Determinants of negative customer

engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Understanding negative customer engagement is important as it is argued that negative information has a stronger impact on a
customer’s brand perception and purchase decision than that of positive information. Hence, this paper aims to propose new determinants of
negatively valenced customer engagement, including disengaged and negatively engaged behaviours in a service consumption context and explore
under what conditions customers display disengaged or negatively engaged behaviours.
Design/methodology/approach – This study incorporates justice theory, expectancy disconfirmation theory and psychology literature to propose
determinants of negative customer engagement behaviours.
Findings – A conceptual framework is developed that proposes customer perceived justice and negative disconfirmation as determinants of
negative customer engagement via the mediator of customer outrage. Moderating variables, include self-esteem, self-efficacy, altruism and
vengeance; are also proposed to affect disengaged/negatively engaged behaviours.
Originality/value – This study is the first to specify the underlying reasons of negative customer engagement by establishing the conceptual
linkages between negative disconfirmation, justice and negative customer engagement via the mediating role of customer outrage. Further,
customer resources are used to understand disengaged/negatively engaged behaviours. In doing so, this study views negative customer engagement
from the perspective of a customer’s internal response to the trigger experience, rather than the experience itself. Thus, this study contributes to
literature on customer engagement by developing a conceptual framework that illustrates the underlying cognitive and affective responses that
drive negative customer engagement behaviours.
Keywords Justice, Engagement, Service dominant logic (SDL), Negative customer engagement, Customer disengagement, Negative
disconfirmation
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek, 2011a; Leckie et al., 2016;

Generally defined as a customer’s investment of resources into
a service brand interaction, customer engagement has received
considerable interest from both marketing scholars and
practitioners in recent years (Hollebeek et al., 2016a; Islam and
Rahman, 2016). In 2010, Marketing Science Institute (MSI)
listed customer engagement as one of the top prioritized
marketing research topics (Hollebeek, 2011b) and the concept
remained in MSI’s research priorities for 2016-2018
(Hollebeek et al., 2016b). While there is little consensus on
customer engagement conceptualization, there is broad
agreement on the interactive, experiential and value co-created
nature of customer engagement based on relationship
marketing theory and service dominant logic (S-D logic)
(Brodie et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2010; Vivek et al., 2014). As
such, customer engagement is considered a strategic and
powerful tool that positively affects firms’ sales revenue and
profits (Bijmolt et al., 2010), firm value, performance (Kumar
et al., 2010; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010;
Verhoef et al., 2010), and customer loyalty (Bowden, 2009;
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0887-6045.htm
Naumann and Bowden, 2015; Vivek et al., 2012).
Customer engagement can be either positive or negative
(Higgins and Scholer, 2009; Kumar et al., 2010; Libai et al.,
2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010). Examination of the negative
side of customer engagement is as essential as exploring positive
engagement, as negative events have been found to have a
stronger impact on people than positive events, with people
paying more attention to negative stimuli than positive stimuli
(Sinclair et al., 2015). Similarly, negative word-of-mouth
(WOM) is found to have a stronger effect on customers’ brand
evaluations than positive WOM (Kahneman and Tversky,
1979; Oliver, 1997). This is compounded by the significant
growth of social media networks that enable customers to
express negative ideas quickly and broadly in the forms of blog
writing (Juric et al., 2016) or negative comment posting
(Hollebeek and Chen, 2014). Despite the broad theoretical
support that negative interactions are more influential than
positive interactions, the customer engagement literature has,
to date, focussed heavily on positive customer engagement.
Within the limited examination of negative customer
engagement, Hollebeek and Chen (2014) addressed the negative
valence of customer engagement; however, they conceptualized

Received 2 February 2019

Journal of Services Marketing
Revised 30 May 2019
34/2 (2020) 117–135 26 August 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 10 September 2019
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-02-2019-0050] Accepted 10 September 2019

117
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
negative customer engagement simply as a reversed form of
positive customer engagement and hence any unique tenets and
drivers of negative customer engagement were not considered. In
contrast, Juric et al. (2016)’s conceptualization of negative
customer engagement differs from the negative valence
of customer engagement, emphasizing the triggers of negative
customer engagement from negative critical events and customer
perceived threats. Similarly, Bowden et al. (2015a) do not
consider disengagement as the reverse form of relationship
formation, instead emphasizing it is a result of a negative critical
event. Customer disengagement has been explored based on the
customer’s prior level of engagement with a service provider
(Bowden et al., 2015a). The conceptualization emphasizes
“termination” with the service provider as disengagement.
Given the lack of agreement on how to conceptualize
negative customer engagement, and a dearth of research on the
factors underpinning negative customer engagement, it is
important to develop a more thorough understanding of
negative customer engagement, particularly its drivers. Hence,
this study aims to clarify the conceptualization of negative
customer engagement and propose new determinants in a
service consumption context. This study employs Expectancy
Disconfirmation Theory (EDT) (Oliver, 1980) and Justice
Theory (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961) to suggest conceptual
linkages between disconfirmation, justice and negative
customer engagement and propose previously unexplored
determinants of negative customer engagement. EDT
emphasizes customer expectation before purchase and
disconfirmation after purchase (Oliver, 1980). Negative
disconfirmation occurs when actual product performance is
less than expected. In such cases, customers are dissatisfied,
producing “negativity energy” (Aronson and Carlsmith, 1963).
Disconfirmation, which mostly relates to product performance
evaluation and expectations, is focussed on service attribute
delivery while justice refers to human needs that reflect an
individual’s internal state (Schneider and Bowen, 1999).
Justice Theory (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961) posits that a
feeling of injustice creates tension in customers that motivates
them to reduce it by adopting coping strategies. Hence, by
incorporating both theories, this study provides an insightful
understanding of determinants of negative customer
engagement. Further, this study integrates customer outrage
considered as an extreme negative emotion (Schneider and
Bowen, 1999) and customer resources including personality
traits (self-efficacy, self-esteem, altruism) and customer belief
(reciprocity/vengeance) based on Cognitive Appraisals and
Coping Theory (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) to specifically
explain disengaged and negatively engaged behaviours to a
brand/service provider. Thus, this study contributes to
literature on customer engagement by developing a conceptual
framework that specifically explains determinants of negative
customer engagement behaviours towards a brand/service
provider in a service consumption context.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we review the body
of literature conceptualizing customer engagement and its
antecedents. Next, we focus on the phenomenon of negative
customer engagement and studies related to antecedents
of negative customer engagement. We then employ the
foundational theories of EDT and Justice Theory to develop a
conceptual framework for negative customer engagement.
118
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, as well
as the scope for future research in this area.
Conceptualization of customer engagement
Customer engagement is generally considered as the
interaction and connection of a customer with a brand or firm.
However, the conceptualization of customer engagement is not
consistent in the literature with questions surrounding its
positioning, dimensionality and foci. First, customer
engagement has been positioned as either a psychological state
(Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Higgins and Scholer,
2009; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b) or a set of behaviours (Kumar
et al., 2010; Schivinski et al., 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010;
Verhoef et al., 2010). Within the behavioural perspective, there
are further inconsistencies regarding what constitutes customer
engagement behaviours. While the majority of marketing
scholars consider customer engagement going beyond
purchase behaviour (Dessart et al., 2016; Van Doorn et al.,
2010; Verhoef et al., 2010; Vivek et al., 2014), Kumar et al.
(2010) assert customer engagement consisting of both
transactional and non-transactional behaviours.
Second, while customer engagement has been viewed as a
uni-dimensional construct focussing on either an emotional
(Sprott et al., 2009) or behavioural dimension (Kumar et al.,
2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010), there is widespread agreement
that it is a multidimensional construct encompassing
cognitive, emotional and behavioural expressions (Brodie
et al., 2011; Dessart et al., 2016; Gambetti and Graffigna,
2012; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b; Hollebeek et al., 2014;
Hollebeek et al., 2016b; Islam and Rahman, 2016; Vivek
et al., 2012). In addition, a social dimension to customer
engagement has also been championed to reflect the
interaction among customers or between customers and
other parties in a social network (Gambetti and Graffigna,
2012; Hollebeek et al., 2016b; Islam and Rahman, 2016;
Vivek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2012). While there has been
much theorizing on the dimensions of customer engagement,
work on generating and validating scales to measure these
dimensions is still in its infancy (Baldus et al., 2015;
Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Schivinski
et al., 2016; Sprott et al., 2009; Vivek et al., 2014).
Third, there are differences in engagement foci. Studies have
focussed their examination of customer engagement on a
service brand as an engaged object (Bowden, 2009; Brodie
et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011a), brand or firm in general
(Gambetti and Graffigna, 2012; Kumar et al., 2010; Van
Doorn et al., 2010). Vivek et al. (2014) includes all offerings
and other activities of firms in examining customer
engagement. Other studies have considered the brand and
community simultaneously (Dessart et al., 2016; Gambetti and
Graffigna, 2012; Hollebeek et al., 2016b; Vivek et al., 2014),
motivation to engage (Baldus et al. (2015), online brand-
related contents engagement (Schivinski et al. (2016) and
brand engagement in self-concept (Sprott et al., 2009). A
review of conceptualization and dimensionality of customer
engagement is provided in Table I.
Despite these differences in the conceptualizations of
customer engagement, some common characteristics can be
identified. First, the majority of work on customer engagment
 Negative customer engagement behaviours Journal of Services Marketing
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135

