Consumer Complaint Behavior

and Defection: The Moderating Role of

Demographic Factors and Switching Cost

Hafiz Muhammad Tahir*, Zeeshan Akbar Buttar** and Imtiaz Ahmad***

The purpose of this study is to investigate the post purchase behavior of Pakistani bank
customers. Particularly, the relationship between public complaint actions, private
complaint actions and customer defection has been examined. Moreover, the moderation
effect of demographics and switching cost has also been studied. Data was collected
through a survey of 240 bank customers from all over Pakistan. For data analysis,
Hierarchical Multiple Regression has been used. The results of the study indicate that
both complaints are strongly associated with customer defection, but private complaint
has stronger effect on customer defection. Education, switching cost and ethnicity moderate
both the relationships, whether public complaint or private complaint, while
‘others’ moderate this relationship in the case of public complaint. It was also found
that education and marital status moderate the complaint behavior. The paper, being a
pioneering attempt to investigate customer dissatisfaction in the banking industry, makes
a unique contribution to the literature, specifically with reference to Pakistan,

Introduction
The last two decades have witnessed remarkable changes in the banking industry. The
main feature that has been observed is the evolution of the extreme competition in this
sector. The banking sector has undergone changes with regard to its regulations, consumer
demand for services, technological changes, and the entry of new competitors who
switched from businesses other than banking (Edward et al., 1999). Because of this, a
competitive framework has been created, and most of the banks are trying to adopt
defensive strategies in order to avoid switching of customers. According to Jacoby and
Chestnut (1978), firms should make attempt to retain long term relations with their
customers for achieving customer loyalty.

* Lecturer, Department of Commerce, University of Sargodha, Gujranwala Campus, Pakistan; and is the
corresponding author. E-mail: hm.tahir87@gmail.com
* * Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, University of Sargodha, Gujranwala Campus,
Pakistan. E-mail: zeeshanakbar@yahoo.com
***Lecturer, Department of Commerce, University of Sargodha, Gujranwala Campus, Pakistan.
E-mail: imtiaz.ahmad@uosgc.edu.pk

58
© 2018 IUP. All Rights Reserved. The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018
 There is strong econometric evidence that financial sector development fosters economic
growth in Pakistan (Jalil and Feridun, 2011). The banking sector constitutes the core of
the financial sector in Pakistan. Pakistan has a highly competitive banking industry
(Nawab, 2014). Furthermore, the existence of key foreign players in the form of Deutsche
Bank AG, HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd., Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Dubai Islamic
Bank Ltd. Samba Bank, Silk Bank, Burj Bank, AlBarqa, Barclays Bank PLC and The
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. pressurize the local competitors to be highly
innovative in order to compete aggressively in development of products and services. In
the face of such competition, banks endeavor to offer products and services that satisfy
customer need more than the other available options (Ghazanfar and Kazmi, 2009). In
addition, the quality of service and customer satisfaction is compulsory. There is no
exception for Pakistani banks, where customer satisfaction is an effective tool that banks
can use in order to gain a strategic competitive advantage in the banking sector. Due to
intensive competition in the Pakistani banking sector, many banks are surrendering
their existing customers to their arch rivals as a result of non-victorious attempts to
attract customers (Mohsan et al., 2011).

Previous studies have revealed that the loss of customers results in a loss of market
share, high cost for attracting new customers, decline in the revenues of the firm and the
loss of free positive word of mouth (Colgate and Hedge, 2001). Ndubisi (2003a and
2003b) has mentioned that the issue of retaining a customer is very important because
the defection of a customer is a costly affair. As explored by Jillian (2004), retailers of
financial services aim to retain their customers by building strong relationships. Reichheld
and Sasser (1990) are of the view that a 5% decline in customer defections could increase
the profits by 25-85%. Most of the marketing scholars are of the view that the cost of
gaining a new customer is as high as five to six times the cost of retaining an existing one
(Larry and John, 1984; Desatnick, 1988; Jeffrey et al., 1995; and Anders and Bo,
2003). The main reason for defection is dissatisfaction. Most of the companies face
customer dissatisfaction (James et al., 1999) but all do not have an opportunity to
resolve the problems. Claes and Birger (1987) stated that organizations have to encourage
customer complaints because it provides the company the opportunity to retain their
dissatisfied customers.

Previous researchers have tried to find the difference between consumer complaining
behavior and non-complaining behavior in terms of demographics (Bearden and Oliver,
1985; and Singh, 1990), personality factors like assertiveness, consumer alienation
(Bearden, 1983; and Singh, 1990), attitude adopted for complaining (Bearden and Oliver,
1985; and Singh, 1990), and situational factors like consumer experience, cost benefit
evaluations, attributions of blame and chances of successful redress (Folkes, 1984; Bearden
and Oliver, 1985; Folkes et al., 1987; Singh, 1990; and Stephens and Gwinner, 1998).
Recently, researches have been conducted to study the types of different complaint actions
adopted by customers (Jacoby and Jaccard, 1981; Broadbridge and Marshall, 1995;
Blodgett et al., 1995; Bennett, 1997; Eccles and Durand, 1998; Fisher et al., 1999; Nyer,
2000; Liu and McClure, 2001; Heung and Lam, 2003; and Kim et al., 2003).

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 59

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
 The academic literature has some gaps in understanding how these complaint actions
impact the defection or switching behavior and how different demographic variables
moderate the relationship between consumer complaint behavior and defection if applied
in another country. Researches in social sciences produce different results when conducted
in another country or different settings.

