EE) 0.389 0.389 0.125 0.402 0.897      
Job Stress(JS) 0.445 0.386 0.172 0.428 0.671 0.821    
Organisational Deviance (OD) 0.187 0.227 0.251 0.159 0.228 0.303 0.843  
Turnover Intention (TI) 0.282 0.237 0.111 0.219 0.363 0.476 0.367 0.746

 

Note: The diagonal values are the square root of AVE and the half-diagonal values are inter-construct correlations.

Again, CMB was examined in the same two ways as described in Study 3. Harman's single-factor test extracted by the first factor accounted for only 17.1% of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Only one restricted model was needed because the unconstrained model was significantly better than the constrained model (Table 8). There was no significant ꭓ2 change between the baseline model and the constrained models or between the restricted models and the constrained/unconstrained models.

Table 8. Marker variable test for CMB – Study 5.

Model ꭓ2(df) CFI RMSEA (90% CI) Comparison Model Likelihood Ratio test of ꭓ2 change
CFA with marker variable 1338.461 (666) 0.949 0.051 (0.047, 0.055)    
Baseline 1381.519 (680) 0.947 0.052 (0.048, 0.055)    
Constrained 1380.73 (679) 0.947 0.052(0.048, 0.056) vs Baseline 0.789, df = 1, p = 0.374
Unconstrained 1291.991 (644) 0.951 0.051 (0.047,0.055) vs Constrained 88.739, df = 35, p = 0.000
Restricted 1293.929 (672) 0.953 0.049 (0.045,0.053) vs Unconstrained 1.938, df = 28, p = 1.000

 

Note: df - Degree of Freedom; CI – Confidence Interval.

Hypothesised relationships were drawn into a model after the measurement models' reliability and validity tests. The model had a good model fit (Table 9) with χ2 (581) = 1250.565, χ2/df = 2.152, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.843, TLI = 0.942, NFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.947 and RMSEA = 0.054. Emotional exhaustion increased with PEA (β = 0.196, t = 2.353, p < 0.05), PIA (β = 0.189, t = 2.132, p < 0.05), RIA (β = 0.224, t = 2.192, p < 0.05) and REA (β = −0.198, t = 3.243, p < 0.01). Therefore, H1, H2, H3 and H4 were supported. Job stress increased significantly with emotional exhaustion (β = 0.678, t = 12.821, p < 0.001) and H5 was supported. Increased job stress was positively associated with organisational deviance behaviours (β = 0.320, t = 5.238, p < 0.001) and employees’ intention to leave their organisations (β = 0.490, t = 8.959, p < 0.001). Therefore, H6 and H7 were both supported.

Table 9. Test of hypotheses for nomological validity.

Empty Cell Hypotheses Tests β t-value p-value
H1 Proactive-expressive aggression → Emotional exhaustion 0.196 2.353 0.019
H2 Proactive-inexpressive aggression → Emotional exhaustion 0.189 2.132 0.033
H3 Reactive-expressive aggression → Emotional exhaustion 0.198 3.243 0.001
H4 Reactive-inexpressive aggression → Emotional exhaustion 0.224 2.192 0.028
H5 Emotional exhaustion → Job stress 0.678 12.821 <0.001
H6 Job stress → Organisational deviant 0.320 5.238 <0.001
H7 Job stress → Turnover intention 0.490 8.959 <0.001
  R2      
  Emotional exhaustion 0.217    
  Job stress 0.459    
  Organisational deviant 0.103    
  Turnover intention 0.241    

 

Note: β means standardised regression weight.

6. Discussion

Anecdotally, customer aggression directed toward frontline employees conjures up images of violent interactions. Reports of assaults, verbal attacks and threats, becoming now synonymous with working in the retail and services sector (Vromen et al., 2021; Lillis, 2020; Wiggins, 2021). However, these extreme instances are simply examples that are visual and easily detected. These occurrences are captured through existing workers' unions and retailer surveys, based on current industry knowledge. However, as evidenced above, customer aggression is a far more complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. Previous attempts to examine customer aggression have been constrained to one element of aggression i.e., verbal (Cho et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2011), have been contextually bound i.e., call centres (Grandey et al., 2004) or limited to one culture, i.e. Middle-Eastern or Chinese (Karatepe, 2011; Li and Zhou, 2013). Other attempts have relied on ‘adapted’ supervisory aggression scales, i.e., Huang and Dootson (2022). While previous literature has pointed to the possible dimensionality of customer aggression (see Dormann and Zapf, 2004), this is the first study to empirically validate the multi-dimensional element of customer aggression.

