Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Culture's impact on consumer complaining responses to embarrassing

service failure☆
Lisa C. Wan ⁎
BU 204, Department of Marketing and International Business, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Prior cultural research generally agrees that Asian consumers (collectivists), who emphasize social harmony,
Received 1 March 2010 are less likely to complain but more likely to switch and to spread negative word-of-mouth than Western
Received in revised form 1 July 2011 consumers (individualists) in service failures. Drawing from the face concern and embarrassment literature,
Accepted 1 August 2011
this paper argues that collectivists are not necessarily less likely to complain than individualists. In fact, the
Available online 13 September 2011
impact of culture on consumer complaining responses will be contingent on the degree of embarrassment
Keywords:
involved in the service failure. Results from a cross-cultural experiment indicate that only in a
Service failures non-embarrassing failure will collectivists less likely complain than individualists. In an embarrassing failure,
Culture however, collectivists will more likely complain, as well as switch and spread negative word-of-mouth. These
Face concern results not only yield interesting insights into cross-cultural consumer behaviors, but also provide rich
Service embarrassment managerial implications.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With the rapid growth of the service sector in the global economy,
cross-cultural issues of consumer behavior in service encounters have
attracted considerable research attention in recent years (e.g., Chan &
Wan, 2008; Chan, Wan, & Sin, 2009; Mattila & Patterson, 2004; Wong,
2004; Zhang, Beatty, & Walsh, 2008). One of the most prominent
differences between Asian (i.e., collectivists) and Western consumers (i.e.,
individualists) is service complaining responses. Researchers generally
believe that Asian consumers will less likely complain but more likely
switch and spread negative word-of-mouth than Western consumers in
service failures (Chan & Wan, 2008; Liu & McClure, 2001; Lowe &
Corkindale, 1998). Researchers base this belief on the argument that
Asians' general belief in social harmony prompts them to refrain from
confrontational responses (e.g., to voice out discontent publicly in service
failures); therefore, they will more likely choose non-confrontational
responses to express their discontent (e.g., switching and negative
word-of-mouth).
In cross-cultural service failure literature, social harmony is a
well-established explanation for the different tendencies to complain
among collectivists and individualists. Such explanation, however, is
inadequate when other cultural values and service failures are under
examination. For instance, in social psychology and communication
☆ The author gratefully acknowledges the constructive comments offered by the
editor, co-editors, and anonymous reviewers. The author is also grateful for the funding
support (DR 11A8) provided by Lingnan University.
⁎ Tel.: + 852 2616 8236; fax: + 852 2467 3049.
E-mail address: lisawanwan@ln.edu.hk.
literature, many researchers find that face concern plays a significant
role in conflict management (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994;
Oetzel et al., 2001). Face, which means the positive social value a
person effectively claims for himself (Goffman, 1967), explains the
basic human need for social acceptance across individualistic and
collectivistic cultures (Hwang, Francesco, & Kessler, 2003). Surpris-
ingly, scant research has investigated this concept in marketing. As an
exception, Chan and Wan (2009) find that face concern influences
consumer dissatisfaction responses, such as complaint intention.
Since collectivists are more sensitive to face issues than individualists
(Hui & Triandis, 1986), collectivists will take more serious offense in
service failures if the incident is face-threatening. Consequently,
collectivists will choose more confrontational response than
individualists.
This paper aims to provide new insights regarding the impact of
culture on consumer reactions to service failures. The following
propositions, which have been neglected in the past, reveal new
insights: 1) embarrassment is a face-threatening element that can
arise from service failures; and 2) there are non-embarrassing and
embarrassing service failures. Building on the face concern and facework
literature (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998),
collectivists and individualists may react differently to service failure
with and without embarrassment. On one hand, collectivists should less
likely complain than individualists in non-embarrassing failures. On the
other hand, collectivists should more likely complain than individualists
in embarrassing failures.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section
lays out the conceptual foundation of the proposed model, which, in
turn, is stated formally via several research hypotheses pertaining to

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.009
 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305
consumer reactions to different service failures across cultures. The
paper then presents empirical results of an experiment and discusses
theoretical and managerial implications of the proposed model.
2. Culture and complaining behaviors
Researchers recognize culture as an important variable that
profoundly influences consumer perceptions of service quality and
reactions to service failures (Chan & Wan, 2008; Zhang et al., 2008).
Culture can be broadly defined as a set of collective programming,
whose system of values and norms guides people's beliefs and behaviors
(Hofstede, 1980). One of the most widely studied constructs for
comparing culture is individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede,
1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). According to Markus
and Kitayama (1991), the key difference between people in individu-
alistic and collectivistic cultures is the extent to which one views oneself
as an individuated entity (individualist) or in relation to others
(collectivist). Individualists define themselves apart from others and
tend to view themselves as independent entities. In contrast, collectiv-
ists define themselves in relation to others and tend to view themselves
as members of a group. As a result of the divergent self-concepts,
individualists focus on personal goals, personal welfare and personal
freedom, and exhibit behaviors that reflect individual needs and
preferences. Collectivists emphasize social relationships, social harmo-
ny, social norms, and collective interests (Singelis, 1994). In general,
individualism is a characteristic shared among Western societies and
collectivism is more prominent in Asian societies.
Prior cross-cultural literature has shown that consumer complaining
behaviors differ significantly across individualists and collectivists (Chan
& Wan, 2008; Liu & McClure, 2001; Lowe & Corkindale, 1998).
Hirschman's (1970) seminal work provides the conceptual foundation
for much of the research on consumer complaining behaviors. Hirschman
identifies three broad categories of responses to dissatisfaction: (1)
exit (avoiding the dissatisfying firm), (2) loyalty (not avoiding the
dissatisfying firm or simply the opposite of exit), and (3) voice
(complaining and giving negative word of mouth). Elaborating the
voice aspect of Hirschman's model, Singh (1988) further proposes a
three-dimensional taxonomy of complaining behaviors: (1) voice
responses, (2) private responses, and (3) third-party responses. Accord-
ing to Singh (1988), voice responses are complaining behaviors
directed at parties perceived as responsible for a dissatisfying experience.
