See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352283249

Customer captivity, negative word of mouth, and well-being: A mixed-

methods study

Article in Journal of Services Marketing · June 2021

DOI: 10.1108/JSM-07-2020-0311

CITATIONS READS

17 1,012

3 authors:

Olivier Furrer Jie Yu Kerguignas

Université de Fribourg École hôtelière de Lausanne
199 PUBLICATIONS 4,090 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mikèle Landry
Université de Fribourg
10 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Olivier Furrer on 18 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Customer captivity, negative word of mouth, and well-being:
A mixed-methods study

Olivier Furrer
University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Jie Yu Kerguignas
University of Fribourg, Switzerland
and École hôtelière de Lausanne

Mikèle Landry
University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Forthcoming in the Journal of Services Marketing

Olivier Furrer
Chair of Marketing
University of Fribourg
Bd de Pérolles 90
1700 Fribourg, Switzerland

e-mail: olivier.furrer@unifr.ch

1.
 Customer captivity, negative word of mouth, and well-being:
A mixed-methods study

Abstract

Purpose—When customers feel that they have no choice but to stay with their current provider to obtain a
service that they need, they feel captive. This study investigates customer captivity as a type of
vulnerability and aims to evaluate its effects on customers’ service evaluation and word-of-mouth
behavior, as well as to identify solutions that reduce customers’ feelings of captivity and improve their
well-being.
Design/methodology/approach—This sequential, quantitative–qualitative, mixed-methods study draws
from a survey of 1,017 customers and a qualitative analysis of 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews.
Moderated mediation analysis is used to test the quantitative hypotheses; a thematic analysis explores the
qualitative data.
Findings—The results of the quantitative study show that captivity emotions and price unfairness
perceptions are two manifestations of customer captivity, which directly and indirectly affect service
evaluations and word-of-mouth behavior. The findings of the qualitative study highlight how captive
customers use emotional support-seeking negative word of mouth as a solution to reduce their captivity
emotions and improve their well-being, by reinforcing their social ties and regaining a sense of control.
Research limitations/implications—This study advances transformative service research by
demonstrating how captivity affects customers’ well-being and customer vulnerability literature by
investigating captivity as a type of vulnerability. It contributes to service marketing literature by
identifying customer captivity as a boundary condition for generic service evaluation models.
Practical implications—Captive customers seek emotional support and consequently spread negative
word of mouth. Therefore, it is critical for service providers to reduce customers’ captivity feelings and
implement adequate solutions to prevent negative word of mouth and decrease the risk of negative impacts
on their profitability.
Originality/value—Any customer can become vulnerable, due to contextual circumstances. This study
focuses on customer captivity as a type of vulnerability and proposes adapted solutions to improve
customers’ well-being.

Keywords—Customer captivity, service evaluations, negative word of mouth, emotion-focused coping,

customer vulnerability, mixed methods.

Paper type—Research paper

2.
 Camille is an angry traveler, and she makes it known on [Swiss railway
company]’s Facebook page: “Tonight, I want to express my displeasure to
you. I took the train from Lucerne to Bellinzona. The train was blocked for
thirty minutes. Apart from a ‘sorry, thank you for your understanding,’ we
had to wait. Then, finally the train starts moving again! The controller
passes by, I inform him that I missed my connection. He explains that he
cannot do anything and tells me that I have to wait for the next bus at
Locarno station. An hour and a half of waiting, alone! As a consolation, he
offers me a 10-franc voucher for a drink to be used today in a [railway
company] restaurant. What a joy, everything is closed! [Railway
company], it’s a shame there’s no competition, I would have gladly gone
to them.”

Some marketplace structures, such as monopolies (Rayburn, 2015) or lock-in situations (Harrison

et al., 2012), reduce customer choices (Botti et al., 2008), potentially leaving customers with the

unpleasant sense that they cannot switch from their current service provider. Those customers

might stay with a dissatisfying service provider, in the belief that they do not have the choice to

leave because they do not have the resources for obtaining the service they need from a source

other than this provider (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Leisen Polack, 2017b). They are thus left feeling

captive and vulnerable (Fisk et al., 2018; Rosenbaum et al., 2017). Considering the harm that

captive customers face in such marketplace structures, we propose that customer captivity

constitutes a type of vulnerability (Commuri and Ekici, 2008; Hill and Sharma, 2020) and

investigate the effect of such captivity on their service evaluations and word of mouth (WOM)

behavior, as well as the solutions they use to reduce their captivity emotions and improve their

well-being.

Although fined-grained investigations of the influence of captivity on customers’ service

evaluations and WOM behavior are scarce (Rayburn, 2015; Rayburn et al., 2020)—limiting the

identification and development of potential solutions to help these vulnerable customers improve

their well-being—prior research has established that captive customers themselves do seek

solutions (Fliess and Volkers, 2020). However, as highlighted by the need for this special issue

3.
and recent calls for transformative service research into customer well-being (Anderson et al.,

2013; Ostrom et al., 2015), we know little about which solutions captive customers adopt and

their effectiveness. In this study, we define such solutions to customer captivity as coping

responses adopted by customers that directly or indirectly reduce the negative feelings and

emotions related to captivity and improve their well-being.

In responding to the call for papers of this special issue and seeking to identify solutions to

customer captivity, this study thus pursues two main objectives. First, we assess the impact of

captivity and its manifestations on customers’ service evaluations (i.e., perceived service quality

and satisfaction) and WOM behavior. Second, we explore the solutions used by captive customers

to reduce their captivity feelings and their effectiveness. Stated differently, we aim to answer three

research questions: (1) What are the effects of captivity on customers’ service quality perceptions,

satisfaction, and WOM behavior?, (2) What are the solutions captive customer use to respond to

their captivity?, and (3) To what extent, are these solutions effective in improving captive

customers’ well-being? To garner answers, we adopt a sequential, quantitative–qualitative, mixed-

methods approach (Ivankova et al., 2006) seeking a rigorous, rich understanding of the captivity

phenomena (Russell-Bennett et al., 2019).

With the quantitative study, we investigate two manifestations of customer captivity—

captivity emotions and perceptions of price unfairness—and their effects on customers’ service

evaluations and WOM behavior. Both manifestations affect customers’ perceived service quality,

satisfaction, and NWOM uniquely, such that captivity emotions directly influence these variables,

whereas price unfairness perceptions moderate the relationships. With the qualitative study, we

then undertake an in-depth investigation of the coping responses customers use to manage their

captivity. The findings demonstrate that, among these responses, emotional support-seeking

NWOM is the most often used and effective solution for reducing captivity emotions and

4.
improving well-being.

In turn, this study contributes to transformative service research and customer vulnerability

literature by specifying customer captivity as a type of vulnerability with implications for

customer well-being. Building on previous customer captivity research, which tends to be mainly

qualitative, we identify captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions as two key

manifestations of captivity, and we quantitatively assess their direct and indirect effects on

customers’ service evaluations and WOM behavior. Then the follow-up, qualitative study

delineates the specific solutions captive customers use to reduce their captivity emotions and how

they improve customers’ well-being.

Our research also contributes to service marketing and relationship marketing literature, by

demonstrating that customer captivity functions as a boundary condition in generic service

evaluation and WOM models. Our empirical findings show that customer captivity affects

customers’ service evaluations and WOM behavior, so failing to take captivity-related variables

into account will reduce the explanatory power of generic service evaluation and WOM models

and might generate inaccurate managerial recommendations.

Finally, responding to recent calls for more research on emotions in service relationships

(e.g., Furrer et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019), this study also reveals the importance of captivity

emotions, defined as customers’ emotional responses to their captivity. We show how these

negative emotions affect customers’ service evaluations and well-being. We further demonstrate

how NWOM can help relieve captivity emotions. Considering that NWOM spread by captive

customers can affect service providers’ reputations and profitability (Bhattacharya et al., 2020),

we outline some implications and potential solutions that service providers might provide to

reduce customers’ feelings of captivity.

The reminder of this paper proceeds as follows: First, we review extant studies on customer

5.
captivity and its impact on customer well-being. Second, we draw on cognitive appraisal theory

and price fairness perception theory to propose a conceptual model of the effects of captivity and

its manifestations on customer service evaluations and NWOM. Third, we present the method and

results of the quantitative study we used to test our hypotheses, followed by the method and

findings of the qualitative study we used to clarify those results. Fourth, we conclude with a

discussion and suggestions for further research.

Literature review

Customer captivity

In introducing the concept of customer captivity to service contexts, Rayburn (2015) uses a

grounded theory approach and describes the feelings that customers have in situations in which

they are dependent on service providers, due to limited choice, control, and power.1 Even when

they are not satisfied, captive customers return, because they perceive a lack of options for

obtaining a service they need from a source other than the current provider (Leisen Polack,

2017b). With a power–dependence perspective (Emerson, 1962), Rayburn (2015) further

demonstrates that customer captivity stems from a subjective perception of asymmetry in the

power relationship between customers and service providers. Subsequently, Rayburn et al. (2020)

qualitatively investigate the concept and identify two conditions of customer captivity: perceived

need and lack of available alternatives. Under these conditions, when perceiving they do not have

any choice, customers are left with the feeling that they have little or no power and agency over

their service relationship and therefore feel captive. Drawing on Rayburn et al. (2020), we hence

define customer captivity as customers’ feelings of not having the possibility to choose or leave a

service relationship, due to a perceived need for the service and a lack of alternatives.

Customer captivity thus differs from other concepts pertaining to power imbalances in

service relationships, such as calculative commitment (Jones et al., 2007), switching barriers

6.
(Colgate et al., 2007) and lock-in (Harrison et al., 2012). For these concepts, customers have the

choice to stay with their current service provider based on a cost–benefit assessment of the

situation. Despite switching costs, some of these customers may still choose to leave the service

relationship. In the case of captivity, customers do not even perceive to have such a choice

(Rayburn et al., 2020). Although previous studies have explored customer captivity, they do not

address critical questions about how customer captivity manifests and what consequences it has

for customer service evaluations and WOM behavior.

Customer captivity, vulnerability and well-being

Customer vulnerability is “a state of powerlessness that arises from an imbalance in marketplace

interactions” (Baker et al., 2005, p. 134). This definition has recently been completed by Hill and

Sharma (2020, p. 551), who define vulnerability as “a state in which consumers are subject to

harm because their access to and control over resources are restricted in ways that significantly

inhibit their ability to function in the marketplace.” Vulnerability occurs when customers cannot

realize the maximum level of value from a service (Rosenbaum et al., 2017) and depend on the

service provider to help them obtain needed outcomes (Commuri and Ekici, 2008).

Hill and Sharma (2020) further argue that it is the contextual circumstances faced by

customers, rather than solely the categories used to describe them (e.g., low income, handicap,

elderly, etc.), that leads to customer vulnerability. Moreover, they detail that there are different

context-based types of vulnerability depending on their antecedents. They identify three types of

antecedents—individual (e.g., psychological and physical characteristics), interpersonal (e.g.,

social status or support), and structural (e.g., business practices, environmental constraints).

Within Hill and Sharma’s (2020) framework, customer captivity can be considered as a type of

vulnerability with structural antecedents, because in captivity contexts, marketplace

configurations harm customers by restricting their resources and control. In captivity situations,

7.
customers feel “at the mercy” of the service providers and they engage in exchanges because they

have to, not because they want to (Rayburn, 2015). Therefore, customers might feel vulnerable in

service relationships that hold them captive and limits their control and resources (Commuri and

Ekici, 2008; Hill and Sharma, 2020), leaving them dependent on service providers to act fairly

(Baker et al., 2005).

Captivity, as a type of vulnerability, harms customers and affects their well-being

(Rosenbaum et al., 2017). Customer well-being consists of various long-term features, such as

overall health, financial security, and social inclusion, as well as short-term aspects related to

daily experiences, such as affective (e.g., feelings, emotions), psychological (e.g., stress, peace of

mind), and physical states (Diener et al., 1999; Rahman, 2020). Hence, when customers feel

captive in their service relationships, it reduces their well-being notably due to negative emotions,

stress, physical discomfort, and perceived threats to their resources.