6.1. Contributions to knowledge

This research offers several contributions to existing knowledge of the customer aggression phenomenon. First, unlike previous attempts to measure customer aggression, this work takes into consideration the specific characteristics of the ‘employee–customer’ encounter, denoted by customer sovereignty (Korczynski and Ott, 2004), employee low-status shield (Kolb, 2007), and the anonymous and disconnected nature of the interaction (Korczynski and Evans, 2013). As explained by displaced aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939), this is the first comprehensive instrument for measuring the forms of customer aggression faced by frontline employees in the retail and services sector. For example, a customer denied a refund due to a company policy, may react by throwing the product at a young employee, yelling, or simply staring in a intimidating manner. These aggressive behaviours result because the customer perceives they are unable to overcome policy constraints, concentrating their aggressive behaviours toward the employee, instead of the company itself. Second, this research contributes to the retailing and services literature by categorising the various types of customer aggression and developing and validating a parsimonious scale. A comprehensive theoretical understanding of the customer aggression construct has been offered that can serve as a base for further quantitative and experimental studies. Third, this research adds to the existing consumer misbehaviour literature by providing further insight into the influence of this construct on frontline employees' attitudinal, behavioural and performance outcomes.

The emergence of PIA, which includes consumer dishonesty, supports the call for research on consumer deviant behaviour, which has also been labelled as dysfunctional, aberrant, opportunistic and problematic behaviours (Harris and Daunt, 2011; Greer, 2015). From the consumer rationalisation perspective, Markin (1979) argued that the psychological process of consumers rationalisation could result in either rational or irrational behaviour. Consumers could also go through a rationalisation process to neutralise deviant behaviours (Harris and Daunt, 2011). For example, Harris and Daunt (2011) found that consumers intentionally shared false negative WOM because they believed that some white lies were beneficiary for both consumers and service providers. As established herein, the four dimensions of customer aggression predict employees’ emotional exhaustion, which in turn causes job stress that leads to undesirable outcomes such as deviant behaviour and turnover intention.

6.2. Practical implications

This study offers important implications for managers. First, aggression should be treated as any other workplace hazard that needs to be accurately identified, measured and prevented. One of the challenges facing industry is a lack of broad awareness of the complex, multifaceted nature of customer aggression. Attempts to capture and measure customer aggression have been facilitated via workers' unions or retailer surveys – reporting ‘aggression’ as simply a single item construct, i.e., were you ‘abused’, ‘threatened’ or ‘assulted’? However, as evidenced above, customer aggression is a far more complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. Accordingly, this study offers managers an easy-to-administer measurement tool to assess the extent and type of aggression their employees face. Second, this work evidences the effects of customer aggression on employee turnover are moderated by organisational support, i.e., greater management support, reduces intention to leave. Employing this scale across a workforce will enable managers to identify the types of customer aggression that employees are subjected to, and where these incidents are more frequently occurring, thus assisting managers to design appropriate mitigation strategies. For instance, managers may increase the number of supervisors at checkout areas, or install video surveillance at ‘refund/returns’ counters. Third, as employee turnover continues to represent one of the most significant challenges in the retail and services sector, reactive or disorganised support for employees is insufficient to improve their experiences at work and increase retention rates (Liu-Lastres et al., 2022). Informed by the matrix of aggressive behaviours, managers may develop customised solutions or service scripts relevant to specific service interactions. Fourth, Liu et al. (2022) found the relationship between customer aggression and job stress was weaker in organisations where employees had a ‘collective voice’. Thus, employing the scale to facilitate regular monitoring of customer aggression may serve as a tool to capture the shared experience of employees, allowing thems to collectively contribute to solutions. Finally, retail associations and workers' unions internationally are calling on governments to provide support through campaigns and policy reforms to mitigate the increasing customer abuse (see National Retail Association, 2022; Lillis, 2020; Wiggins, 2021). This scale may also be of particular interest to agencies responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring public policy promoting and supporting employee wellbeing.

