Eye for an eye?

Frontline service employee

reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes
International University of Applied Sciences, Bad Honnef, Germany
Meike Eilert
Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA, and
Marion Büttgen
Department of Marketing and Management, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – Frontline service employees (FSEs) face high demands of emotional labor when dealing with difficult, and sometimes even uncivil,
customer behavior while attempting to deliver service with a smile. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether employees reciprocate uncivil
customer behavior. The authors investigate two potential processes – ego threat and perceived interactional justice – and further address boundary
conditions of this effect.
Design/methodology/approach – The data for this paper were collected in three studies: one field experiment and two online experiments using
adult samples. Hypotheses were tested and data was analyzed using ANOVA and regression-based modeling approaches.
Findings – Findings from a field-experimental study and online experiments show that FSEs offer lower service levels to uncivil customers. The
authors further find that this effect is mediated by a perceived ego threat and that employees’ regulation of emotion (ROE), as part of their
emotional intelligence, attenuates the effect of perceived ego threats on service levels.
Research limitations/implications – This study finds that perceived ego threat (but not perceived interactional justice) explains why employees
respond negatively to uncivil customer behavior. Therefore, it offers an emotion-driven explanation of retaliatory behavior in frontline service
contexts. Implications for theories focusing on service value co-destruction and customer incivility are discussed.
Practical implications – The findings from this research show that ROE attenuates the impact of perceived ego threat on employee retaliatory
behavior. Managerial implications include developing and training employees on emotion regulation. Furthermore, managers should identify
alternative ways for restoring an employee’s ego after the employee experiences uncivil customer behavior.
Originality/value – The authors propose and test two processes that can explain why employees reciprocate uncivil customer behavior to gain a
deeper understanding of which processes, or a combination of the two, drive employee responses. Furthermore, the authors shed insights into
boundary conditions and explore when employees are less likely to react to uncivil customer behavior while experiencing ego threat.
Keywords Retaliation, Customer incivility, Frontline service employees, Employee incivility
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction may facilitate the destruction of the service’s value, which is an

“Always use please and thank you,” “don’t complain about
prices and don’t argue about your tab” and “don’t bang on the
bar or waive money.” These are common items on etiquette
lists of how consumers should behave toward frontline service
employees (FSEs) in the hospitality industry to facilitate a
positive service experience and create value. According to the
service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), customers
play an important role in co-creating the value of a service.
Furthermore, these co-creation efforts involve their interaction
with FSE (Grönroos, 2011). Yet, customers often exhibit rude
and uncivil behavior when interacting with FSEs whether at bars,
restaurants, clothing stores or supermarkets. Consequently, customers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0887-6045.htm
interactional process in which the customers experience a
decline in their own well-being during a service encounter (Plé
and Cáceres, 2010).
Given that FSEs are the face of the organization and are
responsible for not only maintaining a consistent brand image
but also the customer experience (Elmada
g et al., 2008;
Hartline et al., 2000; Punjaisri et al., 2009), the question is, why
and when do employees retaliate against uncivil customer by
also behaving uncivilly? We address this question in this paper
by examining the service levels offered by FSEs in response to
The first two authors contributed equally to this research. The authors
would like to thank Wayne D. Hoyer, Chance McCullough, the
anonymous reviewers and participants at the American Marketing
Association’s Winter Educators’ and QUIS conferences for their
comments on previous versions of this research.

Received 19 July 2019

Journal of Services Marketing
Revised 7 December 2019
34/7 (2020) 939–953 8 February 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 1 April 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-07-2019-0270] Accepted 1 April 2020

939
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
uncivil customer behavior. Customer incivility is a milder form
of dysfunctional or aberrant customer behavior (Fisk et al.,
2010) and is sometimes also referred to as customer
misbehavior (Tonglet, 2002). Across the different labels,
dysfunctional or aberrant customer behavior is when customers
engage in thoughtless or abusive behavior toward employees,
customers or organizations (Bitner et al., 1994; Grove et al.,
1989), such as faking insurance claims, shoplifting or tax
deception. In contrast, incivility is defined as a “low-intensity
deviant behavior, perpetrated by someone in a customer or
client role, with ambiguous intent to harm an employee, in
violation of social norms of mutual respect and courtesy” (Sliter
et al.’s, 2010, p. 468). Uncivil behavior violates social exchange
relationship norms and is interpersonal in that it requires a
perpetrator and a target (Sliter et al., 2010). In the case of
customer incivility, the customer is the perpetrator and the FSE
is the target who receives the norm violation.
FSE may cope with customer incivility by retaliating and
reciprocating the incivility. We define retaliatory behavior as
any behavior toward the customer that reflects a lower service
level than the employee would have provided otherwise,
regardless of whether the customer observes the lower service
level. Therefore, we also assess whether service value is
destroyed as a result of customer incivility. Specifically, we
focus on understanding the underlying processes that lead to
employees’ perceptions of incivility as a threat and why some
employees feel compelled to reciprocate by retaliating with
lower service levels.
We consider two possible explanations for employee
retaliatory behavior based on affective events theory (AET)
(Rupp and Spencer, 2006) and social exchange theory (SET)
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Both theories focus on
explaining workplace behaviors of individuals as part of
interactions and are therefore well-suited in the context of
norm violations in FSE and customer interactions. Although
AET suggests that an affective process results in retaliatory
behavior because of customer incivility, SET proposes an
equity-driven explanation path driving employee retaliation
after such a norm violation. After exploring the mechanism
behind FSE retaliation in services, we examine a potential
boundary condition under which the identified affective
process based AET – ego threat – occurs.
We examine FSE retaliation of uncivil customer behavior in
hospitality service contexts where FSEs are integral in
providing the customer experience as they require a high degree
of interaction between customer and FSEs. Thus, in this
context, FSEs play an important role in creating value with the
customer. Furthermore, FSE and customer interactions in
hospitality contexts can be prone to uncivil customer behavior
because service dissatisfaction occurs frequently and can
impact customers’ moods (Allen et al., 2015; Tang et al.,
2018).
Previous research has examined customer incivility from the
perspective of the customer and that of employees. Research
has primarily focused on factors in the service environment and
customer characteristics that impact retaliatory behavior,
(Jerger and Wirtz, 2017) employee reactions to customer
incivility (Henkel et al., 2017; Hershcovis and Bhatnagar,
2017) and adverse work and health outcomes for employees
(van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Sliter et al., 2010). Research has also
940
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
explored individual differences in employees that increase the
likelihood of retaliation and sabotage (Harris and Ogbonna,
2002; Judge et al., 2006; Griffin et al., 1998; Sliter et al., 2012).
Our research contributes to this literature stream by explaining
why and when FSEs may retaliate. Furthermore, this research
makes contributions to theories that focus on the importance of
FSE–customer interactions during service delivery. For
instance, the service failure literature extensively focuses on the
importance of recovery efforts (Hess et al., 2003; Smith et al.,
1999; Weun et al., 2004) and assumes that employees respond
by aiding recovery efforts. Yet, employees may not be willing to
help customers if their behavior is impolite and rude, and our
research addresses why employees may not provide recovery
efforts. The present research also adds to the literature on value
co-destruction in services (Plé, 2016; Plé and Cáceres, 2010;
Zhang et al., 2018), particularly contributing to research
examining the impact of employee–customer interactions in
contexts where the customer engages with the employee in a
negative manner. The key contribution of the present research
to these literature streams is increasing our understanding of
why and when FSEs retaliate and are unwilling to provide
consistent service levels in the context of uncivil and rude
customer behavior.
In addition, Employee-related research in the service
literature is still scarce. Less than 10% of articles in the service
literature mention the word employee in the abstract,
indicating an unfulfilled potential of employee-related research
in service management (Subramony et al., 2017). In their
seminal paper, Subramony et al. (2017) call for increased
research on collective turnover, service climate, emotional
labor and occupational stress of service employees. Many types
of services are characterized by intense dyadic client–employee
interactions and by a high level of personal rapport between
customers and FSEs (Gremler and Gwinner, 2000).
Furthermore, previous research has shown that a “prevalent
stressor in service roles is customer misbehaviour” (Subramony
et al., 2017 p. 859). For FSEs, negative customer interactions
can culminate into a major source of resource depletion that
increases employees’ need to cope (Reynolds and Harris,
2006).