As argued by Hill and Sharma (2020), distinguishing between different context-based types

of vulnerability is critical, notably for understanding the resulting consequences and solutions,

which are likely to differ in each type of vulnerability context. For example, vulnerability based

on individual antecedents, such as poverty or handicap, would necessitate different solutions

compared to vulnerability based on structural, marketplace antecedents such as customer

captivity.

Seeking solutions to cope with customer captivity

Because of the negative impact of captivity emotions on their well-being, captive customers seek

solutions to regain control (Botti et al., 2008; Rayburn, 2015) by engaging in power balancing

efforts (Emerson, 1962). Through such efforts, they try to cope with their captivity to reestablish a

balance of power and eventually improve their well-being (Fliess and Volkers, 2020; Rayburn et

al., 2020). Coping responses, as cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage affected well-being

8.
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), have been studied in various contexts, but insights into how

customers cope with captivity and seek solutions to improve their well-being are relatively limited

(Fliess and Volkers, 2020).

Across various contexts though, different coping responses have been identified, such as

complaining, distancing, and NWOM (Duhachek, 2005; Gelbrich, 2010; Lazarus and Folkman,

1984). However, the effectiveness of these coping responses might be limited by customers’

constrained choice (Botti et al., 2008) and lack of resources and control (Hill and Sharma, 2020).

Whereas Rayburn et al. (2020) suggest, through their conceptual research, that some coping

responses, such as exiting, complaining, and NWOM, might lead to possible solutions for captive

customers, Fliess and Volkers (2020) argue that these customers often believe they have limited

options and that active complaining directly to the service provider does not represent an effective

solution to cope with their captivity. Nevertheless, to date, no research has empirically

investigated the solutions that customers use to copy with their captivity, as well as their

effectiveness.

Conceptual framework

Relationship marketing theory suggests that developing and maintaining long-term relationships

with customers improves firms’ performance (Palmatier et al., 2006). However, to maintain such

relationships, firms might be tempted to hold their customers captive (Patterson and Smith, 2003),

which has been referred to as the dark side of relationship marketing (Frow et al., 2011).

Customers who feel captive may respond negatively to relationship marketing tactics (Lee and

Romaniuk, 2009; Leisen Pollack, 2017a) if the lack of choice lowers their evaluation of service

quality or reduces their satisfaction (Botti et al., 2008; Patterson and Smith, 2003). Captive

customers also might use NWOM to vent their dissatisfaction (Conlon et al., 2004), seek

emotional support (Gelbrich, 2010), and improve their well-being (Fliess and Volkers, 2020). In

9.
doing so, even if they cannot leave the service relationship, captive customers might impose some

costs on firms and reduce their profitability (Bhattacharya et al., 2020). It is then critical for

service providers to understand how customer captivity affects service relationships.

To gain such understanding, we first turn to customer captivity literature and identify two

manifestations of customer captivity: captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions. Then

we leverage service marketing insights to build a generic baseline model of service evaluation and

WOM behavior. To adapt this baseline model to a captivity context, we offer hypotheses about

the effects of the two manifestations of customer captivity by drawing on (1) cognitive appraisal

theory (Lazarus, 1991) and (2) price fairness perception theory (Xia et al., 2004) and thus

investigate how customer captivity might constitute a boundary condition in generic service

evaluation and WOM behavior models.

Manifestations of customer captivity

Several aspects of a service relationship intersect to affect the potential for consumers to feel

captive (Rayburn et al., 2020). In particular, two characteristics of captivity—lack of choice and

perception of power or dependence asymmetry (Fliess and Volkers, 2020; Lee, 2010; Rayburn,

2015; Rayburn et al., 2020)—result in two different manifestations of captivity: captivity

emotions and price unfairness perceptions.

First, a perceived lack of choice triggers negative emotional responses among customers.

Rayburn (2015) argues that captive customers are subject to negative affect resulting from the

lack of control in their service relationships. Several negative emotions and feelings are tied to

customer captivity, including feeling resigned, angry, depressed, or hopeless (Rayburn, 2015).

The extent of these negative emotional responses reflects customers’ feelings of captivity, as

determined by their lack of alternatives to fulfill their need for a service. Empirically, Jones et al.

(2007) find a positive relationship between calculative commitment, which they measure using

10.
captivity items, and negative emotions. Fliess and Volkers (2020) also assert that negative

emotions and feelings evoked by customers experiencing captivity reveal their affected well-

being. According to these contributions, negative emotional responses are manifestations of

customer captivity; we refer to them as captivity emotions.

Second, customers’ perceptions of power or dependence asymmetry, due to a lack of

alternatives for a needed service, prompt feelings of captivity (Emerson, 1962; Rayburn, 2015).

Captive customers generally do not trust service providers to act fairly (Hill et al., 2015) and often

express discontent with their pricing practices (Lee, 2010). Seiders and Berry (1998) found that

customers’ vulnerability, resulting from a lack of alternatives and resources, triggers perceptions

of unfairness. That is, in captivity situations, when customers perceive a power imbalance, they

might suspect that powerful, self-interested service providers will attempt to exploit their

dependence and vulnerability (Emerson, 1962). For example, captive customers might anticipate

that service providers will charge higher prices for the same or poorer quality to increase their

profits (Frow et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2015; Lee, 2010), which they regard as unfair (Bolton et al.,

2003; Martín-Ruiz and Rondán-Cataluña, 2008), because it violates the principle of dual

entitlement, according to which fairness is shaped by the belief that firms are entitled to a

reasonable profit and customers are entitled to a reasonable price (Kahneman et al., 1986).

Rayburn et al. (2020, p. 161) illustrate captive customers’ anticipation of unfair price practices

with a quote from a study participant: “This gives the organization power. They can charge people

what they want as well as give continuously horrible customer service and customers are forced to

come back.” Perceptions of price unfairness, stemming from the greater power of the service

provider (Xia et al., 2004), thus represent a second manifestation of customer captivity.

In our theoretical framework, we suggest that these two manifestations influence customers’

service evaluations and WOM behavior differently. Captivity emotions directly affect customers’

11.
perceived quality, satisfaction, and NWOM, whereas price unfairness perceptions moderate the

relationships among these variables (see Figure 1, Study 1). To disentangle the direct and

moderating effects of the two manifestations of captivity, we thus formulate hypotheses at the

manifestation level rather than the customer captivity level.

[Insert Figure 1 About Here]

Baseline model

To develop our hypotheses, we start with a baseline model of customers’ service evaluation and

WOM and adapt it to the context of customer captivity. In this generic, baseline model, customer

satisfaction mediates the relationship of perceived service quality with NWOM. We start with this

model because it is well validated by service marketing literature (e.g., Brady and Robertson,

2001; De Ruyter et al., 1997). In the next step, we add the two manifestations of customer

captivity and hypothesize their direct and moderating effects as boundary conditions of the service

evaluation model.

Direct effects of captivity emotions

Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991), we propose that captivity emotions reduce

service quality perceptions and satisfaction and increase NWOM. Cognitive appraisal theory

stipulates that emotions are experienced as a result of customers’ appraisal of situations and

thoughts and affect their perceptions and behaviors (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Watson and Spence,

2006). Thus, customers’ appraisal of their captivity, as something reducing their well-being,

elicits negative emotional responses, which affect their cognitive and affective evaluations and

behaviors (Izard, 1977; Lazarus, 1991). Agency, or the lack thereof, has been identified as a key

dimension of appraisal mostly associated with negative emotions (Watson and Spence, 2006).

Customers’ negative affective state triggers them to engage in more systematic cognitive

evaluations of the service and pay more attention to cues that might signal lower quality (Smith

12.
and Bolton, 2002). Negative emotional responses also decrease customer satisfaction (Smith and

Bolton, 2002) and trigger NWOM (Harrison-Walker, 2019; Jones et al., 2007).

The relationships among emotions, service evaluations and perceived service quality (e.g.,

Liljander and Standvik, 1997; Mattila and Enz, 2002), satisfaction (e.g., Oliver, 1993; Smith and

Bolton, 2002), and NWOM (e.g., Harrison et al., 2021; Wetzer et al., 2007) have been studied in

several empirical studies, though existing research mostly concentrates on emotions elicited

during and after service encounters. Some other studies have investigated context-specific

emotions and how they influence customers’ service evaluations and behaviors (Wang and Beise-

Zee, 2013; Le et al., 2020). For example, referring to experience and credence services, Alford

and Sherrell (1996) demonstrate that customers’ general affect, formed overtime by past

experiences with the service category, has a significant effect on service performance evaluation.

White (2010) finds a negative relationship of an emotional factor composed of anger and

disappointment with students’ university services quality perceptions and satisfaction. Brown and

Kirmani (1999) determine that pre-encounter affect influences customers’ service expectations,

performance evaluation and satisfaction. Wang and Beise-Zee (2013) investigate service

responses to customers’ negative emotional states related to a business trip and demonstrate their

positive effect on customer satisfaction. Finally, in a high switching costs context, Jones et al.

(2007) find a significant direct effect of negative emotions generated throughout a service

relationship on NWOM.

Thus, we predict that captivity emotions, as customers’ emotional response to their

captivity, affect customers’ service evaluations and behavior by decreasing their perceived service

quality and satisfaction and increasing NWOM:

H1: Captivity emotions are negatively associated with customers’ perceived service

quality.

13.
 H2: Captivity emotions are negatively associated with customers’ satisfaction.

H3: Captivity emotions are positively associated with customers’ negative word of mouth.

Moderating effect of perceived price unfairness

Drawing on price fairness perception theory (Xia et al., 2004), we propose that captive customers’

price unfairness perceptions moderate the relationships among perceived service quality,

satisfaction, and NWOM. Price fairness theory suggests that when services are perceived as

overpriced, it exacerbates customer reactions to assessments of poor service quality and

satisfaction (Xia et al., 2004). According to Xia et al. (2004), this effect is based on the

motivational role of emotional responses connected to the cognitive comparison between the price

paid and the benefits received. In captivity situations, customers often suspect service providers of

attempting to exploit their vulnerability by charging high prices to increase their profits

(Herrmann et al., 2007; Seiders and Berry, 1998). When, such a price is perceived as too high in

comparison to what is received, it is perceived as unfair because it violates the dual entitlement

principle (Kahneman et al., 1986). The violation of this principle creates a cognitive inconsistency

(Homburg et al., 2005), which captive customers seek to reduce by adapting their satisfaction

level and WOM behavior. That is, price unfairness perceptions increase customers’ sensitivity

(Xia et al., 2004), especially when these customers feel vulnerable and disadvantaged due to their

captivity (Martín-Ruiz and Rondán-Cataluña, 2008; Seiders and Berry, 1998). Therefore, we

expect that compared with customers who perceive prices as fair, customers who perceive prices

as unfair react to a perceived service quality decrease with a larger decrease in satisfaction and a

larger increase in NWOM. Similarly, compared to customers who perceive prices as fair,

customers who perceive prices as unfair react to a satisfaction decrease with a larger increase in

NWOM.

In support of these arguments, empirical evidence in other contexts indicates that unfair

14.
price perceptions moderate relationships among perceived service quality, satisfaction, and

NWOM. In a quick-casual restaurant context, Ryu and Han (2010) find that customers’

perceptions of prices as too high moderate the relationship between service quality and

satisfaction. In a business-to-business setting, Caruana et al. (2000) also reveal that perceived

value—or what is received compared with what is paid—influences the relationship of service

quality and satisfaction. According to Richins (1983), studying consumer goods, price unfairness

perceptions increase the effect of negative emotional states on perceived service quality,

dissatisfaction, and WOM. In a customer captivity context, we similarly predict that price

unfairness perceptions moderate the relationships among perceived service quality, satisfaction,

and NWOM:

H4a: Customers’ price unfairness perceptions strengthen the positive relationship between

perceived service quality and satisfaction, such that as price unfairness perceptions

increase, a decrease in perceived service quality is associated with increasingly

stronger decreases in satisfaction.

H4b: Customers’ price unfairness perceptions strengthen the negative relationship between

perceived service quality and negative word of mouth, such that as price unfairness

perceptions increase, a decrease in perceived service quality is associated with

increasingly stronger increases in negative word of mouth.

H4c: Customers’ price unfairness perceptions strengthen the negative relationship between

satisfaction and negative word of mouth, such that as price unfairness perceptions

increase, a decrease in satisfaction is associated with increasingly stronger increases in

negative word of mouth.

