Do service scripts exacerbate job

demand-induced customer
perceived discrimination?
Gianfranco Walsh
Department of General Management and Marketing, University of Jena, Jena, Germany, and
Eva Katharina Hammes
University Jena, Jena, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – This research aims to investigate the contingent influence of service scripts on the links between service employees’ job demands and
customers’ perceptions of discrimination.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on prior conceptual and empirical work, as well as conservation of resources theory, the authors
propose a conceptual model comprising job demands (job stress and role ambiguity) and two dimensions of perceived discrimination.
Findings – A unique, dyadic data set reveals that the two focal job demands positively affect customers’ perceptions of discrimination. Service
scripts enhance those negative relationships, such that they have resource-depleting and job demand-exacerbating effects.
Originality/value – This study offers the first research to link customer perceived discrimination with employee antecedents. These insights, in turn,
have several key theoretical and managerial implications, and they offer directions for further work in this arena.
Keywords Customer perceived discrimination, Dyadic data, Employee job demands, Service scripts
Paper type Research paper

Introduction of shoplifting by store staff (Parks, 2016). The teenager’s

discrimination allegation not only had direct financial
Discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business (Tim Cook, Apple CEO,
2015). repercussions but also likely negatively affected the retailer’s
reputation. Although behaviours by other customers can
As Tim Cook admonishes in the above quote, firms that fail to
contribute to minority customers’ perceptions of
ensure a discrimination-free treatment of all its customers will
discrimination (Walters and Moore, 2002), in typical service
hurt their business. Service customers may perceive that they
interactions, the employee is the primary discriminatory agent
are treated differentially as a result of some group-level traits,
(Walsh, 2009).
such that they and others like them suffer unfavourable
Previous marketing research has explicated the potential
outcomes, while others without these traits enjoy more
outcomes of discrimination, but few studies consider
favourable outcomes (Crockett et al., 2003; Klinner and
employee-level drivers and organizational controls that might
Walsh, 2013). The traits that prompt such customer perceived
relate to the customers’ perceptions of discrimination. A likely
discrimination might be generally observable, such as
reason is the vast complexity of simultaneously capturing
ethnicity, build (e.g. obesity and dwarfism) or age, or they
firm-related antecedents and customers’ perceived
could be inferred from a person’s appearance, as in the case of
discrimination. Most existing studies also rely on single-source
traits such as religion or sexual orientation (Fiske and Taylor,
data (Gabbidon and Higgins, 2007; Schreer et al., 2009;
2013). Discrimination, and customers’ perceptions of it,
Walsh, 2009), instead of dyadic data, which eliminates the
directly and indirectly harms the service firm’s bottom line;
possibility of empirically linking employee-related antecedents
specifically, actual or alleged discriminatory behaviour
to customers’ perceptions of discrimination.
towards certain customer groups can tarnish the service firm’s
To address these gaps, the present study investigates how
reputation (Bennett, 1999; Goldman et al., 2006); negatively
the job demands of service employees (job stress and role
affect customer satisfaction, trust and loyalty (Walsh, 2009);
ambiguity) correspond with customer perceived
and eventually reduce sales (King et al., 2006). For example,
discrimination. These job demands have been shown to be
the New York retailer Barney’s had to pay a $45,000
important drivers of employee job attitudes and behaviours
settlement to a black teenager who had been wrongly accused

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on The authors would like to thank Nicole Klinner for her help with the data
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm collection.

Received 5 June 2016

Journal of Services Marketing
Revised 29 August 2016
31/4/5 (2017) 471–479 10 January 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 7 March 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-06-2016-0209] Accepted 11 April 2017