In the paper, we are trying to explore and extend the literature on Pakistan to study
how bank customers show their grievances, who they register their complaints with and
whether different demographic variables moderate the relationship between CCB and
defection. It has been observed that in Pakistan, bank customers switch from one bank
to another (collected from various annual reports). The study dwells on the following
questions:
• Which complaint behavior (public or private) best predicts the defection?
• Does gender moderate this relationship?
• Does income moderate this relationship?
• Does education moderate this relationship?
• Does marital status moderate this relationship?
• Does ethnicity moderate this relationship?
• Does switching cost moderate this relationship?

Literature Review
Consumer Complaint Behavior (CCB) has been described as an exertion by someone
and involves transmitting obstructive feelings about any product or service either to the
manufacturer or marketer of that product or service or to the persons other than the
manufacturer or marketer (Jacoby and Jaccard, 1981).

Consumer complaint behavior is defined as a phenomenon that consists of all those

responses that result in dissatisfaction which revolves around a purchase transaction
during the consumption or possession of the goods or services (Crié, 2003). Another
definition of CCB is that consumer complaint behavior includes all those behavioral
responses that a consumer is expected to utilize to cope with his/her dissatisfaction
(Jagdip and Robert, 1991). It is not just an impromptu response, but a certain process
that does not depend directly on starting factors but on the evaluation of situation by
the customer and its evolution with the passage of time (Crié, 2003). CCB is also
known as consumer complaint response shown by the consumer (Singh, 1990). It is
actually a way by which a consumer responds to dissatisfaction (Singh, 1990). Consumer
complaint behavior is a process that starts from evaluating consumption experience
which results in the dissatisfaction and it terminates when the consumer completes all
the behavioral as well as the non-behavioral reactions (Adelina and Julie, 1995). The
purpose of these actions taken by a consumer is not only to complain against the seller,
it also includes stopping the patronage, contacting the mass media, warning the family
and friends, complaining to consumer court or registering complaint with the
management (Vincent and Terry, 2003). Mason and Himes (1973) are of the view that

60 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

these responses include switching the patronage, urging friends and family and complaining
to a consumer council (Mason and Himes, 1973). These response styles are categorized
into action group and no action group (Mason and Himes, 1973). These responses/actions
may be classified, first, on the basis of ‘action’ and ‘no action’ group and second, on the
basis of ‘private action’ and ‘public action’ (Day and Landon, 1977) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Types of Consumer Complaint

Responses

No
Action
Action

Public Private
Action Action

Seek Redress Complain to Take Legal Warn Family Decide to Stop

from the Business or Action to and Buying Product
Firm or the Government Obtain Friends About and/or Boycott
Manufacturer Agency Redress Seller/Product Product

To study consumer complaint behavior, researchers have labeled these responses and
styles differently, such as complainers and non-complainers and activists and non-activists
(Singh, 1990). Here it is noteworthy that a customer may indulge in one action (the
public or private) or may be involved both in public as well as private complaints
simultaneously (Kolodinsky, 1995). It is not necessary that dissatisfaction always results
in a complaint (Jacoby and Jaccard, 1981). There is evidence that the people who
complain may comprise those customers who are satisfied and recognize that complaining
is beneficial for them (Jacoby and Jaccard, 1981). But the customers who are pleased
but still complain about small issues to the firm are particularly those who perceive that
the organization is famed for resolving the trouble fast and impartially (Day and Landon,
1977).

Public Action/Public Complaint

In public action, the consumer complains directly to the vendor or contacts the consumer
court or directorates of the state for demanding damages from that vendor and starts
judicial proceedings against the retailer or manufacturer (Bearden, 1983). The public
action taken by the customer may include verbal protest with the vendor, newspaper,

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 61

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
consumer agency (Vincent and Terry, 2003). When the consumers are dissatisfied
they often call the retailer or manufacturer to recover damages. If the consumer fails
to get a redressal from the company, they forward their complaints further by utilizing
third-party complaint handling agencies such as the government, consumer protection
departments, or media-sponsored consumer advocates (John and Richard, 1994). Public
complaints provide double advantage: one, is to alert the retailer or manufacturer
that there is a problem with the product or service and the second, is to provide a
chance to businesses to satisfy its customers. Consumer facing dissatisfaction starts
complaining publicly which sometime do not come into the attention of business
(Adelina Broadbridge and Julie Marshall, 1995).

Private Action/Private Complaint

Private actions are those which do not immediately come to the knowledge of service
provider but have stronger effect on the revenue of the firm (Vincent and Terry, 2003).
According to Adelina and Julie (1995), Bearden (1983) and Cornwell et al. (1991), in
a private action, the dissatisfied customer puts on record their grievances through negative
word of mouth, inform family and friends or decide not to buy any product or services
again or abstain from transaction with that firm (Bearden, 1983; Cornwell
et al., 1991; and Adelina and Julie, 1995). Action against the firm due to private
complaint might result in bad publicity (Bearden and Oliver, 1985). It is more vital for
the business to have knowledge of private actions because these are more significant
when compared to public actions (Day and Jr., 1976). It has been found from the study
of durable products that the ratio of private actions and public actions is equal (Day
and Ash, 1979). By resorting to private action, a consumer can express his/her
dissatisfaction without facing the service provider (Dawn, 2006).