In addition to the theoretical implications, understanding
FSE responses to uncivil customer behavior has significant
implications for practice. When FSEs reciprocate uncivil
behavior in customer–employee interactions, companies run
the risk of increasing customer dissatisfaction, negative word-
of-mouth and churn – all of which have negative consequences
for a firm’s bottom-line (Luo, 2009). Moreover, reciprocating
uncivil behavior has the potential to trigger what is known as an
“incivility spiral,” resulting in an escalation of conflict
(Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Bies and Tripp, 1995). A
report by New Voice Media estimates that US companies alone
lost $75bn in 2018 – an increase from $62bn in 2016 – because
of FSEs providing rude customer service (Hyken, 2018).
Therefore, it is imperative for companies to understand why
and when employees react negatively to customer incivility to
reduce reciprocal behavior and reduce top-line and bottom-line
losses.
The research question is examined through a series of three
studies: one field experiment and two online experiments.
Through Study 1’s field experiment, we establish that FSEs
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
retaliate against uncivil customer behavior by providing lower
service levels. Study 2 extends this finding to a controlled
laboratory setting and examines the two possible processes that
may explain FSE retaliatory behavior. Building on the findings
from Study 2, the purpose of Study 3 is twofold. First, Study 3
increases the generalizations of our findings by testing our
hypotheses in a different service setting, and, second, it
examines FSE emotional intelligence (EI), which can enable or
hinder the retaliatory process identified in Study 2.
2. Literature review
2.1 Employee responses to customer behavior
According to the service dominant logic, interactions between
FSE and customers is a core component of value creation
(Grönroos, 2011), and studies have demonstrated that positive,
customer-oriented FSE behavior increases customer
satisfaction (Homburg et al., 2009; Gremler and Gwinner,
2000; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006; Mohr and Bitner, 1995)
and can help with service recovery efforts (Hess et al., 2003;
Smith et al., 1999; Weun et al., 2004). Not only do FSEs
influence customers’ attitudes and behaviors in service settings
but customers also impact attitudes and behaviors of FSEs
which, in turn, impacts FSEs’ value-creating behavior. While
the service profit chain (Heskett et al., 1994; Kamakura et al.,
2002) primarily focuses on service quality as an antecedent of
productive employee behavior, research shows that customers
can have a positive impact on productive employee behavior
and commitment (Barnes et al., 2015; Frey et al., 2013; Yi et al.,
2011). Frey et al. (2013) showed in a professional service
setting that customer satisfaction can rub off on employee
satisfaction because of direct emotional contagion, and the
effect can be mediated by customer appreciation of
employee effort. Similarly, perceptions of customer delight and
customer participation in the service process positively impact
productive employee behavior and commitment (Barnes et al.,
2015; Yi et al., 2011).
However, customers can also impact FSEs negatively.
Dysfunctional customer behavior, such as verbal abuse or
aggression, can exacerbate occupational stress in FSEs and can
lead to turnover, depersonalization or negative work attitudes
(Goussinsky, 2012). FSEs are often the first to encounter and
endure customer complaints, frustrations and other possible
stressors (Grandey et al., 2004). Furthermore, Walker et al.
(2017) show that targeted verbal aggressions and interruptions
by the customer are likely to be reciprocated by the employee
through uncivil behavior. This behavior is the result from
problem-focused or emotion-focused coping with service-
interaction-induced stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).
Emotion-focused coping is aimed at reducing the emotional
distress, and it includes a wide range of responses, such as
venting, denial, avoidance and mental or behavioral
disengagement from the stressor. These responses can be
classified into “fight” – venting – or “flight” – denial, avoidance
and disengagement – responses. For FSE, “flight” or avoidance
of the situation is oftentimes not possible, which makes a
“fight” response more likely to occur (Yagil, 2018).
Ultimately, uncivil customer behavior can result in
unproductive employee behavior, which can result in the
destruction, rather than the creation, of value. Value
941
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
destructive behaviors include FSEs being blunt, raising the
tone of their voices and increasing the wait times of customer
service (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2014). If the
customer becomes aware of the retaliatory behavior, they may
respond negatively to the employee in return, triggering an
“incivility spiral” (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Therefore,
the customer’s initial behavior can increase an FSE’s value
destructive behavior and can reduce the quality of service that
the customer receives. Thus, customers may inadvertently
destroy the value of their service and experience a decline in
their well-being (Plé and Cáceres, 2010).
2.2 Hypotheses development
FSEs and customer interactions are at the core of service value
creation and destruction; therefore, we ground our hypotheses
in theories that explain how individuals react to others in
service exchange settings. AET focuses broadly on an
individual’s affective responses to work-related events and
workplace behaviors (Ashkanasy et al., 2002; Brief and Weiss,
2002; Weiss and Beal, 2005; Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996)
and emphasizes the role of affect and judgments in forming
attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. FSE–customer
interactions constitute a social exchange that is guided by
norms, which can be violated by either party which then can
result in service value destruction. Thus, SET can further
inform an FSE’s reaction to uncivil behavior by focusing on
these dyadic interactions, which, according to AET, constitute
work-related events.
FSE–customer interactions are generally guided by norms
about appropriate behavior, and uncivil customer behavior
violates these norms (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Uncivil
customer behavior includes the customer raising their voice or
blaming the employee rudely for a service failure, even if the
service failure is outside of the employee’s control (van
Jaarsveld et al., 2010). Uncivil customer behavior is an affective
event for service employees and can trigger emotional
responses (Grandey et al., 2004; Shao and Skarlicki, 2014) that
can result in counterproductive workplace attitudes such as
anger and hostility as well as diminished altruism, optimism
and attitude flexibility. In addition, these affective responses
can cause employees to be less inclined toward helpfulness
(Forgas and George, 2001; Forgas et al., 1990; Hertel and
Fiedler, 1994; Isen, 1987). Moreover, considerable research in
the areas of retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), revenge
(Kim et al., 2008), aggression (Greenberg and Barling, 1999)
and injustice (Inness et al., 2005) has shown that targets of
incivility are likely to respond aggressively.
According to SET, however, FSE reactions to uncivil
customer behavior is guided by reciprocity and justice
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), which results in a less
emotional and more cognitive response to the uncivil behavior.
In the context of customer and employee deviance, research has
acknowledged that both emotional and cognitive responses are
two plausible explanations as to why individuals act in an
uncivil manner (Fisk et al., 2010), and we propose that similar
processes, either an emotionally driven or a cognitively driven
one, can explain employee retaliation in response to uncivil
customer behavior.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
2.2.1 Uncivil customer behavior and perceived ego threat
Affective events can trigger various emotions and regulation
strategies in service employees depending on negativity or
positivity of the event (Grandey et al., 2004). In the case of
uncivil customer behavior, this event can trigger negative
emotions. Specifically, we propose that such negative customer
interactions can induce a threat to a FSE’s ego. Ego threat
refers to a threat to a person’s self-esteem or public image or to
decreased control over negative events (Leary et al., 2009)
which can include others ridiculing the person or commenting
on their inadequacy. A customer being rude to an FSE can
create an ego threat because it can signal that the employee is
performing inadequately, and this signal can constitute a direct
challenge to FSE’s competency and self-esteem.
When encountering incivility, FSEs may reciprocate uncivil
behavior to restore a degraded sense of self-worth and to
reinstate a favorable identity (Andersson and Pearson, 1999).
Therefore, FSEs can perceive customer incivility as a challenge
to their desired identity and can result in coercive or vindictive
behavior toward the customer (Tedeschi and Felson, 1994).
Thus, perceived ego threat may act as the underlying
mechanism for FSE retaliation to customer incivility.
Therefore, we propose the following:
H1. Employees are more likely to offer lower service levels to
uncivil customers than to neutral or polite customers.
H2. Perceived ego threat mediates the relationship between
uncivil customer behavior and lower service levels.