7. Limitations and future research directions

The results indicate that PEA (aimed to obtain a benefit) was related only to verbal and not to physical aggression. In contrast, REA (as a response to a negative situation) is more likely to involve physical expressions of aggression rather than verbal responses. A possible explanation for this result lies in the consumer's purpose behind the aggression. The ‘reactive’ type refers to consumers' spontaneous efforts to vent and ‘act-out’. On the other hand, the ‘proactive’ type involves a planned and even manipulative effort, where the objective is to obtain something, a discount, an upgrade. Thus, we posit that the manifestation of aggressive behaviour differs according to the customer's objective in each situation. Further research should be undertaken to provide evidence for this assumption. In line with this, nomological validity was established by examining the scale as a predictor to variables (emotional exhaustion, job stress, organisational deviance, intentions to leave) previously established in the literature. While such an approach has been adopted in previous works (see Agarwal et al., 2015; Lings and Greenley, 2005; Mortimer et al., 2018), an opportunity lies in identifying the drivers of the specific dimensions of customer aggression.

Future research may also assess the extent to which each customer aggression type individually affects the different attitudinal and behavioural outcomes tested herein. Both expressive aggression forms may be stronger drivers of negative outcomes, whereas inexpressive aggression forms may have milder effects as they are more tolerated. Notions of aggression, as well as its frequency and form, may vary according to customers’ cultural backgrounds (Kawabata et al., 2016). Moreover, perceptions of what constitutes aggression may differ between cultures. This scale can, therefore, also be of assistance in the context of cross-cultural consumer research; for instance, those who score higher in the power distance index may not consider some issues included in the present scale as aggression.

A natural progression of this work is the exploration of more complex predictive models through the incorporation of mediating and/or moderating variables. For instance, specific groups may be more likely to encounter customer aggression (i.e., younger, female, migrant workers, or vulnerable groups). Factors that trigger prejudice against these groups could serve as moderating variables. The effects of aggression may vary if the customer is considered an ingroup versus an outgroup member (Pedersen et al., 2008). In the same vein, the effect of customer aggression on employees' emotional state could be stronger when the aggressive customer is a public figure and the anonymity principle (Korczynski and Evans, 2013) of regular customer–employee interactions is violated. Lastly, further work might investigate other outcome variables. For example, it would be fruitful to explore whether customer aggression triggers displaced aggression (Dollard et al., 1939) toward coworkers or supervisors in ‘customer-is-always-right’ environments.

Declaration of competing interest

To confirm, the authors and I have no conflict of interest in relation to the publication of this work. Warm wishes, Professor Gary Mortimer.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. Adapa et al., 2020

    S. Adapa, S.M. Fazal-e-Hasan, S.B. Makam, M.M. Azeem, G. Mortimer

    Examining the antecedents and consequences of perceived shopping value through smart retail technology

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 52 (2020), Article 101901

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  2. Agarwal et al., 2015

    J. Agarwal, O. Osiyevskyy, P.M. Feldman

    Corporate reputation measurement: alternative factor structures, nomological validity, and organizational outcomes

    J. Bus. Ethics, 130 (3) (2015), pp. 485-506

     View PDF 

    Your institution provides access to this article.

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashill et al., 2015

    N.J. Ashill, M. Rod, T. Gibbs

    Coping with stress: a study of retail banking service workers in Russia

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 23 (2015), pp. 58-69

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  4. Bagozzi, 1981

    R.P. Bagozzi

    An examination of the validity of two models of attitude

    Multivariate Behav. Res., 16 (3) (1981), pp. 323-359

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagozzi and Yi, 1988

    R.P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi

    On the evaluation of structural equation models

    J. Acad. Market. Sci., 16 (1) (1988), pp. 74-94

    Google Scholar

  6. Baker et al., 2012

    M.A. Baker, V.P. Magnini, R.R. Perdue

    Opportunistic customer complaining: causes, consequences, and managerial alternatives

    Int. J. Hospit. Manag., 31 (1) (2012), pp. 295-303

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  7. Ben‐Zur and Yagil, 2005

    H. Ben‐Zur, D. Yagil

    The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviors of customers, coping and burnout

    Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol., 14 (1) (2005), pp. 81-99

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  8. Behrman and Perreault, 1984

    D.N. Behrman, W.D. Perreault Jr.