Private responses and third-party responses are complaining behaviors
directed at parties not involved in the dissatisfying experience. The
following are examples for each type of complaining behavior: lodging a
complaint to the manager/firm is a voice response; spreading an
unhappy experience to family and friends through negative word-of--
mouth is a private response; and taking legal action and complaining to
outside sanctioning bodies (e.g., consumer agency) are a third-party
response.
Compared with private and third-party responses, voice is a direct,
confrontational approach to relieving consumer dissatisfaction. Previous
cross-cultural research on voice responses suggests that collectivists are
less likely than individualists to complain directly to the manager/firm in
service failures (Chan & Wan, 2008; Liu & McClure, 2001; Lowe &
Corkindale, 1998). The desire to maintain social harmony (i.e., to avoid
direct confrontations) among collectivists curbs their intention to
complain. On the other hand, emphasis on independence and self--
expression among individualists encourages expressing discontent by
complaining (Hofstede, 1991; Hui & Triandis, 1986). Although collec-
tivists are less likely than individualists to voice discontent directly to the
manager/firm, they will more likely use other complaining responses,
such as switching or negative word-of-mouth, to express their
dissatisfaction in service failures.
The majority of prior research has applied social harmony when
explaining why collectivists complain less than individualists. Interest-
ingly, marketing literature rarely considers the face issue, which is as
299
characteristic as social harmony in collective cultures. Consequently, the
current study examines the role of face concern in interpersonal
conflicts, especially in its potential impact on complaint behaviors.
3. Face concern and complaint intention
3.1. The concept of face
The concept of face is widely discussed in social psychology,
sociology, and communication research (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987;
Goffman, 1967; Ho, 1976; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). These lines of
literature find that face has pervasive impact on a variety of social
interactions, such as compliance seeking, negotiation, organizational
behaviors, and conflict management (e.g., Oetzel et al., 2001; White,
Tynan, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2004; Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998).
However, marketing's understanding of the role of face in social
interactions is minimal. Recently, some marketing researchers begin
to examine the impact of face on different consumer behaviors, such as
consumer decision making (Bao, Zhou, & Su, 2003), conspicuous
consumption (Li & Su, 2007; Wong & Ahuvia, 1998) and consumer
reactions to service failures (Chan et al., 2009).
The concept of face is not new. In Chinese culture, there are two
conceptualizations of face: “mien-tzu (or mianzi)” and “lien (or lian)”
(Hu, 1944). Mien-tzu refers to the prestige or reputation achieved
through personal effort and success in life. Lien refers to the moral
character of a person. Since mien-tzu represents social approval
grounded upon a person's performances in social interactions, mien-tzu
corresponds to the western concept of face (Bond, 1996). According to
Goffman (1967, p.5), face is “the positive social value a person effectively
claims for himself.” Face is a “public property” that depends on others for
its existence. Individuals are emotionally invested in maintaining and
enhancing face in social settings.
Inspired by Goffman's work, Chan et al. (2009) further interpret face
as a positive image of self that is affirmed through interaction with
others and that cannot be claimed unilaterally. Face can be viewed as the
public, social, and fluid aspects of the self-concept that are contingent on
others' attitudes and behaviors. Face can be enhanced, saved, and lost
through social interactions. Although face underlies the basic human
need for social acceptance, some people may put greater emphasis on
face than others. In view of this, Chan et al. (2009) define face concern as
the extent to which an individual shows regard for and interest in the
protection and enhancement of his/her positive social image in social
interactions.
3.2. Face concern across cultures
While the concept of face is universal, prior research shows that
collectivists are more sensitive to and concerned about facet than
individualists (Bao et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2009; Hui & Triandis, 1986;
Oetzel et al., 2001). As Hui and Triandis (1986), one consequence of
collectivists' emphasis on social relationships is their heightened need
to gain approval and maintain face with social others. To collectivists,
face is a primary concern in social interactions (Oetzel et al., 2001).
When collectivists lose face, their self-esteem is injured, resulting in
emotional uneasiness (Hwang, 1987). Comparatively, individualists
are not as concerned about the loss of face. For individualists, “[to be]
accepted by a certain group of people is not a major purpose of life”
(Hui & Triandis, 1986, p. 231). Consistent with this argument, Chan et
al. (2009) find that when impolite service providers make consumers
lose face, Asian consumers become more dissatisfied with the service
than Western consumers.
When an individual's face is threatened, s/he will use facework to
maintain, protect, or restore face. Facework refers to communicative
strategies that are used to enact self-face and to uphold, challenge,
threaten, or support another's face (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Interestingly,
individualists and collectivists use different facework styles to cope with
300 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305
social conflicts (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).
According to Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998), there are two focuses of
face concern in social interactions: a self-face concern and an other-face
concern. A self-face concern is the tendency to focus on maintaining
one's own image in a social situation, whereas an other-face concern is
the tendency to focus on maintaining others' image in a social situation.
These two focuses of face concern differentially influence individuals'
facework styles across cultures.
Individualists emphasize the “I” identity and value uniqueness,
personal attributes and personal achievement. In social interactions,
individualists focus on their own thoughts and feelings rather than
those of others. Consequently, individualists will choose facework styles
that focus on maintaining one's own face (i.e., self-face concern) but not
on others' face (i.e., other-face concern). Individualists will more likely
use dominating facework to cope with social conflicts (Oetzel et al.,
2001). Dominating facework aims to present a credible image and win
the argument. For example, to voice one's viewpoint in public to defend
oneself is a dominating facework. In the context of service failures,
complaining directly to a service provider/manager is a form of
dominating facework.