Defection
Defection is a process that a customer faces with multiple problem(s) (Colgate and
Hedge, 2001). Defection has been described as consumers giving up one thing for
another (Ron, 2002). It is an active and distractive response to dissatisfaction which
is expressed as a breach of relationship with the product or service (Crié, 2003). In
the banking industry, defection is defined in terms of no connection or correspondence
between the bank and its customer (Kate, 1998). Actually, defection is when a customer
takes the decision to stop buying any service or product from the firm which ultimately
results in the dissolution of relationship with that firm due to the problem that occurred
over time (Colgate and Hedge, 2001). It is difficult to identify customer defection at
the early stages of this process (Kate, 1998). It may be called customer exit or customer
switching behavior, which further is classified into two types—total defection and
partial defection (Hirschman, 1970; and Colgate and Hedge, 2001). It is easy to
identify total defection: it is when a customer closes his account with the business or
when he/she switches to other business or service provider (Bolton and Bronkhorst,
1995; and Boote, 1998), whereas partial defection can be measured as the loss of
some portion of the customer’s business (Reichheld, 1996). Compared to total defection,

62 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

it is more difficult for the business to find out partial defection (Reichheld, 1996)
because a single dissatisfied event can become the cause of defection (Limbrick, 1993).
There are various reasons for defection. Clemes et al. (2010) are of the view that price,
reputation of the bank, service quality, effective advertisement, involuntary switching,
distance and switching cost have remarkable effect on switching behavior of bank
customers.

Relationship Between Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection

According to Sheth et al. (1999) and Arnould (2004), consumers who want to show
their disappointment might either choose to leave or continue with complaint behavior.
From the previous studies, it is proved that there is a strong relationship of complaints
with defection, and moreover private complaint is a stronger predictor of defection than
public complaint (Malhotra, 2008). Consumers who stop any further purchasing are
those who do not complain (Arnould, 2004). According to Crié (2003), sometimes
customers may choose defection as an alternative to complaining. He explains that
some consumers may not complain but quit any further transaction with the business.
Mostly, customers who complain about dissatisfaction will not stop buying but some are
those who are not satisfied but still avoid complaining (Sheth et al., 1999). Colgate and
Hedge (2001) examined a body works that exhibited the association of complaint or no
complaint with exit (defection) behavior. In this framework, defection is the dependent
variable and it is correlated with complaint.

Additionally, researchers also found some remarkable distinctions and the effect of
demographic variables on complaint actions. Kolodinsky (1995) found the steady
effect when he examined the effects of income, education level and age on the above-
said relationship. Clemes et al. (2010) revealed that young and high-income customers
are more likely to switch from one bank to another. Research shows that dissatisfied
customers show their adverse behavior most of the time through negative word-of-
mouth and exit, instead of directly complaining to the service provider (TARP, 1981).
In the retail-banking sector, up to 80% of customers complain to the bank prior to
defecting (Colgate and Hedge, 2001). Customers who are dissatisfied with service
providers communicate their bad experience normally with 9 more people and due to
these dissatisfied customers the sales of a firm decreases 10 to 15% (TARP, 1981).
Non-complainers are the least loyal customers than those who register their complaint
but their worries are not reconciled (Buttle and Burton, 2002). For those customers
who complain, when their complaint has failed, defection is often the last resort (Colgate
and Hedge, 2001; and Chulmin et al., 2003). The facilities a customer gains from
complaining include reimbursement, swapping, or expression of regret, but on the
other hand the costs involved in complaining are time and trying (Singh, 1990). So,
every bank has to control defection because when customers are satisfied they
recommend the bank to others. According to Baumann et al. (2007), customers'
willingness to refer the bank to others can be anticipated by affective attitude, overall
satisfaction and empathy.

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 63

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
Objectives
• This study aims to investigate the effect of complaint actions on customer
defection.

• It also aims to study the moderating role of demographic factors on the above-
said relationship.

• Lastly, it intends to measure the moderating effect of switching cost.

Hypothesis of the Study

H1: There is a significant relationship between private complaint and customer defection.

H2: There is a significant relationship between public complaint and customer defection.

H3: The impact of private complaint on customer defection is stronger than that of public
complaint.
H4a: Gender has significant moderating effect on the relationship between public complaint
and defection.
H4b: Gender has significant moderating effect on the relationship between private complaint
and defection.
H5a: Income has significant moderating effect on the relationship between public complaint
and defection.
H5b: Income has significant moderating effect on the relationship between private complaint
and defection.

H6a: Education has significant moderating effect on the relationship between public
complaint and defection.

H6b: Education has significant moderating effect on the relationship between private
complaint and defection.
H7a: Marital status has significant moderating effect on the relationship between public
complaint and defection.
H7b: Marital status has significant moderating effect on the relationship between private
complaint and defection.
H8a: Switching cost has significant moderating effect on the relationship between public
complaint and defection.
H8b: Switching cost has significant moderating effect on the relationship between private
complaint and defection.

H9a: Ethnicity has significant moderating effect on the relationship between public
complaint and defection.

H9b: Ethnicity has significant moderating effect on the relationship between private
complaint and defection.

64 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

Methodology
This study is based on the work of Day and Jr. (1976) and Day (1977) that divides the
consumer complaint actions into two categories, namely, public and private complaint
actions. The main focus of the study is on the relationship of consumer complaints and
defection, and the moderation effect of income, education, ethnicity, gender, switching
cost and marital status of consumers.

A four part questionnaire (see Appendix) was used for conducting the study. In part
one, the demographics of the respondents were measured which were constructed based
on Jagdip and Robert, (1991) and Keng et al. (1995). To quantify the complaint actions,
items were adapted from Michael et al. (2002) and Raymond and Peter (2001) which
are contained in part two and three. As demonstrated by Day and Jr. (1976), these
complaint actions in part two has been further categorized into public and private
complaint. Switching cost in the last part was measured with items adapted from
Moonkyu and Lawrence, 2001. In order to quantify the items of part two and three, a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (very likely) to 1 (very unlikely) has been used,
whereas part four items were also measured in five-point Likert scale ranging from 5
(strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

Out of the 300 questionnaires distributed, a total of 240 were collected with complete
responses. The response rate was 80%. The subjects were randomly selected from retail banks
in the four provincial capitals of Pakistan with the help of a self-administrated questionnaire
and the participation of respondents was voluntary. The survey instrument was originally
written in English, then it was translated into Urdu. For cross validation purpose, the
questionnaire was retranslated into English and got approved by a linguistic expert.