Table I Conceptualization and dimensionality of customer engagement

Authors Concept Definition Focal Object Dimensions Scale

Sprott et al. (2009) Brand engagement in self-concept A consumers’ propensity to include Brand Emotion 8 items
Empirical important brands as part of their self-
(Quantitative) concept
Bowden (2009) Customer engagement “A psychological process that models the A service brand
Conceptual underlying mechanisms by which customer
loyalty forms for new customers of a
service brand as well as the mechanisms
by which loyalty may be maintained for
repeat purchase customers of a service
brand” (p. 65) (
)
Higgins and Engagement “A state of being occupied, fully-absorbed Goal pursuit
Scholer (2009) or engrossed in something generating a
Conceptual level of attract to, or repulsion from a focal
engagement object” (p. 102) (
)
Van Doorn et al. Customer engagement behaviours “A customer’s behavioural manifestations Brand, firm, or other Valence
(2010) that have a brand or firm focus, beyond actors Form or modality
Conceptual purchase, resulting from motivational Scope
drivers” (p. 254) (^) Nature of its impact
Customer goals
Kumar et al. (2010) Customer engagement “The active interaction between a Firm or other customers Customer engagement value
Conceptual customer with a firm, prospects, other (CEV):
customers whether they are transactional Customer lifetime value
or non-transactional in nature” (p. 297) Customer referral value
(^) Customer influencer value
Customer knowledge value
Kumar and Pansari Customer engagement “The mechanics of a customer’s value Firm or other customers Customer purchase behavior 16 items
(2016) addition to the firm, either through direct Customer referral behavior
Empirical or/and indirect contribution” (p. 2) (^) Customer influencer behavior
(Quantitative) Customer knowledge behavior
Schivinski et al. Customer engagement with brand “A set of brand-related online activities Brand-related social media Consumption 17 items
(2016) related social media content on the part of the consumer that vary in content Contribution
Empirical the degree to which the consumer Creation
(Quantitative) interacts
with social media and engages in the
consumption, contribution, and creation of
media content.” (p. 66) (^)
Hollebeek (2011a) Customer brand engagement “The level of an individual customer’s Brand Cognitive
Conceptual motivational, brand-related and context- Emotional
dependent state of mind characterized by Behavioural
specific level of cognitive, emotional and
behavioural activity in direct brand
interaction.” (p. 790) (
)
Brodie et al. (2011) Customer engagement “A psychological state that occurs by Service brand Cognitive
Conceptual virtue of interactive, cocreative customer emotional
experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. behavioural
brand) in focal service relationships.” (p.
260) (
)
Hollebeek (2011 b) Customer brand engagment “The level of a customer’s cognitive, Brand Immersion (cognitive)
Empirical emotional and behavioural investment in Passion (emotional)
(Qualitative) specific brand interaction.” (p. 565) (
) Activation (behavioural)
Brodie et al. (2013) Consumer engagement “A context-dependent, psychological state Brand Cognitive
Empirical characterized by fluctuating intensity online community Emotional Behavioural
(Qualitative) levels that occur within dynamic, iterative
engagement processes.” (p. 107) (
)
Hollebeek et al. Customer brand engagement “A consumer’s positively valenced brand- Brand Cognitive Cognitive
(2014) related cognitive, emotional and Affection processing: 3
Empirical behavioural activity during or related to Activation items
(Qualitative & focal consumer/brand interactions”.(p. Affection: 4
Quantitative) 154) items
Activation: 3
items
Gambetti and Consumer brand engagement “A dynamic and process-based concept Brand Cognitive
Graffigna (2012) evolving in intensity on the basis of the Emotional
Empirical brand capability of increasingly Conative
(Qualitative) intercepting consumers’ desires and Experiential
expectations using all possible physical Social
and virtual touchpoints between brand
and consumers” (p. 659)
Vivek et al. (2012) Customer engagement “The intensity of an individual’s Offerings Cognitive
Empirical participation in and connection with an Activities Affective
(Qualitative & organization’s offerings or organizational Others Behavioural
Quantitative) activities, which either the customer or the Social
organization initiates” (p. 133)
(continued)

119
 Negative customer engagement behaviours Journal of Services Marketing
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135

Table I
Authors Concept Definition Focal Object Dimensions Scale

Vivek et al. (2014) Customer engagement “The level of the customer’s (or potential Offerings Conscious attention Conscious
Empirical customer’s) interactions and connections Activities Enthused participation attention: 3
(Qualitative) with the brand or firm’s offerings or Others Social connection items
activities, often involving others in the Enthused
social network created around the brand/ participation:
offering/activity.” (p. 406) 4 items
Social
connection:
3 items
Baldus et al. (2015) Online brand community “The compelling, intrinsic motivations to Brand community Motivation 42 items
Empirical engagement continue interacting with an online brand
(Qualitative & community.” (p. 979)
Quantitative)
Dessart et al. Consumer engagement “The state that reflects consumers’ Brand and brand Affective (enthusiasm and Enthusiasm:
(2016) individual dispositions toward community enjoyment) 3 items
Empirical engagement foci, which are context- Cognitive (attention and Enjoyment: 3
(Qualitative & specific. Engagement is expressed through absorption) items
Quantitative) varying levels of affective, cognitive and Behavioural (sharing, learning Attention: 2
behavioural manifestations that go and endorsing) items
beyond exchange situations.” (p. 409) Absorption:
4 items
Sharing: 3
items
Learning: 3
items
Endorsing: 4
items
Hollebeek et al. Customer engagement “A customer’s motivationally driven, Service brand Cognitive
(2016a, 2016b) volitional investment of focal operant Emotional
Conceptual resources (including cognitive, emotional, Behavioural
behavioural and social knowledge and Social
skills), and operand resources (e.g.,
equipment) into brand interactions in
service system.” (p. 6)
Islam and Rahman Customer engagement “The readiness of a customer to actively Brand Cognitive (experience)
(2016b) participate and interact with the focal Organisation Emotional (feeling)
I Conceptual object (e.g. brand/organization/ Community Behavioural (participation)
community/website/organizational Organisational activity Social (Interaction and sharing)
activity), [which] varies in direction Website
(positive/negative) and magnitude (high/
low) depending upon the nature of a
customer’s interaction with various touch
points (physical/virtual).” (p. 2019)

Notes:
Customer engagement viewed as psychological state. ^Customer engagement viewed as behaviours

focuses on the positive interactions, although several authors
argue customer engagement can be positive or negative
(Higgins and Scholer, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010); engaged
or disengaged (Kumar et al., 2010); or positive, neutral or
negative (Hollebeek et al., 2016b). Second, relationship
marketing and S-D logic have been consistently used as the
foundational theories to explain the interactive, experiential
and value co-created nature of customer engagement (Brodie
et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b; Hollebeek et al., 2014;
Islam and Rahman, 2016; Vivek et al., 2014). Third, it is agreed
that customer engagement reflects the connectedness between
customers and engaged objects (Gambetti and Graffigna,
2012; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Sprott et al., 2009; Vivek
adopt Hollebeek et al. (2016b)’s conceptualization of customer
engagement as it provides a holistic view based on the
integration of S-D logic and literature on customer engagement
that is suitable with the service context of this study. In
addition, different from previous definitions of customer
engagement that mostly focus on positive aspect of the
construct, this definition can be applied for both positive and
negative customer engagement. Specifically, customer
engagement is defined as:
Customer’s motivationally driven, volitional investment of focal operant
resources (including cognitive, emotional, behavioral and social knowledge
and skills), and operand resources (e.g., equipment) into brand interactions
in service system (Hollebeek et al., 2016b, p. 6).

et al., 2014). Fourth, customer engagement is considered a

motivationally driven and context-dependent construct that
results in different intensity levels of customer engagement
(Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2016b; Van Doorn et al.,
2010).
Following an extensive review of the customer engagement
literature and considering the points above, in this study, we
Antecedents of customer engagement
As customer engagement has been predominantly viewed as a
positive construct, the majority of studies focussed on exploring
antecedents of customer engagement have done so from this
positive perspective (see Table II). Van Doorn et al. (2010)

120
 Negative customer engagement behaviours Journal of Services Marketing
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135

Table II Antecedents and consequences of customer engagement

Authors Concept Definition Antecedents Consequences

Van Doorn et al. (2010) Customer “A customer’s behavioural manifestations Customer-related factors: attitudinal Customers: cognitive, attitudinal and
Conceptual engagement that have a brand or firm focus, beyond antecedents (satisfaction, brand behavior perspectives of the customers;
behaviours purchase, resulting from motivational commitment, brand attachment, brand benefits (financial, emotional, functional);
drivers.” (p. 254) performance perceptions), customer goals social identity.
(consumption benefits, relational Firms: financial (customer equity, customer
benefits), characteristics, affective states, value), reputation, customer network,
resources employees’ performance.
Firm-based factors: brand characteristics, Industry: industry change
firm reputation, processes and platforms,
consumer information environments,
rewards or incentives
Context-based factors: macro environment
and competitors
Hollebeek (2011a) Customer brand “The level of an individual customer’s Involvement Relationship quality (trust, commitment,
Conceptual engagement motivational, brand-related and context- customer satisfaction)
dependent state of mind characterized by Customer loyalty
specific level of cognitive, emotional and
behavioural activity in direct brand
interaction”(p. 790)
Hollebeek et al. (2014) Customer brand “A consumer’s positively valenced brand- Involvement Self-brand connection
Empirical (Qualitative engagement related cognitive, emotional and Brand usage intent
and Quantitative) behavioural activity during or related to
focal consumer/brand interactions”(p. 154)
Vivek et al. (2012) Customer “The intensity of an individual’s Participation Value
Empirical (Qualitative & engagement participation in and connection with an Involvement Trust
Quantitative) organization’s offerings or organizational Affective commitment
activities, which either the customer or the Word of mouth
organization initiates” (p. 133) Loyalty
Brand community involvement
Leckie et al. (2016) Customer brand “A consumer’s positively valenced brand- Consumer involvement Brand loyalty
Empirical (Quantitative) engagement related cognitive, emotional and Consumer participation
behavioural activity during or related to Self expressive brand
focal consumer/brand interaction” (p. 154)
Islam and Rahman Customer “A multidimensional concept comprising Customer involvement Trust
(2016a) engagement cognitive, emotional, and/ or behavioural WOM
Empirical (Quantitative) dimensions, and plays a central role in the
process of relational exchange where
other relational concepts are engagement
antecedents and/or consequences in
iterative engagement processes within the
brand community” (p. 2019)
Bowden (2009) Customer “A psychological process that models the Involvement
Conceptual engagement underlying mechanisms by which customer Trust
loyalty forms for new customers of a Affective commitment
service brand as well as the mechanisms
by which loyalty may be maintained for
repeat purchase customers of a service
brand” (p. 65)
Naumann and Bowden Customer Uses Bowden (2009)’s definition Trust Self-brand connection
(2015) engagement Satisfaction Customer loyalty
Empirical (Quantitative) Affective commitment
Rapport
Ng et al. (2016) Customer “The customer’s positively valenced Self-asserted responsibility Trust
Empirical (Qualitative) engagement with a behavioural, cognitive and emotional Personal commitment Loyalty
service offering activities related to the provider, the Perceived complexity Customer empowerment
advice and/or the service process” (p. 195) Initial rapport Increased customer capability
Desire to learn Service quality
Customer’s co-created value
Pansari and Kumar Customer “The mechanics of a customer’s value Customer satisfaction Tangible benefit: firm performance (profit,
(2016) engagement addition to the firm, either through direct Customer emotion revenue, market share)
Conceptual or/and indirect contribution” (p. 2) Convenience, brand value Intangible benefits: opt-in to marketing
programs, access to personal information,
provide relevant marketing
communication
Blasco-Arcas et al. Customer “A highly interactive concept Engagement platforms: C2C related cues Brand image
(2016) engagement characterized as an individual’s sense of and Personalization related cues Purchase intentions
Empirical (Quantitative) empowerment resulting from the Emotions: pleasure, arousal, dominance
interactions between a focal engagement
subject (e.g. customer) and an object (e.g.
the firm)” (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek,
2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014) (p. 564)
(continued)