In contrast, collectivists focus on the “we” identity and value
relational connectedness and group benefits. When interacting with
others, collectivists are not only sensitive to their own needs, but also to
others' thoughts and feelings. In case of social conflicts, collectivists are
prone to deploy facework styles that maintain both self-face and
other-face. Therefore, collectivists tend to use avoiding or integrating
facework styles to cope with conflicts (Oetzel et al., 2001). Avoiding
facework stresses the preservation of relational concerns by addressing
the conflict indirectly. Examples of avoiding facework include involving
a third party (e.g., to talk with others about the problem), avoiding (e.g.,
to leave the scene), and pretending (e.g., to ignore the conflict and
behave as if nothing happened). Integrating facework considers both
the preservation of relational concerns and the resolution of the conflict.
Examples of integrating facework include compromising with the other
person and engaging in private discussions (e.g., not to discuss the
problem in public). In the context of service failures, the actions of
switching to other firms and spreading negative word of mouth (i.e., to
tell family and friends about the service failure) are consistent with the
avoiding facework. In this regard, the face concern literature agrees with
previous cross-cultural research: collectivists are less likely to complain
than individualists, but are more likely to resort to switching or negative
word of mouth to vent their discontent in service failures.
Although individualists tend to focus more on self-face than
other-face in social conflicts, they are not necessarily more sensitive to
self-face than collectivists. When considering the cross-cultural differ-
ence between individualists and collectivists about sensitivity to face
concern, collectivists, in general, are more concerned with face (both
self-face and other-face) than individualists.
3.3. The impact of face concern on complaint intention across cultures
In the service failure literature, a handful of researchers link the
concept of face concern to consumer complaint intention (Chan & Wan,
2009; Chiu, Tsang, & Yang, 1988). Chiu et al.'s (1988) study finds that
Chinese consumers will less likely complain in service failures when the
situation involves a direct confrontation with people than no confron-
tation because the high face concern in Chinese culture leads to the
avoidance of confrontation. More recently, Chan and Wan (2009)
suggest two rival hypotheses about the impact of face concern on
consumer complaint intention. On one hand, consumers with high face
concern (vs. low face concern) refrain from complaint in service failures
because they are more sensitive to other people's face as well as their
own. In this case, they will not complain to preserve another's face. On
the other hand, because service failures are face-threatening, consumers
with high face concern (vs. low face concern) depend on the firm's
apologetic gestures to restore their own face. In this situation, high-face
concern consumers will more likely complain to preserve self-face. To
test these rival hypotheses, Chan and Wan (2009) conduct an
experiment in Hong Kong and find support the former hypothesis —
face concern mitigates consumer complaint intention. Notably, both
Chiu et al.'s (1988) and Chan and Wan's (2009) studies involve only
Chinese participants (i.e., a collectivistic culture). The studies include no
cross-cultural comparisons. Questions as to how face concern influences
complaint intention across cultures remain unanswered.
Although past researchers generally believe that face concern curbs
consumer complaint intention, the reverse pattern may occur if certain
aspects of service failure are considered. Consider Chan and Wan's
(2009) rival hypotheses: (1) when other-face concern is heightened in
consumers' minds in service failures, face concern will mitigate
complaint intention, and (2) when self-face concern is heightened,
face concern will accentuate complaint intention. As mentioned before,
collectivists are concerned with both self-face and other-face, whereas
individualists are concerned with self-face only. If a service failure
heightens other-face concern, collectivists will less likely complain than
individualists because they are more sensitive to other-face. If a service
failure heightens self-face concern, however, collectivists will likely
complain more than individualists. Given that face concern is of utmost
importance to collectivists but not to individualists (Hui & Triandis,
1986), collectivists will be more motivated to restore their own face by
lodging a complaint. In other words, whether collectivists will complain
more or less than individualists depends on the relative salience of
either a self-face or an other-face concern. Conceivably, when a service
failure involves a significant loss of self-face, self-face concern pre-
dominates, which in turn guides collectivists' complaint intentions.
When a service failure does not involve a significant loss of self-face,
other-face concern exerts a stronger influence on collectivists' com-
plaint intentions.
In short, face concern will have contrasting impacts on consumer
complaint intention across individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
Existing literature, however, does not distinguish between situations
when face concern mitigates or accentuates collectivists' complaint
intention. To fill this literature gap, this paper identifies a situational
variable – embarrassment situation – that may reconcile the contrasting
predictions.
3.4. Service failures and the embarrassment situation
Embarrassment is a discomforting experience that may occur in a
variety of consumption situations (Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001;
Grace, 2007). For example, embarrassment may occur during product
purchase (e.g., adult video, condom, laxative, etc.), service consumption
(e.g., speed dating, body check, weight loss services, etc.), or
product/service usage (e.g., credit card is denied, dress inappropriately
in a fancy restaurant, etc.). Embarrassment is woven into the fabric of
human interactions (Goffman, 1967; Keltner & Buswell, 1997). Goffman
(1967) defines embarrassment as an emotion that occurs in social
interactions when unwanted events intervene and result in a loss of
composure and the inability to participate in future interactions.
Embarrassing situations are events or actions that create unwanted
evaluations from real or imagined audiences and involve a threat to an
individual's desired social identity (Dahl et al., 2001; Keltner & Buswell,
1997). Driven by a concern for how others evaluate one's behaviors,
embarrassment is particularly salient in the presence of social others. As
noted by Verbeke and Bagozzi (2003), embarrassment differs from
other emotions (e.g., shame) as incidents provoking embarrassment
occur largely in public but not in private (i.e., one rarely feels
embarrassed alone). In consumption situations, consumers generally
experience a higher level of embarrassment in the presence than in the
absence of other customers (Dahl et al., 2001).