2.2.2 Uncivil customer behavior and perceived interactional
injustice
However, AET also suggests that evaluative judgments impact
how individuals respond to an event. According to SET, a
norm violation such as uncivil customer behavior can influence
judgments of fairness and justice, which, in turn, can result in
retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki et al., 2008). Thus, employee
retaliation is a reciprocal behavior to maintain equity and
justice in the interaction (Gilliam and Rayburn, 2016; Skarlicki
et al., 2008). Justice perceptions have been predominantly
studied in service recovery because these perceptions take on a
key role in determining customer satisfaction with recovery
efforts (Blodgett et al., 1997). Interactional justice can be
particularly relevant in this context as well. Interactional justice
refers to “the manner in which people are treated during the
[. . .] process; for example, with courtesy and respect, or rudely”
(Blodgett et al., 1997, p. 189). Therefore, if FSEs are the
targets of customer incivility, they may perceive injustice in the
interaction.
Ultimately, FSEs may restore equity in the interaction by
reciprocating uncivil behavior and offering lower service levels.
The most common way of releasing negative affect and
restoring fairness is to reciprocate with further unfairness
(Rupp and Spencer, 2006). A recent example of establishing
equity in uncivil customer–employee interactions from a coffee
shop went viral. A coffee shop priced a cup of coffee based on
how the customer ordered: “One small coffee” was priced at
$5, “One small coffee, please” was priced at $3 and “Hello, I’d
like one small a coffee, please” was priced at $1.75 (www.
theblaze.com/news/2016/07/14/a-coffee-shop-that-puts-a-
942
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
price-on-politeness-for-customers-that-is). Although this
treatment was made a company policy, it reflects the inputs (the
politeness of the request) and the expected outputs (the price of
coffee) that are deemed equitable in customer–FSE
interactions.
We therefore hypothesize the following:
H3. Perceived interactional injustice mediates the
relationship between uncivil customer behavior and
lower service levels.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Study 1
Study 1 tests H1 and the basic assumption of a direct effect of
customer incivility on service levels through a field study. For
the field study, we trained confederates to make ice cream
purchases at 19 different ice cream shops in Germany for a total
of 221 unique service interactions with different FSEs at these
shops. Ice cream shops were chosen to test the first hypothesis
for several reasons. First, interactions in this setting are guided
by norms; employees should generally expect customers to
exhibit civil behavior. Therefore, uncivil behavior would
constitute a norm violation that could motivate the FSE to
reciprocate the uncivil behavior. Second, FSEs can offer lower
service levels by underserving customers and giving out less
generous scoops of ice cream. Therefore, in this case,
measuring the amount of ice cream received would provide an
objective measure of retaliation. This approach was used given
that an explicit measure of retaliation, such as asking a survey
question, would likely be impacted by response biases.
Each confederate–FSE interaction involved either an uncivil,
neutral or polite customer interaction. The three-level research
design followed ethical codes guiding research in Germany,
and we ensured that each FSE encountered a limited number
of uncivil interactions. As ice cream vending interactions are
typically very short in duration, the display of uncivil customer
behavior can only be transferred by a lack of “please” and
“thank you,” a comment about waiting in line too long or
through facial expression (Appendix 1). Thus, uncivil
encounters in an ice cream vending setting are likely to only
have a mild effect, if any, on FSE’s overall well-being or
commitment.
Each FSE was debriefed after the transaction and was given
the opportunity to opt out of the study. All FSEs consented,
and their interactions were included in the data set.
3.1.1 Procedure
A total of 14 university students from a German university
served as confederates in the field study. Study recruitment was
carried out as part of an elective course in a graduate program
for business students, and students were given an opportunity
to drop out of the study. The confederates received actor
training and self-selected into the roles of polite, neutral or
uncivil customers. It is important to note that we encouraged
confederates to only assume behavioral roles that they were
comfortable with. As a result, several confederates selected
polite or neutral roles only, which was noted and implemented
accordingly during the field study. However, the majority of
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
confederates were comfortable cycling through all three
behavioral roles.
In the training sessions, we gave the confederates instructions
on how to behave as uncivil, neutral or polite customers, and
we tested their behavior to ensure role consistency
(Appendix 1). Given the short nature of the transaction,
displays of civility were limited to facial expressions, brief
comments about the service encounter and politeness: i.e.
using “please” and “thank you.” Confederates then
participated in the ice cream purchases.
To measure employee retaliation, we used the weight of the
ice cream served to each confederate. Measuring employee
reciprocity objectively, i.e. with a manifest weight variable and
in a disguised experimental setting, has the advantage of ruling
out social desirability biases. Furthermore, prices per scoop are
fully transparent such that no obscure charge could be added as
a means of retaliation. To make the weight variable
comparable, we allowed only for two flavors – vanilla or
chocolate – and controlled for their corresponding densities.
Each confederate ordered two scoops of ice cream during each
interaction, and the weight varied between 3.60 and 6.28
ounces. We identified 19 ice cream shops that fulfilled our
prerequisites: full price and service transparences, standardized
spoons for scooping and multiple customer service employees.
In total, data consisted of 221 service interactions across 19 ice
cream shops. Of the interactions, 55 involved polite
confederate customers, 92 involved neutral confederate
customers and 74 involved uncivil confederate customers.
3.1.2 Results
We performed an analysis of covariance of the ice cream
portions related to the three manipulated customer behavior
conditions to test the robustness and causality of the customer
incivility–employee retaliation relationship. We found a
significant effect of customer behavior on portion size (Eta2 =
0.032, p < 0.05, Figure 1). The mean portion sizes confirmed
H1, which stated that employees reciprocate uncivil behavior.
In other words, confederates displaying polite behavior
received the biggest portions (mean = 5.57 oz; standard
deviation [SD] = 1.03), and confederates displaying uncivil
behavior received the smallest portions (mean = 5.13 oz; SD =
0.97, p < 0.05). Confederates displaying neutral behavior
(mean = 5.46 oz; SD = 1.01) yielded portions similar to the
polite customers (mean = 5.57 oz; SD = 1.03, p > 0.10) and
greater than those the uncivil group received (p < 0.05).
Figure 1 Study 1 results: amount of ice cream served is influenced by
customer behavior
6 and Koufteros, 2008). Furthermore, this setting allowed us to
5.5
5 3.2.1 Participants
Ounces
5.57 5.46 5.13
4.5
4
3.5
Polite Neutral Uncivil
Customer Behavior
943
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
To control for spurious effects, we tested for gender effects but
did not find significant differences in the net weight of ice
cream (Eta2 = 0.03, p = 0.42), indicating that neither males nor
females received systematically bigger portions of ice cream.
We also tested for the individual student actor bias (Eta2 =
0.05, p = 0.61), but there were no systematic differences in the
amount of ice cream a confederate received. We also tested the
dyads for sex-related effects, i.e. if opposite-sex customers
would receive more ice cream than same-sex customers, but no
significant effects were found. Finally, we tested for differences
among the ice-cream shops and found a significant difference
(Eta2 = 0.63, p < 0.01). However, these differences are most
likely because of the different models of scooping spoons, cup
sizes and corporate philosophies; yet, these differences do not
compromise the validity of our findings on customer behavior.
These results support the argument that FSE are more likely to
offer lower service levels to customers that treat them in an
uncivil manner, which supports H1.
3.1.3 Discussion
In Study 1, we tested the basic relationship between customer
incivility and employee service level outcomes. With ice cream
weight as a proxy variable for service levels, we tested the
differences in ice cream weight between polite, neutral and
uncivil customer behavior in a field-experiment across 221
distinct service interactions staged by 14 different confederates.
The effect of customer behavior was significant and provides
initial support for employees matching service levels with
behavior received from customers. One limitation of the field
study is that we are unable to examine the process through
which this differential treatment occurs. Therefore, the
objective of Study 2 is to replicate Study 1 using a laboratory
setting and testing for mediated and moderated effects to shed
light on the reasons and conditions under which this effect
occurs. This allows us to test both H1 and H2 in a controlled
setting.
3.2 Study 2
The objective of this laboratory experiment is to replicate the
field experiment’s finding that customers who behave in an
uncivil manner receive lower service levels than customers who
behave in a neutral or polite manner. Moreover, we seek to
address ego threat and interactional injustice as processes that
explain the differences in employee reactions. We also use a
different service context: airline travel. We chose this context to
not only increase the generalizability of our results but also
because air travel is a familiar setting in which FSE–customer
interactions play an important role in value creation (Babbar
use an indirect measure of retaliation because any direct
measure could be impacted by response bias.