121
 Negative customer engagement behaviours Journal of Services Marketing
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135

Table II
Authors Concept Definition Antecedents Consequences

Brodie et al. (2013) Consumer “A context-dependent, psychological state Customers’ needs for information: Customer loyalty
Empirical (Qualitative) engagement characterized by fluctuating intensity learning, sharing, advocating, socializing, Satisfaction
levels that occur within dynamic, iterative co-developing Trust
engagement processes” (p. 107) Commitment
Customer empowerment
Connection and emotional bonding
Marbach et al. (2016) Online customer A psychological state comprised of Introversion Customer-perceived value
Empirical (Qualitative) engagement cognitive, emotional and behavioural Disagreeableness Social value
dimensions (Brodie et al., 2013) Conscientiousness Play
Openness Efficiency
Neuroticism Excellence
Need for activity Aesthetic value
Need for learning Altruistic value
Need for arousal
Altruism
Roberts and Alpert Customer A customer’s loyalty to the brand and Unique value proposition
(2010) engagement active recommendation of products and Brand advertising
Empirical (Qualitative) services to others Organisational culture
Customer experience
Customer value propositions
Gambetti and Graffigna Consumer brand A consumer’s brand enacting that means a Physical and value-based-proximity Brand appearance
(2012) engagement consumer “put the brand into action”, Consumer protagonism Brand body
Empirical (Qualitative) participating in the world of the brand. (p. 682) Brand communication integration Band soul
Hollebeek et al. (2016a, Customer “A customer’s motivationally driven, Customer resource integration Customer individual operant resource
2016b) engagement volitional investment of focal operant Customer knowledge sharing development
Conceptual resources (including cognitive, emotional, Customer learning Customer interpersonal operant resource
behavioural, and social knowledge and development
skills), and operand resources (e.g., Customer cocreation
equipment) into brand interactions in
service systems” (p. 6)
Gummerus et al. (2012) Customer “A behavioural manifestation toward the Relationship benefits: social benefits,
Empirical (Quantitative) engagement brand or firm that goes beyond entertainment benefits and economic
behaviours transactions” (Verhoef et al., 2010, p. 247) benefitsSatisfaction, Loyalty
Kumar et al. (2010) Customer “The active interaction between a Customer engagement value (CEV):
Conceptual engagement customer with a firm, prospects, other Customer lifetime value
customers whether they are transactional Customer referral value
or nontransactional in nature” (p. 297) Customer influencer value
Customer knowledge value

Jaakkola and Alexander Customer “The customer provision of resources Customers: perception of ownership, Value for the whole service system (the
(2014) engagement during non-transactional, joint value empowerment and the needs of improving focal customers, the firm and other
Empirical (Qualitative) behavior processes that occur in interaction with the offering stakeholders)
the focal firm and/or other stakeholders, Firms: provide access and give up some
thereby affecting their respective value control to the community
processes and outcomes” (p. 254) Other stakeholders: provide recognition,
legitimacy and/or resources
Piligrimiene et al. Consumer “The creation of mutual relationship Gamification Economic value
(2015) engagement through activities other than seller-buyer Social value
Empirical (Qualitative) transaction” (p. 458) Functional value

provide a general picture of antecedents of customer
engagement, categorizing them as customer-based factors,
firm-based factors and context-based factors.
The role of customer-based factors in customer engagement
is supported by S-D logic, with Hollebeek et al. (2016b)
emphasizing the integration of customer resources as a required
factor for customer engagement. Customer-based factors
identified in the literature include customer involvement and
customer participation (Bowden, 2009; Hollebeek, 2011a;
Hollebeek et al., 2014; Islam and Rahman, 2016; Leckie et al.,
2016; Vivek et al., 2012), trust, commitment, satisfaction and
rapport (Bowden, 2009; Naumann and Bowden, 2015; Ng
et al., 2016; Pansari and Kumar, 2016), personality traits
(Marbach et al., 2016), customer goals (Brodie et al., 2013),
and customer emotions (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2016; Pansari and
Kumar, 2016).
Studies that focus on firm-based factors to explain drivers of
customer engagement have proposed antecedents such as the
self-expressive brand (Leckie et al., 2016), engagement platforms
(Blasco-Arcas et al., 2016) and the role of employee engagement
in motivating customer engagement (Celuch et al., 2015; Kumar
and Pansari, 2016; Roberts and Alpert, 2010). Other antecedents
have been offered that focus on strategies for firms to achieve
positive customer engagement in practice, such as physical
contact, emotional bonding, unique value proposition and brand
communication (Gambetti and Graffigna, 2012; Roberts and
Alpert, 2010).
Context-based factors are associated with macro environments
(Political, Economic, Social and Technology) and competitors that
may affect customer engagement. For instance, the development of
information technology has provided good platforms for customer
engagement on social media network (Van Doorn et al., 2010).