Human elements are central to services (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
Berry, 1985) and service encounters are characterized by the presence of
other customers (e.g., family and friends or unknown customers) in the
 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305 301

same consumption situation (Langeard, Bateson, Lovelock, & Eiglier, H1. When a service failure involves embarrassment, collectivists will
1981; Wan, Chan, & Su, 2011). When a service failure happens, a have a higher intention to complain than individualists.
consumer's desire for service is either ignored or not properly delivered
by the service provider. Service failure poses a threat to the consumer's H2. When a service failure does not involve embarrassment, collectiv-
desired social identity and creates a certain degree of embarrassment, ists will have a lower intention to complain than individualists.
especially when other consumers witness the service failure. For
In addition to complaint intention, switching to other service
example, if a waiter accidentally spills soup on a customer, the
providers/firms and spreading negative word-of-mouth are common
customer's embarrassment will be stronger if other customers are
complaining responses to service failures. While complaining is a
present than when they are absent. Note that when a service failure
public action involving direct confrontations with others, switching
happens, the failure can be attributed to external factors (e.g., bad
and spreading negative word-of-mouth are private in nature (Singh,
weather, peak hours etc.) or internal factors (e.g., the service provider's
1988). As mentioned before, previous face concern literature shows
motivation and ability). Although findings show that consumers are less
that individualists tend to choose facework styles that maintain
dissatisfied if they attribute a service failure to external, rather than
self-face and are more likely to use dominating facework to cope with
internal factors (Weiner, 2000), attributions may not have a significant
social conflicts. Collectivists, on the contrary, tend to use facework
influence on the embarrassment level that a consumer experiences in
styles that maintain both self-face and other-face, such as avoiding
service failures. Consider again the example in which a waiter
facework styles (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). In
accidentally spills soup on a customer. If this incident happens in
the context of service failures, complaining directly to a service
public, the customer may experience a high level of embarrassment
provider/manager is a dominating facework, whereas switching and
even if s/he attributes the cause to external factors, such as the waiter
negative word-of-mouth are avoiding facework.
serving many tables during busy hours. Therefore, one important factor
Following this logic, switching and negative word-of-mouth can
that creates a high level of embarrassment in service failures is the
maintain both self-face and other-face. Recall that a non-embarrassing
presence of other consumers.
failure does not involve a significant loss of self-face, and other-face (vs.
Service failures can be classified broadly into two types: embarras-
self-face) concern may be more salient in governing collectivists'
sing failures and non-embarrassing failures. An embarrassing failure
behaviors in this situation. Hence, in non-embarrassing service failures,
happens when a consumer perceives that the core service is not
collectivists will more likely choose both switching and negative
delivered properly in a consumption context and that other consumers
word-of-mouth to relieve their discontent than individualists.
form undesirable evaluations, threatening the embarrassed consumer's
desired social identity. In a non-embarrassing service failure, the H3. When a non-embarrassing failure happens, collectivists will have
consumer does not perceive that the failure results in undesirable a higher intention to switch than individualists.
evaluations from other consumers, so the consumer's desired social
identity is not threatened. For example, if a customer picks a restaurant H4. When a non-embarrassing failure happens, collectivists will have a
and finds that the food and services are poor, the failure would be higher intention to spread negative word-of-mouth than individualists.
embarrassing if the customer has a company (e.g., celebrating a friend's
Switching and negative word-of-mouth also enable consumers to
birthday). The service failure would not be embarrassing if the customer
maintain or restore their own face in social conflicts. Arguably,
dines alone.
switching to other service options in service failures enables a consumer
More importantly, an embarrassing failure creates a threat to a
to maintain or protect his/her own face by avoiding any potential
consumer's desired social identity which leads to a loss of face because
face-threatening event with the same service provider. Likewise,
the consumer cannot affirm his or her positive self-image. Therefore,
spreading negative word-of-mouth to a third party enables a consumer
another distinction between the two types of service failures is that an
to demonstrate his/her exquisite taste through expressing dissatisfac-
embarrassing failure involves a significant loss of face, while a non-e-
tion with a substandard service (i.e., a face-enhancement function)
mbarrassing failure does not. This distinction provides a critical insight
(Chan & Wan, 2008). Since an embarrassing failure involves a significant
into the impact of face concern on complaint intentions across
loss of self-face, it will heighten collectivists' self-face concern and
individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
motivate them to engage in a variety of facework remedies to maintain
their own face. Comparatively, individualists are not as concerned about
the loss of face (Hui & Triandis, 1986). It follows that in addition to
4. Hypotheses
complaint, collectivists may also use switching and negative word-of-
mouth to restore their face loss in embarrassing failures. Therefore,
To reiterate, whether collectivists complain more or less than
collectivists (vs. individualists) may be more motivated to switch and
individualists in service failures depends on the relative salience of
spread negative word-of-mouth in this situation.
self-face concern versus other-face concern in collectivists' minds. Given
the distinct characteristics of embarrassing and non-embarrassing H5. When an embarrassing failure happens, collectivists will have a
failures, collectivists should complain more than individualists in higher switching intention than individualists.
embarrassing failures but less than individualists in non-embarrassing
failures. As mentioned before, collectivists are generally more con- H6. When an embarrassing failure happens, collectivists will have a
cerned with face than individualists (e.g., Hui & Triandis, 1986; Oetzel et higher intention to spread negative word-of-mouth than individualists.
al., 2001). When involving significant loss of face, a service failure will
heighten collectivists' self-face concern and intention to complain 5. Experiment
because complaining helps consumers restore their own face through
the service provider's/firm's apologetic gestures (Chan & Wan, 2009). 5.1. Participants and design
In contrast, a non-embarrassing failure does not involve a significant
loss of face and would not heighten collectivists' self-face concern. To test the hypotheses, an experiment was conducted utilizing 118
Other-face concern, however, would be more salient in governing undergraduate students, with 60 Chinese students (46% male, average
collectivists' behaviors in this situation. Thus, collectivists may less likely age = 20) from a university in Hong Kong and 58 American students
complain than individualists in a non-embarrassing failure because they (52% male; average age = 21) from a university in the United States.
are more willing to preserve others' face and avoid direct confrontation Each participant received a small gift for participating in a consumer
in conflicts (Chan & Wan, 2008; Liu & McClure, 2001). study. The experiment used a 2 (cultural group: collectivists vs.