Results and Discussion

To measure the internal consistency and reliability of the scales, the Cronbach alpha
test was applied. Public complaint has seven items and its Cronbach alpha value is
0.743, the value of Cronbach alpha for three items of private complaint is 0.846, this
value for the four items of defection is 0.684, whereas switching cost has seven items
and its Cronbach alpha value is 0.612. All these values indicate that the measures are
reliable (Hair et al., 1995). The mean values for the research instrument items are above
the middle range of the scale. Public complaint has a mean value of 3.31 and standard
deviation is 0.78. The mean value for private complaint is 3.79 and standard deviation
is 1.07 which is higher than public complaint. This difference indicates that customers
are more likely to complain privately than publicly.

For defection, mean and standard deviation values are 3.34 and 0.97 respectively, whereas
these values for switching cost are 3.10 and 0.63. These results are tabulated in Table 1.

In Table 2, we present an overview of the correlations between the main variables. It

can be seen from Table 2 that public complaint shows a positive relationship with private
complaint (r = 0.345), defection (r = 0.302), switching cost (r = 0.289) and ethnicity

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 65

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Mean Standard Cronbach

Variables No. of Items
Deviation Alpha

Public Complaint 7 3.31 0.78 0.743

Private Complaint 3 3.79 1.07 0.846
Defection 4 3.34 0.97 0.684
Switching Cost 7 3.10 0.63 0.612

Table 2: Correlation of Variables

Pub.Com Pvt.Com Def SC Gen MS Edu Inc Eth

Pub.Com 0.345** 0.302** 0.289** –0.014 –0.097 –0.243** –0.179** 0.192**

Pvt.Com 0.598** 0.133* –0.073 –0.041 –0.153* –0.105 0.102
Def 0.015 –0.053 0.013 –0.114 –0.126 –0.184**
SC 0.075 0.009 –0.091 –0.011 0.265**
Gen –0.022 0.040 0.024 0.117
MS 0.206** 0.222** –0.086
Edu 0.502** –0.123
Inc –0.072
Eth

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); and ** Correlation is significant
at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(r = 0.192) but a negative relationship with gender (r = –0.014), marital status

(r = –0.097), education (r = –0.243) and income (r = –0.179). In addition, it was found
that private complaint also has a negative relationship with those said variables. It means
public complaint and private complaint behave with other variables in a similar pattern.
On the whole, however, the correlations between the various concepts are weak.

Direct Effects
As we expect a significant relationship between complaint behaviors and defection and
also significant moderation effects of different variables, we employed the hierarchical
regression analysis to fit the following four models.
Def = b0 + b1 (Pub.Com)
Def = b0 + b1 (Pvt.Com)
Def = b 0 + b 1(Pub.Com) + b 2(Gen) + b 3(Inc) + b 4(Edu) + b 5(MS) + b 6(SC)
+ b7(Eth) + b8(Pub.Com x Gen) + b9(Pub.Com x Inc) + b10(Pub.Com x Edu)
+ b11(Pub.Com x MS) + b12(Pub.Com x SC) + b13(Pub.Com x Eth)

66 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

 Def = b0 + b1(Pvt.Com) + b2(Gen) + b3(Inc) + b4(Edu) + b5(MS) + b6(SC)+ b7(Eth)
+ b8(Pvt.Com x Gen) + b9(Pvt.Com x Inc) + b10(Pvt.Com x Edu) +b11(Pvt.Com
x MS) + b12(Pvt.Com x SC) + b13(Pvt.Com x Eth)
Table 3 shows the findings of hierarchical regression analysis employed to find the
relationship between CCB (public and private) and defection (see Step 1) and the
moderation effects gender, income, education, marital status, switching cost and ethnicity as
well (see Step 3). Statistical results are interpreted after verifying the regression assumptions. All
of the assumptions are met. Significance level is decided at 5%. Step 1 indicates that both
public complaint and private complaint significantly contribute to the model
(p = 0.000) and predict about 37% of the variations in defection.
Table 3: Direct and Moderating Effects (Hierarchical Regression)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Variables Sig. Sig. Sig.
Beta Beta Beta

Public Complaint 0.136 0.048 0.199 0.004 0.519 0.030

Private Complaint 0.508 0.000 0.520 0.000 0.324 0.030
Gender 0.050 0.652 –0.695 0.042
Income –0.150 0.213 –0.089 0.029
Education –0.021 0.854 –0.463 0.030
Marital Status 0.095 0.354 0.226 0.035
Switching Cost –0.064 0.431 0.462 0.032
Ethnicity –0.224 0.000 –0.551 0.00
Public Complaint * GEN –0.124 0.039
Private Complaint * GEN 0.314 0.052
Public Complaint * INC –0.159 0.034
Private Complaint * INC 0.116 0.062
Public Complaint * EDU –0.236 0.035
Private Complaint * EDU 0.329 0.048
Public Complaint * MS 0.113 0.037
Private Complaint * MS –0.148 0.054
Public Complaint * SC –0.109 0.018
Private Complaint * SC –0.053 0.019
Public Complaint * ETH 0.057 0.024
Private Complaint * ETH 0.042 0.041
R 2
0.368 0.447 0.504
R Change
2
0.368 0.079 0.058
Sig. F Change 0.000 0.000 0.017

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 67

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
 Step 1 of the results in Table 3 shows that both public complaint (  = 0.136;
p = 0.048) and private complaint ( = 0.508; p = 0.000) are significantly associated
with defection. It can be seen from the beta estimates that private complaint is more
intensively linked with defection as compared to public complaint. These findings are
consistent with Ndubisi and Ling (2006). It exhibits that the Pakistani bank customers
are more likely to defect when they complain to their friends and family as against
when they complain to the business or government institutes. No doubt some of the
consumers might complain to business before they switch, however, the chance of
leaving without complaining is more. The above analysis indicates that hypotheses
H1, H2 and H3 are accepted.