122
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
In summary, the literature has primarily focussed on
positively valenced customer engagement and a variety of
antecedents of positive customer engagement have been put
forward. However, it is important to have further studies that
specifically investigate the drivers of negative customer
engagement that reflect its unique tenets and drivers to have an
insightful understanding of the construct.
Conceptualizing negative customer engagement
Hollebeek and Chen (2014) define negative customer
engagement as “consumers’ unfavourable brand-related
thoughts, feelings and behaviours during focal brand
interactions” (p. 69). This perspective postulates that negative
customer engagement and positive customer engagement are
the opposite forms of the same construct of customer
engagement. Juric et al. (2016) argue against this, citing that
negative customer engagement is not merely an opposite form
of positive customer engagement and distinguish “negative
customer engagement” and “engagement with negative valence”
based on the triggers of the phenomenon and a customer’s
intention to do that behaviour. Accordingly, negative customer
engagement refers to a customer’s intention to cause harm to
the firm or brand because of perceived threats to self, while
engagement with a negative valence does not intentionally
cause harm to the brand but still focuses on value co-creation.
In this paper, we accept Hollebeek and Chen (2014)’s
definition of negative customer engagement as a customer’s
unfavourable thoughts, emotions and behaviours towards a brand or
a service provider. This definition clearly specifies characteristics
of negative customer engagement fully reflected through three
dimensions of negative customer cognition, affection and
behaviour. However, we take Juric et al. (2016)’s position with
regards to the triggers of negative customer engagement.
In line with Juric et al. (2016), Bowden et al. (2015a) does
not consider disengagement as the reverse form of relationship
formation. Customer disengagement is instead viewed as a
psychological process resulting in relationship termination that
is triggered by negative critical events. The term “termination”
in this definition implies a permanent state of detachment;
however, other authors argue that disengagement may be
temporary in nature. Customers may return to the service after
the trauma or disturbance, or leave the brand or service
provider and become negatively engaged customers (Chebat
et al., 2005; Dolan et al., 2016).
Alternatively, disengagement has been viewed as a
customer’s state of cognitive, affective and behavioural distance
from one or many aspects related to the exchange with their
service provider in response to a negative service experience or
perception (Goode, 2012; Sunghwan and Baumgartner, 2004).
This is consistent with Anderson et al. (2013) and Putman
(2001) who note that disengaged customers do not react to a
service provider and become apathetic from the failure of past
experiences. Similarly, disengaged customers refer to
customers who separate themselves emotionally or physically
from the involvement within the service process (Bowden et al.,
2015b; Coulter and Ligas, 2000; Dolan et al., 2016; Price et al.,
1995).
In comparison with disengaged customers who adopt a
passive, weak negative orientation towards a brand or service
123
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
provider, it is argued that negatively engaged customers
consciously, actively and dedicatedly expresses negativity
throughout various aspects of the service process (Bowden
et al., 2016; Dolan et al., 2016). Consistent with this, Naumann
et al. (2017) consider disengagement and negative engagement
as the negative valence of customer engagement that is
distinguished by the intensity level and activeness of negative
cognitive, emotional and behavioural manifestations towards a
service brand or provider.
Therefore, in this study, we define negative customer
engagement as a customer’s unfavourable thoughts, feelings and
behaviours towards a service brand or provider resulting from
negative critical events that cause perceived threats to customers.
Negative customer engagement is understood as the negative valence
of customer engagement that includes both disengagement and
negative engagement. By which, disengaged customers passively
manifest a negative orientation towards a service brand or
provider when they emotionally or physically separate
themselves from involvement within the service process while
negatively engaged customers actively and dedicatedly express
strong negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours towards a
service brand or provider.
This study focuses on the behavioural dimension of negative
customer engagement and suggests disengaged/negatively engaged
behaviours as consequences in the conceptual framework. We
consider negative engagement behaviours include behaviours that
cause negative consequences for a brand/service provider. As such,
they can range from complaining, negative WOM and switching to
revenge or sabotage behaviours.
Negative customer engagement is considered a multi-
dimensional construct, including cognitive, emotional and
behavioural activities. Naumann et al. (2017) identify sub-
dimensions that measure cognition, affection and behaviour of
disengagement and negative engagement in social service
contexts. Specifically, the affective dimension of disengagement
is measured by frustration and rejection that reflect passive
emotions whereas anger represents the affective dimension of
negative engagement. Distrust measures the cognitive dimension
of disengagement and cynicism reflects the cognitive dimension
of negative engagement. Neglect represents the behavioural
dimension of disengagement while behavioural dimension of
negative engagement is associated with collective complaining and
value co-destruction.
Antecedents of negative customer engagement
In their model of positive and negative valenced customer
engagement, Hollebeek and Chen (2014) suggest a conceptual
model that delineates the same antecedents for both positive
and negative customer engagement. Specifically, perceived
company actions, perceived brand/quality performance, perceived
brand value and perceived brand innovativeness are suggested to
be the antecedents of immersion (cognitive dimension of customer
engagement) while perceived brand/company responsiveness and
perceived the delivery of the brand’s promise are proposed to be the
determinants of passion (affective dimension of customer
engagement). Customer immersion and passion will lead to
customer activation. Although these factors comprehensively
reflect customer experiences with a brand/service that may
affect customer positive/negative engagement, they are not
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
specific enough to explain the underlying reasons for negative
customer engagement. For instance, the actual poor brand/
service performance (low level of brand performance) may not
be the reason for negative customer engagement but instead the
underlying reason of this is customer perceived disconfirmation
compared with what was promised by the brand/service
provider. Similarly, the underlying reason for negative
customer engagement in cases of low level/absence of brand
value is customer perceived distributive injustice. In summary,
the antecedents suggested by Hollebeek and Chen (2014)
seems to categorize the antecedendents of positive/negative
customer engagement, they do not specifically reflect the root
causes of negative customer engagement. In addition, the
reasons for classifying elements as antecedents of immersion and
passion are not found. The suggested customer perceptions
might affect customer satisfaction and emotion leading to
customer engagement behaviour (Pansari and Kumar, 2016).
Importantly, the tenet and key drivers of negative customer
engagement are not fully understood when the same factors are
suggested to be antecedents of both positive and negative
customer engagement. In this sense, it would be implied that
when customers are satisfied with these elements, they may
positively engage with a brand and when unsatisfied, they
would experience negative engagement. It would not make
sense that if customers do not perceive brand innovativeness,
they will negatively engage with the brand. “Satisfaction” is a
key antecedent of customer engagement (Pansari and Kumar,
2016); yet, Tronvoll (2012) asserts that dissatisfaction does not
always lead to complaining behaviours. Dissatisfaction is not
considered a sufficient cause for customer complaints (Singh
and Pandya, 1991) and nearly half of the total complaints made
by customers are demonstrated to result from personality
related factors (Davidow and Dacin, 1997). Bowden et al.
(2016) also argue that dissatisfaction is a necessary, but not
sufficient condition for citizen disengagement. Similarly,
customer satisfaction is found to have stronger impact on positive
word-of-mouth than customer loyalty while customer disloyalty
has stronger impact on negative word-of-mouth than
dissatisfaction (de Matos and Rossi, 2008). Thus, based on this
evidence, we argue that the antecedents of negative customer
engagement may not simply be a low level or lack of the
antecedents of positive customer engagement. This is
supported by Bowden et al. (2015a) and Juric et al. (2016) who
emphasize that customer disengagement/negative engagement
is triggered by negative critical events that cause customer
perceived threats to self.
In addition, the antecedents suggested by Hollebeek and
Chen (2014) are merely related to brand/service performance.
However, it is argued that the violation of individual
fundamental needs (self-esteem, justice, security) has stronger
impact on negative customer engagement than customer
dissatisfaction with product performance (Patterson et al.,
2006; Schneider and Bowen, 1999).
Juric et al. (2016) shed light on the distinctive characteristics of
negative customer engagement and clearly explain the process of
triggering negative customer engagement. The authors posit that
negative customer engagement is triggered by critical events that
cause customer perceived threats to self. The perception of
threats results in dissonance that encourages customers to adopt
coping strategies to reduce dissonance. However, the specific
124
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
self-threats that cause customer dissonance leading to negative
customer engagement are not examined in detail. Consistent
with Juric et al. (2016), Bowden et al. (2015a) argue that
disengagement is caused by customer disturbances or traumatic
experiences involving a range of triggered base negative events,
and that a customer’s propensity for disengagement is related to a
customer’s prior level of engagement with a service provider. In
addition, determinants of disengagement are also explained
based on various service categories. For instance, core service
failures are mainly found as determinants of customer
disengagement in utilitarian services; whereas affective
relationship failures are the main causes of customer
disengagement in participative services. Yet this approach does
not focus on individuals but rather the service category that seems
too broad to explain disengagement. As such, the underlying
reasons based on individuals for disengagement are not fully
understood. Not all customers in the same service category will
be affected by the same antecedents and adopt the same
behaviours. An alternative approach is to view negative customer
engagement from the perspective of a customer’s internal
response to the trigger experience, rather than the experience
itself. In a study of online service failures, Goode (2012) explains
disengagement or engagement based on coping strategies.
Specifically, customers adopting emotion-focussed strategies to
address the problem are more likely to disengage with the
provider. In contrast, individuals who employ problem-focussed
coping are more likely to engage with the provider (Goode, 2012)
(Table III).
In summary, although several studies examine antecedents of
negative customer engagement, existing research is, to date,
exploratory in nature and the specific underlying reasons for
disengagement/negative engagement are not known. Hence,
we are motivated to investigate determinants of negative
customer engagement to further develop understanding of the
phenomenon. Drawing on EDT and Justice Theory, integrated
with the psychological literature, we identify possible
antecedents of negative customer engagement and develop a
conceptual framework.
Conceptual framework
EDT is viewed as an original and foundational theory to explain
customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1980). The extended theory of
EDT demonstrates that disconfirmation has more impact on
customer satisfaction than product performance itself (Oliver,
1993). Therefore, the theory is well applied to explain
consumer behaviours resulting from customer satisfaction, for
instance, customer continued product usage (Liao et al., 2011;
Oliver, 1980), customer positive/negative word-of-mouth (de
Matos and Rossi, 2008), complaining (Tronvoll, 2012). When
disconfirmation is attributed to a firm/service provider (firms
break promises in product/service delivery or use customer
resources in an unexpected manner), value co-destruction (Plé
and Cáceres, 2010), customer distrust leading to bias in
subsequent product evaluation (Darke et al., 2010) would be
results. In line with EDT, Justice Theory (Adams, 1965;
Homans, 1961) is considered a key theory to explain customer
satisfaction. While disconfirmation is related to product
performance evaluation or expectation is merely focus on
service attribute delivery, justice refers to human fundamental
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
Table III Antecedents and consequences of negative customer engagement
Authors Concept Definition
Hollebeek and Chen Positively/negatively “Positively-valenced BE addresses
(2014) valenced brand consumers’ favorable/affirmative
Empirical (Qualitative) engagement cognitive, emotional and
behavioural brand-related
dynamics during focal brand
interactions (e.g. brand-usage);
negatively-valenced BE, by
contrast, is exhibited through
consumers’ unfavourable brand-
related thoughts, feelings, and
behaviours during brand
interactions” (p. 69)
Juric et al. (2016) Negative customer brand “A series of mental states and an
Empirical (Qualitative) engagement iterative psychological process,
which is catalyzed by perceived
threats (or a perceived or
reconstructed threat) to self”
(p. 285)
Bowden et al. (2015a, Disengagement “A process by which customer-
2015b) brand relationship experiences a
Empirical (Qualitative) trauma or disturbance which may
lead to relationship termination;
which involves a range of trigger
based events; which varies in
intensity and trajectory; which
occurs within a specific set of
category conditions and which is
dependent on prior level of
customer engagement” (p. 779)
Goode (2012) Engagement and Engagement: an individual’s
Empirical (Quantitative) disengagement approach to the cause of
discomfort on the purpose of
correcting this cause (Miller and
Kaiser, 2001)
Disengagement: the distance
between the individual and the
stress in the form, space, time or
importance (Carver et al., 1989;
Major and Schmader, 1998)
needs that reflect an individual’s internal state (Schneider and from customers (Oliver and Swan, 1989b; Schneider and
Bowen, 1999). Customer is considered a person first, a Bowen, 1999) compared to a violation of product quality
customer second. Therefore, it is argued that a violation of (disconfirmation). For instance, a feeling of injustice could