302 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305
individualists) × 2 (failure type: non-embarrassing vs. embarrassing)
between-subjects experimental design. Since this research was at the
theory-building stage, internal validity was relatively more important
than external validity. In this regard, a scenario-based methodology was
used to maximize internal validity. To achieve cross-cultural compara-
bility, sampling equivalence was also important. Therefore, university
students from two different cultures (individualistic cultures vs.
collectivistic cultures) were invited to participate in the experiment.
Employing students as participants is a common practice in
experimental studies. Given that students possess homogeneous
backgrounds, many extraneous variables such as age, education, and
income level can be controlled. Hence, using student participants helps
remove the bias that may arise in non-student samples and achieve
internal validity.
5.2. Procedure
Restaurant scenarios were used to manipulate the degree of
embarrassment in service failures. In the scenarios, participants were
asked to imagine that they reserved a sea-view table at a nice restaurant
and the booking was confirmed. The next day when they arrived at the
restaurant, however, the waiter told them that sea-view tables were
provided on a first-come-first-serve basis and no sea-view tables were
available. In other words, they could not enjoy a sea-view table as they
had expected. In the non-embarrassing failure condition, participants
were told that they planned to dine alone, whereas in the embarrassing
failure condition, they were told that they invited their friends to dinner
and their friends witnessed the incident (see Appendix A for the
restaurant scenarios).
A pretest (n= 46; average age = 22) was conducted in Hong Kong to
check the effectiveness of the manipulation. Half of the participants
were assigned to the non-embarrassing failure condition and the other
half were assigned to the embarrassing failure condition. The two
scenarios were expected to create a significant difference in feelings of
embarrassment (e.g., “You feel very embarrassed about the incident,”
1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). As predicted, participants in
the embarrassing failure condition perceived a higher level of
embarrassment than those in the non-embarrassing failure condition
(5.83 vs. 3.22; F(1, 44) = 293.82; p b .001). Hence, the manipulation of
the two failure types was successful.
In the main study, American and Chinese participants were
randomly assigned to either a non-embarrassing or an embarrassing
failure condition. The scenarios used in the two conditions were
identical to the pretest. After reading the scenarios, participants
completed the dependent variable measures, including intention to
complain, switch, and spread negative word-of-mouth. All these
measures were adapted from Singh (1988) for testing H1–H6.
Participants indicated their responses to these measures on 7-point
scales anchored at “very unlikely/very likely,” “definitely will
not/definitely will,” and “inclined not to/inclined to.” Next, partici-
pants completed a 6-item face concern scale (e.g., “I care about others'
attitudes toward me.”) adopted from Chan et al. (2009), and their
responses were measured with a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 10 = strongly agree). See Appendix B for the aforemen-
tioned items along with the reliability statistics.
Next, participants responded to measures that assessed the
effectiveness of the failure type manipulation. These manipulation
check items were identical to the pretest. In addition, an independen-
t-interdependent scale (Singelis, 1994) was administered to check the
validity of the American and Chinese samples as proxies of individu-
alism versus collectivism (e.g., individualism item: “I enjoy being unique
and different from others in many respects” and collectivism item: “It is
important for me to maintain harmony within my group”). Since
dissatisfaction is a key variable that influences consumer complaining
responses, the study also included a measure of consumer dissatisfac-
tion as a covariate (e.g., “Overall, I am not satisfied with the restaurant”).
Finally, participants rated the realism of the scenarios (e.g., “The
situation described above is realistic”), provided demographic informa-
tion, and commented on the purpose of the study. The majority found
the scenarios realistic and none guessed the real purpose of the study.
Participants were thanked and debriefed.
6. Results
6.1. Manipulation checks
A 2 (cultural group: collectivists vs. individualists) × 2 (failure type:
non-embarrassing vs. embarrassing) ANOVA was performed to assess
the effectiveness of the failure type manipulation. As intended, the result
showed a main effect of failure type, where participants in the
embarrassing failure condition felt a higher level of embarrassment
than those in the non-embarrassing failure condition (5.71 vs. 3.06; F(1,
114) = 657.52; p b .001). No effects involving cultural group were found
(p's N .10). The manipulation of the two failure types was successful.
6.2. Classification checks
The independent-interdependent scale confirmed that the American
and Chinese groups were higher in individualism and collectivism,
respectively (ps b .001). Specifically, American participants had higher
individualism ratings than Chinese participants (α = .74; 5.66 vs. 4.64),
and they had lower collectivism ratings than the latter (α = .67; 4.72 vs.
5.36).
6.3. Complaint intentions
A 2 × 2 ANCOVA was used to assess the interactive effects of cultural
group and failure type on complaint intention, and dissatisfaction was
included as a covariate. There was a main effect of failure type, with
participants reporting a higher complaint intention in the embarrassing
failure condition than in the non-embarrassing failure condition (5.46
vs. 4.73; F(1, 113) = 20.31, p b .001). Consistent with H1 and H2, there
was a significant interaction between cultural group and failure type
(F(1, 113) = 21.19, p b .001). A planned contrast indicated that Chinese
participants are less likely to complain than American participants in the
non-embarrassing failure condition (4.03 vs. 5.19; F(1, 57) = 26.06,
p b .001). A second planned contrast showed the reverse pattern for the
embarrassing failure condition: Chinese participants are more likely to
complain than American participants (5.93 vs. 5.22; F(1, 57) = 15.63,
p b .001). Therefore, H1 and H2 were both supported. The mean patterns
for complaint intention are shown in Fig. 1.
6.4. Switching intention
A 2 × 2 ANCOVA was used to assess the interactive effects of cultural
group and failure type on switching intention. Dissatisfaction was
included as a covariate. There was a significant main effect of cultural
group on switching intention (F(1, 113) = 51.36, p b .001) but no other
effects were significant. Planned contrast analyses indicated that
Chinese participants are more likely to switch than American
participants in both non-embarrassing (4.91 vs. 4.31; F(1, 57) = 16.10,
p b .001) and embarrassing failure (5.19 vs. 4.28; F(1, 57) = 38.89,
p b .001) conditions. Hence, results supported H3 and H5.