A total of 90 English-speaking respondents (53% female,
median age = 31 years) participated in this study on Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk in exchange for monetary compensation.
Respondents were randomly assigned to either an uncivil,
neutral or polite customer-employee interaction. Therefore,
this study used a three-condition (customer behavior: uncivil,
neutral and polite), between-subjects design.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
3.2.2 Procedure
Respondents were asked to put themselves in the shoes of an
airline check-in clerk and to respond to a scenario involving an
interaction with an airline customer. They were told that they
were approached by the customer about changing seats. We
manipulated uncivil, neutral or polite behavior by adjusting the
tone the customer used when approaching the airline employee
(Appendix 2). Respondents were then shown a seating chart of
the plane and asked to make a decision about the customer’s
seat assignment. Respondents had the option to leave the seat
as is, upgrade the customer to economy plus or business class –
both with an additional upcharge, or offer the customer a better
economy seat on a flight leaving 4 h later. After indicating
which option they would present to the customer, respondents
completed a manipulation check regarding the perceived
behavior of the respondent (seven-point scale, anchors “Very
friendly – Very unfriendly” and “Polite – Rude,” r = 0.92) and
additional questions about the customer interaction, including
ego threat (a = 0.90) and interactional injustice scales (a =
0.95) (Appendix 3). In line with Skarlicki et al. (2008), we
developed and added a measure of interactional injustice
relevant to our research context. The ad hoc ego threat measure
taps into the feelings of being devalued and having strong
negative emotions regarding the uncivil behavior as these
negative emotions are strongly related to ego threat (Stucke and
Sporer, 2002).
Respondents then rated each of the options they had
available for the customer’s new seating assignment, including
the one they decided to assign (1 = “Very Bad” to 5 = “Very
Good”). We used the rating for chosen option as our
dependent variable because it reflects the service level the
customer would receive. As we focus on a context where we
examine whether the participant would retaliate against the
customer by offering a lower service level, we used this indirect
measure of retaliation to reduce the likelihood of response bias
when using a direct measure.
3.2.3 Results
The manipulation check indicated that our manipulation of
uncivil behavior was successful [F(2,87) = 103.94, p < 0.01].
Respondents in the uncivil condition perceived the behavior of
the customer to be more rude and uncivil (Muncivil = 6.24, SD =
1.33) than in the neutral (Mneutral = 2.48, SD = 1.36) and in the
polite condition (Mpolite = 1.93, SD = 1.02, both differences
significant at p < 0.01). As there was no difference between the
polite and neutral conditions (p = 0.20), we assessed whether
these conditions predicted ego threat or interactional justice
differently before combining these levels of the behavior
condition. We did not find that these conditions differ in how
they predict ego threat ( b = 0.04, standard error (S.E.) =
0.28, p = 0.87) or interactional justice ( b = 0.06, S.E. = 0.29,
p = 0.84), and we therefore combined the neutral and polite
levels into a single level, which we refer to as the polite level.
We analyzed the data using Hayes PROCESS macro for
SPSS using Model 4 for mediation analysis using seat option
rating as the dependent variable and ego threat and
interactional justice as mediating variables. We found that the
polite level relative to the uncivil condition reduced perceived
ego threat of the employee ( b = 1.91, S.E. = 0.27, p < 0.01)
and that ego threat, in turn, reduced the quality of the seat
944
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
assigned to the customer as reflected in the rating of the seat
( b = 0.32, S.E. = 0.11, p < 0.01). The direct effect of the
polite condition on the dependent variable was insignificant
(p > 0.10), indicating that ego threat fully mediated the
customer behavior–seat rating relationship (effect = 0.60,
bootstrapped S.E. = 0.25, bootstrapped 95% confidence
interval (CI) [0.17, 0.1.17])[1], supporting H2.
We further find that polite treatment by the customer
reduces perceptions of interactional injustice ( b = 3.02,
S.E. = 0.25, p < 0.01) but interactional justice does not impact
the quality of the assigned seat ( b = 0.08, S.E. = 0.11, p >
0.10). The bootstrapped indirect effect of customer treatment
of the employee through interactional justice is not significant
(effect = 0.23, bootstrapped S.E. = 0.47, bootstrapped 95%
CI[ 1.15, 0.69]). Therefore, interactional justice does not
mediate between rude or polite employee treatment and
retaliatory behavior. We therefore reject H3. The mediation
model is depicted in Figure 2.
3.2.4 Discussion
The findings from Study 2 provide further support that FSE
retaliation in the form of lower service levels is dependent on
how customers treat the employee – uncivilly as compared to
politely – replicating the findings from Study 1. Moreover, this
study addressed the process through which this behavior
occurs. We tested two plausible processes, perceived ego threat
and perceived interactional injustice. The findings show that
ego threat is a more compelling process in this context, and we
find full mediation of customer behavior on FSE retaliation
through this construct. Interactional justice, however, did not
mediate the effect.
The question remains whether all employees are likely to
experience ego threat because of uncivil customer behavior.
Not all employees targeted by customer incivility are likely to
engage in an emotional-dysfunctional coping behavior,
manifesting as retaliatory service behavior. Alternatively,
employees could engage in more functional emotion-focused
coping behavior, such as ignoring uncivil behavior, giving the
customer “the benefit of the doubt” or deeming the rude
customer unworthy of further attention (Bies and Tripp,
1995). Importantly, research shows that some individuals are
better at managing emotions, including negative ones, than
others (Grandey, 2000; Grandey et al., 2005; Totterdell and
Holman, 2003), which typically is related to the degree of EI.
EI is “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge from one’s
emotions and those of others to produce beneficial outcomes”
(Kidwell et al., 2011, p. 78). This construct has been studied
extensively in the organizational behavior literature (Joseph and
Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2000). This
research proposes that EI is a skill that can be trained rather
than a stable trait making it extremely powerful during service
encounters where it can enhance customer relationships and
performance as it can increase deliberation, adaptation and
even rapport (McFarland et al., 2016; Delcourt et al., 2013).
Given the benefits of EI during interactions as mentioned
above, we suggest that EI allows employees to use their
knowledge of their own and others’ emotions, it should also be
beneficial when facing uncivil customer behavior. While prior
research has shown that some individuals are unable to self-
regulate after an ego threat (Baumeister et al., 1993; Lambird
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
Figure 2 Study 2: ego threat mediates between customer behavior and seat rating
and Mann, 2006), we propose that EI allows for this self-
regulation process to occur:
H4. EI will attenuate the relationship between perceived
customer incivility and offered service level. Specifically,
EI will reduce the impact of ego threat on offered service
level, such that this relationship is weaker for more
emotionally intelligent individuals.
3.3 Study 3
The objective of Study 3 is to test H4 and expand on the
findings from Studies 1 and 2. In this study, we use the hotel
industry as a service setting where FSE–customer interactions
are important in influencing the customer experience (Kim and
Cha, 2002). Additionally, FSE have a significant impact on
perceived service quality and value (Hartline and Jones, 1996).
Similar to Study 2, using this context allows us to use an
indirect measure of employee retaliation in the form of lower
service quality offered.
3.3.1 Participants
A total of 115 English-speaking respondents (80% female,
median age = 47 years) participated in this study using an
online panel in exchange for monetary compensation.
Respondents were randomly assigned to an uncivil, a neutral or
polite customer–employee interaction level within the customer
behavior condition. Therefore, this study used a three-
condition (customer behavior: uncivil, neutral and polite) 
measured (EI) between-subjects design.
3.3.2 Procedure
The respondents were directed to a first unrelated task that
asked them to answer several questions about themselves. This
section included the EI scale (Law et al., 2004), which includes
subscales on self-emotion appraisal (a = 0.91), others’ emotion
appraisal (a = 0.90), use of emotion (a = 0.87) and regulation
of emotion (ROE) (a = 0.91) (Appendix 3). EI was measured
before manipulating customer behavior to ensure that EI was
not impacted by the manipulation. After this section, the
respondents were directed to a second task, which included our
945
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
manipulation of the customer–employee interaction. Similar to
the airline study, we asked respondents to imagine working at
the front desk of a hotel during a four-day conference. In this
scenario, they were approached by a customer, and the
customer requested a different room. The customer had an
economy-priced room and wanted a room with a view of the
bay instead of the current assigned room; the current room’s
view was blocked by a neighboring hotel. The tone of the
request was manipulated to be uncivil, neutral or polite, similar
to Study 2 (Appendix 2).