The results in step 2 indicate that both public complaint ( = 0.199; p = 0.004) and
private complaint ( = 0.520; p = 0.000) are significantly associated with defection.
According to the results, private complaints have more effect than private complaint.
While switching cost and all other demographic factors, except ethnicity (p = 0.000), do
not affect defection.

Moderation Effects
For the purpose of determining the moderation effects of gender, income, education,
marital status, switching cost and ethnicity on the relationship of CCB and defection,
the hierarchical regression model was used. Multiple regression analysis was applied
in three steps. In step 1, only predictors are regressed (i.e., public and private
complaint); the impact of all moderating variables (i.e., gender, income, income,
education, marital status, switching cost and ethnicity) was introduced in step 2. In
step 3, while introducing interaction terms, independent variables were multiplied by
the moderators. In the regression model, categorical data has been introduced by creating
dummy variable.

Moderation Effect of Gender

Dummy variable for gender has been designed by (k_1), where k stands for the number
of gender groups (which is 2): male (0) and female (1).

It is obvious from the results in Table 3 (see Step 3) that gender moderates the
relationship between public complaint and defection (p-value = 0.039), while gender
does not moderate the relationship between private complaint and defection (p-value =
0.052). It means gender does not affect the complaining behavior of the Pakistani bank
customers whether they complain publicly (i.e., complain to bank or government) or
complain privately (i.e., warn friends and family). The above discussion shows that
defection depends on public complaint not on private complaint. It indicates that
hypothesis H4a is accepted and hypothesis H4b is rejected.

Moderation Effect of Income

For better understanding of the moderation effect of income, originally 8 groups of
income were regrouped into 2 groups named low-middle income and high income. Dummy

68 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

variable for income was created just like gender: low-middle income group (0) and
higher income group (1).

The above results in Table 3 (see Step 3) show that income maintains a balance
between public complaint and defection (p-value = 0.034), while it does not moderate
the relationship between private complaint and defection (p-value = 0.062). It means
income moderates this relationship only when Pakistani bank customers complain publicly
(i.e., complain to bank or government); but when they complain privately (i.e., warn
friends and family), income does not play any moderating role. Hypothesis H5a is accepted
and hypothesis H5b is rejected. The minus sign indicates that the customers with high
income are less likely to defect after complaining as compared to the low-middle income
group.

Moderation Effect of Education

In order to create a better understanding of the moderation effect of education, 4 original
groups of education level were regrouped into 2 groups: low-middle educated and high-
professionally educated. Dummy variable for education was created just like gender
and income: low-middle educated group (0) and high-professionally educated income
group (1).

The analysis of the results in Table 3 (see Step 3) exhibits that education moderates
the relationship between CCB and defection. Both public complaint and private
complaint have values of (p-value = 0.035) and (p-value = 0.048) respectively, which
means that customer defection depends on education. For both low-middle educated
and high-professionally educated Pakistani bank customers, there are chances to switch
after complaining to the bank. The negative sign shows that more educated customers
are less likely to defect. Hypotheses H6a and H6b are accepted.

Moderation Effect of Marital Status

Dummy variable for marital status has been designed by (k_1), where k stands for the
number of marital status in a group (which is 2): single (0) and married (1).

It is obvious from the results in Table 3 (see Step 3) that marital status moderates the
relationship between public complaint and defection (p-value = 0.037), while marital
status does not moderate the relationship between private complaint and defection
(p-value = 0.054). It means marital status matters only when Pakistani bank customers
complain publicly (i.e., complain to bank or government) rather than when they complain
privately (i.e., warn friends and family). It indicates that hypothesis H7a is accepted
and hypothesis H7b is rejected.

Moderation Effect of Switching Cost

The moderation effect of switching cost can be seen from step 3 of Table 3. The results
show that switching costs balance the relationship of the complaint action and bank
customer defection. The impact of public complaint (p-value = 0.018) and private

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 69

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
complaint (p-value= 0.019) on defection is significant which means defection depends
on switching cost. The negative sign denotes that higher switching cost leads to low
defection and low switching cost results in high defection. From the above discussion
hypotheses H8a and H8b are accepted.

Moderation Effect of Ethnicity

Ethnicity is divided into four parts and coded as (1) for Punjabi; (2) for Sindhi; (3) for
Balochistani; and (4) for Kyber Pakhton Kha or KPK and Gilgit Baltistan. The results
of the hierarchical regression further show that ethnicity has a significant moderation
effect on the relationship between both public complaint (p-value = 0.024), private
complaint (p-value = 0.041) and defection. Irrespective of from where the customer
comes, if he/she feels dissatisfied and complain, then he/she defects or switches to another
bank. So, hypothesis H9a and H9b are accepted.

Conclusion
First, the theoretical implications are discussed as follows. CCB and defection have
positive linear relationship. Independent variable (public complaint and private
complaint) has explained about 37% of the total variance in customer defection. The
variance which is accounted for by the regression model is fairly high because David
et al. (1992) state that in social science researches, 15% variation is considered low. It
means if customers are dissatisfied, then they may defect irrespective of how they show
their grievance whether publicly or privately. If the customers are not satisfied, they will
definitely defect irrespective of whether they discuss their dissatisfaction with the bank,
family and friends or not. Results in Table 3 (see Step 1) show the Beta coefficients for
public complaint is 0.136 and private complaint is 0.508. From these findings, it is
clear that the effect of private complaint on defection is relatively stronger than that of
public complaint. It may be said that before defecting, dissatisfied customers complain
privately more rather than publicly.