    A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salespersons

    J. Market., 48 (4) (1984), pp. 9-21

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  9. Bishop and Hoel, 2008

    V. Bishop, H. Hoel

    The customer is always right? Exploring the concept of customer bullying in the British Employment Service

    J. Consum. Cult., 8 (3) (2008), pp. 341-367

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  10. Bushman et al., 2005

    B.J. Bushman, A.M. Bonacci, W.C. Pedersen, E.A. Vasquez, N. Miller

    Chewing on it can chew you up: effects of rumination on triggered displaced aggression

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 88 (6) (2005), p. 969

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, 1960

    D.T. Campbell

    Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity

    Am. Psychol., 15 (8) (1960), p. 546

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan et al., 2022

    S.H.G. Chan, Z.C. Lin, I.A. Wong, A.C.Y. So

    When employees fight back: investigating how customer incivility and procedural injustice can impel employee retaliation

    Int. J. Hospit. Manag., 107 (2022), Article 103308

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  13. Chaouali et al., 2022

    W. Chaouali, S.M. Hammami, J.M.C. Veríssimo, L.C. Harris, D. El-Manstrly, A.G. Woodside

    Customers who misbehave: identifying restaurant guests “acting out” via asymmetric case models

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 66 (2022), Article 102897

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  14. Chen et al., 2019

    J.V. Chen, A. Tran, T. Nguyen

    Understanding the discontinuance behavior of mobile shoppers as a consequence of technostress: an application of the stress-coping theory

    Comput. Hum. Behav., 95 (2019), pp. 83-93

    View PDFView articleCrossRefGoogle Scholar

  15. Cho et al., 2020

    H. Cho, K. Pavek, L. Steege

    Workplace verbal abuse, nurse‐reported quality of care and patient safety outcomes among early‐career hospital nurses

    J. Nurs. Manag., 28 (6) (2020), pp. 1250-1258

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  16. Chong and Abawajy, 2015

    S.K. Chong, J.H. Abawajy

    Mitigating malicious feedback attacks in trust management systems

    Int. J. Trust Manag. Comput. Commun., 3 (1) (2015), pp. 1-18

     View PDF 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Churchill, 1979

    G.A. Churchill

    A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs

    J. Market. Res., 16 (1) (1979), pp. 64-74

    View article 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahlberg et al., 1998

    L.H. Dahlberg, S.B. Toal, C.B. Behrens

    Measuringviolence-related Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors Among Youths:A Compendium of Assessment Tools

    Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, National Center for InjuryPrevention and Control, Atlanta, GA (1998)

    Google Scholar

  19. Daunt and Harris, 2014

    K.L. Daunt, L.C. Harris

    Linking employee and customer misbehaviour: the moderating role of past misdemeanours

    J. Market. Manag., 30 (3–4) (2014), pp. 221-244

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  20. Dodge, 1991

    K.A. Dodge

    The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression

    D.J. Pepler, K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (1991), pp. 201-218

    Google Scholar

  21. Dollard et al., 1939

    J. Dollard, N.E. Miller, L.W. Doob, O.H. Mowrer, R.R. Sears

    Frustration and Aggression

    Yale University Press (1939), 10.1037/10022-000

    View article 

    Google Scholar
  22. Dormann and Zapf, 2004

    C. Dormann, D. Zapf

    Customer-related social stressors and burnout

    J. Occup. Health Psychol., 9 (1) (2004), p. 61

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  23. Dupré et al., 2014

    K.E. Dupré, K.A. Dawe, J. Barling

    Harm to those who serve: effects of direct and vicarious customer-initiated workplace aggression

    J. Interpers Violence, 29 (13) (2014), pp. 2355-2377

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  24. Fazel-e-Hasan et al., 2019

    S.M. Fazel-e-Hasan, G. Mortimer, I. Lings, J. Drennan

    Examining customer-oriented positive deviance intentions of retail employees

    Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag., 47 (8) (2019), pp. 836-854

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  25. Fellesson and Salomonson, 2020

    M. Fellesson, N. Salomonson

    It takes two to interact–service orientation, negative emotions, and customer phubbing in retail service work

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 54 (2020), Article 102050

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  26. Fisk et al., 2010

    R. Fisk, S. Grove, L.C. Harris, D.A. Keeffe, K.L. Daunt, R. Russell‐Bennett, J. Wirtz

    Customers behaving badly: a state of the art review, research agenda and implications for practitioners

    J. Serv. Market., 24 (6) (2010), pp. 417-429

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  27. Fornell and Larcker, 1981