justice would result in stronger negative emotions and reactions result in customer outrage (Schneider and Bowen, 1999;
125
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
Antecedents Consequences
Immersion: perceived Brand attitude
brand/ company action, e.WOM
perceived brand quality/
performance, perceived
brand value, perceived
brand innovativeness
Passion: perceived brand/
company responsiveness,
perceived delivery of
brand promise
Activation: immersion and
passion
Critical events ! Customers:
perceived self-threats ! Positive: perceived well-being
dissonance (reduce dissonance)
Firms’ misuse of resources Negative: more losses (increase
(value co-destruction) dissonance)
Customer-brand Firms/brands:
relationship Negative: brand equity, reputation,
Personality traits finance, relationship, switching
Perception of injustice behavior, loss of customer-brand
Customer characteristics: connection.
high level of confidence, Positive: benefits if firms listen to
perceived control or self- negatively engaged customers
efficacy, risk takers
Customer resources:
knowledge,
communication or
computer related skills
Utilitarian attribute failure
Relational attribute failure
Problem-focussed coping
Emotion-focussed coping
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
Surachartkumtonkun et al., 2013) and aggressive behaviours or
revenge behaviours (Grégoire et al., 2010; McColl-Kennedy
et al., 2009; Patterson et al., 2009). Based on these arguments,
EDT and Justice Theory can be used to explain the underlying
reasons for negative customer engagement including
disengagement and negative engagement.
In addition, the two theories are different in comparative
mechanism. While the underlying mechanism of
comparisons in disconfirmation is based on a customer’s
previous experiences, expected benefits, word of mouth or
advertisements of firms, the comparison standards in
equity judgment are passively associated with interpersonal
relationships in society (Oliver and Swan, 1989b).
Additionally, the process of disconfirmation assessments is
considered with outcomes only that is normally related to
product performance whereas justice evaluations involve
both inputs and outcomes. The comparison of inputs to
outcomes of oneself and the comparison of oneself’s inputs
and outcomes ratio with that of others (Oliver and Swan,
1989b). The difference in nature as well as the comparative
mechanism between the two theories would provide a
comprehensive and insightful understanding of negative
customer engagement.
Based on EDT and Justice Theory, the following
conceptual framework is developed and antecedents of
negative customer engagement in a service consumption
context are proposed (Figure 1). Specifically, we suggest that
negative service quality disconfirmation and distributive/
procedural/interactional justice are determinants of negative
customer engagement. In addition, we use Cognitive
Appraisal and Coping Theory (Lazarus, 1984) integrated
with psychological and customer engagement literature to
explain these effects through customer outrage. Disengaged
and negatively engaged behaviours are specifically explained
by customer resources, including customer traits (self-
esteem, self-efficacy, altruism) and customer belief
(vengeance).
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
Self-esteem
Self-efficacy
Altruism
Negative service quality
disconfirmation
Customer
outrage
Distributive justice
Procedural justice
Interactional justice
126
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
Expectancy disconfirmation theory
EDT states that a customer’s repurchase intention is determined
by their satisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Satisfaction is affected by
customers’ expectations before purchase and disconfirmation of
expectations after purchase. Disconfirmation occurs when
product performance is perceived more or less than individuals’
expectations, resulting in positive or negative disconfirmation,
respectively (Oliver and Swan, 1989a). When customer
expectations are negatively disconfirmed, they experience
negative emotions such as regret, frustration and anger (Bonifield
and Cole, 2007; Sweeney et al., 2005). As a result, they will
engage in negative word-of-mouth as a way of releasing these
negative emotions, reducing worry, informing others, or taking
revenge (Oliver, 1997; Richins, 1984; Sweeney et al., 2005;
Wetzer et al., 2007).
Plé and Cáceres (2010) also emphasize the role of customer
expectation in service experiences. They argue that in a service
system, when one party uses their own resources or another
party’s resources in an inappropriate manner that is not
expected by the other party, value co-destruction in the service
system will result. The misuse of resources by firms’ results in
customer resources loss and consequently, customers will
engage in negative behaviours to regain what they lost and
restore their well-being. This is demonstrated in a study by
Smith (2013) who found that customers experience negative
emotions such as worry, anxiety, anger, sadness and regret and
adopt negative word-of-mouth, complaining or switching to
regain their lost resources or restore their well-being when a
firm fails to meet customer expectations regarding the resource
offering during the integration of resources.
Darke et al. (2010) found that negative expectancy
disconfirmation results in customer distrust that affects
customer bias in subsequent evaluations of other products not
only for products from the same company but also from other
companies with the same product category. Further, these
carryover effects are much larger than the effects of product
failure or expectations. In line with this, distrust and cynicism
Intention of vengeance
Negative customer
engagement behaviours
Disengaged
behaviour
Negatively engaged
behaviours
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
are found as a negative coginition experienced in customer
disengagement and negative engagement respectively
(Naumann et al., 2017). In such cases, customers experience
negative emotions, such as frustration or anger, and
consequently adopt coping behaviours (e.g. complaining,
negative word-of-mouth, switching, retaliation) to reduce
dissonance. Hence, EDT is a suitable lens for exploring the
antecedents of negative customer engagement. We suggest the
following proposition:
P1. Negative service quality disconfirmation positively affects
negatively valenced customer engagement behaviours
(disengaged/negatively engaged behaviours).
Justice theory
Justice theory argues that distributive justice exists in exchange
relationships and is achieved when each party to the exchange
relationship feels that their profits are comparative with their
investments (Homans, 1961). A feeling of injustice occurs
when a person’s ratio of profits to investments is not equal with
another’s, and the person who has the smaller profit ratio will
experience relative deprivation. In such cases, they feel
dissatisfied and generate negative emotions (e.g. anger).
However, Adams (1965) argues that people are not simply
dissatisfied when they perceive injustice and they usually are
motivated to act on that condition. Following Cognitive
Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957), this feeling of inequity
creates “tension” in a person and such tension will motivate a
person to eliminate or reduce it. In other words, the presence of
inequity will encourage the person to achieve equity or reduce
inequity, with the strength of their motivation to act contingent
on the magnitude of the perceived inequity.
Distributive justice or inequity theory has been popularly
applied to the relationship between employers and employees.
However, Adams (1965) argues that the theory can be used for
any exchange relationship. Accordingly, many studies in social
psychology and philosophy suggest that justice is the core of
relationships between individuals and within society
(Schneider and Bowen, 1999). People implicitly have
psychological contracts with others and desire to be treated
fairly in a relationship. In the service context, customers also
have implicit agreements with service providers and expect the
providers to treat them fairly. When customers feel injustice
following a service failure, they are more likely to engage in
negative word-of-mouth on social networking sites to vent their
frustration or elicit collective actions against the service
provider in order to reduce the perceived inequality (Balaji
et al., 2016). Justice becomes salient when considering the
degree of reciprocity between a service provider and a
customer. The dimension of reciprocity is reflected through the
importance that customers place on the relative distribution of
outcomes between buyers and sellers from the relationship
(Kaltcheva et al., 2013). Customers having higher reciprocity
relationship with service providers are more likely to engage in
complaining or negative word-of-mouth to restore distributive
justice (Kaltcheva et al., 2013). In addition, if firms fail to
recover the service, known as double deviation, customers are
likely to become outraged (Schneider and Bowen, 1999).
127
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
However, in service exchanges, distributive justice is not
sufficient to satisfy a customers’ need for justice, as services
mostly comprise procedures and interactions between
employees and customers (Schneider and Bowen, 1999).
Hence, to respect customers’ needs for justice, firms are
required to deliver justice on three dimensions: distributive
justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice (Maxham
and Netemeyer, 2002; Smith et al., 1999; Tax et al., 1998).
Distributive justice is concerned with the fair balance between
the outcomes received by individuals and their inputs (Adams,
1965), procedural justice refers to the processes of distributing
outcomes among the parties (Thibaut and Walker, 1975) and
interactional justice refers to the equity of interpersonal
treatment during the procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986).
Interactional justice is found to have a strong impact on
customer repatronage intention and negative word-of-mouth
after complaining regardless of distributive justice perceived by
customers (Blodgett et al., 1997). Procedural/interactional
injustice are found to have positive effects on customer
perceived firm greed that in turn affects customer anger and
desire for revenge (Grégoire et al., 2010).
In summary, justice plays an important role in commercial
exchange and is considered a key component to nurturing the
relationships between customers and providers (Adams, 1965;
Bagozzi, 1975; Huppertz et al., 1978; Palmatier et al., 2006). For
instance, Justice Theory is used to explain customer satisfaction
after service failure and recovery affecting repatronage intention
(Blodgett et al., 1997; Jung and Seock, 2017; Smith et al., 1999),
customer satisfaction with loyalty programs that results in
relationship satisfaction with firms and customer retention
(Bahri-Ammari and Bilgihan, 2017). Further, Justice Theory
can provide insight into customer reactions towards providers in
conflict situations. For instance, justice is found to have impact
on negative word-of-mouth (Balaji et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2015;
Jung and Seock, 2017), customer revenge behaviours in response
to poor service recovery (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008; Grégoire
et al., 2010). On the basis of these arguments, Justice Theory is a
suitable theoretical lens to examine the determinants of negative
customer engagement. Hence, we suggest the following
proposition:
P2. Distributive/Procedural/Interactional justice negatively
affects negatively valenced customer engagement
behaviours (disengaged/negatively engaged behaviours).
The mediating role of customer outrage
According to the cognitive appraisals and coping theory
(Folkman and Lazarus, 1988), coping behaviours are driven by
cognitive appraisals and emotions; by which cognitive
appraisals determine the quality and intensity of the emotions.
Cognitive appraisals, emotions and copping behaviours are
indeed operated in a dynamic process as a unit rather than in
isolation. This is demonstrated in the literature on customer
engagement that customer satisfaction and emotion are the two
tenets of the Customer Engagement Theory (Blasco-Arcas
et al., 2016; Pansari and Kumar, 2016). Van Doorn et al.
(2010) note that affective states of consumers generated from
positive or negative critical incidents may elicit customer
engagement behaviours. For instance, negative emotions, such
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
as anger, resulting from negative critical experiences may lead a
customer to engage in negative word-of-mouth. Consistent
with this view, Smith (2013) demonstrate that customers
experience negative emotions (e.g. anger, regret and
disappointment) from the misuse of resources of firms that
subsequently lead to negative behaviours such as negative
word-of-mouth, complaining or switching. Another study also
suggests the important role of emotions in fostering customer
engagement (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2016).
Different from previous studies that suggest anger or
dissatisfaction as negative emotions affecting disengaged/
negatively engaged behaviours (Grégoire et al., 2010; Juric et al.,
2016; Naumann et al., 2017; Pansari and Kumar, 2016; Romani
et al., 2013; Smith, 2013; Tronvoll, 2011; Van Doorn et al.,
2010), we propose “customer outrage” as the emotion customers
experience following negative disconfirmation and perceived
injustice in a negative critical service experience. In turn,
customer outrage affects negatively valenced engagement
behaviours. Defined as “a deep negative emotion caused by an
unpleasant surprise or exceeding consumers’ expectations
negatively to a surprising degree” (Liu and Keh, 2015, p. 682),
customer outrage is considered an extreme emotional state in the
continuum of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Liu and Keh,
2015; Schneider and Bowen, 1999). In comparison with
dissatisfaction, outrage is a deeper and more intense negative
emotion. While dissatisfaction represents customers’ ambivalent
emotion, customer outrage demonstrates customers’ engaged
negative emotions (Schneider and Bowen, 1999). Tronvoll
(2012) argues that dissatisfied customers do not always become
complainers and complaining behaviours are not just caused by
dissatisfaction; however, outraged customers are likely to become
“terrorists” who cause serious problems for the brands or tell the
emotional stories to others and exaggerate it with every retelling
(Schneider and Bowen, 1999). Different from anger, customer
outrage involves the element of surprise representing the
activation dimension of the emotion, indicating customer low
control of the situation but high control of individuals and
responsibility from others (Liu and Keh, 2015). Hence, outraged
customers are likely to adopt negatively engaged behaviours to
react against service providers.
Negative service quality disconfirmation is experienced when a
firm fails to provide a core service to a customer. According to
Coulter and Ligas (2000), core service failures are one of the
triggers of customer relationship dissolutions. Consistent with
this idea, the failure to deliver a core service offering has been
consistently found to result in customer outrage, either through
customer distrust (Verma, 2003), perceived threats to resource
needs (Surachartkumtonkun et al., 2013) or a high level of
negative disconfirmation (Liu and Keh, 2015). Schneider and
Bowen (1999) highlight the importance of human fundamental
needs of justice in a service context. It is argued that a violation of