Gender, income and marital status have moderating effect on the results of the study
only in the case of public complaint and have no moderating effect when Pakistani
dissatisfied customer complain privately. But the other moderating variables like education,
switching cost and ethnicity moderate this relationship. Another important indication is
that income, education and switching cost have negative relation, which means an increase
in education, income and switching cost results in decrease in customer defection. These
findings are very similar to Ndubisi (2003a), who is of the view that the customers who
are not satisfied might not choose to complain to the business for service failure, but they
may hold the business liable if they are not properly served; and if treated badly, they do
not complain to the service provider, but switch/patronize another party for business
transactions.

Managerial Implications: First, the managers have to know about the fact that if the
business is not receiving any complaint, it does not mean that its customers are satisfied
with its service. Zero complaint is not a yardstick to find out consumer satisfaction

70 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

because there are some customers who do not complain about their dissatisfaction
directly to the bank. As proved from the results, most of the customers who are
dissatisfied complain to their private sources. In this way, bank managers come to
know about customer dissatisfaction when the customers actually switch or defect,
which is too late.
Second, bank managers have to understand the adverse effect of negative word-of-
mouth on the reputation of the bank. It is obvious from the results that consumers are
more likely to complain to their friends and family. Through the negative word-of-mouth
publicity, other customers could perceive negatively about the services of the bank which
may lead to huge loss to the business. To overcome this problem, managers should motivate
customers to communicate directly with the bank in case of dissatisfaction. Managers
should welcome the complaints and assure the customers that their problems will be
resolved instantly.
Third, the managers should inject in the minds of customers that they should feel
free when they plan to register their complaint and complaint is to the benefit of the
customers which will help the bank to improve the service. Managers should also ensure
that customer complaints are considered positively. According to Watkins and Liu
(1996), this perception of customers that their actions are positively viewed leads to
greater satisfaction and pushes up the repurchase intentions.
Fourth, the managers should avoid hard lock-in strategies and provide differentiated
services to customers because most of the banks in Pakistan provide almost uniform
services at a uniform price. Fifth, the managers should take feedback from customers
after an appropriate interval. Lastly, the managers should appreciate and award those
customers who help the bank in solving the problems and also build strong relationship
with customers to control negative word-of-mouth and encourage them to complain
publicly which also boosts loyalty and satisfaction level.

Considering the moderating variables, first, income levels significantly affect the
defection when customers complain publicly. As this study suggests, low income earners
are more likely to switch to another bank, so managers should also listen to the problems
of these customers because they also provide worthy business. Second, education level
matters, as also income level. Education level also plays a significant role in defection
when customers complain publicly. Customers who are less educated are more likely to
defect because they are mostly unable to understand the problems of the banking system.
Management should also pay attention to these customers because in Pakistan most of
the bank customers are less educated, but these customers constitute a significant size of
business. Third, as it has been seen that switching cost and ethnicity moderate this
relationship, managers should not consider all customers as ‘cost-neutral’ and ‘race-neutral’,
and design different types of strategies for different customers.

It can be summed up that this study throws light on the post-purchase behavior of
the customer. The study reveals that the complaints (whether private or public) are
part and parcel of defection. It is evident that customers are mostly inclined towards

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 71

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
sharing their grievances with their kith and kin. The relationship between private
complaint and defection is irrespective of gender, income and marital status, but the
relationship between public complaint and defection is subject to all of the moderating
variables.

Limitations and Future Scope: Although the results of this study are significant, there
are a few shortcomings, e.g., the sample size is limited to 240 respondents from all over
Pakistan which raises the issue of generalizability. Future research should be conducted to
explore more causes of defection. The moderating effect of other demographic variables
like social class, job sector, religiosity, rural and urban distance, etc., can also be considered.J

References
1. Adelina Broadbridge and Julie Marshall (1995), “Consumer Complaint Behaviour:
the Case of Electrical Goods”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 8-18.

2. Anders P Fundin and Bo L S Bergman (2003), “Exploring the Customer Feedback

Process”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 55-65.

3. Arnould E J (2004), Consumers, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.

4. Baumann C, Burton S, Elliott G and Kehr H M (2007), “Prediction of Attitude

and Behavioural Intentions in Retail Banking”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 102-116.

5. Bearden W O (1983), “Profiling Consumers Who Register Complaints Against

Auto Repair Services”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 315-335.

6. Bearden W O and Oliver R L (1985), “The Role of Public and Private Complaining
in Satisfaction with Problem Resolution”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 19,
No. 2, pp. 222-240.

7. Bennett R (1997), “Anger, Catharsis, and Purchasing Behavior Following Aggressive

Customer Complaints”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 156-172.

8. Blodgett J G, Wakefield K L, and Barnes J H (1995), "The Effects of Customer

Service on Consumer Complaining Behavior", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9,
No. 4, pp. 31-42.

9. Bolton R N and Bronkhorst T M (1995), “The Relationship Between Customer

Complaints to the Firm and Subsequent Exit Behavior”, NA – Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 22.

10. Boote J (1998), “Towards a Comprehensive Taxonomy and Model of Consumer

Complaining Behaviour”.
11. Broadbridge A and Marshall J (1995), “Consumer Complaint Behavior: The Case
of Electrical Goods”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 8-18.

72 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

12. Buttle F and Burton J (2002), “Does Service Failure Influence Customer Loyalty?”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 217-227.