    C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker

    Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error

    J. Market. Res., 18 (1) (1981), pp. 39-50

    Google Scholar

  28. Fuller et al., 2016

    C.M. Fuller, M.J. Simmering, G. Atinc, Y. Atinc, B.J. Babin

    Common methods variance detection in business research

    J. Bus. Res., 69 (8) (2016), pp. 3192-3198

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  29. Gaucher and Chebat, 2019

    B. Gaucher, J.C. Chebat

    How uncivil customers corrode the relationship between frontline employees and retailers

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 46 (2019), pp. 1-10

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  30. Gong et al., 2022

    X. Gong, H. Wang, X. Zhang, H. Tian

    Why does service inclusion matter? The effect of service exclusion on customer indirect misbehavior

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 68 (2022), Article 103005

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  31. Grandey et al., 2004

    A.A. Grandey, D.N. Dickter, H.P. Sin

    The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees

    J. Organ. Behav., 25 (3) (2004), pp. 397-418

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  32. Grewal et al., 2017

    D. Grewal, A.L. Roggeveen, J. Nordfält

    The future of retailing

    J. Retailing, 93 (1) (2017), pp. 1-6

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  33. Greer, 2015

    D.A. Greer

    Defective co-creation: Developing a typology of consumer dysfunction in professional services

    Eur. J. Market., 49 (1/2) (2015), pp. 238-261

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  34. Grewal et al., 2020

    D. Grewal, S.M. Noble, A.L. Roggeveen, J. Nordfalt

    The future of in-store technology

    J. Acad. Market. Sci., 48 (1) (2020), pp. 96-113

     View PDF 

    This article is free to access.

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  35. Gutek, 1995

    B.A. Gutek

    The Dynamics of Service: Reflections on the Changing Nature of Customer/Provider Interactions

    Jossey-Bass (1995)

    Google Scholar

  36. Hair et al., 2006

    J.F. Hair, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham

    Multivariate data analysis

    (sixth ed.), Humans: Critique and Reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2006), pp. 49-74

    87

    Google Scholar

  37. Halbesleben and Bowler, 2007

    J.R. Halbesleben, W.M. Bowler

    Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of motivation

    J. Appl. Psychol., 92 (1) (2007), p. 93

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  38. Hampson and Junor, 2005

    I. Hampson, A. Junor

    Invisible work, invisible skills: interactive customer service as articulation work

    New Technol. Work. Employ., 20 (2) (2005), pp. 166-181

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  39. Han et al., 2016

    S.J. Han, M.A. Bonn, M. Cho

    The relationship between customer incivility, restaurant frontline service employee burnout, and turnover intention

    Int. J. Hospit. Manag., 52 (2016), pp. 97-106

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  40. Harris and Daunt, 2011

    L.C. Harris, K.L. Daunt

    Deviant customer behaviour: a study of techniques of neutralisation

    J. Market. Manag., 27 (7–8) (2011), pp. 834-853

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  41. Henry et al., 2004

    D.B. Henry, J. Cartland, H. Ruchross, K. Monahan

    A return potential measure of setting norms for aggression

    Am. J. Community Psychol., 33 (3–4) (2004), pp. 131-149

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  42. Hochschild, 1983

    A. Hochschild

    The Managed Heart

    Berkeley: University of California Press, CA (1983)

    Google Scholar

  43. Huang and Dootson, 2022

    Y.S.S. Huang, P. Dootson

    Chatbots and service failure: when does it lead to customer aggression

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 68 (2022), Article 103044

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  44. Hubbard et al., 2010

    J.A. Hubbard, M.D. McAuliffe, M.T. Morrow, L.J. Romano

    Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: precursors, outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement

    J. Pers., 78 (1) (2010), pp. 95-118

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  45. Hur et al., 2015

    W.M. Hur, T.W. Moon, S.J. Han

    The effect of customer incivility on service employees' customer orientation through double-mediation of surface acting and emotional exhaustion

    J. Serv. Theory Pract., 25 (4) (2015), pp. 394-413, 10.1108/JSTP-02-2014-0034

    View article 

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  46. Hur et al., 2022

    W.M. Hur, Y. Shin, G. Shin

    Daily relationships between customer incivility, organizational control, self-efficacy, and service performance

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 69 (2022), Article 103092

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  47. Johnston et al., 1991

    V.L. Johnston, B.J. Rogers, H.R. Searight

    The relationship between overt hostility, covert hostility, and depression

    J. Soc. Behav. Pers., 6 (1) (1991), p. 85

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  48. Karatepe, 2011

    O.M. Karatepe

    Customer aggression, emotional exhaustion, and hotel employee outcomes: a study in the United Arab Emirates