471
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes
(Schaufeli et al., 2009; Walsh, 2014). Drawing on insights
from conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll,
2011), the proposed model predicts that high levels of job
demands result in heightened perceptions of discrimination by
customers. Specifically, we theorize that increasing levels of
job demands drain employees’ cognitive resources, which
makes it harder for them to suppress prejudiced and
discriminatory behaviour. In this context, Crandall and
Eshleman (2003, p. 424) argue that because “mental vigor is
needed to suppress prejudice, virtually anything that
significantly stresses or overloads emotional assets will
interfere with suppression processes”. In addition, service
scripts enter the model as potential moderators of the links
between employee job demands and customer perceived
discrimination (Nguyen et al., 2014). Specifically, we predict
that service scripts contribute to employee resource depletion
and thus strengthen the relationships between job demands on
perceived customer discrimination. This study accordingly
moves beyond extant research. Particularly, previous research
builds conceptual arguments about but provides no empirical
assessment of employee-related variables as antecedents
(Walsh, 2009) or relies solely on customers’ self-reported
measures of those antecedents of discrimination (Horvath and
Ryan, 2003). In addition to these theoretical contributions,
this study offers a better understanding of what brings about
perceived discrimination and reveals that service firms must
consider the behaviours and work conditions of their own
employees, as well as several contingency conditions. For
service management practice, this paper extends existing
knowledge on drivers of perceived discrimination; in
particular, the proposed model and results clarify the
relationships among employee antecedents, service scripts
(reflective of organizational controls) and customer perceived
discrimination, as well as the negative effects on key service
marketing outcomes (Walsh, 2009).
Literature review and hypotheses
Luguri et al. (2012) argue that overt expressions of bias
towards minority groups are no longer tolerated and largely
frowned upon in democratic societies. According to Rogers
and Prentice-Dunn (1981), prejudice and discrimination tend
to be masked by norms for appropriate intergroup behaviour.
An increasing number of service firms have non-
discrimination policies in place to protect employees and
minority customers (Demuijnck, 2009). However, social
psychology research also shows that even in egalitarian
societies, people are not immune from discrimination and that
group membership characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, gender and
age) represent social categories that can unwittingly affect
intergroup relations (Boshoff, 2012; Fiske and Taylor, 2013).
The intergroup relations can be manifest in negatively toned
behaviour of a majority towards minority interaction partners
(Vorauer and Turpie, 2004), even if that behaviour is
unintentional and subtle (Dovidio and Gaertner, 2004).
Prior literature, therefore, suggests that automatic and
unaware behaviours during inter-group service encounters
involve some degree of bias (Gaertner and Dovidio, 2005).
Differential treatment of customers based on their group
membership occurs in various service contexts (Crockett et al.,
2003). Marketplace discrimination can include incidents such
472
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479
as being ignored, provided lesser quality service or seated in an
undesirable location (Baker and Meyer, 2011). This study
accordingly distinguishes between subtle and overt forms of
discriminatory behaviour towards minority customers: overt
expressions of bias are obvious and direct, may take the form
of insulting glances and comments and, in rare cases, may also
include verbal or physical attacks (Harris, 2003; Klinner and
Walsh, 2013; Rosenbaum and Montoya, 2007). As such,
overt discrimination is observable to other employees and
customers. In contrast, the more subtle form of discrimination
entails indirect behaviours, such as critical observations or
gazes or an absence of discretional behaviour such as
recommending alternatives or joking with customers
(Brewster et al., 2014; Klinner and Walsh, 2013). Subtle
discrimination may be perceived by the affected customer but,
for outsiders, remains hardly recognizable (Klinner and
Walsh, 2013).
Employee behaviour that customers perceive as
discriminatory may be especially likely when employee
resources are depleted by their high job demands. In such
situations, employees may “let down their guard” during
majority-minority interactions and biased behaviours may
“leak out”. Normally, service employees would behave
consistently with non-biased norms, but when stressed or
cognitively depleted, employees may revert to traditional
patterns of discrimination (Rogers and Prentice-Dunn, 1981).
Thus, job demands contribute to psychological depletion,
which diminishes employees’ ability to achieve work goals and
their sense of obligation (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
Hobfoll’s (2011) COR theory predicts that employees strive to
protect their physical and psychological well-being by
obtaining, enhancing and maintaining their resources. When
resources are threatened, such as by high job demands,
psychological stress occurs.
Job stress generally refers to work situations in which some
job-related factors interact to change the service employee’s
physiological or psychological condition, such that the
employee feels compelled to deviate from his or her normal
functioning (Beehr, 1995; Carayon, 1995). In services
contexts, job stress is typically caused by emotional demands
or high workloads, which can “exhaust employees’ mental and
physical resources and may therefore lead to the depletion of
energy” (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007, p. 313). In such a
situation, the service employee might unconsciously change
outward displays towards the customer, who then may
perceive the employee’s behaviour as less positive and
potentially discriminatory. Service employees also might
display subtle forms of discriminatory behaviour, such as
patronizing tones or gazes. In other cases, they may insult
customers and display more overt discrimination if they sense
they can no longer regulate their feelings because of their
resource depletion. Therefore:
H1. Job stress relates positively to customer perceived (a)
subtle and (b) overt discrimination.
Another potentially harmful job demand is role ambiguity
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), defined as uncertainty about
the expectations, behaviours and consequences associated