After reading about the customer interaction, respondents
completed a manipulation check regarding the perceived
behavior of the respondent. Then, respondents chose what they
would offer the customer: leave the room as is, upgrade to an
economy plus room with a view (costing $50 more a night),
upgrade to a junior suite (costing $100 more a night) or asking
the customer to wait a few hours to see whether one of the other
economy rooms with a partial bay view would open up. After
making this choice, respondents completed questions about the
interaction with the customer, the ego threat scale (a = 0.89)
and their rating for each of the different room options on a
seven-point scale (1 = Very Bad to 7 = Very Good). Similar to
our procedure in Study 2, we used this subjective rating of the
option offered to the customer as our measure of employee
retaliation.
3.3.3 Results
The manipulation check indicated that our manipulation of
uncivil behavior was successful [F(2,112) = 47.00, p < 0.01].
Respondents in the uncivil condition perceive the behavior of
the customer to be more rude and unfriendly (Muncivil = 5.15,
SD = 2.20) than in the neutral (Mneutral = 2.03, SD = 1.55) and
in the polite condition (Mpolite = 1.82, SD = 1.17, both
differences were significant at p < 0.01). Respondents
perceived the neutral and polite condition as similar in terms of
friendliness (p > 0.10). As in Study 2, these conditions did not
differ in how they predict ego threat ( b = 0.16, S.E. = 0.37,
p > 0.10). Therefore, we collapsed these two levels into a single
polite condition, which we will refer to as the polite level.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
We tested for mediated moderation using Hayes PROCESS
macro for model 14 with room rating as the dependent variable,
customer behavior as the independent variable, ego threat as
the mediator and EI as moderator of the ego threat and room
rating relationship. The results indicated that mediation [F(1,
113) = 25.90, p < 0.01] and the main effect were statistically
significant [F(4,110) = 4.81, p < 0.01]. In the ego threat
model, we find that, as expected, the polite condition is
associated with lower perceived ego threat than the uncivil
condition ( b = 1.59, S.E. = 0.31, p < 0.01), indicating
support for H2. In the room rating model, we found further
evidence that EI moderates the relationship between ego threat
and room rating ( b = 0.07, S.E. = 0.04, p = 0.08). Therefore,
we find marginal support that EI buffers the negative effect of
ego threat, providing support for H4.
To investigate the marginal interaction between EI and ego
threat more closely, we split up the EI measure into its four
subscales and ran analyses which each of the
dimensions separately to test which dimensions are driving the
marginally significant interaction. Only the dimension ROE
was significant [F(4,110) = 5.66, p < 0.01], and this dimension
had a significant interaction with ego threat ( b = 0.07, S.E. =
0.02, p < 0.01).
The indirect effect of polite customer behavior on the
dependent variable is significant when ROE is below 1 S.D.
from the mean (effect = 0.21, bootstrapped S.E. = 0.12,
bootstrapped 95% CI[0.01, 0.48]). When ROE is low ( 1 S.
D. below the mean), the slope of ego threat is negative ( b =
0.14, S.E. = 0.06, p < 0.05) but it is not significant for
average or high levels of ROE (both p > 0.10). This finding
supports the hypothesis that EI, particularly the emotional
regulation in oneself, buffers the effect of ego threat on
retaliatory behavior, but not for individuals who score low on
emotional regulation, which supports H3.
3.3.4 Additional analyses
We further address the question whether EI also moderates the
customer behavior – ego threat relationship (i.e. the first part of
the mediated effect). To test this relationship, we run Model 58
of the Hayes PROCESS macro. The results from the model
with ego threat as the dependent variable [F(3,111) = 11.74,
p < 0.01] revealed that neither the main effect of EI (p = 0.91)
nor the interaction with polite behavior (p = 0.75) is significant.
This finding is replicated for all EI subscales. Consequently, EI,
specifically the ROE, acts as a buffer of whether employees
respond to ego threatening behavior with retaliatory behavior,
but it does not impact the extent to which employees are
experiencing ego threat in the first place.
3.3.5 Discussion
This study replicates the finding from Study 2 that perceived
ego threat mediates the relationship between customer
incivility and employee retaliation and further extends them to
a different service context. Moreover, this study shows that the
impact of perceived ego threat on retaliation is weaker for
employees that can regulate their emotions. Therefore, not all
employees are engaging in counterproductive behaviors toward
customers even when faced with rude behavior. We discuss the
theoretical and practical implications of our results next.
946
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
4. General discussion
FSE–customer interactions play a central role in creating
service experiences and value, and the objective of the research
was to explore why FSEs offer lower service quality to
customers as a response to uncivil behavior and when service
value can be destroyed rather than created. Across three
studies, we find that FSEs are likely to reciprocate uncivil
behavior by lowering the quality of the service offered, whether
it is less ice cream (Study 1), a lower-rated airline seat (Study 2)
or lower-rated hotel room (Study 3). All these behaviors can be
considered retaliatory behavior that ultimately results in the
destruction of service value for the customer, even if he or she
may not be aware of it.
Study 1 finds evidence of retaliatory behavior in response to
uncivil customer behavior in a field setting. We then examine the
possibility of two mediating processes based on AET and SET –
perceived ego threat and perceived interactional injustice. Study
2 finds support for ego threat as the predominant process. Study
3 then examines a condition under which this process impacts
retaliatory behavior and when it does not. This process is present
and impacts retaliation for FSEs that score low on the ROE
dimension of the EI construct. That is, FSEs that are average or
high on ROE are able to provide consistent service quality level
regardless of customer behavior.
4.1 Theoretical implications
This research makes several contributions to prior literature.
First, this research contributes to the emerging literature on
customer incivility and employee reactions (Henkel et al., 2017;
Jerger and Wirtz, 2017). In addition, this research thus responds
to the call for increased research on FSEs, particularly on
situations evoking occupational stress (Subramony et al., 2017).
While other studies have predominantly focused on adverse
employee outcomes such as burnout and exhaustion (van
Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Sliter et al., 2010), we address reciprocal
uncivil employee behavior in the form of lower service levels.
This type of retaliatory behavior is particularly important
from the perspective of service value co-destruction as
constitutes a misuse of resources involving the FSE’s behavior
(Plé and Cáceres, 2010). Thus, we show process evidence of
how the destruction of value in services occurs because of
uncivil customer behavior, which can be conceived as resource
misuse in the context of service value creation by itself. Our
research implies that retaliatory behavior is an emotionally
triggered response to the uncivil customer behavior. Uncivil
behavior constitutes a threat to the employee’s ego and is
reciprocated by offering lower service levels to the customer.
We contend that customer incivility, as investigated in this
current study, could induce a loss of face or sense of shame,
given that the face-to-face customer–FSE interaction likely
occurs in public where the FSE is often surrounded by co-
workers or other customers.
In contrast, interactional injustice did not mediate the effect of
uncivil customer behavior on the service levels. This finding is
interesting in the light of the service recovery literature, which
finds strong support that justice perceptions influence how
customers respond to recovery efforts after service failures
(Blodgett et al., 1997). FSEs appear to not be influenced by the
inputs and outputs, and thus possible inequity, in the customer–
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
employee relationship. An explanation for this emotional
response to customer incivility could be that uncivil behavior may
be perceived as an open challenge of the employee’s competency
and a strong norm violation, especially if the employee did
nothing to warrant the uncivil behavior. Furthermore, customers
are interacting with a company to acquire a product or service,
thus, the inputs and outputs into the relationship are front and
center. While FSEs compensation may be influenced by their
interactions with the customer (i.e. through tips), it is often one
interaction of many and the injustice from a single interaction
may not be as important.
Finally, our research highlights the need to disaggregate the
EI construct into its dimensions. Although self-emotion
appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal and use of emotion did not
buffer the ego threat–service quality level relationship, ROE
did. Using an aggregate measure of EI would have masked this
effect of ROE. Specifically, in contexts where incivility occurs,
the regulatory system plays an important role to deal with
threats (Baumeister et al., 1993). Interestingly, others’ emotion
appraisal did not impact the ego threat–service quality level
relationship. Thus, emotional contagion is unlikely to play a
role in this context and does not exacerbate the impact of
uncivil customer behavior.