    J. Trav. Tourism Market., 28 (3) (2011), pp. 279-295

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  49. Kawabata et al., 2016

    T. Kawabata, K.I. Ohbuchi, S. Gurieva, V. Dmitrieva, O. Mikhalyuk, V. Odintsova

    Effects of inexpressive aggression on depression in college students: cross cultural study between Japan and Russia

    Psychology, 7 (13) (2016), pp. 1575-1586

     View PDF 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  50. Keashly et al., 1994

    L. Keashly, V. Trott, L.M. MacLean

    Abusive behavior in the workplace: a preliminary investigation

    Violence Vict., 9 (1994)

    341-341

    Google Scholar

  51. Kolb, 2007

    K. Kolb

    Status Shield

    The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, CA (2007)

    Google Scholar

  52. Korczynski, 2002

    M. Korczynski

    Human Resource Management in Service Work

    Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke (2002)

    Google Scholar

  53. Korczynski and Evans, 2013

    M. Korczynski, C. Evans

    Customer abuse to service workers: an analysis of its social creation within the service economy

    Work. Employ. Soc., 27 (5) (2013), pp. 768-784

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  54. Korczynski and Ott, 2004

    M. Korczynski, U. Ott

    When production and consumption meet: cultural contradictions and the enchanting myth of customer sovereignty

    J. Manag. Stud., 41 (4) (2004), pp. 575-599

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  55. Ladd and Profilet, 1996

    G.W. Ladd, S.M. Profilet

    The Child Behavior scale: a teacher-report measure of young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors

    Dev. Psychol., 32 (6) (1996), p. 1008

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  56. Lazarus and Folkman, 1984

    R.S. Lazarus, S. Folkman

    Stress, Appraisal, and Coping

    Springer publishing company, New York, NY (1984)

    Google Scholar

  57. Leidner, 1993

    R. Leidner

    Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life

    University of California Press, CA (1993)

    Google Scholar

  58. Li and Zhou, 2013

    X. Li, E. Zhou

    Influence of customer verbal aggression on employee turnover intention

    Manag. Decis., 51 (4) (2013), pp. 890-912

    View article 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lillis, 2020

    P. Lillis

    The Impact of Coronavirus on the Workforce. Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

    (2020)

    https://www.usdaw.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=575d4419-a739-432b-ab54-10e84ad56e26, Accessed 2nd Nov 2021

    Google Scholar

  60. Lindblom et al., 2020

    A. Lindblom, T. Lindblom, H. Wechtler

    Retail entrepreneurs' exit intentions: influence and mediations of personality and job-related factors

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 54 (2020), Article 102055

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  61. Lings and Greenley, 2005

    I.N. Lings, G.E. Greenley

    Measuring internal market orientation

    J. Serv. Res., 7 (3) (2005), pp. 290-305

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  62. Liu-Lastres et al., 2022

    B. Liu-Lastres, H. Wen, W.J. Huang

    A reflection on the Great Resignation in the hospitality and tourism industry

    Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag., 35 (1) (2022), pp. 235-249

    https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2022-0551

    Google Scholar

  63. Liu et al., 2022

    X. Liu, D.D. van Jaarsveld, Y. Yanadori

    Customer aggression, employee voice, and quit rates: evidence from the frontline service workforce

    Br. J. Ind. Relat, 60 (2) (2022), pp. 348-370

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  64. Malvini Redden, 2013

    S. Malvini Redden

    How lines organize compulsory interaction, emotion management, and “emotional taxes”: the implications of passenger emotion and expression in airport security lines

    Manag. Commun. Q., 27 (1) (2013), pp. 121-149

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  65. Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000

    A. Marcus-Newhall, W.C. Pedersen, M. Carlson, N. Miller

    Displaced aggression is alive and well: a meta-analytic review

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 78 (4) (2000), p. 670

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  66. Markin, 1979

    R.J. Markin

    The role of rationalization in consumer decision processes: A revisionist approach to consumer behavior

    J. Acad. Market. Sci., 7 (3) (1979), pp. 316-334

     View PDF 

    Your institution provides access to this article.