with a particular job. Service employees require clear
information to perform their roles adequately (Peterson et al.,
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes
1995), so the absence of this information may represent a job
stressor. Role ambiguity hinders employees’ performance and
their effort (Brown and Peterson, 1994). Consistent with the
idea of the “high perception of role ambiguity as a source of
stress” (Yousef, 2002, p. 262), we reason that role ambiguity
reduces the cognitive resources available to be allocated to
(non-discriminatory) interactions with the customer. Service
employees scoring high on role ambiguity are less able to
suppress minority group-related stereotypes they might hold,
which should increase their subtle and overt expressions of
discrimination. Furthermore, interacting with (i.e. serving)
minority customers may enhance perceptions of role
ambiguity, especially if employees are not trained to interact
with a diverse customer base.
H2. Role ambiguity relates positively to customer perceived
(a) subtle and (b) overt discrimination.
Service organizations must manage the often heterogeneous
behaviours of frontline service employees to provide
standardized, consistent service experiences for customers.
Towards this end, they often seek to control the behaviour of
frontline employees by using service scripts, or behavioural
and verbal prescriptions for how service employees should
interact with customers (Nguyen et al., 2014). They relate
theoretically to cognitive scripts, that is, memory structures
and mental schemas that organize a sequence of actions to
guide people’s engagement in a particular event or situation
(Gioia and Poole, 1984). The dominant view is that cognitive
scripts can enhance information processing and reduce
cognitive load (Abelson, 1981), such that they might weaken
the links between job demands and customer perceived
discrimination.
In contrast with this theoretical viewpoint, service scripts
also might function as job stressors that enhance the links
between job demands and customer perceived discrimination.
Indeed, research suggests that service scripts may increase, not
decrease, employees’ cognitive load, thus contributing to the
depletion of their mental resources. Victorino et al. (2012)
emphasize the non-voluntary nature of service scripts.
Furthermore, Vella et al. (2009, p. 416) maintain that
“employees dislike the overuse of roles and scripts regarding
their emotional and non-verbal behaviour during customer
interactions”. This dislike probably stems from the fact that
scripts curtail the employee’s ability to act “naturally” towards
customers.
In fact, service scripts are a role requirement of many
customer service employees (Nguyen et al., 2014), and role
requirements increase employees’ overall stress levels (Miles,
1976), especially if they do not match employees’ capabilities
and resources (Sauter et al., 1999). Because dealing with job
demands and meeting role requirements both require
expenditures of cognitive resources, service scripts likely
exacerbate the overall stress levels in stressful and ambiguous
working conditions. Thus:
H3. Service scripts moderate the relationship between job
stress and customer perceived (a) subtle and (b) overt
discrimination, such that the job stress– customer
perceived discrimination link is strengthened.
473
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479
H4. Service scripts moderate the relationship between role
ambiguity and customer perceived (a) subtle and (b)
overt discrimination, such that the role
ambiguity– customer perceived discrimination link is
strengthened.
Method
Procedure and sample
This study used dyadic data from service employees and
customers to investigate the hypothesized relationships, using
a snowballing technique (Salganik and Heckathorn, 2004),
which is quite common in discrimination research (Lee and
Scott, 2016; Livengood and Stodolska, 2004; Milliken and
Martins, 1996). To ensure a sufficient variety in services, we
contacted a number of different service businesses prior to the
data collection and sought their consent regarding the
participation of their employees in the survey. However,
managers were asked not to tell employees they would be
surveyed. Service firms across ten different sectors (e.g.
financial services, health and beauty, and retailing) agreed to
support us. The survey instruments were distributed to
graduate students of a large German university, who were
incentivized for their participation. Each student received a
survey package that contained up to ten pairs of matching
employee and customer questionnaires as well as a list of
service businesses that consented to have their employees
participate. All survey pairs contained unique identifying
codes, which allowed us to link the employee– customer dyads
subsequently. Other quality checks were also included to
ensure the accurate matching of survey dyads; for example,
respondents provided information about the date and time of
the service transaction, the name of the employee in both the
employee and customer survey and the name of the business.
The incentives were paid only for completed survey pairs that
offered valid data.
The participating graduate students were instructed to use
one pair of questionnaires themselves and distribute the
remaining pairs to peers (e.g. family, colleagues and friends).
Following the procedure proposed by Groth et al. (2009),
participants (i.e. customers) took both the survey they had to
complete themselves as well as the survey to be completed by
the employee with them to their next service encounter.
Immediately after the service transaction, they asked the
service employee who had served them to fill out the employee
survey. If the employee agreed, the customer simultaneously
filled out the customer survey. Employees were also furnished
with a short letter, assuring them of the confidentiality of their
responses, and instructions to put the completed survey into
an enclosed envelope that they could seal. The sealed
employee survey then was returned to the customer, who
brought the completed survey pair to the researchers.
Customers were advised that breaking or tampering with the
seal would invalidate a questionnaire. Participating customers
and employees were not informed about the nature of the
research topic; the cover letter only suggested that the study
was about “typical service encounters”. Forty-eight per cent of
all service encounters took place in low-contact (vs medium-
and high-contact) services where customers and employees do
not typically know each other, thus ensuring honest and
non-biased responses. The data collection lasted four weeks.
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination Journal of Services Marketing
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479