customer justice would result in customer outrage. This
relationship has been further supported by Surachartkumtonkun
et al. (2013) who found that threats to a sense of justice are the
most important drivers of customer rage, and Verma (2003) who
identified the rude or apathetic behaviours of service employees
(interactional injustice) as the triggers of customer outrage.
Hence, we propose customer outrage as a mediator in the
linkages between negative service quality disconfirmation/
128
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
justice and negatively valenced customer engagement
behaviours:
P3. Customer outrage mediates the causal relationship
between negative service quality disconfirmation and
negatively valenced customer engagement behaviours.
P4. Customer outrage mediates the causal relationships
between distributive/procedural/interactional justice and
negatively valenced customer engagement behaviours.
The moderating effects of customer resources on
disengaged/negatively engaged behaviours
As argued earlier, we suggest negative service quality
disconfirmation and justice as the determinants of negatively
valenced customer engagement behaviours via the indirect
effect customer outrage. However, under what conditions,
customers adopt disengaged or negatively engaged behaviours
need to be further explained by customer resources. Customer
resources, including time, money, efforts, knowledge,
communication and computer skills have been shown to
influence customer engagement behaviours (Van Doorn et al.,
2010), complaining behaviours (Tronvoll, 2012) and negative
engagement behaviours (Juric et al., 2016). A customer’s
resources integration of operant resources (e.g. cognitive,
emotional, behavioural investments, social knowledge and
skills) and operand resources (e.g. equipment) has also been
identified as a required condition of customer engagement
development (Hollebeek et al., 2016b).
In this study, we draw on the psychological literature to
identify and propose customer resources that moderate the
relationship between customer outrage and disengaged/
negatively engaged behaviours. Specifically, we draw on
Cognitive Appraisals and Coping Theory (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984) which posits that what individuals actually do
to cope with stress is dependent on their resources, such as
positive beliefs, problem solving, social skills and social
support. Consistent with this idea, Terry (1991) also suggests
that coping resources are predictors of coping behaviours.
Specifically, customers possessing resources such as (internal)
control beliefs, self-esteem, (low) neuroticism, (low) denial and
social support are more likely to adopt problem-focussed
strategies rather than emotion-focussed strategies. Similarly, in
a study of consumption related stress, it was found that coping
strategies (confrontative or avoidance strategies) are affected by
the characteristics of a person, such as strong resources
(self-esteem, social support), age and social economic status
(Moschis, 2007). In this study, we propose four customer
resources that moderate the relationship between customer
outrage and disengaged and negatively engaged behaviours:
self-esteem, self-efficacy, altruism and reciprocity.
Self-esteem
Self-esteem reflects a person’s perception of his/her self-worth
(Rosenberg, 1965). It is considered a fundamental human need
that is central to customers’ mental state of well-being (Schneider
and Bowen, 1999) and a customer resource that affects
customers’ coping behaviours (Moschis, 2007; Terry, 1991). It is
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
noted that individuals with a high level of self-esteem are more
likely to employ problem-focussed strategies or confrontative
strategies to deal with stress than consumers’ with low self-
esteem. Goode (2012) found that problem-focussed strategies
have positive effects on customer engagement while emotion-
focussed coping behaviours are associated with customer
disengagement. Therefore, it can be implied that customers with
high self-esteem are more likely to engage in behaviours to
address their concerns with a service provider, while customers
with low self-esteem have a tendency towards disengagement.
This is supported by cognitive dissonance theory which
postulates that customers with high self-esteem may experience
higher cognitive dissonance from the threat of self-esteem more
than customers with lower self-esteem; consequently, they are
likely to take stronger actions to reduce dissonance (Balaji et al.,
2016), such as reacting, complaining and negative word-of-
mouth. Therefore, we propose:
P5. The positive relationship between customer outrage and
disengaged behaviours will be weaker when a customer
has high self-esteem.
P6. The positive relationship between customer outrage and
negatively engaged behaviours will be stronger when a
customer has high self-esteem.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of
action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood and
Bandura, 1989, p. 408). In other words, efficacy expectancies
reflect a person’s belief in his/her ability to perform required
behaviours in response to specific situations. Therefore, it is
argued that efficacy expectancies affect an individual’s activities
selection. Individuals are inclined to take actions in situations
where they believe in their capability to perform these actions;
whereas, people are likely not to get involved in situations that
they judge exceed their coping skills (Bandura, 1977).
Specifically, it is asserted that obstacles or failures are
considered as challenging and achievable goals to high
efficacious people and motivate them to engage in actions
(Bandura, 1986). Juric et al. (2016) propose that customers
with a high level of self-efficacy are more inclined to make
complaints with companies, engage in negative word-of-mouth
and display their thoughts online. Thus, we propose that:
P7. The positive relationship between customer outrage and
disengaged behaviours will be weaker when a customer
has high self-efficacy.
P8. The positive relationship between customer outrage and
negatively engaged behaviours will be stronger when a
customer has high self-efficacy.
Altruism
Altruism is a personality trait that describes the general
propensity to help others (Mowen and Sujan, 2005; Rushton
et al., 1981). It can alternatively be viewed as a personal belief
129
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
that illustrates helping or serving others as an individuals’ moral
obligation (Shechter and Freeman, 1994). This belief
motivates an altruists willingness to help other people
regardless of whether they are friends or strangers (Marbach
et al., 2016); even if it means sacrificing their self-interests to
help others (Shechter and Freeman, 1994).
In the customer engagement context, altruistic customers are
inclined to help other customers through the provision of word-
of-mouth or feedback (Celuch et al., 2015; Juric et al., 2016;
Kumar et al., 2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Verleye et al.,
2013). Customers with high altruism are more likely to engage
online to share both positive and negative experiences in using
products (Marbach et al. (2016). Juric et al. (2016) also suggest
that a personality trait such as altruism is a significant
antecedent of negative customer engagement behaviours.
Hence, we suggest the following propositions:
P9. The positive relationship between customer outrage and
disengaged behaviours will be weaker when a customer is
altruistic.
P10. The positive relationship between customer outrage
and negatively engaged behaviours will be stronger
when a customer is altruistic.
Reciprocity
While altruism refers to a belief that helping others is an
individual’s moral obligation, reciprocity implies a perception of
justice, which holds that we should do the same thing to others as
they do to us (Tedeschi et al., 1985). That is, people are inclined
to respond positively to favourable treatments and, in contrast,
respond negatively to unfavourable treatments. According to the
theory of Stress and Coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), an
individual’s belief will affect his/her cognitive appraisal and
coping behaviours. Therefore, in negative service experiences,
consumers holding the belief of reciprocity are motivated to
engage in negative behaviours to fight against service providers.
In such cases, negative engagement behaviours are not driven by
the purpose of warning other consumers, as with altruism, but
motivated by the intention of exerting harm to firms. Thus, a
belief of reciprocity is likely to lead to customers’ intention of
revenge that results in intense negative behaviours (Juric et al.,
2016). Vengeance has been found to be a significant motive of
negative word-of-mouth (Fu et al., 2015; Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2004; Sundaram et al., 1998). Thus, the following propositions
are suggested:
P11. The positive relationship between customer outrage
and disengaged behaviours will be weaker when a
customer has the intention of vengeance.
P12. The positive relationship between customer outrage
and negatively engaged behaviours will be stronger
when a customer has the intention of vengeance.
Discussion and implications
A thorough review of the customer engagement literature
identifies that the vast majority of studies focus on positive
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
customer engagement and research on negative customer
engagement remains underdeveloped to date. Hence, this
study responds to calls for further research on negative
customer engagement (Alexander and Jaakkola, 2016;
Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Hollebeek et al., 2016b; Juric et al.,
2016; Naumann and Bowden, 2015; Naumann et al., 2017;
Van Doorn, 2011; Vivek et al., 2014). Particularly, we examine
determinants of negative customer engagement in a service
consumption context. While there have been several studies
investigating drivers of negative customer engagement; the
underlying drivers for negative customer engagement remain
unknown. Hollebeek and Chen (2014) provided a novel
conceptualization of customer engagement that describes
characteristics of both positive and negative engagement.
However, the same antecedents were suggested for both
positive and negative engagement. We argue that a low level or
absence of the antecedents of positive engagement may not
result in negative engagement. For exampling, satisfaction
impacts customer engagement (Pansari and Kumar, 2016) but
dissatisfaction may not always lead to complaining (Tronvoll,
2012) or not a sufficient condition to result in customer
disengagement (Bowden et al., 2016). In their
conceptualization, Juric et al. (2016) focus on the construct of
negative customer engagement and propose that threats to self
and dissonance resulting from negative critical events are
triggers of negative customer engagement. However, specific
self-threats that cause dissonance leading to negative customer
engagement are not discussed in detail. Similarly, Bowden et al.
(2015a) explain customer disengagement based on a
customer’s prior level of engagement with service providers that
is contingent on characteristics of the service category.
Customers in the same service category may not have the same
level of engagement with the provider or behave in the same
way to respond to unfavourable service experiences. Therefore,
this study is motivated to investigate determinants of negative
customer engagement, and in doing so proposes a conceptual
model illuminating the interactions between antecedents, a
mediator and four moderators to provide insight into potential
determinants of negative customer engagement.
The integration of EDT and Justice Theory extends the
current understanding of the drivers of negative customer
engagement. We suggest conceptual linkages between
disconfirmation/justice and negative customer engagement that
have not been previously explored. While these two theories
have been well known and applied to explain customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction after purchase or service recovery,
the present study advances the applicability of the two theories
to explain the underlying reasons for negative customer
engagement during service experiences. That is, when service
performances do not match the promises of service providers,
customers may feel cheated leading them to engage in negative
behaviours such as spreading negative word-of-mouth or
posting negative comments on social media with the aim to
damage the offending brand/service firm’s reputation. When the
expectancy disconfirmation is associated with a core service
attribute, this relationship can be heightened and customers
increasingly likely to experience outrage and adopt negative
behaviours. Justice is considered a basic need of people in any
exchange relationship; hence, violating justice need will affect
customer well-being that motivates them to act to regain justice.
130
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
EDT and Justice Theory are similar in comparative processes;
however, their differences highlight the contribution of
integrating both into a single model to provide comprehensive
understanding of negative customer engagement drivers.
When integrated with the customer engagement literature,
Cognitive Appraisals and Coping Theory (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984) explains the mechanism by which the effects of
disconfirmation and justice are transferred to negative
customer engagement behaviours. Consistent with literature on
customer engagement positing that customer engagement
behaviours are driven by customer emotions (Pansari and
Kumar, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010), this study suggests
customer outrage generated by negative disconfirmation and
perceived injustice drives negative customer engagement
behaviours. Customer anger may not be strong enough to
explain negatively engaged behaviours that aim to damage or
cause trouble to the brand/service firm (Juric et al., 2016),
whereas customer outrage is a deep negative emotion that may
better explain negatively valenced customer engagement
behaviours than other negative emotions. This is congruent
with literature on customer rage which associates revenge
behaviours with emotion of rage (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009;
Patterson et al., 2009).
Different from earlier studies that examine antecedents and
consequences of disengagement (Bowden et al., 2015a) or
negative engagement (Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Juric et al.,
2016) separately, we include both disengaged behaviours and
negatively engaged behaviours in the conceptual framework to
better understand under what conditions customers exhibit these
behaviours and provide a more holistic view of the negative
valence of customer engagement. Drawing upon psychological
literature, we use personality traits (self-esteem, self-efficacy,
altruism) and belief (reciprocity) to further explain disengaged/
negatively engaged behaviours. This is distinguished from
previous studies that focus on customer resources such as time,
money, and effort to explain negative customer engagement
behaviours (Tronvoll, 2012; Van Doorn et al., 2010).
In summary, we synthesize both customer service experiences
and personality traits/beliefs to explain determinants of negative
customer engagement behaviours, including disengaged and
negatively engaged behaviours. The conceptual framework
should be validated and generalized in a quantitative study to
test the proposed relationships and provide further insight into
identified drivers of negative customer engagement.