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  67. McMullen, 2017

    J.S. McMullen

    Are you pivoting away your passion? The hidden danger of assuming customer sovereignty in entrepreneurial value creation

    Bus. Horiz., 60 (4) (2017), pp. 427-430

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  68. Miller and Lynam, 2006

    J.D. Miller, D.R. Lynam

    Reactive and proactive aggression: similarities and differences

    Pers. Indiv. Differ., 41 (8) (2006), pp. 1469-1480

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  69. Montgomery et al., 1996

    D.C. Montgomery, J.G. Blodgett, J.H. Barnes

    A model of financial securities sales persons' job stress

    J. Serv. Market., 10 (3) (1996), pp. 21-34

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  70. Mortimer et al., 2018

    G. Mortimer, S.M. Fazel-e-Hasan, K.A. O'Donnell, J. Strebel

    Measuring the experience of off-price fashion shopping: scale development and validation

    J. Fash. Mark. Manag., 22 (4) (2018), pp. 454-475, 10.1108/JFMM-01-2018-0005

    View article 

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  71. Mortimer et al., 2021

    G. Mortimer, S.M. Fazal-e-Hasan, J. Strebel

    Examining the consequences of customer-oriented deviance in retail

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 58 (2021), Article 102315

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  72. Mortimer and Wang, 2021

    G. Mortimer, S. Wang

    Examining the drivers of deviant service adaption in fashion retailing: the role of tenure

    J. Fash. Mark. Manag.: Int. J., 26 (2) (2021), pp. 221-246

    Google Scholar

  73. Mulki et al., 2006

    J.P. Mulki, F. Jaramillo, W.B. Locander

    Emotional exhaustion and organizational deviance: can the right job and a leader's style make a difference?

    J. Bus. Res., 59 (12) (2006), pp. 1222-1230

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  74. National Retail Association, 2022

    National Retail Association

    Customer abuse remains a disturbing reality for retail workers

    Available at:

    https://www.nra.net.au/customer-abuse-remains-a-disturbing-reality-for-retail-workers/ (2022)

    Google Scholar

  75. Netemeyer et al., 2003

    R.G. Netemeyer, W.O. Bearden, S. Sharma

    Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications

    Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar

  76. Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994

    J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bernstein

    Psychometric Theory

    McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1994)

    Google Scholar

  77. Pandey et al., 2021

    P. Pandey, S. Singh, P. Pathak

    An exploratory study on factors contributing to job dissatisfaction of retail employees in India

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 61 (2021), Article 102571

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  78. Parker and DeCotiis, 1983

    D.F. Parker, T.A. DeCotiis

    Organizational determinants of job stress

    Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform., 32 (2) (1983), pp. 160-177

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  79. Pedersen et al., 2008

    W.C. Pedersen, B.J. Bushman, E.A. Vasquez, N. Miller

    Kicking the (barking) dog effect: the moderating role of target attributes on triggered displaced aggression

    Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 34 (10) (2008), pp. 1382-1395

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  80. Podsakoff et al., 2003

    N.P. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff

    Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies

    J. Appl. Psychol., 88 (5) (2003), pp. 879-903

    Google Scholar

  81. Podsakoff et al., 2012

    P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, N.P. Podsakoff

    Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it

    Annu. Rev. Psychol., 63 (1) (2012), pp. 539-569

    View article 

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Raza et al., 2021

    B. Raza, S. St-Onge, M. Ali

    Consumer aggression and frontline employees' turnover intention: the role of job anxiety, organizational support, and obligation feeling

    Int. J. Hospit. Manag., 97 (2021), Article 103015

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  83. Saunders et al., 2007

    P. Saunders, A. Huynh, J. Goodman-Delahunty

    Defining workplace bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying

    Int. J. Law Psychiatr., 30 (4–5) (2007), pp. 340-354

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  84. Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, 2020

    Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association

    Abuse shouldn't be in a day's work

    https://national.sda.com.au/saferstores/ (2020), Accessed 2nd Nov 2021

    Google Scholar

  85. Sun and Pan, 2008

    L.Y. Sun, W. Pan

    HR practices perceptions, emotional exhaustion, and work outcomes: a conservation‐of‐resources theory in the Chinese context

    Hum. Resour. Dev. Q., 19 (1) (2008), pp. 55-74

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  86. Swimberghe et al., 2014

    K. Swimberghe, R.P. Jones, M. Darrat

    Deviant behavior in retail, when sales associates “Go Bad”! Examining the relationship between the work-family interface, job stress, and salesperson deviance