Additional quality checks included matching the Figure 1 Conceptual model and results
information contained in the employee and customer surveys,
random checks by contacting service businesses to confirm
that the transaction had taken place and comparison of the
handwriting on all questionnaires (to rule out that customers
completed both questionnaires). The final sample consisted of
207 employee– customer dyads. As Groth et al. (2009)
emphasize, the nature of the research design poses an obstacle
to determining the exact response rate for service employees;
however, information obtained during debriefing sessions
indicates that the final sample represented a response rate of
approximately 30 per cent.
Because this study examines customers’ perceived
discrimination, traits of the customer sample that would
classify the participants as part of a minority group appeared
as items in the survey. Specifically, 46 per cent of respondents
self-identified as members of the majority, and the remainder
self-identified as members of minority groups (in terms of
ethnicity, physical ability, religion, sexual orientation, etc.).

Measures discriminatory. In line with H2, role also ambiguity relates

Customer perceived discrimination was measured with 13 positively to customer perceived discrimination (subtle: b ⫽
items adapted from Klinner and Walsh (2013). From a 0.17, p ⬍ 0.05, overt: b ⫽ 0.18, p ⬍ 0.05).
measurement perspective, what matters is the perception of Using AMOS (version 22), we added the moderator
discrimination, rather than any actual occurrence of service scripts to the direct effect model. After
discriminatory behaviour. Customer perceived discrimination mean-centring the data, we created an interaction term to
occurs any time customers feel reasonably certain they have assess the hypothesized moderation effect (see Figure 1).
been discriminated against as a result of their group The moderated model achieved sound overall fit (␹2/df ⫽
membership. Job stress was measured with a six-item scale 1.68; GFI ⫽ 0.88; CFI ⫽ 0.95; RMSEA ⫽ 0.058). In
developed by House and Rizzo (1972). The role ambiguity support of H3, service scripts moderate the relationship
measure featured four items adapted from House et al. (1983). between job stress and customer perceived discrimination,
Two items from Nguyen et al. (2014) measured service such that they strengthen the relationship of job stress with
scripts. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale both subtle (b ⫽ 0.14, p ⬍ 0.05) and overt (b ⫽ 0.20, p ⬍
(1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 5 ⫽ strongly agree). 0.01) customer perceived discrimination. As Table I shows,
the results differ for the relationship between role ambiguity
Results and customer perceived discrimination though. When
Measurement assessment service scripts enter the model as a moderator, the
To assess the measures, we performed a confirmatory factor relationship between role ambiguity and overt customer
analysis on the five model constructs (job stress, role
ambiguity, subtle customer perceived discrimination (PCD), Table I Results of the direct effects and moderation models
overt customer perceived discrimination and service scripts;
Direct model
Figure 1). All but one of the Cronbach’s alpha values (role
ambiguity ⫽ 0.67) were above 0.80, exceeding the Independent variables Subtle Overt Results
recommended minimum of 0.70. Appendix 2 contains the ⴱ ⴱⴱ
Job stress 0.18 0.21 H1a supported
inter-construct correlations, which indicate support for H1b supported
discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Role ambiguity 0.21ⴱ 0.19ⴱ H2a supported
H2b supported
Hypotheses tests Moderation model
The direct effect model contains the two job demands (job Subtle Overt
stress and role ambiguity) and the dependent variables (subtle Job stress 22ⴱⴱ 0.23ⴱⴱ H1a supported
and overt customer perceived discrimination) but no H1b supported
moderator. The model fits the data reasonably well (␹2/df ⫽ Role ambiguity 0.18ⴱ 0.17ⴱ H2a supported
1.68; goodness-of-fit index [GFI] ⫽ 0.90; confirmatory fit H2b supported
index [CFI] ⫽ 0.96; root mean square error of approximation Service script ⴛ 0.20ⴱⴱ 0.14ⴱ H3a supported
[RMSEA] ⫽ 0.057). Job stress H3b supported
Consistent with H1, job stress relates positively to subtle Service script ⴛ 0.09 n.s. 0.12† H4a not supported
(b ⫽ 0.22, p ⬍ 0.01) and overt (b ⫽ 0.23, p ⬍ 0.01) customer Role ambiguity H4b not supported
perceived discrimination: The more stressed employees are
Notes: ⴱⴱⴱp ⬍ 0.001; ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ 0.01; ⴱp ⬍ 0.05; † p ⬍ 0.10; n.s. ⫽ not
due to their job, the more likely they are to engage in
significant
behaviour towards customers that those customers perceive as