6.5. Negative word-of-mouth intention
Again, a 2 × 2 ANCOVA was used to assess the interactive effects of
cultural group and failure type on negative word-of-mouth intention,
and dissatisfaction was again included as a covariate. Results showed
a significant main effect of cultural group on negative word-of-mouth
only (F(1, 113) = 63.74, p b .001) and no other effects were significant.
Planned contrast analyses indicated that Chinese participants are
 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305
7
6.5
Complaint Intention
6 5.93
5.5
5.19 5.22
5
4.5
4
4.03
3.5
3 little research has applied this concept in investigating consumer
Non-embarassing failure Embarrassing failure
Collectivisits
Individualists
Fig. 1. The impacts of culture on consumer complaint intention across non-e-
mbarrassing and embarrassing failures.
more likely to spread negative word-of-mouth than American
participants in both non-embarrassing (5.20 vs. 4.24; F(1, 57) =
35.83, p b .001) and embarrassing failure conditions (5.07 vs. 4.34; F(1,
57) = 31.35, p b .001). Thus, results supported H4 and H6.
6.6. Mediation analyses
Given that there was an interactive effect of cultural group and
failure type on complaint intention (H1 and H2), a mediated moderation
analysis was performed to examine the mediating role of face concern
on the interactive effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Arguably, the
interactive effect of cultural group and failure type on complaint
intention was driven by individual differences in face concern across the
two cultures. This argument suggests that the cultural group× failure
type interaction was mediated by the face concern× failure type
interaction. To verify this prediction, first, complaint intention was
regressed on the main and interactive effects of cultural group and
failure type, and there was a significant cultural group × failure type
interaction (p b .001). Second, the main effect of face concern was added
to the model and it did not mediate the cultural group × failure type
interaction (p N .10). Finally, when the face concern× failure type
interaction was added to the main model, the original cultural
group× failure type interaction effect became non-significant (p N .10).
The test indicates a full mediation (Sobel test = 3.09; p b .001),
confirming the mediated moderation relationship.
7. Discussion
7.1. Summary
The current research substantiates the contention that collectivists
may not necessarily be less likely to complain than individualists in
service failures. Building on the face concern and embarrassment
literature (e.g., Dahl et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), this
research shows that the impacts of culture on consumer complaining
responses depend on the degree of embarrassment in service failures.
Results demonstrate that while collectivists (vs. individualists) less
likely complain in non-embarrassing failures, they more likely complain
in embarrassing failures. In addition, collectivists (vs. individualists)
more likely switch and spread negative word-of-mouth in both
non-embarrassing and embarrassing failures. Importantly, face concern
mediates the cultural impacts on consumer complaint intention across
non-embarrassing and embarrassing failures.
303
7.2. Theoretical implications
This paper offers several important contributions, including new
insights regarding the cultural impacts on consumer responses to
service failures. While substantial research has identified the role of
social harmony in explaining cultural differences on consumer
complaining responses, the current study advocates that face concern
also plays a significant role in explaining the cross-cultural differences.
Face concern has been recognized as a cultural value that has pervasive
impacts on a variety of social behaviors, such as interpersonal conflict
management (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994). Nevertheless, very
behaviors across cultures. Building on the face concern and facework
literature (e.g., Hui & Triandis, 1986; Oetzel et al., 2001), this research
fills a void in the literature by relating the concept of face concern to
consumer complaining responses across cultures.
Admittedly, the current research is not the first to consider the role of
face concern in consumer complaining responses. Chan and Wan (2009)
found that face concern will influence consumer complaint and negative
word-of-mouth intention. The current research is, however, the first
empirical test of the role of face concern in consumer complaining
responses across cultures. Chan and Wan (2009) suggest that face
concern may have contrasting impacts on complaint intention, that is, it
may either mitigate or magnify complaint intention in service failures.
They did not submit this proposition to empirical testing with a cross-
cultural sample. In this regard, the current study extends their works to
a cross-cultural context and substantiates that collectivists' preferences
on complaint intention indeed depend on the relative salience of
self-face concern versus other-face concern in service failures.
The current research contributes to the literature by identifying
service embarrassment as a moderator of the relationship between
cultural impacts and consumer complaining responses. The degree of
embarrassment involved in service failures reconciles the contrasting
predictions of face concern on complaint intention. One the one hand,
face concern mitigates collectivists' complaint intentions in non-e-
mbarrassing failures (i.e., a situation that provokes a high other-face
concern). On the other hand, face concern magnifies collectivists'
complaint intentions in embarrassing failures (i.e., a situation that
provokes a high self-face concern). Incidentally, individualists' com-
plaint intentions do not depend on the relative salience of self-face
concern versus other-face concern in service failures.
This research adds new insights to an under-researched issue
specific to services marketing: service embarrassment. Despite the fact
that embarrassment is a common phenomenon in consumption, little
research has examined its impact on consumer behaviors, especially in
the cross-cultural context. Building on the face concern and embarrass-
ment literature (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Dahl et al., 2001),
this research is the first to provide empirical evidence of how consumers
react to embarrassing failures across cultures.
Previous cross-cultural research suggests that when compared
with individualists, collectivists are more understanding and tolerant
of service failures (Zhang et al., 2008). The current research shows
that collectivists are not necessarily more tolerant of service failures
than individualists. Results show that when a service failure does not
involve embarrassment, collectivists do react less negatively than
individualists. Yet when a service failure involves embarrassment,
collectivists react more negatively than individualists reflected in the
array of complaining responses used to express discontent of face
loss: complaint, switching, and negative word-of-mouth.
7.3. Managerial implications
Global managers face challenges when trying to cater to customers
from different cultures, especially for services where success depends
largely on human factors that are susceptible to cultural influence. This
research provides important insights into how consumers' culture leads
304 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305
them to react differently in embarrassing and non-embarrassing service
failures. The study also suggests several guidelines for minimizing
service embarrassment in service encounters.