Managerial implications
The conceptual framework developed in this paper also provides
managerial insight into the drivers of negative customer
engagement. By incorporating EDT, Justice Theory and Coping
Theory, the framework offers marketing and customer service
managers with insights into cognitive appraisal and affective
responses that may drive disengaged behaviours and negatively
engaged behaviours.
We suggest negative service quality disconfirmation, that is,
service performance not consistent with customer expectations,
as an underlying driver of negative customer engagement.
Customer expectations can be formed by customer prior
purchasing experiences, word-of-mouth or advertisements
from firms/sellers (Oliver, 2010) and such touchpoint with
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
customers should be carefully constructed to manage customer
expectations. For example, while advertisements are a powerful
tool for firms to attract customers, firms should not create too
high expectations for customers that firms cannot meet.
Providing what was promised to customers is important for
firms to have customer trust and sustainable business growth.
In addition, managers should not only pay attention to
service attributes related delivery to meet or exceed customer
expectations but also need to ensure justice between providers
and customers or among customers. While profit is the end
target for commercial service firms, treating customers fairly is
a smart strategy for the firms to obtain sales and profits in the
long term. For instance, firms may refuse to address customer
complaints due to the potential revenue loss. In such cases,
firms avoid loss in the short-term but risk losing customers and
profits in the long term if customers perceive unfairness in the
exchange relationship. Customers may perceive these firms to
be greedy, motivating them to engage in revenge behaviours
such as spreading negative word-of-mouth or sharing the story
on social media networks. Therefore, refunds or compensation
for customers in cases of service failure may help to achieve
customer perceived distributive justice.
To achieve customer perceived fairness in a service context,
in addition to distributive justice, firms should also pay
attention to procedural and interactional justice. Procedures
should be as simple as possible and clearly informed to
customers. Interaction between service employees and
customers is a distinguished characteristic of service industry.
This requires service employees treat customers in friendly and
courteous manner. Especially, in case of service failure, service
employees play important role in reducing or escalating
customer outrage. Hence, they should be trained how to deal
with customer complaints and monitor customer emotions.
Addressing customer complaints in the first instance is also a
good way to prevent customer outrage that is likely to result in
negative customer engagement behaviours.
While negative disconfirmation and perceived injustice are
proposed as key drivers of negative customer engagement
behaviours, in the same negative service experience, customers
may act differently depending on their traits or beliefs.
Customers with high level of self-esteem or self-efficacy are
more likely to adopt negatively engaged behaviours such as
making direct complaints to service providers, spreading
negative word-of-mouth or sharing their negative service
experiences in online. These customers are very active in nature
in compared to disengaged customers. Hence, firms should
guide them towards more into positively engaged behaviours.
Predictive modeling provides firms with a rich opportunity to
integrate a range of behavioural indicators with their customer
databases to estimate the probability of negatively customer
engagement behaviours. From customer records, purchase
histories, customer survey data, and social media interactions, a
wide range of indicators are available to the contemporary
service firm that can be integrated into predictive models to
help refine predictions of customer personality traits or beliefs.
For instance, customers who make complaints are often the
ones with high level of self-efficacy (Juric et al., 2016; Lazarus
and Folkman, 1984), while those is higher social classes,
determined by demographic factors such as education and
income, are likely to have higher self-esteem (Moschis, 2007).
131
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
Thus, based on customer personality traits or beliefs, firms can
segment customers into different groups and develop
distinguished marketing strategies for each segment. For
individuals with high level of self-esteem or efficacy, firms
should consult their ideas or promote them to be customer
group leaders. When their self-esteem or self-efficacy is
recognized and enhanced, they are delight and become
positively engaged customers who bring values to the brands/
firms. For customers with high level of altruism, managers
should ask them to give positive comments on the website or
fan-page or manage a chat room, etc. to encourage potential
customers use the service. These strategies are especially useful
for credence services that customers highly seek for advices
before purchasing, such as education, health or beauty services.
Customer disengagement is more dangerous to firms. When
customers speak out, they give firms opportunities to put things
in right. Disengaged customers are not likely to cause trouble
for firms but instead simply stop patronizing the service
provider. Therefore, firms should have strategies to encourage
customers identified to be more inclined to disengage and
encourage them to communicate the firm, such as in making
complaints. Firm should consider strategies that display their
commitment to addressing customer complaints in order to
build customer trust, and hence encourage engagement with
the service provider.
Future research directions
The customer engagement literature is evolving quickly, with
concerted efforts to conceptualize and empirically examine
dimensions of customer engagement from both a positive
perspective, and increasingly, a negative perspective. Given the
importance of understanding the negative implications of
customer behaviours, the empirical examination of the negative
customer engagement construct should be a key priority for
marketing scholars. Testing of frameworks, such as the one
proposed in this study, and scale development and validation of
the negative customer engagement construct is essential.
Additional rich areas for further study on negative customer
engagement include exploring the role of culture in negative
customer engagement, potential firm-based and context-based
moderating factors, longituditional empirical studies, and
negative customer engagement in business-to-business
relationships. First, it is argued that cultural values affect an
individuals’ cognitive appraisal and how they respond to a
situation (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). This is demonstrated in
a study of Surachartkumtonkun et al. (2013) who found national
culture had an influence on how customers perceive threats
associated with service failure types. Hence, it would be useful for
future studies to explore how the role of culture plays in driving
disengaged and negatively engaged behaviours. Second, while
this framework suggests a number of customer-based factors
moderating the path between customer outrage and disengaged/
negatively engaged behaviours, further studies should explore
firm-based and context-based factors such as customer
relationships, product involvement, perceived firm reputation,
and firm resources. Third, the customer engagement literature
would benefit from longitudinal studies that investigate the
interrelationship between disengagement and negative
engagement. Exploration of the potential for disengaged
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
customers to transition into negatively (or positively) engaged
customers, or vice versa, and what might trigger such a transition
would have significant managerial implications. Fourth, the
conceptual framework proposed in this study should be
empirically tested in a specific consumption service context (e.g.
banking, retailing, hospitality services) to validate the proposed
relationships between constructs in the model. As such,
managers would know what factor has the most influence on
customer outrage leading to disengaged/negatively engaged
behaviours in their service context and would enable them to
focus their resources on addressing these factors. Fifth, while
Expectancy Disconfirmation and Justice theories are suitable for
explaining determinants of negative customer engagement,
future studies could explore different theories (e.g. self-theory,
identity theory, social identity theory and regulatory engagement
theory) to explain additional antecedents of negative customer
engagement, as such to enrich the customer engagement
literature particularly for the determinants of negative customer
engagement.
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Leonard,
B. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Academic Press, pp. 267-299.
Alexander, M. and Jaakkola, E. (2016), “Customer engagement
behaviors and value co-creation”, in Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek,
L.D. and Conduit, J. (Eds), Customer Engagement:
Contemporary Issues and Challenges, Taylor & Francis.
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A.L., Corus, C., Fisk, R.P., Gallan,
A.S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M., Rayburn, S.W.,
Rosenbaum, M.S., Shirahada, K. and Williams, J.D. (2013),
“Transformative service research: an agenda for the future”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1203-1210.
Aronson, E. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1963), “Effect of the severity of
threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior”, The Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 584-588.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1975), “Marketing as exchange”, Journal of
Marketing ( Marketing), Vol. 39 No. 4, p. 32.
Bahri-Ammari, N. and Bilgihan, A. (2017), “The effects of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on
customer retention: an empirical investigation in the mobile
telecom industry in Tunisia”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 37, pp. 89-100.
Balaji, M.S., Khong, K.W. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2016),
“Determinants of negative word-of-mouth communication
using social networking sites”, Information & Management,
Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 528-540.
Baldus, B.J., Voorhees, C. and Calantone, R. (2015), “Online
brand community engagement: scale development and
validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 5,
pp. 978-985.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self- efficacy: toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 84 No. 2,
pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986), “Fearful expectations and avoidant
actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 1389-1391.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice:
communication criteria of fairness”, in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard,
132
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Bijmolt, T.H.A., Leeflang, P.S.H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M.,
Hardie, B.G.S., Lemmens, A. and Saffert, P. (2010),
“Analytics for customer engagement”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Hernandez-Ortega, B.I. and Jimenez-
Martinez, J. (2016), “Engagement platforms: the role of
emotions in fostering customer engagement and brand image
in interactive media”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 559-589.
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.
Bonifield, C. and Cole, C. (2007), “Affective responses to service
failure: anger, regret, and retaliatory versus conciliatory
responses”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 85-99.
Bowden, J.L.-H. (2009), “The process of customer
engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Bowden, J.L.-H., Gabbott, M. and Naumann, K. (2015a),
“Service relationships and the customer disengagement –
engagement conundrum”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 31 Nos 7/8, pp. 774-806.
Bowden, J.L.-H., Luoma-Aho, V. and Naumann, K. (2015b),
“Developing a spectrum of positive to negative citizen
engagement”, Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and
Challenges, p. 257.
Bowden, J.L.-H., Luoma-Aho, V. and Naumann, K. (2016),
“Developing a spectrum of positive to negative citizen
engagement”, in Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D. and Conduit,
J. (Eds), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and
Challenges, Taylor & Francis.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013),
“Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F. and Kumari Weintraub, J. (1989),
“Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based
approach”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 267-283.
Celuch, K., Robinson, N.M. and Walsh, A.M. (2015), “A
framework for encouraging retail customer feedback”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 280-292.
Chebat, J.-C., Davidow, M. and Codjovi, I. (2005), “Silent
voices: why some dissatisfied consumers fail to complain”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 328-342.
Coulter, R.A. and Ligas, M. (2000), “The long good-bye: the
dissolution of customer-service provider relationships”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 669-695.
Darke, P.R., Ashworth, L. and Main, K.J. (2010), “Great
expectations and broken promises: misleading claims,
product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer
distrust”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 347-362.
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
Davidow, M. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “Understanding and
influencing consumer complaint behavior: improving
organizational complaint management”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 450-456.
de Matos, C.A. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2008), “Word-of-mouth
communications in marketing: a Meta-analytic review of the
antecedents and moderators”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 578-596.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016),
“Capturing consumer engagement: duality, dimensionality
and measurement”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 399-426.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J. and Fahy, J. (2016), “Social media
engagement: a construct of positively and negatively
valenced engagement behaviours”, in Brodie, R.J., Conduit,
L.D.H.J. (Eds), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues
and Challenges, Routledge, London, pp. 102-123.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1988), “The relationship between
coping and emotion: implications for theory and research”,
Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 309-317.
Fu, J.-R., Ju, P.-H. and Hsu, C.-W. (2015), “Understanding
why consumers engage in electronic word-of-mouth
communication: perspectives from theory of planned
behavior and justice theory”, Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 616-630.
Gambetti, R.C. and Graffigna, G. (2012), “The grounded
theory approach to consumer-brand engagement the
practitioner’s standpoint”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 54 No. 5.
Goode, S. (2012), “Engagement and disengagement in online
service failure: contrasting problem and emotional coping
effects”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 226-253.