474
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes
perceived discrimination is strengthened, although it is only
mildly significant (b ⫽ 0.12, p ⬍ 0.10). The relationship
between role ambiguity and subtle customer perceived
discrimination is not affected (b ⫽ 0.09, n.s.). These results
do not support H4.
Discussion
Given the intense competition in most service industries,
service firms cannot afford to ignore the needs and perceptions
of their minority customers. Discriminatory behaviour by
service employees not only raises ethical and reputational
issues (Klinner and Walsh, 2013) but also hurts key service
marketing outcomes. Because service encounters that are
perceived as discriminatory degrade customers’ service
experiences, they likely prompt customer defection and
negative word-of-mouth. As such, they are “economically
costly [. . .] on multiple fronts” (Brewster, 2012, p. 282). For
example, Ginder and Byun (2015) suggest that customer
discrimination may have a negative carryover effect on other
patrons who share the same service setting.
This study provides valuable insights into the service
script-moderated effects of job demands on customer
perceived discrimination. Although it focuses on current
knowledge about service scripts, some of this study’s
observations reframe our understanding of the effects of
scripts on service employees. Thus, the current study enriches
the on-going debate about contextual and organizational
factors that heighten customers’ perceptions of discrimination
(Baron and Pfeffer, 1994; Reskin et al., 1999), and it
contributes to nascent literature on customer perceived
discrimination in services (Brewster, 2012; Vilnai-Yavetz and
Gilboa, 2014; Walsh, 2009).
Implications
The present research makes three important contributions to
services marketing literature. First, with a basis in COR
theory, the proposed parsimonious model links two job
demands (job stress and role ambiguity) to customer
perceived discrimination, as well as featuring an important
managerial control (service scripts) as a moderator. In doing
so, this model bridges services-related discrimination research
that focuses either solely on the customer (Hekman et al.,
2010; Walsh, 2009) or the employee (Schreer et al., 2009;
Williams et al., 2001). Second, this study is the first to link two
dimensions of customer perceived discrimination with
employee antecedents. To do so, the authors use genuine
dyadic data, which have several benefits over cross-sectional,
single-source data (Groth et al., 2009). Our findings broadly
support previous research (Bakker et al., 2003) which
emphasizes the resources-depleting effect of job demands and
show that both types of job demands directly and positively
affect both dimensions of customer perceived discrimination.
Third, the investigation of whether service scripts moderate
the links between job demands and customer perceived
discrimination reveals, that all but one of these links are
enhanced by service scripts. Only the relationship between
role ambiguity and subtle customer perceived discrimination
remains unaffected by scripts. It is conceivable that while
service scripts contribute to the employee’s felt depletion, they
also counterbalance the effect of role ambiguity by structuring
475
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479
job tasks. An alternative explanation is that when employees
scoring high on role ambiguity are faced with special or
unexpected customer requests (which are not compatible with
their role scripts), they may experience increased resource
depletion which encourages them to abandon required
behaviours (Chan et al., 2010).
Previous research into the antecedents of discriminatory
behaviour has focused on factors embedded in a person’s
belief system, such as conservatism or race-based national
prototypes (Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta, 2010). Such research
is important but perhaps less useful for service organizations
that need actionable information about how to tackle
perceived discrimination effectively. One way to address
employee behaviour that customers perceive as discriminatory
is to examine relevant organizational controls. Service
organizations aiming to root out discrimination against
customers may struggle to change their employees’
fundamental beliefs, but if they can identify job-related
antecedents of customer perceived discrimination, they can
take measures to mitigate those effects.
Like any employee skills, competence in interacting with
minority customers can be improved through training.
Moreover, desired employee behaviour can be built into
service scripts. However, this study reveals important insights
for service management practice with regard to service scripts.
Accordingly, effective controls should not rely on service
scripts, which are not only useless but even increase
discriminatory behaviour, if employees are stressed. Because
service scripts constrain employees’ behaviour (Ashforth and
Humphrey, 1993) and inform evaluations of their
performance (Chebat and Kollias, 2000), they represent
additional pressure exerted by the service firm. Service
employees may not be able to regulate their feelings while
being exposed to stressful situations and simultaneously
having to comply with display rules imposed by the
organization. As previous research has revealed (Hartline and
Ferrell, 1996), service employees who are allowed to make
day-to-day decisions feel better about their jobs and can better
adapt to shifting situations in service encounters. Service
scripts that constrain employees instead may force them to
expend their resources, such that they can no longer regulate
their expressions and begin to exhibit discriminatory
behaviour towards customers. Also, service organizations
could use workshops to make employees aware of the impact
of certain behaviours on minority customers and teach them
strategies and techniques to conduct discrimination-free
transactions with minority customers.
According to Jackson and Schuler (1985), role ambiguity
leads to lowered self-opinions because employees feel
personally responsible for the presence of that ambiguity.
Employees who perceive role ambiguity rarely feel contented
about or derive satisfaction from their work. Spreitzer (1996)
also shows that role ambiguity lowers empowerment levels,
which tends to reduce job satisfaction even further; role
ambiguity correlates negatively with job satisfaction and job
performance (Singh, 1998; Walsh, 2011). Therefore, a key
means to reduce discriminatory behaviours might be for the
firm to clarify the roles of service employees. Role ambiguity
may also be reduced by providing information to service
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes
employees regarding which behaviours are observed and
enforced (Ramaswami et al., 1993).
Limitations and further research
Researchers could adopt additional designs to obtain objective
(vs self-reported) employee and customer data, including
performance measures, pay, actual spending and customer
lifetime value. Such data would give service marketers greater
insights into the influence of job-related factors on important
customer metrics. Moreover, qualitative data, such as
transcripts of interviews with service employees, could provide
a more honest insight into their actual thoughts and
viewpoints as well as their experiences when serving minority
customers, and thus, their construction of reality (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985; Turner, 2010). In addition, potential bias arising
from the fact that the customers in our study were aware of the
study, whereas the employee party was only debriefed could
be prevented by more objective data. This study is restricted to
service employees and customers in Germany and thus should
be expanded to other cultural settings. Cognitive appraisals of
job demands vary across cultures (Walsh et al., 2015), such