Design Overview

To address our research objectives, we use a mixed-methods sequential design with a quantitative

15.
study (Study 1) and a follow-up qualitative investigation (Study 2) (Creswell, 2014; Ivankova et

al., 2006) (see Web Appendix Figure A1 for a graphical representation). First, Study 1 aims to

test our hypotheses and assess the impact of the manifestation of captivity on customers’ services

evaluation and WOM behavior. Second, based on the findings of Study 1, Study 2 explores the

range and effectiveness of solutions used by customers in response to their captivity and gain

deeper insights into the effects of NWOM on their negative emotions and well-being (see Figure

1).

Study 1

To test H1–H4, we sent a questionnaire-based survey to a sample of customers of three different

services (railway passenger, postal, and mobile phone) in the French-speaking part of

Switzerland. In Switzerland, customers of these services often feel captive in their relationships

with the providers, because the railway and postal services benefit from quasi-monopoly

situations, and mobile phone services generally impose long-term subscriptions or high switching

costs, as well as uncertain quality across alternative services. By investigating the impact of

customer captivity in these three services, with varying levels of captivity (Rayburn et. al, 2020),

we increase the generalizability of the findings.

Sample

A paper-and-pencil questionnaire was sent by regular mail to a sample of 3,150 customers in the

French-speaking part of Switzerland. They had been randomly sampled from the phone book and

answered the survey in reference to only one of the three services. No monetary incentives were

provided, though a summary of the main results was promised to respondents who provided their

address. We received 1,154 questionnaires back, for an overall response rate of 36.6%. After

deleting incomplete questionnaires with more than 10% missing values (Hair et al., 2010), we

retained a useful sample of 1,017 respondents (327 for railway passenger services, 352 for postal

16.
services, and 338 for mobile phone services) for the data analysis. The full sample is nearly

evenly split by gender (49.9% women), and the average age is 53.0 years (standard deviation [SD]

= 16.3 years) (see Table 1 for further sample characteristics). The geographical location,

education levels, and incomes of these respondents all are representative of the general population

of the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

[Insert Table 1 About Here]

Measures

The items, each of which used 9-point Likert-style scales, were adapted from validated, multi-

item measures, when available. All items were pre-tested to ensure they convey the intended

meaning in the context of the study. In adapting items from the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman

et al., 1988) to measure perceived service quality, as recommended by Cronin and Taylor (1992),

we include items pertaining to service performance (SERVPERF). To measure satisfaction, we

adapt four dissatisfaction items developed by Sabadie (2003) for a public services context to our

service captivity context, which we reverse-coded for the analysis. Five items also developed by

Sabadie (2003) provide the measure of NWOM. We measured customer captivity with three items

developed specifically for this study: “feeling of having a choice of service provider,” “feeling of

being constrained to use the current service provider,” and “feeling that it would be difficult to

switch to another service provider.”

Price unfairness perceptions was measured with a single item: “I find the prices charged

for the services of [service provider] too expensive.” This item was developed specifically for this

study in a captivity context, inspired by the price unfairness measurement instrument from

Martín-Ruiz and Rondán-Cataluña (2008). As established during the pretest of our questionnaire,

this item only focuses on one dimension of price unfairness perceptions, which is customers’ price

perceptions in comparison to the value they receive, as other points of reference such as

17.
competitors’ prices were not relevant in the captivity context of our study. The lack of available

alternatives indeed prevents customers from comparing prices with other providers. Moreover, the

extant literature on price unfairness in services often includes comparison with prices paid by

other customers, which is not relevant for the context of our study, especially in the case of

monopolistic situations. Moreover, the pretest also reveals that in a captivity context, when asked

about a service being “too expensive,” French-speaking Swiss respondents perceive a price which

is too expensive as unfair because service providers are likely to use their dominant position to

overcharge captive customers to increase their profits. This interpretation was then tested with an

additional study to assess the face validity of the item (see Web Appendix A3 for more details).

To measure captivity emotions, seven emotions ranging from anger to joy were adapted

from Izard (1977). In addition to four negative emotions, one positive and two neutral emotions

were included to avoid framing bias (Levin et al., 1998). One additional item, the “feeling of

being held hostage,” was added after pre-testing the questionnaire, based on verbal reports used

by respondents to describe their emotional response to their captivity (in the Web Appendix,

Table A2 provides the wording of all items). We included gender, age, education level, and

income as control variables. To reduce the potential for common method bias, we used preventive

measures, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). The items were worded to avoid invoking

social desirability concerns, we used negatively worded items to measure satisfaction to reduce

response pattern bias, and the dependent and independent variables were separated by filler items.

Analytical strategy

The analytical strategy included six steps. First, prior to testing the hypotheses, we assessed the

relationships of customer captivity with captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions.

Second, we tested the reliability and validity of the measurement models, and we checked for a

potential biasing effect of common method variance. Third, with tests of the baseline model, we

18.
assessed its nomological validity. Fourth, we added captivity emotions to the baseline model to

determine its direct effects on the variables in the model. Fifth, with regard to the moderating

effects of price unfairness perceptions, we tested a moderated mediation model. Sixth, we

computed additional models to rule out alternative explanations.

Results

Validation of manifestations of customer captivity

To validate the two manifestations of customer captivity, we conducted a regression analysis

using structural equation modeling (SEM). The three items used to measure customer captivity

achieve satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s alphas: railway services .75, mobile phone services

.73, and postal services .70), as do the four items measuring captivity emotions (Cronbach’s

alphas: railway services .87, mobile phone services .89, and postal services .85). We then

regressed captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions on customer captivity. As expected,

the slopes of the two models are positive and significant across the three service contexts (see

Figure 2 and Web Appendix A4). Thus, captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions

appear to be valid manifestations of customer captivity.

[Insert Figure 2 About Here]

Construct validity

Before conducting confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in AMOS 26 (Arbuckle, 2019) to assess

the validity and reliability of the measures, we performed separated exploratory factor analyses on

the 22 items of the SERVPERF scale and on the seven items measuring captivity emotions for

each of the three industry samples. For the SERVPERF scale, all the items load on the first

unrotated factor, so we combined the 11 items with factor loadings higher than .65 across the

three samples into a composite measure of perceived service quality. For captivity emotions, four

items measuring negative emotions (anger, annoyance, disappointment, and the feeling of being

19.
held hostage) exhibit unidimensionality across the three service industries were retained to

measure captivity emotions.

As validity and reliability checks, we then computed separate CFAs for the three industry

samples. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliabilities (CR) are at least .70, and

the factor loadings exceed .50, which suggest acceptable reliability and convergent validity (Hair

et al., 2010). Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics, construct reliability, and correlation

coefficients. To assess discriminant validity, we conducted a simultaneous test of a four-variable

model (the three variables in the simplified baseline model and captivity emotions). We used

maximum likelihood estimation procedures, because the data do not strongly violate multivariate

normality assumptions (McDonald and Ho, 2002). Following common practice (Byrne, 2016; Hu

and Bentler, 1999), we relied on multiple indicators to assess model fit: normed chi-square

(2/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), non-normed chi-square fit index

(NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). Thresholds of RMSEA ≤ .06, NNFI ≥ .90, and CFI ≥

.95, as well as 2/df less than or equal to 3, indicate good model fit (Hair et al., 2010; Hu and

Bentler, 1999).

[Insert Table 2 About Here]

In AMOS 26, we estimate the four-factor CFA model with 23 items and find no problematic

estimates and good fit. In particular, the normed chi-square values are 1.673, 1.786, and 1.631 for

railway, postal, and mobile phone services, respectively. The goodness-of-fit indices also suggest

good fit across all three industries. The RMSEA values are .045 [90% confidence interval (CI):

.038; .053] for railway services, .047 [90% CI: .040; .054] for postal services, and .043 [90% CI:

.035; .051] for mobile phone services. In addition, for railway services, the fit indices are .966

(NNFI) and .970 (CFI); for postal services, these values are .962 (NNFI) and .967 (CFI); and for

mobile phone services, they are .966 (NNFI) and .970 (CFI).

20.
 To assess convergent validity, we consider factor loadings, which are significant and exceed

the .50 threshold (Hair et al., 2010), ranging from .60 to .92 in the railway sample, from .57 to .90

in the postal services sample, and from .67 to .88 in the mobile phone sample, with the exception

of one NWOM item in the mobile phone sample that has a value of .37. The Cronbach’s alphas

and CR values are greater than .70 (see Table 2). The average variances extracted also exceed .50

(Hair et al., 2010), and their square roots range from .73 to .84 for the railway services, .75 to .82

for the postal services, and .76 to .78 for mobile phone services, higher than any of the respective

pairwise correlations, in support of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

As is true for any self-reported data, there is the potential for common method variance

(CMV). Beyond the preventive measures taken to reduce its likelihood, we conducted two tests to

determine the extent of CMV in the data (Podsakoff et al., 2003): a Harman one-factor test and

then the unmeasured latent method factor technique. The results of both tests suggest that CMV is

not a pervasive problem (see Web Appendix A5 for details).

Structural model and hypothesis testing

To assess the nomological validity of the baseline model and test the hypotheses, we conducted a

regression analysis using PROCESS v3.5 (Hayes, 2018). First, we computed a mediation analysis

using the bootstrapping approach, with 5,000 samples with replacement (Hayes, 2018), to test the

relationships in the baseline model. This bootstrap test provides more power than a Sobel test

(Zhao et al., 2010). Second, we added captivity emotions to the model and conducted a serial

mediation analysis with perceived service quality and satisfaction as mediators. Third, we

performed a moderated mediation analysis to identify the moderating effect of price unfairness

perceptions, after controlling for captivity emotions. Because the measure of price unfairness

perceptions relies on a continuous scale, we used the PROCESS macro to test the conditional

effects (Hayes, 2018) rather than multi-group SEM, because it avoids the negative effects of

21.
splitting continuous moderators at an artificial level (McClelland et al., 2015; Rucker et al.,

2015). However, measurement errors will result in biased estimates of regression coefficients

(Cheung and Lau, 2017), and unlike SEM, PROCESS does not account for measurement errors

(Hayes and Rockwood, 2020). Therefore, we used factor-based scores rather than average scores

to compute the variables included in the models.2

In the baseline models, perceived service quality is the independent variable, satisfaction is

the mediator, and NWOM provides the dependent variable. We ran simple mediation models

(Hayes, 2018, Model 4). The bootstrapping results indicate a significant mediation process for the

three services (indirect effects: –.392 [95% CI: –.542; –.160], –.402 [95% CI: –.533; –.296] and –

.262 [95% CI: –.361; –.177], for railway, postal, and mobile phone services, respectively).

Moreover, all the structural coefficients are significant and in the expected directions (see Tables

3a, b, and c, panels 1). The explanatory power of the models is satisfactory, with R-squared values

of .241, .182, and .241 for satisfaction and .445, .508, and .437 for NWOM, in relation to the

railway, postal, and mobile phone services, respectively. These results support the validity of the

baseline model.

Then, we added captivity emotions to the models and ran serial mediation analyses (Hayes,

2018, Model 6), with captivity emotions as the independent variable, perceived service quality

and satisfaction as mediators, and NWOM as dependent variables. The bootstrapping results

indicate a significant mediation process for the three services (total indirect effects: .193 [95% CI:

.135; .260], .206 [95% CI: .147; .272], and .170 [95% CI: .112; .236], for railway, postal, and

mobile phone services, respectively). The effects of captivity emotions on the variables of the

baseline model are significant and in the expected directions. In detail, the direct effects of

negative emotions on perceived quality are –.173 [95% CI: –.227; –.118], –.196 [95% CI: –.250;

–.143], and –.185 [95% CI: –.244; –.126], for the railway, postal, and mobile phone services,

22.
respectively, in full support of H1. They also have positive direct effects on satisfaction, as we

predicted in H2: –.318 [95% CI: –.399; –.237], –.237 [95% CI: –.321; –.154], and –.152 [95% CI:

–.219; –.084], for the railway, postal, and mobile phone services, respectively. We uncover

positive directs effects of the captivity emotions on NWOM: .253 [95% CI: .185; .320] for

railway services, .211 [95% CI: .148; .275] for postal services, and .118 [95% CI: .055; .181] for

mobile phone services. We thus find full support for H3 (see Tables 3a, b, and c, panels 2).