4.2 Managerial implications
From a managerial perspective, this research is highly relevant
because FSEs retaliatory behavior can be deemed
counterproductive work behavior as it contributes to the
destruction, rather than the creation, of value (Penney and
Spector, 2005). By identifying the underlying process behind
this behavior and the conditions under which FSEs are able to
still provide a high service quality, our research can help
managers limit the extent of reciprocal, uncivil FSE behavior.
Limiting this type of behavior is important as incivility can
perpetuate and possibly start an incivility spiral (Andersson and
Pearson, 1999). Furthermore, identifying other means for the
employee to cope more productively with customer incivility
may ward off the negative consequences of this behavior, such
as the negative impact on work and health outcomes (van
Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Sliter et al., 2010).
As ego threat is the predominant process through which
uncivil employee behavior occurs in customer interactions,
managers may want to consider other ways in which employees
are able to rebuild their self-esteem and ego. For example,
research has shown that employees may turn to prosocial
behavior to cope with mistreatment in the workplace (Yue
et al., 2017). Providing opportunities to help co-workers and
other customers may fulfill the need of the FSE to thwart the
ego threat. Managers could, for instance, create employee-
directed corporate social responsibility programs, such as
volunteering or employee matching opportunities.
Further, managers may want to train FSEs in such a way that
they look for sources of social support during such episodes.
For example, Henkel et al. (2017) suggest that employees could
recognize customers as a potential source of alleviation.
Research has shown that other customers can be sympathetic to
a FSE that is confronted by a rude customer, albeit their
sympathy depends on how the employee responds (Henkel
et al., 2017; Hershcovis and Bhatnagar, 2017). Ultimately,
managers should give employees subject to uncivil customer
947
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
behavior the chance to save face, for example, through issuing
polite reprimands, thus alleviating the ego threat.
Also, emotional regulation can be trained (Hülsheger et al.,
2015) and companies can develop interventions, such as those
fostering deep acting which, in contrast to surface acting, are
geared toward modifying one’s inner feelings (Grandey, 2003).
Thus, it is important that managers find a productive way for
FSEs to experience their negative emotions rather than hiding
them. Hiding negative emotions can result in adverse
consequences, such as emotional exhaustion and deviant
behaviors (Gaucher and Chebat, 2019), which are similar to
the ones employees experience as a result of uncivil behavior in
the first place.
4.3 Limitations and future research
While this study sheds novel insight into employee retaliatory
behavior after customer incivility, it is not without limitations.
In all studies, we focused on uncivil customer behavior that was
not triggered by the employee itself. Therefore, employees were
confronted with seemingly unwarranted rude behavior. Given
that blame and empathy have been shown to play a role in
negative service interactions (Bedi and Schat, 2017), it is
possible that different processes and moderators exist in
contexts where customer incivility is more legitimate and
warranted (e.g. after a service failure). Although only ROE
buffered the negative impact of uncivil behavior on service
quality level, it is plausible that perspective-taking and other
dimensions of EI play a role in such a context.
In the two online experiments, we did not observe differences
between polite and neutral behavior, and we thus collapsed
these two conditions. A possible explanation is that in this
context, FSEs are highly sensitive to negative but not positive
norm violations. It is possible that there are contexts in which
customers are strategically engaging in highly positive
interactions to obtain better service levels. Thus, customers
themselves may engage in a persuasion attempt and create a
condition with a positive norm violation. Prior research has
shown that individuals can use non-coercive and coercive
pressure strategies to achieve their objective (Payan and
McFarland, 2005). While persuasion knowledge has been
primarily applied in contexts where customers are subjected to
sales tactics, the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad and
Wright, 1994) may also extend to employees dealing with
uncivil customers. Recognizing very civil or uncivil behaviors as
a persuasion attempt could possibly result in more constructive
employee behavior toward the customer.
Furthermore, this present research focuses on a single type of
retaliatory behavior – the lowering of service level offered to the
customer. However, prior research has shown that employees
may also retaliate through other means related to the overall
customer experience, such as putting a customer on hold for a
long time (Skarlicki et al., 2008). It is also possible that FSEs
retaliate “in-kind” by being uncivil to the customer, thus
increasing the probability of an incivility spiral (Andersson and
Pearson, 1999). Additional research can thus investigate
further types of retaliatory behaviors beyond the ones studied in
this research.
Along these lines, we examine types of retaliatory behavior that
may not be easily observed by customers. Thus, it gives
employees an opportunity to cope with uncivil customer
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
behavior?show $146#?> while possibly evading negative
consequences triggered by their behavior such as poor
performance evaluations or negative word of mouth from this
customer. However, employees may feel different pressures to
refrain from retaliation when there is a greater likelihood that
their behavior is caught by the customer, or when subsequent
negative consequences have a strong impact on their
employment. Future research can therefore examine contexts
where such customer evaluations are integral to the employee’s
own performance evaluations.
There are several additional avenues for future research. In
this present research, we did not explicitly manipulate the
presence of other customers or employees. Given that ego
threat is the process emerging in our studies, it is plausible that
this process is exacerbated when other individuals – whether it
be customers or other employees – observe the uncivil customer
behavior toward the FSE. In contrast, contexts in which no one
else is present may reduce ego threat.
For example, future studies can investigate the impact of
explicit cues for polite customer behavior, such as “How to”
guides and price discounts for polite behavior. Explicit service
rules could possibly mitigate uncivil customer behavior and
increase perceived competence of FSEs if enforced (Habel et al.,
2017). However, a Japanese restaurant that charged customers
based on their rudeness experienced an increase in such behavior
rather than seeing customers comply with polite ordering
practices and receiving a price discount (Baseel, 2018).
Moreover, research can examine the interlink between (de)
humanization of FSE and uncivil customer behavior. Prior
research has shown that dehumanizing FSE results in more
aggressive behavior of customers toward the FSE (Henkel et al.,
2018). Conversely, FSEs that feel that they are being
dehumanized, either by the company in general or by the
customer in this situation, may retaliate more freely as this may
lower their ability or willingness to self-regulate. On the other
hand, humanizing FSE, and possibly customers as well,
especially in contexts such as fast food where relationships are
primarily transactional, may reduce uncivil behavior.
Note
1 Please note that because of coding the uncivil condition as
“0” and the polite condition as “1,” the effect appears as
positive. It reflects that polite customer behavior has a
positive impact on seat rating by reducing perceived ego
threat, relative to the uncivil condition.
References
Allen, A.M., Brady, M.K., Robinson, S.G. and Voorhees,
C.M. (2015), “One firm’s loss is another’s gain: capitalizing
on other firms’ service failures”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 648-662.
Andersson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999), “Tit for tat? The
spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-471.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Härtel, C.E.J. and Daus, C.S. (2002),
“Diversity and emotion: the new frontiers in organizational
948
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
behavior research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 307-338.
Babbar, S. and Koufteros, X. (2008), “The human element in
airline service quality: contact personnel and the customer”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 804-830.
Barnes, D.C., Ponder, N. and Hopkins, C.D. (2015), “The
impact of perceived customer delight on the frontline
employee”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2,
pp. 433-441.
Baseel, C. (2018), “Tokyo restaurant that charges rude
customers more sees dramatic increase in number of rude
orders”, available at: https://soranews24.com/2018/08/24/
tokyo-restaurant-that-charges-rude-customers-more-sees-
dramatic-increase-in-number-of-rude-orders/ (accessed 4
May 2020).
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. and Tice, D.M. (1993),
“When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: negative
consequences of high self-esteem”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, p. 141.
Bedi, A. and Schat, A.C. (2017), “Employee revenge against
uncivil customers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 636-649.
Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1995), “The use and abuse of
power: justice as social control”, in Cropanzano, R. and
Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice, and
Support: Managing Social Climate at Work, Quorum Books,
Westport, CT, pp. 131-145.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), “Critical
service encounters: the employee’s viewpoint”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 95-106.
Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997), “The effects of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on
postcomplaint behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 2,
pp. 185-210.