that the links between job demands and customer perceived
discrimination might vary in strength across countries.
This study includes only one organizational variable, service
scripts, as a moderator. Additional studies could feature
employees’ or customers’ personality characteristics or
organizational variables as further potential moderators of the
investigated relationships. Researchers also could move in
another direction, by examining the role of contextual and
organizational factors in terms of customers’ perceptions of
preferential treatment. Service employees may inadvertently
engage in behaviour that reflects ethnocentric tribal biases
when serving customers from a minority group (Rosenbaum
and Walsh, 2012). Such behaviour may be incompatible with
organizational expectations, in that it can lead to unintended
discrimination towards minority customers.
To rule out discriminatory behaviour resulting from
individual differences between the employees, future research
should include a measure of (employee) discrimination at the
trait level as a control variable.
Most of the study hypotheses were confirmed, though
nearly 46 per cent of the sample self-identified as members of
the majority. If the hypothesized relationships are supported in
such a sample, it speaks to the robustness of the findings.
Nevertheless, additional studies might use samples composed
entirely of minority group members, such as migrant or
disabled consumers, to test the applicability of the predictions
to these cohorts.
References
Abelson, R.P. (1981), “Psychological status of the script
concept”, American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 7,
pp. 715-729.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1993), “Emotional
labor in service roles: the influence of identity”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Baker, T.L. and Meyer, T. (2011), “White response to
potentially discriminatory actions in a services setting”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 188-204.
476
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job
demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W. (2003), “Dual
processes at work in a call centre: an application of the job
demands-resources model”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 393-417.
Baron, J.N. and Pfeffer, J. (1994), “The social psychology of
organizations and inequality”, Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 190-209.
Beehr, T.A. (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace,
Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Bennett, R. (1999), “Corporate reputation of UK banks and
building societies among ethnic minorities”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 104-114.
Boshoff, C. (2012), “A neurophysiological assessment of
consumers’ emotional responses to service recovery
behaviors: the impact of ethnic group and gender
similarity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 401-413.
Brewster, Z.W. (2012), “Racially discriminatory service in
full-service restaurants: the problem, cause, and potential
solutions”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 274-285.
Brewster, Z.W., Lynn, M. and Cocroft, S. (2014),
“Consumer racial profiling in US restaurants: exploring
subtle forms of service discrimination against black diners”,
Sociological Forum, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 476-495.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “The effect of effort
on sales performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 70-80.
Carayon, P. (1995), “Chronic effect of job control, supervisor
social support, and work pressure on office worker stress”,
in Sauter, S. and Murphy, L. (Eds), Organizational Risk
Factors for Job Stress, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 357-370.
Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K. and Lam, S.S. (2010), “Is customer
participation in value creation a double-edged sword?
Evidence from professional financial services across
cultures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 48-64.
Chebat, J.C. and Kollias, P. (2000), “The impact of
empowerment on customer contact employees’ roles in
service organizations”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 66-81.
Crandall, C.S. and Eshleman, A. (2003), “A
justification-suppression model of the expression and
experience of prejudice”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129
No. 3, pp. 414-446.
Crockett, D., Grier, S.A. and Williams, J.A. (2003), “Coping
with marketplace discrimination: an exploration of the
experiences of black men”, Academy of Marketing Science
Review, Vol. 2003 No. 4, pp. 1-21, available at: www.
amsreview.org/articles/crockett04-2003.pdf
Demuijnck, G. (2009), “Non-discrimination in human
resources management as a moral obligation”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (2004), “Aversive racism”, in
Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, Vol. 36,
pp. 1-52.
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (2013), Social Cognition: From
Brains to Culture, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gabbidon, S.L. and Higgins, G.E. (2007), “Consumer racial
profiling and perceived victimization: a phone survey of
Philadelphia area residents”, American Journal of Criminal
Justice, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-11.
Gaertner, S.L. and Dovidio, J.F. (2005), “Categorization,
recategorization, and intergroup bias”, in Dovidio, J.F.,
Glick, P. and Rudman, L.A.(Eds), On the Nature of
Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport, Blackwell Publishing,
Malden, MA, pp. 71-88.
Ginder, W. and Byun, S.E. (2015), “Past, present, and future
of gay and lesbian consumer research: critical review of the
quest for the queer dollar”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32
No. 8, pp. 821-841.
Gioia, D.A. and Poole, P.P. (1984), “Script in organizational
behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 449-459.
Goldman, B.M., Gutek, B.A., Stein, J.H. and Lewis, K.
(2006), “Employment discrimination in organizations:
antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 786-830.
Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. (2009),
“Customer reactions to emotional labor: the roles of
employee acting strategies and customer detection
accuracy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5,
pp. 958-974.
Harris, A.-M.G. (2003), “Shopping while black: applying 42
U. S. C. § 1981 to cases of consumer racial profiling”,
Boston College Third World Law Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 1-57.
Hartline, M.D. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), “The management
of customer-contact service employees: an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 52-70.
Hekman, D.R., Aquino, K., Owens, B.P., Mitchell, T.R.,
Schilpzand, P. and Leavitt, K. (2010), “An examination of
whether and how racial and gender biases influence
customer satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 238-264.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2011), “Conservation of resources theory: its
implication for stress, health, and resilience”, in Folkman,
S. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping,
Oxford University Press, pp. 127-147.
Horvath, M. and Ryan, A.M. (2003), “Antecedents and
potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes
and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation”, Sex Roles, Vol. 48 Nos 3/4, pp. 115-130.
House, R.J. and Rizzo, J.R. (1972), “Role conflict and
ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational
behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 467-505.
House, R.J., Schuler, R.S. and Levanoni, E. (1983), “Role
conflict and ambiguity scales: reality or artifacts?”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 334-337.
477
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1985), “A meta-analysis and
conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role
conflict in work settings”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 16-78.
King, E., Shapiro, J.L., Hebl, M., Singletary, S. and Turner,
S. (2006), “The stigma of obesity in customer service: a
mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences
of interpersonal discrimination”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 579-593.
Klinner, N.S. and Walsh, G. (2013), “Customer perceptions
of discrimination in service deliveries: construction and
validation of a measurement instrument”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 651-658.
Lee, K.J. and Scott, D. (2017), “Racial discrimination and
African Americans’ travel behavior: the utility of habitus
and vignette technique”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 56
No. 3, available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.
1177/0047287516643184
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry,
Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Livengood, J.S. and Stodolska, M. (2004), “The effects of
discrimination and constraints negotiation on leisure
behavior of American Muslims in the post-September 11
America”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 183-208.
Luguri, J.B., Napier, J.L. and Dovidio, J.F. (2012),
“Reconstruing intolerance: abstract thinking reduces
conservatives’ prejudice against nonnormative groups”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 756-763.
Miles, R.H. (1976), “Role requirements as sources of
organizational stress”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61
No. 2, pp. 172-179.
Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for
common threads: understanding the multiple effects of
diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 402-433.
Nguyen, H., Groth, M., Walsh, G. and Hennig-Thurau, T.
(2014), “The impact of service scripts on customer
citizenship behavior and the moderating role of employee
customer orientation”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 31
No. 12, pp. 1096-1109.
Parks, F. (2016), “$45K settlement for guy who was guilty of
shopping at barneys while being black!”, available at: http://
urbanintellectuals.com/2016/01/22/45k-settlement-guy-
guilty-shopping-barneys-black/ (accessed 9 August 2016).
Peterson, M.F., Smith, P.B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S.,
Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N.G., Jesuino, J.C.,
D’Amorim, M., Francois, P.-H., Hofmann, K., Koopman,
P.L., Leung, K., Lim, T.K., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J.,
Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., Setiad, B., Sinha, T.N.,
Sorenson, R. and Viedge, C. (1995), “Role conflict,
ambiguity, and overload: a 21-nation study”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 429-452.
Ramaswami, S.N., Agarwal, S. and Bhargava, M. (1993),
“Work alienation of marketing employees: influence of task,
supervisory, and organizational structure factors”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 179-193.
Reskin, B.F., McBrier, D.B. and Kmec, J.A. (1999), “The
determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes
composition”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25,
pp. 335-361.
Rogers, R.W. and Prentice-Dunn, S. (1981),
“Deindividuation and angermediated interracial aggression:
unmasking regressive racism”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 63-73.
Rosenbaum, M.S. and Montoya, D.Y. (2007), “Am I
welcome here? Exploring how ethnic consumers assess their
place identity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 206-214.
Rosenbaum, M.S. and Walsh, G. (2012), “Service nepotism
in the marketplace”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 241-256.
Salganik, M.J. and Heckathorn, D.D. (2004), “Sampling and
estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven
sampling”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 193-240.
Sauter, S.L., Hurrel, J.J., Jr., Fox, H.R., Tetrick, L.E. and
Barling, J. (1999), “Occupational health psychology: an
emerging discipline”, Industrial Health, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 199-211.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009),
“How changes in job demands and resources predict
burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7,
pp. 893-917.
Schreer, G.E., Smith, S. and Thomas, K. (2009), “‘Shopping
while black’: examining racial discrimination in a retail
setting”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 6,
pp. 1432-1444.
Singh, J. (1998), “Striking a balance in boundary-spanning
positions: an investigation of some unconventional
influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job
outcomes of salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62
No. 3, pp. 69-86.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 483-504.
Turner, D.W. (2010), “Qualitative interview design: a
practical guide for novice investigators”, The Qualitative
Report, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 754-760.
Vella, P.J., Gountas, J. and Walker, R. (2009), “Employee
perspectives of service quality in the supermarket sector”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 407-421.
Victorino, L., Verma, R., Boner, B.L. and Wardell, D.G.
(2012), “Can customers detect script usage in service
478
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479
encounters? An experimental video analysis”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 390-400.
Vilnai-Yavetz, I. and Gilboa, S. (2014), “The cost (and the
value) of customer attire: linking high-and low-end dress
styles to service quality and prices offered by service
employees”, Service Business, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 355-373.
Vorauer, J.D. and Turpie, C.A. (2004), “Disruptive effects of
vigilance on dominant group members’ treatment of
outgroup members: choking versus shining under
pressure”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 384-399.
Walsh, G. (2009), “Disadvantaged consumers’ experiences of
marketplace discrimination in services: a conceptual model
of antecedents and customer outcomes”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 1/2, pp. 143-169.
Walsh, G. (2011), “Unfriendly customers as a social stressor –
An indirect antecedent of service employees’ quitting
intention”, European Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 67-78.
Walsh, G. (2014), “Extra- and intra-organizational drivers of
workplace deviance”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 34
No. 14, pp. 1134-1153.
Walsh, G., Yang, Z., Dose, D. and Hille, P. (2015), “The
effect of job-related demands and resources on service
employees’ willingness to report complaints: Germany
versus China”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 193-209.
Walters, A.S. and Moore, L.J. (2002), “Attention all
shoppers, queer customers in aisle two: investigating lesbian
and gay discrimination in the marketplace”, Consumption,
Markets and Culture, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 285-303.
Williams, J.D., Henderson, G.R. and Harris, A.M. (2001),
“Consumer racial profiling: bigotry goes to market”, The
New Crisis, Vol. 108 No. 6, pp. 22-24.
Yogeeswaran, K. and Dasgupta, N. (2010), “Will the ‘real’
American please stand up? The effect of implicit national
prototypes on discriminatory behavior and judgments”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 36 No. 10,
pp. 1332-1345.
Yousef, D.A. (2002), “Job satisfaction as a mediator of the
relationship between role stressors and organizational
commitment: a study from an Arabic cultural perspective”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 250-266.
Corresponding author
Gianfranco Walsh can be contacted at: walsh@uni-jena.de
 Job demand-induced customer perceived discrimination Journal of Services Marketing
Gianfranco Walsh and Eva Katharina Hammes Volume 31 · Number 4/5 · 2017 · 471–479