Adding captivity emotions also increases the explanatory power of the models. For the three

industry samples, the R-squared values for railway, postal, and mobile phone services are as

follows: for perceived service quality .107, .130, and .103; for satisfaction, .359, .249, and .283,

and for NWOM, .525, .562, and .459. Captivity emotions thus directly and indirectly affect

customer service evaluation and NWOM.

Next, we added price unfairness perceptions and ran moderated mediation models (Hayes,

2018, Model 593), with perceived service quality as the independent variable, satisfaction as the

mediator, price unfairness perceptions as the moderator, NWOM as the dependent variable, and

captivity emotions as a covariate. The bootstrapping results indicate a significant moderating

effect of price unfairness perceptions on the relationship between perceived service quality and

satisfaction for railway services (.081 [95% CI: .006; .157]) but not for postal and mobile phone

services, providing only partial support for H4a. The significant moderating effect of price

unfairness perceptions on the relationship between perceived service quality and NWOM for

mobile phone services (–.074 [95% CI: –.131; –.016]), but not for railway and postal services,

provides partial support for H4b. Finally, we find significant moderating effects of price

unfairness perceptions on the relationship between satisfaction and NWOM for railway services

(–.083 [95% CI: –.127; –.039]), and postal services (–.049 [95% CI: –.081; –.017]), but not for

mobile phone services, providing partial support for H4c (see Tables 3a, b, and c, panels 3). For

23.
the three industry samples, the R-squared values for railway, postal, and mobile phone services

are as follows: satisfaction .377, .267, and .313, and NWOM .557, .574, and .483.

To investigate the moderating effect of price unfairness perceptions further, we assessed

their overall indirect effect on the total effect of perceived service quality on NWOM, in

accordance with Preacher et al.’s (2007) bootstrapping procedure, then probed its conditional

effects using a Johnson-Neyman floodlight test to identify the regions of the moderator variable

where the conditional effects are significant (Johnson and Neyman, 1936). This test is superior to

other options, because the effects can be interpreted by using all moderator values, which limits

the potentially arbitrary choice of cutoff values (Spiller et al., 2013).

According to this analysis, perceived price unfairness perceptions negatively moderate the

total effect of perceived service quality on NWOM. Figure 3 illustrates this negative interaction.

For all three services, the higher confidence bands do not cut the x-axis; that is, the moderating

effect of perceived price unfairness is significant across the complete range of data available in

our samples (Figure 3, left panels). The right panels of Figure 3 show the regression lines of the

total effect of perceived service quality on NWOM at different levels of price unfairness

perceptions. These results reveal that the negative effects of perceived service quality grow

stronger at higher levels of price unfairness perceptions for all three services. As perceived service

quality decreases and price unfairness perceptions increase, captive customers spread more

NWOM.

[Insert Table 3 and Figure 3 About Here]

For richer insights, we also considered four alternative models. First, we ran moderated

serial mediation models (Hayes, 2018, Model 92) with captivity emotions as the independent

variable, perceived service quality and satisfaction as mediators, and price unfairness perceptions

and NWOM as the dependent variables. Compared with the moderated mediation models in

24.
which captivity emotion functions as a control variable, these models add the interactions between

price unfairness perceptions and captivity emotions. The results rule out significant effects of

these interactions in any of the service industries, with the sole exception of the mobile phone

industry and the interaction between perceived service quality and NWOM (see Web Appendix

A6). Moreover, these models do not provide any additional explanatory power and are less

parsimonious than the moderated mediation models.

Second, to assess the relevance of using captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions

as two manifestations of customer captivity, we tested serial mediation models with customer

captivity as the independent variable, perceived service quality and satisfaction as the mediators,

and NWOM as the dependent variable (Hayes, 2018, Model 6). We also considered moderated

mediation models with perceived service quality as the independent variable, satisfaction as the

mediator, customer captivity as the moderator, and NWOM as the dependent variable (Hayes,

2018, Model 59). Thus, we can assess the direct and conditional effects of customer captivity. As

these results show, customer captivity has both direct and conditional effects on the baseline

models in the three services, though the explanatory power of these models again is smaller than

that of the models with captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions (Web Appendix A6).

Therefore, we gain support for the relevance of disentangling the effects of the two manifestations

of customer captivity.

Finally, to determine if it is relevant to account for the moderating effects of price

unfairness perceptions, we tested direct effect only models, with price unfairness perceptions as

the independent variable, perceived service quality and satisfaction as the mediators, and NWOM

as the dependent variable (Hayes, 2018, Model 6). Across all three service industries, price

unfairness perceptions directly affect perceived service quality, satisfaction, and NWOM, though

the explanatory power of these models is less than that of the moderated mediation models that

25.
include the conditional effects of price unfairness perceptions (see Web Appendix A6). Taking

these effects into account thus is relevant.

Discussion

These results provide support for the impact of the two manifestations of captivity—captivity

emotions and price unfairness perceptions—on customers’ service evaluations and NWOM.

Captivity emotions have direct effects on customers’ perceived service quality, satisfaction, and

NWOM across three service industries. Price unfairness perceptions moderate some of the

relationships between these variables; they have an overall conditional effect on the total effect of

perceived service quality on NWOM across the three service industries.

Price unfairness perceptions moderate the relationships between perceived service quality

and satisfaction and between satisfaction and NWOM for railway services, but only the

relationship between satisfaction and NWOM for postal services and between perceived service

quality and NWOM for mobile phone services. These differences likely reflect varying levels of

captivity that arise across the three industries (Rayburn et al., 2020). Railway and postal services

are quasi-monopolies, whereas mobile phone services impose contractual captivity. The distinct

results also might reflect differences in price levels; the prices of postal services are much lower

than those of railway tickets or mobile phone plans. Overall, the moderating effect of price

unfairness perceptions appears contingent on the type of industry.

The results also show that the more customers feel captive, the more they spread NWOM.

However, our quantitative study does not provide any information about the effectiveness of such

behaviors to relieve customers’ captivity feelings and improve their well-being. When feeling

captive, customers may use NWOM as an emotional support-seeking response (Yi and

Baumgartner, 2004). Fliess and Volkers (2020) suggest that to diminish the negative effects of

captivity on their well-being, some customers might evoke emotion-focused coping responses.

26.
Could NWOM constitute a solution that customers deliberately or unconsciously use to cope with

their captivity? If so, what is the effectiveness of such a coping behavior and how does it improve

captive customers’ well-being? Existing research does not provide any empirical evidence in this

regard. Moreover, are there other possible solutions that captive customers might use and are they

effective? To address these questions, we conducted a follow-up, qualitative study.

Study 2

Considering the lack of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of customers’ coping

behaviors as solutions to improve their well-being, we designed a follow-up qualitative study to

(1) explore the range and effectiveness of solutions used by customers as responses to their

captivity and (2), gain deeper insights into the effects of NWOM on captive customers’ negative

emotions and well-being.

Interview guide

Ensuring the quality and rigor of our qualitative research process was a key concern, which we

addressed from the start by carefully developing an interview guide based on the results of the

quantitative study and theoretical concepts from prior literature, then adjusting it as needed after

the first six interviews (Creswell, 2014). We asked informants about their personal experiences of

captivity with railway, postal, or mobile phone services. Prior to addressing informants’ coping

behaviors and their effectiveness, the interviews started with opening questions related to the

characteristics and manifestations of customers’ captivity. These opening questions were meant to

help informants remember their affective state in captivity situations (see Web Appendix A9 for

findings related to the characteristics and manifestations of customer captivity). We then asked

questions about how they responded to and coped with their captivity, as well as their WOM

behavior and ensuing feelings. The in-depth, semi-structured interview format encouraged

dialogue (Azzari and Baker, 2020), hence we employed follow-up questions to explore

27.
informants’ feelings and thoughts thoroughly. By relying on a set of fixed questions, this format

also allowed us to establish good comparisons between informants’ answers (Creswell, 2014).

Sample

To select informants, we used a purposeful sampling strategy (Suri, 2011) and sought informants

who promised to be rich sources of information (Patton, 2014). Considering the captivity

emotions identified in the quantitative study and the different WOM behaviors mentioned in prior

literature, we also sought maximum variation sampling, to find informants who differed

sufficiently from one another (Suri, 2011). By identifying confirmatory and disconfirmatory

input, we ensured sufficient examples that could confirm or challenge emerging themes, which

adds to the richness, depth, and credibility of the findings (Patton, 2014). Finally, informants had

to have first-hand experience with one of the three services. The 20 in-depth, semi-structured

interviews (postal services n = 5, railway services n = 7, mobile phone services n = 8) each lasted

20–45 minutes and were recorded and transcribed (Web Appendix Table A7 presents the

informants’ characteristics).

Data analysis

To identify themes and provide meaning to the data, while also allowing for unified

interpretations, we implemented a multistep, iterative coding process (Creswell and Poth, 2016).

First, we used open coding to identify customers’ reasons for feeling a sense of captivity and

responses, as well as subsequent feelings (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Second, by applying

thematic and selective coding, as well as continuous comparisons with prior findings and

literature, we refined the categorization and drew conclusions (Creswell, 2014). Thematic

saturation was reached after 16 interviews; no significant additional themes were detected

thereafter (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The additional interviews provided confirmation of this

thematic saturation and helped maximize the validity of the findings (see Web Appendix Table

28.
A8 for the coding scheme).

Customers’ responses to their captivity

Three categories of coping behaviors used by customers in response to their captivity emerge

from the data: (1) complaining, (2) resignation, and (3) emotional support seeking NWOM.

Complaining directly to the service provider is a behavior chosen by some informants,

especially those who were angry. However, despite choosing to voice their concerns directly to

their service provider, they also believe that most of the time, their voice effort goes unheard, such

that even if they wrote “to customer service, [and] said ... this was really appalling that I paid this

amount of money and I even made the effort of booking in advance, I tried to be on time, ... and

still I always ended up having an issue. So, I gave them an earful ... [but] I didn’t think my voice

was heard because I never got a reply” (A.T., railways). Thus, unlike the findings from non-

captivity contexts (e.g., Nyer, 2000), complaining by captive customers does not represent an

effective solution to improve their well-being, due to the impression that their voice was not

heard. Accordingly, their emotional state and well-being remains affected, as the following quote

makes clear: “I called customer service several times, they took note and said they understood

[my situation] but that they could do nothing more. We made a joint complaint but [I didn’t feel]

less angry” (C.P., postal services). The lack of perceived effectiveness of complaining might

explain why this behavior is often complemented by other responses, such as emotional support

seeking NWOM or trying to distance themselves from their captivity emotions (Fliess and

Volkers, 2020).

Resignation. Some informants tried to create an emotional distance from the service,

reasoning: “We had to stay. Even if we found something else cheaper, we couldn’t just cancel [the

subscription] like that.... Sometimes I’ve told myself that I’m the one who chose it. So, I had to

take responsibility” (C.R., phone). When captive customers see no other alternatives, they come to

29.
feel disengaged and resigned, or even somewhat indifferent to the situation, with the sense that

“knowing that there was no competitor that provided the same service, I felt quite indifferent”

(D.I., railways) or “I don’t get upset if I have to go to the post office [to pick up a parcel]. It is like

taking the garbage out. Something you don’t like to do, but you have to” (P.C., postal services).

Some informants associate resignation with the inability to change the situation, such as “I

thought it was too expensive in regard to the quality of service, but I’m not able to change

anything” (S.P., railways). But even when trying to distance themselves and accept the situation,

captive customers are still subject to negative affect, as voiced by informants who felt “annoyed”

(D.I., railways) and even “angry” (S.P., railways) because of their lack of alternatives or by this

informant who admitted she felt “powerless,” despite accepting her inability to “terminate her

contract right away” (C.R., phone) and exit to an alternative provider, or this informant who had

“a feeling of helplessness” as “there was no way to change things.” (S.P. – railways). Our findings

thus suggest that resignation, as a response to captivity, does not allow customers to improve their

well-being. As noted by Gelbrich (2010), customers who feel helpless and lacking control often

seek to release their emotions and therefore engage in support-seeking NWOM.