13. Chulmin Kim, Sounghie Kim, Subin Im and Changhoon Shin (2003), “The Effect
of Attitude and Perception on Consumer Complaint Intentions”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 352-371.

14. Claes Fornell and Birger Wernerfelt (1987), “Defensive Marketing Strategy by
Customer Complaint Management: A Theoretical Analysis”, Journal of Marketing
Research, pp. 337-346.

15. Clemes M D, Gan C and Zhang D (2010), “Customer Switching Behaviour in the
Chinese Retail Banking Industry”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28,
No. 7, pp. 519-546.

16. Colgate M and Hedge R (2001), “An Investigation into the Switching Process in
Retail Banking Services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 5,
pp. 201-212.

17. Cornwell T B, Bligh A D and Babakus E (1991), “Complaint Behavior of Mexican-

American Consumers to a Third-Party Agency”, Journal of Consumer Affairs,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1-18.

18. Crié D (2003), “Consumers’ Complaint Behaviour, Taxonomy, Typology and

Determinants: Towards a Unified Ontology”, Journal of Database Marketing &
Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 60-79.

19. David Rowland, Daniel Arkkelin and Larry Crisler (1990), “Computer-Based Data
Analysis Using SPSS X in the Social and Behavioral Sciences”, Wadsworth
Pub. Co., p. 213.

20. Dawn Lerman (2006), “Consumer Politeness and Complaining Behavior”, Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 92-100.

21. Day R L (1977), “Extending the Concept of Consumer Satisfaction”, NA – Advances

in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 149-154.

22. Day R L and Ash S B (1979), “Consumer Response to Dissatisfaction With Durable
Products”, NA – Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, An Arbor, M I: Association
for Consumer Research, pp. 438-444.

23. Day R L and Landon E L (1977), “Collecting Comprehensive Consumer Complaint

Data by Survey Research”, NA – Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, pp. 263-298.

24. Day R L and Landon E L (1977), “Toward a Theory of Consumer Complaining

Behavior”, Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Amstardam: North Holland
Publishing Company, pp. 425-437.

25. Desatnick Robert L (1988), Managing to Keep the Customer, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
San Francisco, Hardcover – Lotzabooks.

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 73

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
26. Eccles G and Durand P (1998), “Complaining Customers, Service Recovery and
Continuous Improvement”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 68-71.
27. Edward G, Barr y H and Jonathan W (1999), “ The New Retail Banking
Revolution”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 83-100.
28. Fisher J E, Garrett D E, Arnold M J, and Ferris M E (1999), "Dissatisfied Consumers
Who Complain to the Better Business Bureau", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.
16, No. 6, pp. 576-589.
29. Folkes V S (1984), “Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional
Approach”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 398-409.
30. Folkes V S, Koletsky S and Graham J L (1987), “A Field Study of Causal Inferences
and Consumer Reaction: The View from the Airport”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 534-539.
31. Ghazanfar A and Kazmi N A (2009), “Analysis of Competition in Banking Sector”,
Competition Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad.
32. Hair J F, Anderson R E, Tatham R L and Black W C (1995), Multivariate Data
Analysis: With Readings, 4th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall College Div.
33. Heung V C, and Lam T (2003), "Customer Complaint Behaviour Towards Hotel
Restaurant Services", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 283-289.
34. Hirschman A O (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations and States, Harvard University Press.
35. Jacoby J and Chestnut R W (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, Wiley.
36. Jacoby J and Jaccard J J (1981), “The Sources, Meaning, and Validity of Consumer
Complaint Behavior: A Psychological Analysis”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, No. 3,
pp. 4-24.
37. Jagdip Singh and Robert Widing (1991), “What Occurs Once Consumers Complain?
A Theoretical Model for Understanding Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Outcomes of
Complaint Responses”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 30-46.
38. Jalil A and Feridun M (2011), “Impact of Financial Development on Economic
Growth: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy,
Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 71-80.
39. James E Fisher, Dennis E Garrett, Mark J Arnold and Mark E Ferris (1999),
“Dissatisfied Consumers who Complain to the Better Business Bureau”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 576-589.

40. Jeffrey G Blodgett, Kirk L Wakefield and James H Barnes (1995), “The Effects of
Customer Service on Consumer Complaining Behavior”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 31-42.

74 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

41. Jillian Dawes Farquhar (2004), “Customer Retention in Retail Financial Services:
An Employee Perspective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 2,
pp. 86-99.

42. John A Schibrowsky and Richard S Lapidus (1994), “Gaining a Competitive

Advantage by Analyzing Aggregate Complaints”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 15-26.

43. Kate Stewart (1998), “An Exploration of Customer Exit in Retail Banking”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 6-14.

44. Keng K A, Richmond D and Han S (1995), “Determinants of Consumer Complaint

Behaviour”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 59-76.

45. Kim C, Kim S, Im S, and Shin C (2003), "The Effect of Attitude and Perception on
Consumer Complaint Intentions", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4,
pp. 352-371.

46. Kolodinsky J (1995), “Usefulness of Economics in Explaining Consumer

Complaints”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 29-54.

47. Larry J Rosenberg and John A Czepiel (1984), “A Marketing Approach for Customer
Retention”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 45-51.

48. Liu R R and McClure P (2001), “Recognizing Cross-Cultural Differences in

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Intentions: An Empirical Examination”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 54-75.

49. Limbrick D (1993), “A Trivial Pursuit? Managing Service Quality”, An International

Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 39-42.

50. Malhotra N K (2008), “Public Versus Private Complaint Behaviour and Customer
Defection in Malaysia: Appraising the Role of Moderating Factors”.

51. Mason J B and Himes S H (1973), “An Exploratory Behavioral and Socio-Economic
Profile of Consumer Action About Dissatisfaction with Selected Household
Appliances”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 121-127.