Notably, consumers in general react more negatively and have
higher complaint intention in embarrassing service failures than
non-embarrassing service failures. Collectivists react even more
negatively than individualists in embarrassing service failures. Collec-
tivists will use a variety of complaining responses to restore their loss of
face, such as complaint, switching, and negative word-of-mouth.
Therefore, global managers should put relatively more effort in avoiding
embarrassing service failures in service encounters in Asian countries.
Service firms in Asian countries may encourage consumers to use
self-services to minimize the social interactions in service encounters,
including online services and self-check-in kiosks. Even though self-
services may not totally eliminate human interactions and the presence
of other customers (e.g., consumers may still interact with service
providers for honoring the online commitment, or interact with other
customers when waiting at self-check-in kiosks), self-service has
comparatively less public exposure than full-service encounters.
Therefore, self-services may be one possible way to reduce the chance
that service failures will be witnessed by others.
Another example is that during busy hours or seasons, customers
may experience longer waits or will be under-served in service
encounters. If possible, global managers may keep customers waiting
in separate rooms (i.e., try to reduce the number of other customers
present in the same service encounter) and offer them free drinks and
magazines to occupy their wait time. This technique may shorten
consumers' perception of wait time and reduce the chance for a failure to
happen. If a service failure happens, fewer customers will observe the
failure, which may minimize the degree of embarrassment.
In case an embarrassing service failure happens, timely service
recovery actions should be offered to restore consumers' face loss. As
noted by Smith, Bolton, and Wagner (1999), customers prefer exchanges
of resources that are “in kind.” Service recovery efforts that stress
apologetic gestures (i.e., a gain in social resource) should be more
effective for service failures that primarily involve a social resource loss
(e.g., face loss). Given that Asian consumers are more sensitive to face loss
than Western consumers, recovery efforts that stress apologetic gestures
(e.g., a sincere apology) should be relatively more effective in restoring
Asian consumers' face loss in embarrassing failures than recovery efforts
that stress economic resources (e.g., compensation). To further enhance
the effectiveness of the service recovery, global managers may consider
making the service recovery public (e.g., a public apology) by letting other
customers in the same service encounter witness it. This action enables
Asian consumers to restore, or even earn, face in such incidents, which
may result in greater satisfaction than if the service failure had not
occurred. It is worth noting that catering to different cultures to account
for differences in face concern may be difficult for service industries which
have a blend of both Asian and Western consumers, such as the tourism
industry. Service providers in such situations do not want to be accused of
consumer discrimination. Global service managers must therefore strike a
balance when applying the strategy in different situations.
8. Limitations and future research direction
The current research does not consider several factors that come into
play in service failures. This research focuses only on behavioral
responses and embarrassing feelings in service failures. Other emotional
responses such as shame, anger, regret, and disappointment should be
considered (Smith & Bolton, 2002). Previous literature notes that the
feeling of shame differs from embarrassment because incidents
provoking embarrassment feelings occur largely in public but not in
private situations (Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2003). However, the current
research cannot verify whether or not consumers experience feelings of
shame in embarrassing failures. When a consumer experiences a
shameful feeling in a service failure, will the extent of the shame be
stronger in an embarrassing than in a non-embarrassing failure? Will
culture and face concern have influences on consumers' shameful
feelings across different types of service failure? Future research that
considers different emotional responses will provide better under-
standing of consumer reactions to service failures across cultures.
This research focuses on embarrassing service situations in which
service providers cause mistakes during the service delivery process.
Consumers may also make mistakes that create embarrassment during
the service delivery process. Recall the embarrassing failure scenario
where a waiter refuses a customer the sea-view table s/he reserved in
front of her/his friend. What if the customer reserves a sea-view table
but makes the mistake of going to the restaurant with his/her friend at
the wrong time? The customer will be at fault and will likely experience
embarrassment. Future research should explore consumer reactions to
different types of service embarrassment, such as service provider--
induced embarrassment versus customer-induced embarrassment.
Another issue for future research is the method of conducting
empirical tests. The current research uses a scenario-based experiment
to investigate consumer reactions to service failures across cultures.
Although this method enables researchers to maximize internal validity
in the theory-building stage, the generalizability of research findings to
real-life situations may be limited. Therefore, future research should be
conducted in more realistic settings to enhance external validity.
Appendix A. Service failure scenarios
Non-embarrassing failure
You are looking for a nice restaurant to have dinner. You search from
the internet and find a restaurant with good reviews—Seaside Restaurant.
Sea view tables at Seaside Restaurant are limited and are highly
recommended by other consumers. Therefore, you make a call to
Seaside Restaurant and reserve a sea view table. Your booking is
confirmed and you are happy.
The next day, you go to the restaurant and ask the waiter to put you
at a sea view table (that you reserved yesterday). However, the waiter
replies that sea view tables are provided on a first-come-first-serve basis
and they cannot be reserved. In other words, you cannot enjoy a relaxing
moment by dining at a sea view table.
Embarrassing failure
You are looking for a nice restaurant to have dinner with your friend.
You search from the internet and find a restaurant with good reviews—
Seaside Restaurant.
Sea view tables at Seaside Restaurant are limited and are highly
recommended by other consumers. Therefore, you make a call to Seaside
Restaurant and reserve a sea view table. Your booking is confirmed. Your
friend is happy with your arrangement.
The next day, you go to the restaurant with your friend and ask the
waiter to put you two at a sea view table (that you reserved yesterday).
However, the waiter replies that sea view tables are provided on a
first-come-first-serve basis and they cannot be reserved. In other words,
you cannot enjoy a relaxing moment with your friend by dining at a sea
view table.
Appendix B. Measures for the study
A semantic differential scale
Complaint intention (α = .88)
You will complain to the restaurant's manager about the incident.