Grégoire, Y. and Fisher, R.J. (2008), “Customer betrayal and
retaliation: when your best customers become your worst
enemies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 247-261.
Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D. and Tripp, T.M. (2010), “A
comprehensive model of customer direct and indirect
revenge: understanding the effects of perceived greed and
customer power”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 738-758.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Pihlström, M.
(2012), “Customer engagement in a facebook Brand
community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9,
pp. 857-877.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler,
D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-
opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Higgins, E.T. and Scholer, A.A. (2009), “Engaging the
consumer: the science and art of the value creation process”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 100-114.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011a), “Demystifying customer brand
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.
133
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011b), “Exploring customer brand
engagement: definition and themes”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2013), “The customer engagement/value
interface: an exploratory investigation”, Australasian
Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively-
versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual
model”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 62-74.
Hollebeek, L.D., Conduit, J., Sweeney, J., Soutar, G., Karpen,
I.O., Jarvis, W. and Chen, T. (2016a), “Epilogue to the
special issue and reflections on the future of engagement
research”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
pp. 586-594.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer
brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale
development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2016b), “S-D
logic–informed customer engagement: integrative
framework, revised fundamental propositions, and
application to CRM”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, pp. 1-25.
Homans, G.G. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms,
Harcourt Brace, New York, NY.
Huppertz, J.W., Arenson, S.J. and Evans, R.H. (1978), “An
application of equity theory to Buyer-Seller exchange
situations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 250-260.
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “The transpiring journey
of customer engagement research in marketing: a systematic
review of the past decade”, Management Decision, Vol. 54
No. 8, pp. 2008-2034.
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016a), “Linking customer
engagement to trust and word-of-mouth on facebook brand
communities: an empirical study”, Journal of Internet
Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 40-58.
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of customer
engagement behavior in value Co-Creation: a service system
perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 247-261.
Jung, N.Y. and Seock, Y.-K. (2017), “Effect of service recovery
on customers’ perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-
mouth intentions on online shopping websites”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 37, pp. 23-30.
Juric, B., Smith, S. and Wilks, G. (2016), “Negative customer
Brand engagement: an overview of conceptual and blog-
based findings”, in Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D. and
Conduit, J. (Eds), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues
and Challenges, Routledge, London, pp. 278-294.
Kahneman, D.A. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an
analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 263-291.
Kaltcheva, V.D., Winsor, R.D. and Parasuraman, A. (2013), “Do
customer relationships mitigate or amplify failure responses?”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 525-532.
Kumar, V. and Pansari, A. (2016), “Competitive advantage
through engagement”, Journal of Marketing Research
(Research), Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 497-514.
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T.
and Tillmanns, S. (2010), “Undervalued or overvalued
customers: capturing total customer engagement value”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 297-310.
Lazarus, R.S. (1984), “On the primacy of cognition”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 124-129.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and
Coping, Springer Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W. and Johnson, L.W. (2016),
“Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand
loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
pp. 558-578.
Liao, C., Liu, C.-C., Liu, Y.-P., To, P.-L. and Lin, H.-N.
(2011), “Applying the expectancy disconfirmation and regret
theories to online consumer behavior”, CyberPsychology,
Behavior & Social Networking, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 241-246.
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bügel, M.S., de Ruyter, K., Götz, O.,
Risselada, H. and Stephen, A.T. (2010), “Customer-to-
Customer interactions: broadening the scope of word of
mouth research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 267-282.
Liu, M.W. and Keh, H.T. (2015), “Consumer delight and
outrage: scale development and validation”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 680-699.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Patterson, P.G., Smith, A.K. and
Brady, M.K. (2009), “Customer rage episodes: emotions,
expressions and behaviors”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85
No. 2, pp. 222-237.
Major, B. and Schmader, T. (1998), “Coping with stigma
through psychological disengagement”, in Prejudice,
Elsevier, pp. 219-241.
Marbach, J., Lages, C.R. and Nunan, D. (2016), “Who are you
and what do you value? Investigating the role of personality
traits and customer-perceived value in online customer
engagement”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32
Nos 5/6, pp. 502-525.
Maxham, J.G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “Modeling
customer perceptions of complaint handling over time: the
effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 239-252.
Miller, C.T. and Kaiser, C.R. (2001), “A theoretical
perspective on coping with stigma”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 73-92.
Moschis, G.P. (2007), “Stress and consumer behavior”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 430-444.
Mowen, J.C. and Sujan, H. (2005), “Volunteer behavior: a
hierarchical model approach for investigating its trait and
functional motive antecedents”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 170-182.
Naumann, K. and Bowden, J.L.-H. (2015), “Exploring the
process of customer engagement, self-brand connections and
loyalty”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 13,
pp. 56-66.
Naumann, K., Bowden, J.L.-H. and Gabbott, M. (2017), “A
Multi-Valenced perspective on consumer engagement within
a social service”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 171-188.
Ng, S., Plewa, C. and Sweeney, J.C. (2016), “Customer
engagement with a service offering: a framework for complex
services”, in Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L.D. and Conduit, J.
134
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
(Eds), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and
Challenges, Taylor and Francis, Florence.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases
of the satisfaction response”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 418-430.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (2010), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989b), “Equity and
disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchant and
product satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 372-383.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989a), “Consumer perceptions
of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a field
survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 21-35.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R.
(2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship
marketing: a Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 4, pp. 136-153.
Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2016), “Customer engagement:
the construct, antecedents, and consequences”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 1-18.
Patterson, P.G., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Smith, A.K. and Lu,
Z. (2009), “Customer rage: triggers, tipping points, and
Take-Outs”, California Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 6-28.
Patterson, P., Yu, T. and De Ruyter, K. (2006), “Understanding
customer engagement in services”, in Dessel, Y.A.a.M.v.
(Ed.), Advancing theory, maintaining relevance: Proceedings of
ANZMAC 2006 conference. ANZMAC, Brisbance.
Piligrimiene, Z., Dovaliene, A. and Virvilaite, R. (2015),
“Consumer engagement in value Co-Creation: what kind of
value it creates for company?”, Inzinerine Ekonomika-
Engineering Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4.
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.
Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. and Deibler, S.L. (1995),
“Consumers’ emotional responses to service encounters: the
influence of the service provider”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 34-63.
Putman, R. (2001), “Social Capital measurement and
consequences”, Isuma, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Richins, M.L. (1984), “Word-of-mouth communications as
negative information”, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Ann
Arbor, pp. 697-702.
Roberts, C. and Alpert, F. (2010), “Total customer
engagement: designing and aligning key strategic elements to
achieve growth”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 198-209.
Romani, S., Grappi, S. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2013), “My anger is
your gain, My contempt your loss: explaining consumer
 Negative customer engagement behaviours
Diem Khac Xuan Do, Kaleel Rahman and Linda J. Robinson
responses to corporate wrongdoing”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1029-1042.
Rosenberg, M. (1965), “Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE),
acceptance and commitment therapy”, Measures Package,
Vol. 61, p. 52.
Rushton, P.J., Chrisjohn, R.D. and Cynthia Fekken, G. (1981),
“The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 293-302.
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G. and Dabrowski, D. (2016),
“Measuring consumers' engagement with Brand-
Related Social-Media content”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, p. 64.
Schneider, B. and Bowen, D.E. (1999), “Understanding
customer delight and outrage”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Shechter, M. and Freeman, S. (1994), “Nonuse value: Reflections
on the definition and measurement”, in Pethig, R. (Ed.),
Valuing the Environment: Methodological and Measurement Issues,
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 171-194.
Sinclair, R.R., Sliter, M., Mohr, C.D., Sears, L.E., Deese,
M.N., Wright, R.R., Cadiz, D. and Jacobs, L. (2015), “Bad
versus good, what matters more on the treatment floor?
Relationships of positive and negative events with nurses’
burnout and engagement”, Research in Nursing & Health,
Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 475-491.
Singh, J. and Pandya, S. (1991), “Exploring the effects of
consumers 0 dissatisfaction level on complaint behaviours”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 7-21.
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.
Smith, A.M. (2013), “The value co-destruction process: a
customer resource perspective”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 11/12, pp. 1889-1909.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The
importance of a general measure of brand engagement on
market behavior: development and validation of a scale”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998), “Word-of-
mouth communications: a motivational analysis”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 527-531.
Sunghwan, Y. and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Coping with
negative emotions in Purchase-Related situations”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 303-317.
Surachartkumtonkun, J., Patterson, P.G. and McColl-
Kennedy, J.R. (2013), “Customer rage Back-Story: linking
needs-based cognitive appraisal to service failure type”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 72-87.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Mazzarol, T. (2005), “The
difference between positive and negative word-of-mouth—
emotion as a differentiator”, In Proceedings of the ANZMAC
2005 Conference: Broadening the Boundaries, University of
Western Australia, Perth, Australia, pp. 331-337.
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
135
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 2 · 2020 · 117–135
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998),
“Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences:
implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 60-76.
Tedeschi, J.T., Lindskold, S. and Rosenfeld, P. (1985), Introduction
to Social Psychology, West Publication, St. Paul, Minn.
Terry, D.J. (1991), “Coping resources and situational
appraisals as predictors of coping behavior”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 1031-1047.
Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A
Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Tronvoll, B. (2011), “Negative emotions and their effect on
customer complaint behaviour”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 111-134.
Tronvoll, B. (2012), “A dynamic model of customer
complaining behaviour from the perspective of service-
dominant logic”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46
Nos 1/2, pp. 284-305.
Van Doorn, J. (2011), “Comment: customer engagement:
essence, dimensionality, and boundaries”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 280-282.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D.,
Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer engagement
behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer
engagement as a new perspective in customer management”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-252.
Verleye, K., Gemmel, P. and Rangarajan, D. (2013),
“Managing engagement behaviors in a network of customers
and stakeholders”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 68-84.
Verma, H.V. (2003), “customer outrage and delight”, Journal
of Services Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 119-133.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012),
“Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships
beyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-146.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Dalela, V. and Morgan, R.M.
(2014), “A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring
customer engagement”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 401-420.
Wetzer, I.M., Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (2007), “Never
eat in that restaurant, I did!: exploring why people engage in
negative word-of-mouth communication”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 661-680.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Impact of conceptions of
ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision
making”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56
No. 3, pp. 407-415.
Corresponding author
Diem Khac Xuan Do can be contacted at: diem.do@rmit.
edu.au