Emotional support seeking NWOM has been identified as the most frequent response to

customer captivity, used by informants to seek emotional support from companions. NWOM

notably helps captive customers vent their captivity emotions: “Immediately after that trip, I

shared this negative experience with my parents, ... I wanted to externalize my frustration,

formalize it so I wouldn’t keep it inside” (S.M., railways). Perceiving power asymmetry and the

perceived lack of efficiency of complaining, captive customers instead resort to venting to family

and friends, which gives them some emotional support, such as when “I was frustrated, and I

found the situation revolting. So, [sharing the experience] made me feel good to talk about it, so

that people understood my situation” (T.B., phone). To mitigate their mental burden, they “seek

30.
emotional comfort” (M.B., postal services). That is, captive customers often seem to engage in

NWOM to obtain support, more than to punish or take revenge on the service provider, as

explicitly indicated by one participant: “I was captive from the telecom company. I had no way to

punish them!… It was nice to talk about it with friends and say words you would have liked to say

to the service provider” (M.D., phone). These findings emphasize the emotional support-seeking

purpose of NWOM by captive customers, which appears as a more effective solution, compared

to complaining and resignation.

The effectiveness of NWOM as a solution to customer captivity

Of the three types of responses to their captivity, NWOM has thus emerged among our informants

as the most frequently used and effective solution. Informants revealed that finding emotional

support through NWOM allowed them to lessen the negative effect of captivity on their well-

being by reducing their negative emotions and feelings of captivity, while also reinforcing their

social ties. Even if NWOM cannot remedy to their captivity problem per se, it helps them feel

better, relieved, and less frustrated or angry. For example, “I was angry and stressed, I knew that

my wife was waiting for me. Being able to criticize the service with her helped me mitigate the

situation” (S.R., railways). In addition, NWOM gives captive customers a sense of regained

control over the service relationship and reduces their feelings of captivity, such as when one

respondent claimed: “I didn’t want it to happen to me or to others. [Sharing my experience

allowed me to] feel as if I was regaining control, yes clearly.... And I felt relieved. Liberated is the

word” (M.D., phone). Captive customers consciously or unconsciously use NWOM to feel less

alone and more understood. Thus, “Even if friends didn’t understand the technical problem, at

least they understood the human problem and my frustration.... It didn’t solve my problem, but it

helped to get this frustration out by sharing it with someone” (M.D., phone). In even more blunt

terms, “I felt better because I was not alone, at least not the only one who got screwed” (C.R.,

31.
phone).

Sharing the negative experience, often while “making fun of customer service” (M.P.,

phone), also helped customers diminish their captivity emotions. By reinforcing social ties,

NWOM mitigates the downsides of captivity to make the overall experience more positive (P.C.,

postal services). Customers with strong captivity feelings and emotions benefit from connecting

with people who share “the same problems” and cannot do anything to solve them, such as a

customer who was feeling “taken advantage of” by her mobile phone provider because of prices

she considered unfair: “[I felt less upset] because I was able to talk to my neighbor and my sister

who have the same problems, it helps to accept the situation” (H.K., phone). Noting that coping

responses such as complaining and resignation mostly proved ineffective to relieve customers’

captivity emotions and improve their well-being, NWOM, as a way for captive customers to

obtain emotional support, appears therefore as a more effective solution.

General discussion and conclusion

Customer captivity, as a type of vulnerability, affects customers’ service evaluation, WOM

behavior, and well-being. We identify NWOM as an effective solution to help captive customers

reduce the negative effects of captivity on their well-being. In that, NWOM represents a way for

captive customers to seek emotional support, allowing them to vent to reduce their captivity

emotions and regain some control, thus improving their well-being. Whereas NWOM has already

been suggested as a possible solution by Fliess and Volkers (2020) and Rayburn et al. (2020), our

findings go a step further to reveal its effectiveness in relation to customers’ captivity emotions

and well-being. Consistent with Rayburn (2015), we find that most captive customers do not

remain passive but instead seek solutions and try to regain control to the extent that they can.

Through this path, NWOM enables customers to feel somewhat empowered and less vulnerable.

This study makes three main contributions to extant literature. First, it contributes to

32.
transformative service research (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013; Fisk et al., 2018; Russel-Bennett et

al., 2019) and customer vulnerability literature (Commuri and Ekici, 2008; Hill and Sharma,

2020) by investigating customer captivity as a type of vulnerability that extends beyond mere

dissatisfaction to affect customers’ well-being. By identifying captivity emotions and unfair price

perceptions as two important manifestations of customer captivity, and then disentangling the

effects of these manifestations on customers’ service evaluations and WOM behavior, our results

demonstrate that customer captivity is a more complex concept than has been previously

identified. Our perspective on NWOM in a captivity context also reveals it as an effective solution

for customers to deal with captivity emotions and reduce the negative effects of their captivity on

their well-being. As suggested by Hill and Sharma (2020), different types of vulnerability might

require different solutions. Therefore, by focusing on this specific type of customer vulnerability,

namely captivity, our study contributes to this literature by identifying solutions that are

specifically adapted to this vulnerability context.

Second, we advance service marketing and relationship marketing literature by providing

evidence of how customer captivity acts as a boundary condition for generic service evaluations

and WOM models. Relationship marketing theory suggests that developing and maintaining long-

term relationships with customers improves firms’ performance (Palmatier et al., 2006), but such

relationships also can generate feelings of captivity among customers (Patterson and Smith,

2003), and our findings demonstrate that customers who feel captive respond negatively to

relationship marketing tactics that seek to hold them captive. Customers’ emotional responses to

their captivity lower their service quality perceptions and satisfaction and increase their NWOM

tendencies. Moreover, price unfairness perceptions related to customer captivity exacerbate

customers’ reactions and amplify the relationships among the focal variables. As we demonstrate

empirically, using captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions to account for customer

33.
captivity improves the explanatory power of a generic model of customer service evaluations and

WOM behavior. The context of service-related captivity thus requires adapted, dedicated

theorizing.

Third, acknowledging calls for more research on emotions in service relationships (e.g.,

Furrer et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019), our results stress the importance of negative emotions related

to captivity specifically. If they believe they have no other choice than to use their current

provider to obtain a service they need, customers experience negative emotions, directly

associated with their captive service relationship, which affect their service evaluation and well-

being. Recognizing and managing these captivity emotions is critical, because they can have

detrimental effects on not just customer relationships but also service employees’ emotional states

(Liu et al., 2019; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009) and service costs (Bhattacharya et al., 2020).

Managerial implications

Despite calls for service designs that explicitly consider customer well-being (Fisk et al., 2018;

Johns and Davey, 2019; Rosenbaum et al., 2017), many service firms have resisted and refused to

change their practices, seemingly due to their indiscriminate embrace of relationship marketing

strategies (Frow et al., 2011). Our study shows that captivity alters customers’ service

evaluations, to the extent that it even might have negative effects on service firms’ image and

performance (Bhattacharya et al., 2020; Wetzer et al., 2007). When captive customers seek

solutions to mitigate their negative emotions and improve their well-being, they seek emotional

support and spread NWOM. Even if the primary goal of such behavior might not be to seek

revenge, it is still likely to tarnish service firms’ image (Leisen Pollack 2017a; Richins, 1983).

Even in monopolistic situations, NWOM by customers affects service firms’ profitability by

increasing service costs (Bhattacharya et al., 2020). Managers should recognize why captive

customers spread NWOM, as well as the advantages of developing solutions that can (1) reduce

34.
customers’ feelings of captivity and (2) facilitate customers’ emotional venting. These efforts

could be mutually beneficial, in that they help make captive customers feel better and less

vulnerable, while also reducing the negative effect of NWOM for service firms (Seiders and

Berry, 1998).

First, to address customers’ captivity feelings, service firms could facilitate customer

empowerment (Ramani and Kumar, 2008). For example, to attenuate customers’ sense that they

lack choice, they could offer additional service options that reassign some control to customers in

terms of when and how to obtain the service they need. Postal services in Switzerland recently

introduced new delivery options that allow customers to choose their preferred time and place.

Customer empowerment also might be promoted through service design and co-production

initiatives (Xie et al., 2020). Another way to reduce customers’ captivity feelings would involve

attenuating price unfairness perceptions by enhancing price transparency (Miao and Mattila,

2007). To this end, marketing managers could increase the accessibility and visibility of their

pricing practices, such as by disclosing comprehensive information about how prices are set. In

parallel, consideration should be given to customers’ reference prices (Kalyanaram and Winer,

1995), because price unfairness perceptions arise when customers perceive a transgression of their

entitlement to an appropriate price, in favor of an exaggerated profit for the service provider

(Kahneman et al., 1986). Marketing actions that influence customers’ reference prices could also

help decrease their unfairness perceptions.

Second, even if they take preventive measures to reduce customer captivity, service

providers might not be able to avoid it completely. In these cases, they should aim to provide

emotional support and encourage captive customers to vent their negative emotions through

controlled company channels (Lacey, 2012). As captivity affects customers’ well-being, they

resort to NWOM because complaining directly to their service provider is perceived as

35.
ineffective. Considering that NWOM represents a solution for obtaining emotional support and

dealing with captivity emotions, service firms might provide ready opportunities for emotional

venting and the tools to do so, such as through more accessible, multichannel customer service

options (Frasquet et al., 2019).

Limitations and suggestions for further research

Unlike previous studies of customer captivity that only include quantitative or qualitative data,

our mixed-methods study provides richer data and more robust analyses (Harrison and Reilly,

2011; Ivankova et. al 2006). Still, the data are cross-sectional and do not reflect dynamic effects.

We thus cannot determine if NWOM has long-term effects on customers’ well-being or if the

effect fades quickly. Longitudinal studies could investigate the long-term impacts of NWOM on

captive customers’ well-being.

A key concept in our study and a key variable in our model is price unfairness perceptions.

We measured this variable with a single item, developed specifically for this study. Even if

several previous studies have also relied on single-item scales to measure price unfairness, out of

questionnaire length considerations (e.g., Campbell, 1999), it still raises some questions about

reliability. The item, which we pretested, was easy for respondents to understand in a service

captivity context, which should reduce measurement error and provide confidence in the validity

of our results. Moreover, because of the captivity context of this study, we focused on one

dimension of price unfairness perceptions related to customers’ comparison with the value they

receive (Martín-Ruiz and Rondán-Cataluña, 2008), because other points of reference, such as

competitors’ prices, were not relevant in a captivity context. However, other dimensions of price

unfairness perceptions might have increased the coverage of the breath of the concept. For

example, the price might be perceived as unfair compared to what is paid in another country in

which the situation is more competitive. Thus, continued research could develop multi-

36.
dimensional, multi-item measures of price unfairness perceptions for customer captivity contexts.

We focused on customers and their data; it might be relevant to study customer captivity

from the service provider’s point of view too. Even though customer captivity results from an

imbalance in the power–dependence relationship between customers and service providers, in

service relationships, customers’ well-being is co-created (Chen et al., 2020) and requires the

participation of the service provider. From a transformative service research perspective, it is

critical to investigate how service providers and their frontline representatives can reduce

customers’ feelings of captivity and improve their well-being. In particular, an effective process

requires a better empirical understanding of the trade-offs for service providers, between the

benefits of holding customers captive and the costs of their NWOM. Besides, expanding the

dyadic relationship between service providers and captive customers, the role of other actors from

the service ecosystem should be considered as well. Future research could notably examine how

service mediators (Johns and Davey, 2019), such as consumer associations or governmental

agencies, could be engaged in the co-creation of solutions for captive customers.

Finally, we propose that customer captivity is a specific type of vulnerability. Hill and

Sharma (2020) argue that different types of vulnerability might elicit different responses from

customers and hence require adapted solutions. Thus, a relevant research effort might seek to test

if our findings apply to other types of vulnerability (e.g., poverty, health, handicap, racial

minority). Key considerations revolve around whether other types of vulnerability affect

customers’ service evaluations too, whether NWOM can provide solutions, and whether other

coping responses could be more effective—all avenues for continued research.