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 21 (4) (2014), pp. 424-431

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  87. Talwar et al., 2020

    S. Talwar, A. Dhir, D. Singh, G.S. Virk, J. Salo

    Sharing of fake news on social media: application of the honeycomb framework and the third-person effect hypothesis

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 57 (2020), Article 102197

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  88. Tepper, 2000

    B. Tepper

    Consequences of abusive supervision

    Acad. Manag. J., 43 (2) (2000)

    178‐90

    Google Scholar

  89. Torres et al., 2017

    E.N. Torres, M. van Niekerk, M. Orlowski

    Customer and employee incivility and its causal effects in the hospitality industry

    J. Hospit. Market. Manag., 26 (1) (2017), pp. 48-66

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  90. Vromen et al., 2021

    A. Vromen, B. Lipton, R. Cooper, M. Foley, S. Rutledge-Prior

    Pandemic Pressures: Job Security and Customer Relations for Retail Workers

    Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Work and Organisational Studies, Acton. ACT (2021)

    Google Scholar

  91. Wang et al., 2011

    M. Wang, H. Liao, Y. Zhan, J. Shi

    Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: examining emotion and resource perspectives

    Acad. Manag. J., 54 (2011), pp. 312-323

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  92. Wiggins, 2021

    R. Wiggins

    ACS Crime Survey 2021. Association of Convenience Stores

    (2021)

    https://www.acs.org.uk/sites/default/files/acs_crime_report_2021.pdf, Accessed 2nd Nov 2021

    Google Scholar

  93. Wilson and Holmvall, 2013

    N.L. Wilson, C.M. Holmvall

    The development and validation of the Incivility from Customers scale

    J. Occup. Health Psychol., 18 (3) (2013), p. 310

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  94. Wright and Cropanzano, 1998

    T.A. Wright, R. Cropanzano

    Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover

    J. Appl. Psychol., 83 (3) (1998), p. 486

    View in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  95. Yagil, 2008

    D. Yagil

    When the customer is wrong: a review of research on aggression and sexual harassment in service encounters

    Aggress. Violent Behav., 13 (2) (2008), pp. 141-152

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

  96. Yagil, 2017

    D. Yagil

    There is no dark side of customer aggression − It's all dark

    J. Market. Manag., 33 (15–16) (2017), pp. 1413-1420

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  97. Yamasaki and Nishida, 2009

    K. Yamasaki, N. Nishida

    The relationship between three types of aggression and peer relations in elementary school children

    Int. J. Psychol., 44 (3) (2009), pp. 179-186

    View article 

    CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  98. Yang and Hu, 2021

    Y. Yang, J. Hu

    Self-diminishing effects of awe on consumer forgiveness in service encounters

    J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 60 (2021), Article 102491

    View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Cite:

Gary Mortimer, Shasha Wang, María Lucila Osorio Andrade,
Measuring customer aggression: Scale development and validation,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Volume 73,
2023,
103348,
ISSN 0969-6989,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103348.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698923000954)
Abstract: Despite increasing levels of customer aggression being identified within the retail and services sector, no comprehensive tool has been developed to measure such behaviour, thus limiting empirical examinations of this phenomenon. Five studies were undertaken, comprising a student survey, a Delphi-style expert panel review and three retail worker surveys. The results identify a four-factor, 19-item Customer Aggression scale. The nomological validity of the scale was established by demonstrating the impact of customer aggression on employee emotional exhaustion, job stress, organisational deviance and intention to leave. This research contributes a parsimonious, reliable and valid scale to measure such behaviours, facilitating further scientific inquiry.
Keywords: Retail; Service; Customer aggression; Customer misbehaviour; Incivility; Scale development
 

Download article (Descarga el artículo) (PDF)

Compartir este contenido

Logo Footer Tecnológico de Monterrey
  • Inicio
  • Nosotros
  • Recursos
    • Tendencias
    • Publicaciones
    • Podcast
    • Suscríbete
  • Servicios
    • Educación ejecutiva
    • Consultorías
    • Pregrado
  • Eventos
  • Contacto

Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur Col. Tecnológico C.P. 64849 | Monterrey, Nuevo León, México | Tel. +52 (81) 8358-2000 D.R.© Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, México.

Aviso legal | Políticas de privacidad | Aviso de privacidad

© 2024 Centro de Comercio Detallista

Escuela de Negocios | Tecnológico de Monterrey