Brief, A.P. and Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Organizational behavior:
affect in the workplace”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 279-307.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange
theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Delcourt, C., Gremler, D.D., Van Riel, A.C.R. and Van
Birgelen, M. (2013), “Effects of perceived employee
emotional competence on customer satisfaction and loyalty:
the mediating role of rapport”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Elmada
g, A.B., Ellinger, A.E. and Franke, G.R. (2008),
“Antecedents and consequences of frontline service
employee commitment to service quality”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 95-110.
Fisk, R., Grove, S., Harris, L.C., Keeffe, D.A., Daunt, K.L.,
Russell-Bennett, R. and Wirtz, J. (2010), “Customers
behaving badly: a state of the art review, research agenda and
implications for practitioners”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 417-429.
Forgas, J.P. and George, J.M. (2001), “Affective influences on
judgments and behavior in organizations: an information
processing perspective”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 3-34.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
Forgas, J.P., Bower, G.H. and Moylan, S.J. (1990), “Praise or
blame? Affective influences on attributions for achievement”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 809-819.
Frey, R.-V., Bayon, T. and Totzek, D. (2013), “How customer
satisfaction affects employee satisfaction and retention in a
professional services context”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 503-517.
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), “The persuasion
knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion
attempts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 1-31.
Gaucher, B. and Chebat, J.C. (2019), “How uncivil customers
corrode the relationship between frontline employees and
retailers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 46,
pp. 1-10.
Gilliam, D.A. and Rayburn, S.W. (2016), “Propensity for
reciprocity among frontline employees”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 290-301.
Goussinsky, R. (2012), “Coping with customer aggression”,
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-196.
Grandey, A.A. (2000), “Emotional regulation in the
workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 95-110.
Grandey, A.A. (2003), “When ‘the show must go on’: surface
acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional
exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 86-96.
Grandey, A.A., Dickter, D.N. and Sin, H.P. (2004), “The
customer is not always right: customer aggression and
emotion regulation of service employees”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 397-418.
Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M. and Steiner, D.D. (2005), “Must
‘service with a smile’ be stressful? The moderating role of
personal control for American and French employees”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 893-904.
Greenberg, L. and Barling, J. (1999), “Predicting employee
aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors:
the roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace
factors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 897-913.
Gremler, D.D. and Gwinner, K.P. (2000), “Customer-
employee rapport in service relationships”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 82-104.
Griffin, R.W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. and Collins, J. (1998),
“Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, pp. 65-69.
Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a
critical analysis”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 279-301.
Grove, S.J., Vitell, S.J. and Strutton, D. (1989), “Non-
normative consumer behavior and the techniques of
neutralization”, in Bagozzi, R. and Peter, J.P. (Eds),
Proceedings of the 1989 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference,
American Marketing Association, New York, NY.
Habel, J., Alavi, S. and Pick, D. (2017), “When serving
customers includes correcting them: understanding the
ambivalent effects of enforcing service rules”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 919-941.
949
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), “Exploring service
sabotage: the antecedents, types and consequences of
frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 163-183.
Hartline, M.D. and Jones, K.C. (1996), “Employee
performance cues in a hotel service environment: influence
on perceived service quality, value, and word-of-mouth
intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 207-215.
Hartline, M.D., Maxham, J.G., III. and McKee, D.O. (2000),
“Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-
oriented strategy to customer contact service employees”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 35-50.
Henkel, A.P., Boegershausen, J., Rafaeli, A. and Lemmink, J.
(2017), “The social dimension of service interactions:
observer reactions to customer incivility”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 120-134.
Henkel, A.P., Boegershausen, J., Hoegg, J., Aquino, K. and
Lemmink, J. (2018), “Discounting humanity: when
consumers are price conscious, employees appear less
human”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 272-292.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M. and Gremler, D.D.
(2006), “Are all smiles created equal? How emotional
contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 58-73.
Hershcovis, M.S. and Bhatnagar, N. (2017), “When fellow
customers behave badly: witness reactions to employee
mistreatment by customers”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 102 No. 11, pp. 1528-1544.
Hertel, G. and Fiedler, K. (1994), “Affective and cognitive
influences in social dilemma game”, European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 131-145.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and
Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the service-profit chain to
work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-174.
Hess, R.L., Jr, Ganesan, S. and Klein, N.M. (2003), “Service
failure and recovery: the impact of relationship factors on
customer satisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 127-145.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Bornemann, T. (2009),
“Implementing the marketing concept at the employee-
customer interface: the role of customer need knowledge”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 64-81.
Hülsheger, U.R., Lang, J.W., Schewe, A.F. and Zijlstra, F.R.
(2015), “When regulating emotions at work pays off: a diary
and an intervention study on emotion regulation and
customer tips in service jobs”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 263-277.
Hyken, S. (2018), “Businesses lose $75 billion due to poor
customer service”, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/
shephyken/2018/05/17/businesses-lose-75-billion-due-to-poor-
customer-service/#74b6d49316f9 (accessed 23 January 2019).
Inness, M., Barling, J. and Turner, N. (2005), “Understanding
supervisor-targeted aggression: a within-person, between-
jobs design”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4,
pp. 731-739.
Isen, A.M. (1987), “Positive affect, cognitive processes, and
social behavior”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 20, pp. 203-253.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
Jerger, C. and Wirtz, J. (2017), “Service employee responses to
angry customer complaints: the roles of customer status and
service climate”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 362-378.
Joseph, D.L. and Newman, D.A. (2010), “Emotional intelligence:
an integrative meta-analysis and cascading model”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 54-78.
Judge, T.A., Scott, B.A. and Ilies, R. (2006), “Hostility, job
attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel
model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1,
pp. 126-317.
Kamakura, W.A., Mittal, V., De Rosa, F. and Mazzon, J.A.
(2002), “Assessing the service-profit chain”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 294-317.
Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D.M., Murtha, B.R. and Sheng, S.
(2011), “Emotional intelligence in marketing exchanges”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 78-95.
Kim, W.G. and Cha, Y. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences
of relationship quality in hotel industry”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 321-338.
Kim, T.Y., Shapiro, D.L., Aquino, K., Lim, V.K.G. and
Bennett, R.J. (2008), “Workplace offense and victims’
reactions: the effects of victim-offender (dis) similarity,
offense-type, and cultural differences”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 415-433.
Lambird, K.H. and Mann, T. (2006), “When do ego threats
lead to self-regulation failure? Negative consequences of
defensive high self-esteem”, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1177-1187.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Song, L.J. (2004), “The construct
and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its
potential utility for management studies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-496.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), “Coping and
adaptation”, in Gentry, W.D. (Ed.), The Handbook of
Behavioral Medicine, Guilford Press, New York, NY,
pp. 282-325.
Leary, M.R., Terry, M.L., Allen, A.B. and Tate, E.B. (2009),
“The concept of ego threat in social and personality
psychology: is ego threat a viable scientific construct?”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 151-164.
Luo, X. (2009), “Quantifying the long-term impact of negative
word of mouth on cash flows and stock prices”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 148-165.
McFarland, R.G., Rode, J.C. and Shervani, T.A. (2016), “A
contingency model of emotional intelligence in professional
selling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 108-118.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2000), “Models of
emotional intelligence”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Handbook
of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 396-420.
Mohr, L.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1995), “The role of employee
effort in satisfaction with service transactions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-252.
O’Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M., Hawver, T.H.
and Story, P.A. (2011), “The relation between emotional
intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 788-818.
950
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
Payan, J.M. and McFarland, R.G. (2005), “Decomposing
influence strategies: argument structure and dependence as
determinants of the effectiveness of influence strategies in
gaining channel member compliance”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 66-79.
Penney, L.M. and Spector, P.E. (2005), “Job stress, incivility,
and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): the
moderating role of negative affectivity”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 777-796.
Plé, L. (2016), “Studying customers’ resource integration by
service employees in interactional value co-creation”, Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 152-164.
Plé, L. and Cáceres, R.C. (2010), “Not always co-creation:
introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-
dominant logic”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 430-437.
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H. and Wilson, A. (2009),
“Internal branding: an enabler of employees’ brand-
supporting behaviours”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Reynolds, K.L. and Harris, L.C. (2006), “Deviant customer
behavior: an exploration of frontline employee tactics”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 95-111.