37.
References

Alford, B.L. and Sherrell, D.L. (1996), “The role of affect in consumer satisfaction judgments of
credence-based services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 71–84.
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.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2019), IBM SPSS Amos 26 User’s Guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development
Corporation.
Azzari, C.N. and Baker, S.M. (2020), “Ten lessons for qualitative transformative service
researchers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No.1, pp.100–110.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), “The role of emotions in Marketing”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp.184-206.
Baker, S.M., Gentry, J.W. and Rittenburg, T. (2005), “Building understanding of the domain of
customer vulnerability”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 128–139.
Bhattacharya, A., Morgan, N.A. and Rego, L.L. (2020), “Customer satisfaction and firm profits in
monopolies: a study of utilities”, Journal of Marketing Research, forthcoming.
Bolton, L.E., Warlop, L. and Alba, J.W. (2003), “Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 474–491.
Botti, S., Broniarczyk, S., Häubl, G., Hill, R., Huang, Y., Kahn, B., Kopalle, P., Lehmann, D.,
Urbany, J. and Wansink, B. (2008), “Choice under restrictions”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 19
No. 3/4, pp. 183–199.
Brady, M.K. and Robertson, C.J. (2001), “Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of
service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 53–60.
Brown, T.J. and Kirmani, A. (1999), “The influence of preencounter affect on satisfaction with an
anxiety-provoking service encounter”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 333-
346.
Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming. Third edition. Mahwah (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campbell, Margaret C. (1999), “Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences?”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 187–199.
Caruana, A., Money and A.H. and Berthon, P.R. (2000), “Service quality and satisfaction–the
moderating role of value”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 11/12, pp. 1338–

38.
 1353.
Chen, T., Dodds, S., Finsterwalder, J., Witell, L., Cheung, L., Falter, M., Garry, T., Snyder, H.
and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2020), “Dynamics of wellbeing co-creation: a psychological
ownership perspective”, Journal of Service Management, forthcoming.
Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R. S. (2017), “Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals
in moderated mediation models: a comparison of regression and latent moderated structural
equations”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 746–769.
Colgate, M., Tong, V.T.U., Lee, C.K.C. and Farley, J.U. (2007), “Back from the brink: why
customers stay”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 211–228.
Commuri, S. and Ekici, A. (2008), “An enlargement of the notion of consumer vulnerability”,
Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 183–186.
Conlon, D.E., Van Dyne, L., Milner, M. and Ng, K.Y. (2004), “The effects of physical and social
context on evaluations of captive, intensive service relationships”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 433–445.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2014), A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2016), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among
Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronin Jr., J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55–68.
De Ruyter, K., Bloemer, J. and Peeters, P. (1997), “Merging service quality and service
satisfaction. An empirical test of an integrative model”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387–406.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E. and Smith, H. L. (1999), “Subjective well-being: three
decades of progress”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 276–302.
Duhachek, A. (2005), “Coping: a multidimensional, hierarchical framework of responses to
stressful consumption episodes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 41–53.
Emerson, R.M. (1962), “Power-dependence relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 31–41.
Fisk, R.P., Dean, A.M., Alkire, L., Joubert, A., Previte, J., Robertson, N. and Rosenbaum, M.S.
(2018), “Design for service inclusion: creating inclusive service systems by 2050”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 834–858.
Fliess, S. and Volkers, M. (2020), “Trapped in a service encounter: exploring customer lock-in

39.
 and its effect on well-being and coping responses during service encounters”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 79–114.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39–50.
Frasquet, M., Ieva, M. and Ziliani, C. (2019), “Understanding complaint channel usage in
multichannel retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 47, pp. 94–103.
Frow, P., Payne, A., Wilkinson, I.F. and Young, L. (2011), “Customer management and CRM:
addressing the dark side”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 79–89.
Furrer, O., Yu Kerguignas, J., Delcourt, C. and Gremler, D.D. (2020), “Twenty-seven years of
service research: a literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 299–316.
Gelbrich, K. (2010), “Anger, frustration, and helplessness after service failure: coping strategies
and effective informational support”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 567–585.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective, seventh edition, Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrison, M.P., Beatty, S.E., Reynolds, K.E. and Noble, S.M. (2012), “Why customers feel
locked into relationships: using qualitative research to uncover the lock-in factors”, Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 391–406.
Harrison, R.L. and Reilly, T.M. (2011), “Mixed methods designs in marketing research”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7–26
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2019), “The effect of consumer emotions on outcome behaviors following
service failure”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 285–302.
Hayes, F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Second edition. New York, NY, London, Guilford Press.
Hayes, A.F., Rockwood, N.J. (2020), “Conditional process analysis: concepts, computation, and
advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms”, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 19–54.
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K.B. and Huber, F. (2007), “The influence of price fairness on
customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 49-58
Hill, R.P., Rapp, J.M. and Capella, M.L. (2015), “Consumption restriction in a total control
institution: participatory action research in a maximum security prison”, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 156–172.
Hill, R.P. and Sharma, E. (2020), “Customer vulnerability”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,

40.
 Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 551–570.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W. D. and Koschate, N. (2005), “Customers’ reactions to price increases: do
customer satisfaction and perceived motive fairness matter?”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 36–49.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No.1,
pp. 1–55.
Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W. and Stick, S.L. (2006). “Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: from theory to practice”, Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3–20.
Izard, C. E. (1977), Human Emotions. Springer: New York.
Johns, R. and Davey, J. (2019), “Introducing the transformative service mediator: value creation
with vulnerable consumers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5–15.
Johnson, P.O. and Neyman, J. (1936), “Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to
some educational problems,” Statistical Research Memoirs, Vol. 1, pp. 57–93.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S.E. (2007), “The positive and
negative effects of switching costs on relational outcomes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol.
9, No. 4, pp. 335–355.
Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. (1995), “Why satisfied customers defect”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 88–99.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R. (1986), “Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking:
entitlements in the market”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 728-741.
Kalyanaram, G. and Winer, R.S. (1995), “Empirical generalizations from reference price
research”, Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 3 supplement, pp. G161–G169.
Lacey, R. (2012), “How customer voice contributes to stronger service provider relationships”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137–144.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press: New York.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer: New York.
Le, D., Pratt, M., Wang, Y., Scott, N. and Lohmann, G. (2020), “How to win the consumer’s
heart? Exploring appraisal determinants of consumer pre-consumption emotions”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88, 102542.
Lee, J. (2010), “Perceived power imbalance and customer dissatisfaction”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 1113–1137.
Lee, R. and Romaniuk, J. (2009), “Relating switching costs to positive and negative word-of-
mouth,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol.
22, pp. 54–67.

41.
Leisen Pollack, B. (2017a), “Effects of exit barriers on word of mouth activities”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 512–526.
Leisen Pollack, B. (2017b). “The divergent “loyalty” behaviors of a captive consumer”, Services
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 74–87
Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. and Gaeth, G. J. (1998), “All frames are not created equal: a typology
and critical analysis of framing effects”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 149-188.
Liljander, V. and Strandvik, T. (1997), “Emotions in service satisfaction”, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 148–169.
Liu, X.Y., Chi, N.W. and Gremler, D.D. (2019), “Emotion cycles in services: emotional
contagion and emotional labor effects”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 285–
300.
Martín-Ruiz, D. and Rondán-Cataluña, F.J. (2008), “The nature and consequences of price
unfairness in services: a comparison to tangible goods”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 325–352.
Mattila, A.S. and Enz, C.A. (2002), “The role of emotions in service encounters”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 268-277.
McClelland, G.H., Lynch Jr, J.G., Irwin, J.R., Spiller, S.A., Fitzsimons, G.J. (2015), “Median
splits, Type II errors, and false–positive consumer psychology: don’t fight the power”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25, No 4, pp. 679–689.
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.
McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.-H.R. (2002), “Principle and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses”, Psychology Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64–82.
Miao, L. and Mattila, A.S. (2007), “How and how much to reveal? The effects of price
transparency on consumers’ price perceptions”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 530–545.
Nyer, P.U. (2000), “An investigation into whether complaining can cause increased consumer
satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No.1, pp. 9–19.
Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 418–430.
Ostrom, A.L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D.E., Patrício, L. and Voss, C.A. (2015), “Service
research priorities in a rapidly changing context”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 127–159.

42.
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.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12–40.
Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T. (2003). “A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and propensity
to stay with service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 107–120.
Patton, M.Q. (2014), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879–903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp.
185–227.
Rahman, A. (2020), “Sources and categories of well-being: a systematic review and research
agenda”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No.1, pp. 1-33.
Ramani, G. and Kumar, V. (2008), “Interaction orientation and firm performance”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 27–45.
Rayburn, S.W. (2015), “Consumers’ captive service experiences: it’s YOU and ME”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 15/16, pp. 806–825.
Rayburn, S.W., Mason, M.J. and Volkers, M. (2020). “Service captivity: no choice, no voice, no
power”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 155–168.
Richins, M. L. (1983), “Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68–78.
Rosenbaum, M.S., Seger-Guttmann, T. and Giraldo, M. (2017), “Commentary: vulnerable
consumers in service settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4/5, pp. 309–312.
Rucker, D.D., McShane, B.B. and Preacher, K.J. (2015), “A researcher’s guide to regression,
discretization, and median splits of continuous variables”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 666–678.
Russell-Bennett, R., Fisk, R.P., Rosenbaum, M.S. and Zainuddin, N. (2019), “Commentary:
transformative service research and social marketing–converging pathways to social change”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 633–642.
Ryu, K. and Han, H. (2010), “Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical environment

43.
 on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: moderating role
of perceived price”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 310–329.
Sabadie, W. (2003), “Conceptualisation et mesure de la qualité perçue d’un service public
[Conceptualization and measure of the perceived quality of a public service]”, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing (French Edition), Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1–24. (in French)
Seiders, K. and Berry, L.L. (1998), “Service fairness: what it is and why it matters”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 12 No.2, pp. 8-20.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (2002), “The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service
failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 5–23.
Spiller, S.A., Fitzsimons, G.J., Lynch Jr, J.G., McClelland, G.H. (2013), “Spotlights, floodlights,
and the magic number zero: simple effects tests in moderated regression”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 277–288.
Suri, H. (2011), “Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis”, Qualitative Research
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 63–75.
Wang, Y. and Beise-Zee, R. (2013), “Service responses to emotional states of business
customers”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Watson, L. and Spence, M.T. (2006), “Causes and consequences of emotions on consumer
behaviour: a review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 5/6, pp.487-511.
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 &
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 661–680.
White, C.J. (2010), “The impact of emotions on service quality, satisfaction, and positive word-
of-mouth intentions over time”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 5/6, pp.
381–394.
Xia, L., Monroe, K.B. and Cox, J.L. (2004), “The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of
price fairness perceptions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 1–15.
Xie, L., Li, D. and Keh, H.T. (2020), “Customer participation and well-being: the roles of service
experience, customer empowerment and social support”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 557–584.
Yi, S. and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Coping with negative emotions in purchase‐related
situations”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 303–317.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths
about mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197–206.

44.
Table 1. Sample Characteristics
Railway Postal Mobile phone Total
services services services
Gender (% women) 50.8 48.9 50.0 49.9
Age (Mean / SD) 53.4 / 17.5 54.0 / 15.9 51.6 / 15.7 53.0 / 16.3
Education (Mean / SD) 3.4 / 1.1 3.3 / 1.2 3.4 / 1.1 3.4 / 1.2
Income (Mean / SD) 2.5 / 1.2 2.5 / 1.2 2.5 / 1.2 2.5 / 1.2
N 327 352 338 1’017
Notes: SD = standard deviation. Education: 1 = primary school, 2 = secondary school, 3 = high school, 4 = bachelor
degree, 5 = master degree, 6 = Ph.D. degree. Income, measured monthly: 1 = less than CHF 4,500; 2 = between CHF
4,500 and CHF 7,999; 3 = between CHF 8,000 and CHF 10,999, 4 = between CHF 11,000 and CHF 14,000, and 5 =
more than CHF 14,000. CHF 1 = US$1.03.