52. Michael Volkov, Debra Harker and Michael Harker (2002), “Complaint Behaviour: A
Study of the Differences Between Complainants about Advertising in Australia and
the Population at Large”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 319-332.

53. Mohsan Faizan, Nawaz Muhammad Musarrat, Khan M Sarfraz et al. (2011),
“Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty and Intentions to Switch:
Evidence from Banking Sector of Pakistan”.

54. Moonkyu Lee and Lawrence F Cunningham (2001), “A Cost/Benefit Approach to

Understanding Service Loyalty”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 2,
pp. 113-130.

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 75

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
55. Nawab N A (2014), “The Rapid Growth of Banking Sector in Pakistan and its
Impacts on Revenue Generation”, 38th Specialized Training Programme, pp. 1-45,
Faculty of the DOT Academy, Lahore.

56. Oly Ndubisi N and Yin Ling T (2006), "Complaint Behaviour of Malaysian
Consumers", Management Research News, Vol. 29, No. 1/2, pp. 65-76.

57. Ndubisi N O (2003a), “Service Quality: Understanding Customer Perception

and Reaction, and Its Impact on Business”, Gadjah Mada International Journal of
Business, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 207-219, available at https://doi.org/10.22146/
gamaijb.5407

58. Ndubisi N O (2003b), “Services Marketing: Are Perceptions of Service Quality

Predictors of Behavioral Intentions? The Malaysian Borneo Banking Industry
Perspective”, Academy of Marketing Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 37-45.

59. Nyer P U (2000), “An Investigation into Whether Complaining can Cause Increased
Consumer Satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 9-19.

60. Raymond R Liu and Peter McClure (2001), “Recognizing Crosscultural Differences
in consumer Complaint Behavior and Intentions: An Empirical Examination”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 54-75.

61. Reichheld F F and Sasser W E (1990), “Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 105-111.

62. Reichheld Frederick F (1996), “Learning from Customer Defections”, Harvard

Business Review, March-April.

63. Ron Garland (2002), “Estimating Customer Defection in Personal Retail Banking”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 317-324.

64. Sheth J N, Mittal B and Newman B I (1999), “Consumer Behavior and Beyond”,
Harcourt Brace, NY.

65. Singh J (1990), “Voice, Exit, and Negative Word-of-Mouth Behaviors: An

Investigation Across three Service Categories”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-15.

66. Stephens N and Gwinner K P (1998), “Why Don’t Some People Complain? A
Cognitive-Emotive Process Model of Consumer Complaint Behavior”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 172-189.

67. TARP (1981), “Measuring the Grapevine: Consumer Response and Word-of-
Mouth”, Coca-Cola Company, Consumer Information Center, Retrieved from http:/
/customerworld.typepad.com/swami_weblog/files/coke_wom.pdf.

76 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

68. Vincent C S Heung and Terry Lam (2003), “Customer Complaint Behaviour
Towards Hotel Restaurant Services”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 283-289.

69. Watkins H S and Liu R (1996), “Collectivism, Individualism and In-Group Membership”,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8, Nos. 3-4, pp. 69-96.

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 77

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
 Appendix
Questionnaire
Section 1

a. Gender: Male Female

b. Marital Status: Single Married

c. Education: Up to Matriculation Intermediate

Graduation Masters

d. Ethnicity: Punjabi Sindhi Balochistani KPK and Gilgit

e. Income in PKR: Upto 20,000 20,001-50,000

50,001-1,00,000 Above 10,000

Section 2

Please read the statements and show the level of your agreement, keeping in view the
impact of consumer complaint behavior on defection. You may encircle or mark ()
your choice against each statement according to the given coding.

1 = Very Unlikely (VU); 2 = Unlikely (U); 3 = Somewhat (S); 4 = Likely (L);

5 = Very Likely (VL)

Public Complaints

1 2 3 4 5

PuC-1 I will discuss the problem with the manager or

other employees of the bank.
PuC-2 I will ask the bank to take care of the problem
(e.g. to fix, replace item or to do better in
the future).
PuC-3 I will inform the bank about the problem so that
they will be able to do better in the future.
PuC-4 I will write to the local newspaper or
mass media about my bad experience.
PuC-5 I will report the problem to a consumer agency.
PuC-6 I will complain to the government agency or a
politician.
PuC-7 I will take legal action against the bank.

78 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2, 2018

 Appendix (Cont.)

Private Complaints

5 4 3 2 1

PrC-1 I will speak to my friends about my bad experience.

PrC-2 I will convince my friends not to do business
with the bank.
PrC-3 I will tell my relatives never to use the service again.
Defection
Def-1 I will decide never to use the service again.
Def-2 I will patronize another bank next time.
Def-3 I will not continue to use the services of the
same bank.
Def-4 If I need this service again, I will still choose
this bank.

1 = Strongly Disagree (SD); 2 = Disagree (D); 3 = Somewhat (S); 4 = Agree (A);

5 = Strongly Agree (SA)

Switching Cost Items

1 2 3 4 5

SC-1 If I were to change my bank, it would be

extremely costly to search for information
about a good bank.
SC-2 If I change my bank, there is a risk of spending
my money unwisely by choosing the wrong bank.
SC-3 If I change my bank, there is a risk of receiving
bad services.
SC-4 If I change my bank, there is a risk of being
disappointed by the bank.
SC-5 The services that are currently provided by my
bank cannot be easily replaced by other banks.
SC-6 Most banks provide the same quality and the
same type of services.

Reference # 03J-2018-05-04-01

Consumer Complaint Behavior and Defection: 79

The Moderating Role of Demographic Factors and Switching Cost
Copyright of IUP Journal of Marketing Management is the property of IUP Publications and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.