1. Very unlikely/Very likely
2. Inclined not to/Inclined to
3. Definitely will not/Definitely will
 L.C. Wan / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 298–305
Switching intention (α = .78)
You will visit the restaurant again in the near future.
1. Very unlikely/Very likely
2. Inclined not to/Inclined to
3. Definitely will not/Definitely will
Negative W-O-M (α = .80)
You will tell your family and friends about the incident.
1. Very unlikely/Very likely
2. Inclined not to/Inclined to
3. Definitely will not/Definitely will
A likert scale
Face concern (α = .85)
1. I care about praises and criticisms from others.
2. I care about others' attitudes toward me.
3. I hate being taken lightly.
4. I will be very angry if others are impolite to me.
5. I will be very happy if I am treated with respect.
6. I will be very upset if I am criticized in public.
Manipulation check for service embarrassment (r = .89)
1. You feel very embarrassed about the incident.
2. You feel very uncomfortable about the incident.
References
Bao Y, Zhou Z, Su C. Face consciousness and risk aversion: do they affect consumer
decision-making? Psychology and Marketing 2003;20:733–55. [August].
Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 1986;51:1173–82. [December].
Bond MH. The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press;
1996.
Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1987.
Chan H, Wan LC. Consumer responses to service failures: a resource preference model
of cultural influences. Journal of International Marketing 2008;16:72–97. [March].
Chan H, Wan LC. Dual influences of moderating variables in the dissatisfaction process:
theory and evidence. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 2009;21:
125–35.
Chan H, Wan LC, Sin LY. The contrasting effects of culture on consumer tolerance:
interpersonal face and impersonal fate. Journal of Consumer Research 2009;36(2):
292–304.
Chiu CY, Tsang SC, Yang CF. The role of face situation and attitudinal antecedents in
Chinese consumer complaint behaviour. Journal of Social Psychology 1988;128(2):
173–80.
Cocroft BK, Ting-Toomey S. Facework in Japan and the United States. International
Journal of International Relations 1994;18(4):469–506.
Dahl DW, Manchanda R, Argo J. Embarrassment in consumer purchase: the role of social
presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research 2001;81(3):
473–81.
Goffman E. Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. London: Doubleday;
1967.
Grace D. How embarrassing! An exploratory study of critical incidents including
affective reactions. Journal of Service Research 2007;9(3):271–84.
Hirschman AO. Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations and
states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1970.
Ho D. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 1976;81(4):867–84.
Hofstede GH. Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.
305
Hofstede GH. Culture and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill;
1991.
Hu HC. The Chinese concept of ‘face’. American Anthropologist 1944;46:45–64.
Hui CH, Triandis HC. Individualism-collectivism, a study of cross-cultural researchers.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 1986;17:225–48. [June].
Hwang A, Francesco AM, Kessler E. The relationship between individualism-collecti-
vism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the
United States. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 2003;34:72–91. [January].
Hwang KK. Face and favor: the Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology
1987;92(4):944–74.
Keltner D, Buswell B. Embarrassment: its distinct form and appeasement functions.
Psychology Bulletin 1997;122(3):250–70.
Langeard E, Bateson JEG, Lovelock CH, Eiglier P. Services marketing: new insights from
consumers and managers. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute; 1981.
Li JJ, Su C. How face influences consumption: a comparative study of American and
Chinese consumers. International Journal of Market Research 2007;49(2):237–56.
Liu RR, McClure P. Recognizing cross-cultural differences in consumer complaint
behavior and intentions: an empirical examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing
2001;18(1):54–74.
Lowe ACT, Corkindale DR. Differences in ‘cultural values’ and their effects on responses
to marketing stimuli: a cross-cultural study between Australians and Chinese from
the People's Republic of China. European Journal of Marketing 1998;32(9/10):
843–67.
Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review 1991;98(2):224–53.
Mattila AS, Patterson PG. The impact of culture on consumers' perceptions of service
recovery efforts. Journal of Retailing 2004;80(3):196–206.
Oetzel JG, Ting-Toomey S, Masumoto T, Yokochi Y, Pan X, Takai J, et al. Face and
facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the
United States. Communication Monographs 2001;68(3):235–58.
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 1985;49(4):41–50.
Singelis TM. The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1994;20:580–91. [October].
Singh J. Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: definitional and taxonomical
issues. Journal of Marketing 1988;52:93–107. [January].
Smith AK, Bolton RN. The effect of customers' emotional responses to service failures on
their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 2002;30:5–23. [Winter].
Smith AK, Bolton RN, Wagner J. A model of customer satisfaction with service
encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research 1999;36:
356–72. [August].
Ting-Toomey S. The matrix of face: an updated face-negotiation theory. In: Gudykunst
WB, editor. Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage; 2005. p. 71–92.
Ting-Toomey S, Kurogi A. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated
face-negotiation theory. International Journal of International Relations
1998;22(2):187–225.
Verbeke W, Bagozzi RP. Exploring the role of self- and customer-provoked
embarrassment in personal selling. International Journal of Research in Marketing
2003;20:233–58.
Wan LC, Chan EKY, Su L. When will customers care about service failures that happened
to strangers? The role of personal similarity and regulatory focus and its
implication on service evaluation. International Journal of Hospitality Management
2011;30(1):213–20.
Weiner B. Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research 2000;27:382–7. [December].
White JB, Tynan R, Galinsky AD, Thompson L. Face threat sensitivity in negotiation:
roadblock to agreement and joint gain. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 2004;94:102–24. [July].
Wilson SR, Aleman CG, Leatham GB. Identity implications of influence goals: a revised
analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with
same-sex friends. Human Communication Research 1998;25(1):64–96.
Wong NY. The role of culture in the perception of service recovery. Journal of Business
Research 2004;57(9):957–63.
Wong NY, Ahuvia AC. Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in Confucian
and Western societies. Psychology and Marketing 1998;15:423–41. [August].
Zhang J, Beatty SE, Walsh G. Review and future directions of cross-cultural consumer
services research. Journal of Business Research 2008;61:211–24. [March].