45.
 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics, Construct Reliability, and Correlation Matrices
Standard Cronbach’s Construct
Mean deviation alpha reliability 1. 2. 3. 4.
Railway services (n = 327)
1. Perceived quality 6.99 1.08 .93 .93 .73
2. Satisfaction 7.20 1.79 .90 .91 .49 .84
3. Negative word of mouth 2.37 1.58 .91 .91 –.47 –.64 .83
4. Captivity emotions 3.62 2.04 .87 .87 –.33 –.48 .58 .79
5. Price unfairness perceptions 7.50 1.65 — — –.14 –.23 .28 .25
Postal services (n = 352)
1. Perceived quality 7.46 1.15 .94 .94 .75
2. Satisfaction 7.06 1.80 .89 .89 .43 .82
3. Negative word of mouth 2.67 1.72 .88 .89 –.43 –.70 .78
4. Captivity emotions 3.58 2.12 .89 .89 –.36 –.40 .52 .82
5. Price unfairness perceptions 5.83 2.29 — — –.34 –.31 .27 .32
Mobile phone (n = 338)
1. Perceived quality 6.89 1.26 .94 .94 .76
2. Satisfaction 7.32 1.53 .85 .86 .49 .78
3. Negative word of mouth 2.56 1.59 .88 .87 –.55 .59 .77
4. Captivity emotions 3.82 2.18 .85 .85 –.32 –.35 .39 .77
5. Price unfairness perceptions 6.91 2.05 — — –.24 –.30 .26 .23
Notes: Means are weighted means, using factor loadings as weights to account for measurement errors. All correlation coefficients are significant at 5%. Square roots of the average
variance extracted are in bold on the diagonals.

46.
 Table 3a. Results of the Mediation and Moderated Mediation Analyses
Railway services Service quality Satisfaction Negative word of mouth
Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI
1. Baseline model (simple mediation)
Service quality — — .816*** .658, .974 –.297*** –.435, –.160
(.080) (.070)
Satisfaction — — — — –.480*** –.563, .398
(.042)
R2 = .241 R2 = .445
F(1, 325) = 103.418, p < .001 F(2, 324) = 129.846, p < .001

2. Serial mediation model

Captivity emotions –.173*** –.227, –.118 –.318*** –.399, –.237 .253*** .185, .320
(.028) (.041) (.034)
service quality — — .619*** .465, .773 –.241*** –.369, –.113
(.078) (.068)
Satisfaction — — — — –.357*** –.441, –.274
(.042)
R2 = .107 R2 = .359 R2 = .525
F(1, 325) = 38.900, p < .001 F(2, 324) = 90.659, p < .001 F(3, 323) = 119.106, p < .001

3. Moderated mediation model

Captivity emotions (as control) — — –.298*** –.380, –.216 .239*** .173, .305
(.042) (.034)
Service quality — — .609*** .457, .761 –.222*** –.347, –.097
(.077) (.064)
Satisfaction — — — — –.334*** –.416, –.252
(.042)
Price unfairness perceptions — — –.104* –.201, –.036 .093* .019, .166
(.049) (.038)
Price unfairness perc.  Service quality — — .081* .006, .157 –.013 –.076, .049
(.039) (.032)
Price unfairness perc.  Satisfaction — — — — –.083*** –.127, –.039
(.022)
R2 = .377 R2 = .557
F(4, 322) = 48.683, p < .001 F(6, 320) = 67.015, p < .001

47.
 Table 3b. Results of the Mediation and Moderated Mediation Analyses
Postal services Service quality Satisfaction Negative word of mouth
Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI
1. Baseline model (simple mediation)
Service quality — — .669*** .520, 818 –.235*** –.356, –.113
(.076) (.062)
Satisfaction — — — — –.601*** –.679, .523
(.040)
R2 = .182 R2 = .508
F(1, 350) = 78.089, p < .001 F(2, 349) = 179.795, p < .001

2. Serial mediation model

Captivity emotions –.196*** –.250, –.143 –.237*** –.321, –.154 .211*** .148, .275
(.027) (.042) (.032)
service quality — — .512*** .358, .665 –.143* –.262, –.025
(.078) (.060)
Satisfaction — — — — –.523*** –.604, –.451
(.039)
R2 = .130 R2 = .249 R2 = .562
F(1, 350) = 52.460, p < .001 F(2, 349) = 58.123, p < .001 F(3, 348) = 148.569, p < .001

3. Moderated mediation model

Captivity emotions (as control) — — –.212*** –.297, –.127 .216*** .152, .279
(.043) (.033)
Service quality — — .463*** .305, .621 –.171** –.292, –.049
(.080) (.062)
Satisfaction — — — — –.515*** –.592, –.437
(.040)
Price unfairness Perceptions — — –.097* –.177, –.016 –.011 –.070, .049
(.041) (.030)
Price unfairness perc.  Service quality — — –.027 –.090, .037 .011 –.041, .063
(.032) (.027)
Price unfairness perc.  Satisfaction — — — — –.049** –.081, –.017
(.016)
R2 = .267 R2 = .574
F(4, 347) = 31.513, p < .001 F(6, 345) = 77.618, p < .001

48.
 Table 3c. Results of the Mediation and Moderated Mediation Analyses
Mobile phone services Service quality Satisfaction Negative word of mouth
Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI
1. Baseline model (simple mediation)
Service quality — — .597*** .483, .710 –.432*** –.549, –.315
(.058) (.060)
Satisfaction — — — — –.439*** –.535, .343
(.049)
R2 = .241 R2 = .437
F(1, 336) = 106.501, p < .001 F(2, 335) = 130.108, p < .001

2. Serial mediation model

Captivity emotions –.185*** –.244, –.126 –.152*** –.219, –.084 .118*** .055, .181
(.030) (.034) (.032)
service quality — — .513*** .396, .629 –.392*** –.509, –.276
(.059) (.059)
Satisfaction — — — — –.396*** –.493, –.299
(.049)
R2 = .103 R2 = .283 R2 = .459
F(1, 336) = 38.403, p < .001 F(2, 335) = 60.940, p < .001 F(3, 334) = 94.613, p < .001

3. Moderated mediation model

Captivity emotions (as control) — — –.130*** –.198, –.063 .108*** .045, .171
(.034) (.032)
Service quality — — .459*** .341, .577 –.369*** –.484, –.253
(.060) (.059)
Satisfaction — — — — –.364*** –.463, –.265
(.050)
Price unfairness perception — — –.126*** –.195, –.056 .034 –.030, .100
(.035) (.033)
Price unfairness perc.  Service quality — — .046 –.009, .101 –.074* –.131, –.016
(.028) (.029)
Price unfairness perc.  Satisfaction — — — — –.030 –.076, .015
(.023)
R2 = .313 R2 = .483
F(4, 333) = 37.880, p < .001 F(6, 331) = 51.478, p < .001

49.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

50.
 Figure 2. Captivity Emotions and Price Unfairness Perceptions as Manifestations of Customer Captivity

Captivity Emotions Price Unfairness Perceptions

9 9

8 8

7 7

Price Unfairness Perceptions

6 6
Captivity Emotions

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Customer Captivity Customer Captivity

Railways Mobile Phone Postal Services Railways Mobile Phone Postal Services

51.
Figure 3. Analysis of the Conditional Total Effects of Perceived Service Quality of Negative
Word of Mouth at Different Levels of Price Unfairness Perceptions
A. Railway Services
Conditional Total Effect of Price Unfairness Perceptions
Total Effect of Perceived Service Quality on Negative Word of Mouth
0
5 6 7 8 9 at Different Levels of Price Unfairness Perceptions
7
-0.1

-0.2 Price Unfairness = 9

6

-0.3 Price Unfairness = 8

Negative Word of Mouth

Conditional Total Effect

5
-0.4

Price Unfairness = 7
-0.5 4

-0.6
Price Unfairness = 5
3
-0.7

-0.8 2

-0.9
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-1
Level of moderator: Price Unfairness Perceptions Perceive Service Quality

B. Postal Services
Conditional Total Effect of Price Unfairness Perceptions Total Effect of Perceived Service Quality on Negative Word of Mouth
0 at Different Levels of Price Unfairness Perceptions
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7
-0.1

-0.2
6 Price Unfairness = 9

Price Unfairness = 8
-0.3
Negative Word of Mouth
Conditional Total Effect

5 Price Unfairness = 5
-0.4

-0.5 4

-0.6

3
-0.7

-0.8 2

-0.9
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-1
Level of moderator: Price Unfairness Perceptions Perceived Service Quality

C. Mobile Phone Services

Conditional Total Effect of Price Unfairness Perceptions Total Effect of Perceived Service Quality on Negative Word of Mouth
0
4 5 6 7 8 9
at Different Levels of Price Unfairness Perceptions
8
-0.1

Price Unfairness = 9
-0.2 7

-0.3
6
Negative Word of Mouth
Conditional Total Effect

Price Unfairness = 7
-0.4
5
Price Unfairness = 6
-0.5

4
-0.6

-0.7 3

-0.8
2

-0.9
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-1
Level of moderator: Price Unfairness Perceptions Perceived Service Quality

Notes: Plots are based on unstandardized coefficients. Left panels: Dashed lines represent the 95% confidence bands. For any
moderator values for which the confidence bands do not contain zero, the conditional total effect is significantly different from
zero. Dots represent the conditional total effects at the mean value of the moderator (Spiller et al., 2013). Right panels: Regression
lines of the total effect of the independent variables on the depenent variable at different level of the moderator (Hayes, 2018).

52.
1
Rayburn (2015) uses the term “service captivity” to label the concept of customer captivity in service contexts. We
prefer the term “customer captivity,” because it better highlights the idea that it is customers who feel captive.
2
We ran the analysis with average scores, and the results (available from the first author) do not significantly differ.
3
We also ran moderated serial mediation models (Hayes, 2018, Model 92) with captivity emotions as the independent
variable, perceived service quality and satisfaction as mediators, and prince unfairness perceptions and NWOM as
dependent variables (see Web Appendix A6). Compared with the moderated mediation models with captivity
emotions as a control variable, these models add the interactions between price unfairness perceptions and captivity
emotions. However, these interactions are not significant in any of the service industries, with the exception of the
effect of the interaction on satisfaction in the mobile phone industry. The moderated serial mediation models do not
provide additional explanatory power and are less parsimonious, so we retain the moderated mediation model with
captivity emotions as a control variable for our final models.

53.
 Web Appendix

In this file, we have compiled some additional material to help readers assess the rigor of our

research process and the validity of our findings. These elements were left out of the main body of

the paper because of space limitation.

Table of content

A1. Mixed-methods sequential design ....................................................................................... 2

A2. Questionnaire-based survey items ....................................................................................... 3

A3. Measurement of price unfairness perceptions ..................................................................... 5

A4. Validation of the manifestations of customer captivity....................................................... 7

A5. Common method variance................................................................................................... 9

A6. Alternative models ............................................................................................................ 10

A7. Qualitative study informants ............................................................................................. 19

A8. Coding scheme .................................................................................................................. 20

A9. Characteristics and manifestations of customer captivity ................................................. 23

References ................................................................................................................................ 27

1.
A1. Mixed-methods sequential design

Adapted from Ivankova et al. (2006), Figure A1 graphically depicts the mixed-methods sequential

design used in our study. It describes the sequence of the research process, along with the different

procedures and main outcomes of each stage.

Figure A1. Mixed-methods sequential design

2.
A2. Questionnaire-based survey items

Most of the items used in the survey were adapted from existing scales, some were specifically

developed for this study. Table A2 presents the items used in the analysis.