Rupp, D.E. and Spencer, S. (2006), “When customers lash out:
the effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional
labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 971-978.
Shao, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2014), “Service employees’
reactions to mistreatment by customers: a comparison
between North America and East Asia”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 23-59.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the
workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82
No. 3, pp. 434-443.
Skarlicki, D.P., Van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Walker, D.D. (2008),
“Getting even for customer mistreatment: the role of moral
identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal
injustice and employee sabotage”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1335-1347.
Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (2012), “The employee as a
punching bag: the effect of multiple sources of incivility on
employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 121-139.
Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K. and McInnerney, J. (2010),
“How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between
customer incivility and employee outcomes”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 468-481.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of
customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure
and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 356-372.
Stucke, T.S. and Sporer, S.L. (2002), “When a grandiose self-
image is threatened: narcissism and self-concept clarity as
predictors of negative emotions and aggression following
ego-threat”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 70 No. 4,
pp. 509-532.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
Subramony, M., Ehrhart, K., Groth, M., Holtom, B.C., van
Jaarsveld, D.D., Yagil, D. and Grönroos, C. (2017),
“Accelerating employee-related scholarship in service
management: research streams, propositions, and
commentaries”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 837-865.
Tang, X., Chang, E.C., Huang, X. and Zhang, M. (2018),
“Timing and compensation strategies in service recovery”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 755-766.
Tedeschi, J.T. and Felson, R.B. (1994), Violence, Aggression,
and Coercive Actions, American Psychological Association.
Tonglet, M. (2002), “Consumer misbehaviour: an exploratory
study of shoplifting”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 336-354.
Totterdell, P. and Holman, D. (2003), “Emotion regulation in
customer service roles: testing a model of emotional labor”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 55-73.
van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2010),
“The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the
relationship between customer and employee incivility”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1486-1504.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “The four service marketing
myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-335.
Walker, D.D., Van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2014),
“Exploring the effects of individual customer incivility
encounters on employee incivility: the moderating roles of
entity (in) civility and negative affectivity”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 1, p. 151.
Walker, D.D., van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2017),
“Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can also
hurt me: the relationship between customer verbal
aggression and employee incivility”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 163-179.
Weiss, H.M. and Beal, D.J. (2005), “Reflections on affective
events theory”, in Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J. and Härtel,
C.E.J., The Effect of Affect in Organizational Settings, Emerald,
Bingley, pp. 1-21.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events
theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and
consequences of affective experiences at work”, ” in Staw, B.
(Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series
of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Elsevier, New York,
NY, pp. 1-74.
Weun, S., Beatty, S.E. and Jones, M.A. (2004), “The impact of
service failure severity on service recovery evaluations and
post-recovery relationships”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 133-146.
Yagil, D. (2018), “Abuse from organizational outsiders: Customer
aggression and incivility”, in D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Keashly,
L. and Tye-Williams, S. (Eds), Special Topics and Particular
Occupations, Professions and Sectors, Springer, pp. 1-26.
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R. and Gong, T. (2011), “Customer
participation and citizenship behavioral influences on
employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and
turnover intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64
No. 1, pp. 87-95.
951
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
Yue, Y., Wang, K.L. and Groth, M. (2017), “Feeling bad and
doing good: the effect of customer mistreatment on service
employee’s daily display of helping behaviors”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 769-808.
Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E. and Chen, P.J. (2018), “Engaging
customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Further readings
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.
Brotheridge, C.M. and Grandey, A.A. (2002), “Emotional labor
and burnout: comparing two perspectives of ‘people work’”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 17-39.
Fullerton, R.A. and Punj, G. (1993), “Choosing to misbehave:
a structural model of aberrant consumer behavior”, ACR
North American Advances.
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.
Lovelock, C. (1994), Product plus: How Product 1 Service=
Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Moschis, G.P. and Cox, D. (1989), “Deviant consumer
behavior”, ACR North American Advances,
Wieseke, J., Geigenmüller, A. and Kraus, F. (2012), “On the
role of empathy in customer-employee interactions”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 316-331.
Appendix 1. Acting instructions for Study 1
A typical conversation in an ice cream vending encounter is
started by the employee (“What can I get you?”), a one-sentence
answer by the customer (“Two scoops of vanilla, please”), the
announcement of the price (“That’s one euro 40, please”) and
the exchange of the money and the cone. Because of the brief
interaction, we practiced and explored with our students how
incivility can be expressed despite limited verbal exchange. We
encouraged them to find individual expressions that fit their
personality. Some students suggested making an additional
grumpy remark if they had to wait in line (“Two scoops of
vanilla, after I nearly burnt in the sun waiting!”), other students
suggested ordering without “please” and “thank you” while
making an annoyed face or rolling their eyes.
In the positive conditions, students would complement the
employee on their hair, uniform or speed of serving and would
be especially polite when saying good-bye (“Thank you, this
looks delicious! I hope you’ll have a wonderful day after your
shift ends!”) and put on big smiles. In the neutral condition,
students would simply order (“Two scoops of vanilla,
please”).
With 221 interactions in three rounds of data collection,
each student had an average of 15-16 interactions throughout
the study and a maximum of 10 per round of data collection.
Negative interactions were limited to five per round of data
collection.
 Employee reactions to customer incivility
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen
Appendix 2
Table A1 Laboratory experiment scenario descriptions (Studies 2 and 3)
Study 2 (Plane)
Polite customer behavior
He smiles: “Oh, I totally love your uniform - so classy and professional!
I’m sure you’re able to help me: On the way here, I had a horrible seat -
right in front of the restroom. I was unable to recline my seat and
constantly had people walking by and I just noticed that I will have to
sit in front of the restrooms on this flight again. Is there any possibility
that you can make my day and find me a great seat for this flight - like
one in the first row of the economy cabin?”
Neutral customer behavior
He asks: “Could you please find me a good seat? On the way here I sat
right in front of the restrooms and I would appreciate a different seat,
like one in the first row of the economy cabin. I was unable to recline
my seat and constantly had people walking by. I noticed that I have a
seat by the restroom again. Would you mind looking for a better
seat?”
Uncivil customer behavior
He rants: “I hope you’re at least somewhat competent. I request a seat
in the first row for this flight and not one right in front of restrooms
like I had on the trip here! I expect a better seat on this leg of the
flight!”
952
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953
Study 3 (Hotel)
He smiles: “Oh, I totally love your uniform - so classy and professional! I’m
sure you’re able to help me: During my last stay here, I unfortunately got one
of the rooms with a view of the neighboring hotel that blocks much of the
light although I appreciate natural light very much. Is there any possibility that
you can make my day and find me a real nice room for this stay - maybe even
one with a view over the bay area?”
He asks: “Could you please find me a good room? Last time I stayed here, I
unfortunately got one of the rooms with a bad view, but I really like to wake
up to natural light and see the bay. Would you mind looking for a better
room?”
He rants: “I hope you’re at least somewhat competent. I would like to request
a room with a view over the bay area, not such a horrible one with the awful
view I had last time! I need to get a better room this time!”
 Employee reactions to customer incivility Journal of Services Marketing
Regina Frey-Cordes, Meike Eilert and Marion Büttgen Volume 34 · Number 7 · 2020 · 939–953

Appendix 3

Table A2 Constructs and measurement

Scale Items
Perceived interactional justice I feel treated bad by this customer
This customer does not care about my opinions
The customer showed abusive behavior in this situation
That customer makes me feel treated unfairly
This incident makes me feel unequitable
Perceived ego threat I will not accept anyone talking to me like this
I have a strong need for retaliation toward this customer
This feeling of being devalued and abused makes me angry
Emotional intelligence Self-emotion appraisal
I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time
I have good understanding of my own emotions
I really understand what I feel
I always know whether or not I am happy
Others’ emotion appraisal
I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior
I am a good observer of others’ emotions
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others
I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me
Use of emotion
I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them
I always tell myself I am a competent person
I am a self-motivated person
I would always encourage myself to try my best
Regulation of emotion
I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally
I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions
I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry
I have good control of my own emotions
Note: All items measured are on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with all points labeled

Corresponding author
Meike Eilert can be contacted at: mei224@uky.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

953