Appendix 1

Table AI Measures
Construct and items Cronbach’s ␣
Subtle customer perceived discrimination (adapted from Klinner and Walsh, 2013) 0.91
Compared to other customers. . .
. . . the tone of the service employee was condescending
. . . the service employee gave me derogatory looks
. . . the service employee gave me condescending looks
. . . the tone of service employee was patronizing towards me

Overt customer perceived discrimination (adapted from Klinner and Walsh, 2013) 0.93
Compared to other customers. . .
. . . I was verbally abused by the service employee
. . . the behaviour of the service employee humiliated me
. . . the service employees insulted me

Job stress (House and Rizzo, 1972) 0.82

I often take my work home with me and think about it when I am doing completely different things
Because of my work I am often anxious and nervous
My work negatively affects my health
Sometimes I feel burned out
Problems at work keep me up at night
Before meetings in my firm I am often nervous

Role ambiguity (adapted from House et al., 1983) 0.67

I am unclear about the “right” way of doing my job
I lack information to carry out my job
There are few guidelines or policies to help me
I know exactly how I am expected to do my job (–)

Service scripts (adapted from Nguyen et al., 2014) 0.85

In our firm there are written instructions that detail how we should interact with customers
In our firm there are written rules about the behaviours that are appropriate, and not permissible, towards customers

Appendix 2

Table AII Correlations

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5
1. Subtle PCD 1
2. Overt PCD 0.86 1
3. Job stress 0.20 0.27 1
4. Role ambiguity 0.23 0.25 0.51 1
5. Service scripts 0.08 0.11 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.08 1

479
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.