Table A2. Survey items

Mobile
Variable Items Railway Postal phone
services services services
Loadings Loadings Loadings
Perceived service • Employees adopt a reassuring attitude when I experience a .737 .775 .798
quality problem
(SERVPERF) • The company inspire confidence .735 .687 .813
Cronin and Taylor • When the company commits to something, it keeps its — — —
(1992), promises*
Parasuraman et al. • The service is provided as promised* — — —
(1988)
• The information provided is precise .502 .708 .790
• Employees deliver the service in a timely manner .747 .755 .802
• Employees are available to answer my individual requests .788 .766 .748
• Employees are willing to help me if needed .827 .853 .837
• The company indicates precisely when the service will be — — —
delivered*
• Employees are polite .724 .666 .669
• I feel safe* — — —
• I can trust the employees .816 .722 .750
• Employees get adequate support to do their job well* — — —
• The operating hours are convenient for the customers* — — —
• Employees understand my needs as a customer* — — —
• Employees pay a special attention to me .658 .797 .671
• Employees are committed to act with the best interest of the .757 .774 .729
customers at heart
• Employees give me individual attention .661 .781 .760
• The equipment is in good state* — — —
• Employees are well dressed and appear neat* — — —
• Facilities are visually appealing* — — —
• The appearance of the facilities is in keeping with the type of — — —
services provided*
Satisfaction • I am more often disappointed than happy with the services .762 .746 .712
Sabadie (2003) provided by X (reversed)
• I am dissatisfied with the overall services provided by X .845 .740 .763
(reversed)
• Overall, I am displeased with the services provided by X .904 .903 .828
(reversed)
• In comparison with what I expect, I am disappointed with the .853 .876 .799
services from X (reversed)
Negative word of • I advise my family and friends against the services from X .689 .568 .365
mouth • I tend to criticize the services from X .767 .752 .809
Sabadie (2003) • I speak about the services from X to my family and friends as a .918 .904 .871
bad public service
• I tend to depreciate the services from X .868 .813 .814
• I most often say negative things to my family and friends about .865 .832 .879
the services from X

3.
 Captivity • I feel like I can choose between different providers, therefore I .622 .518 .590
perception feel like I have the choice (reversed)
This study • I feel obliged to use this company .818 .816 .879
• It seems difficult to switch providers .683 .662 .618
Price unfairness
What do you think about the services of YOUR provider?
perception — — —
• I find the prices charged for the services of X too expensive
This study
Captivity emotions How do you feel about your captive relationship with [service
Izard (1977) company X]?
• This makes me angry .796 .795 .765
• This disappoints me .722 .865 .774
• This annoys me .787 .796 .783
• This makes me feel like I am being held hostage .860 .803 .761
• This saddens me* — — —
• I do not mind* — — —
• I am fine with this* — — —
• This makes me happy* — — —
* These items were not used in the analysis.

4.
A3. Measurement of price unfairness perceptions

During the review process, concerns were raised about the face validity of the item we used to

measure price unfairness perceptions “I find the prices charged for the services [of service

provider] too expensive.” The concern was principally about the meaning of the item: In a

captivity situation, does “too expensive” means “unfair?” We suspect that the concern might

probably be due to a language issue. The item, along with the overall questionnaire, was originally

developed in French and was also pre-tested with French-speaking Swiss informants to ensure that

it conveyed the intended meaning. The findings of the pre-test indicated that in a captivity context,

a service that is said to be too expensive was perceived as unfairly too expensive. However, we

understand that this interpretation could be questioned. Therefore, to assess the face validity of the

item, we conducted an additional qualitative study to specifically examine the meaning of this item

with 20 French-speaking Swiss informants. The informants were users of, at least, one of the three

studied services and were selected to be as similar as possible of those of the original survey and

were asked to describe how they understand the item.

The findings of this study reveal that in a captivity context, when asked about a service being

“too expensive,” French-speaking Swiss customers perceive the price as too expensive compared

to what they receive and because service providers could use their dominant position to overcharge

captive customers to increase their profits, which they perceive as unfair. Several informants

explain that when interpreting this item, they relate price to the quality of service they received,

such as: “The prices of the Swiss railways are too expensive, unfair in regard to the service

received” (R3) and “We are resigned, so we take it [even if too expensive], … it is not fair

because the price is not worth the quality and means deployed” (R10). Informants also explained

that in the case of a captivity situation, they do not think service providers act fairly in terms of

prices and therefore a price which is perceived as too high is also perceived as unfair: “When I am

5.
at the post office to send parcels and think it is too expensive, I have no other choice, so I do it. It

is unfair because we do not know what justifies these prices” (R4) and “There is no competition so

no points of comparison, for me it is too expensive because the company takes too much profit […]

it is unfair because most of the time the margin they take is not justified” (R5). Customers indeed

perceive unfairness related to expensive prices that “are not always justified […] because

[providers] do not clearly explain what it is you are paying for” (R13). Those informants who

considered the price in regard to their income still perceived the price as unfair compared to what

they thought they should be paying for the service: “In Switzerland we generally have the income

to pay for it, but it still makes no sense to pay that much […] in general the price does not reflect

the quality [of the service]” (R2). Moreover, some informants also stated that even if they would

be satisfied with the quality of service, they still perceive the expensive price as unfair when it

exceeds the amount they expect to pay for the service: “The service quality [of the Swiss railways]

is good, but I still think it is [the price] unfairly excessive […] it comes back to my perception of

what I think I should be paying for this service” (R1).

In addition to the qualitative interpretation of the item, we also asked informants to evaluate

the prices of one of the three services included in the study (informants could choose either

railway, post, or mobile phone services) and if they thought the prices were unfair. These two

items were measured on 9-point Likert scales. A Spearman’s rank correlation was then computed

to assess the degree of association between the items “too expensive” and “unfair.” We obtained a

rs of .813 (n = 20) with a p-value smaller than .001, which provides support for a strong

association between the two items. Together, these results provide empirical support for the face

validity of the item used to measure price unfairness perceptions.

6.
A4. Validation of the manifestations of customer captivity

In order to validate the two manifestations of customer captivity, we computed a structural model

using AMOS 26, with customer captivity as the independent variable and captivity emotions and

price unfairness perceptions as dependent variables. We allowed the two manifestations of

customer captivity to co-vary.

The tests of the models indicate satisfactory fit indices, in support of the model for all three

industry samples (Table A4). The normed chi-square values are 1.995, 1.986, and .978 for railway,

postal, and mobile phone services, respectively. The RMSEA values are .055 [90% CI: .028; .082]

for railway services, .053 [90% CI: .027; .078] for postal services, and .000 [90% CI: .000; .047]

for mobile phone services. Then for railway services, the fit indices are .970 (NNFI) and .981

(CFI); for postal services, these values are .974 (NNFI) and .993 (CFI); and for mobile phone

services, they are .999 (NNFI) and .999 (CFI).

Furthermore, the structural coefficients are significant and in the expected directions. The

standardized regression coefficients are .396 for captivity emotions and .181 for price unfairness

perceptions for railway services; they are .359 for captivity emotions and .222 for price unfairness

perceptions for railway services, and .538 for captivity emotions and .185 for price unfairness

perceptions for mobile phone services. These results provide empirical support for the two

manifestations of customer captivity.

7.
 Table A4. Model Fit Indices
Model 2 df p-value 2/df RMSEA NNFI CFI
[90% CI]
Railway services 35.919 18 .007 1.995 .055 .970 .981
(n = 327) [.028; .082]
Postal services 35.741 18 .008 1.986 .053 .974 .993
(n = 352) [.027; .078]
Mobile phone services 17.603 18 .482 .978 .000 .999 .999
(n = 338) [.000; .047]
Notes: df = degrees of freedom, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CI = confidence
interval, NNFI = non-normed fit index, and CFI = confirmatory fit index.

8.
A5. Common method variance

As is true for any self-reported data, there is the potential for common method variance (CMV).

Beyond the preventive measures taken to reduce its likelihood, we conducted two tests to

determine the extent of CMV in the data (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, a Harman one-factor test

was conducted on all the items used to measure perceived service quality, satisfaction, NWOM,

and captivity emotions. Results reveal that, across the three industry samples, the items loaded on

four factors, with the first factor accounting for between 40.3% and 42.7% of the total variance in

the items, which indicates that CMV does not explain the majority of the covariance between the

measures. Second, to confirm these results, the unmeasured latent method factor technique was

used (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Based on this technique, the path coefficients of a measurement

model with a method factor is compared to those of a model without the method factor (Podsakoff

et al., 2003). Results from these analyses indicate that while the method factor did improve model

fit in the three industry samples, the loadings of the initial models remain significant and have less

than |.2| difference between the models. This suggests that CMV is not a pervasive problem.

9.
A6. Alternative Models

To further provide a richer discussion of our results, we also considered four alternative models.

First, we ran moderated serial mediation models (Hayes, 2018, Model 92) with captivity emotions

as the independent variable, perceived service quality and satisfaction as mediators, prince

unfairness perceptions, and NWOM as dependent variables (see Table A6a to c, panels 1).

Compared to the moderated mediation models with captivity emotions as a control variable, these

models add the interactions between price unfairness perceptions and captivity emotions.

Bootstrapping results reveal that these interactions have no significant effects in any of the service

industries, with the sole exception of the interaction effect of price unfairness perceptions on the

relationship between captivity emotions and satisfaction in the mobile phone industry (–.035 [95%

CI: –.065; –.006]). In addition, for the three industry samples, the R-squared pertaining to railway,

postal, and mobile phone services are as follows: for perceived service quality .112, .188, and

.135; for satisfaction, .377, .266, and .324, and for NWOM, .557, .574, and .483. These results do

not provide any additional explanatory power compared to the moderated mediation models. Thus,

as the moderated serial mediation models are less parsimonious than the moderated mediation

models with captivity emotions as a control variable, we retain the later models as the definite

models.

Second, to assess the relevance of using captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions

as two manifestations of customer captivity, we tested moderated mediation models with

perceived service quality as the independent variable, satisfaction as the mediator, customer

captivity as the moderator, and NWOM as the dependent variable (Hayes, 2018, model 59). The

bootstrapping results indicate direct negative effects of customer captivity on perceived quality for

the railway (–.107 [95% CI: –.166; –.049]), postal (–.090 [95% CI: –.151; –.029]), and mobile

phone services (–.170 [95% CI: –.237; –.103]). Customer captivity also has negative direct effects

10.
on satisfaction for mobile phone services only: –.176 [95% CI: –.250; –.102]. Results also indicate

positive directs effects of customer captivity on NWOM: .093 [95% CI: .026; .159] for railway

services, .112 [95% CI: .047; .177] for postal services, and .115 [95% CI: .046; .185] for mobile

phone services (see Table A6a to c, panels 2). For the three industry samples, the R-squared

pertaining to railway, postal, and mobile phone services are as follows: for perceived service

quality .038, .023, and .066; for satisfaction, .248, .187, and .288, and for NWOM, .458, .523, and

.455.

Third, the bootstrapping results of the moderated mediation models indicate a significant

conditioning effect of customer captivity on the relationship between perceived service quality and

satisfaction for mobile phone services (.087 [95% CI: .038; .136]), but not for railway and postal

services; no significant moderating effects of customer captivity on the relationship between

perceived service quality and NWOM for any of the three services and significant moderating

effects of customer captivity on the relationship between satisfaction and NWOM for railway

services (–.067 [95% CI: –.109; –.026]), and postal services (–.082 [95% CI: –.120; –.044]), but

not for mobile phone services (see Table A6a to c, panels 3). For the three industry samples, the R-

squared pertaining to railway, postal, and mobile phone services are as follows: for satisfaction,

.248, .188, and .312, and for NWOM, .478, .553, and .456.

Together, these results show that customer captivity has both direct and conditioning effects

on the baseline models in the three services, however, the explanatory powers of the models are

smaller compared to the explanatory powers of the models with captivity emotions and price

unfairness perceptions, providing support for the relevance of disentangling the effects of these

two manifestations.

Fourth, to determine if it is relevant to account for the moderating effects of price unfairness

perceptions, we tested direct effects only models with price unfairness perceptions as the

11.
independent variable, perceived service quality and satisfaction as the mediators, and NWOM as

the dependent variable (Hayes, 2018, Model 6). The bootstrapping results indicate negative direct

effects of price unfairness perceptions on perceived quality for the railway (–.092 [95% CI: –.162;

–.021]), postal (–.171 [95% CI: –.221; –.121]), and mobile phone services (–.150 [95% CI: –.213;

–.086]). Price unfairness perceptions has direct negative effects on satisfaction for railway

services: –.185 [95% CI: –.287; –.083], postal services: –.150 [95% CI: –.228; –.072], and mobile

phone services: –.144 [95% CI: –.215; –.074]. Results also indicate positive directs effects of price

unfairness perceptions on NWOM for the railway services only: .120 [95% CI: .041; .200] (see

Table A6a to c, panels 4). For the three industry samples, the R-squared pertaining to railway,

postal, and mobile phone services are as follows: for perceived service quality .020, .116, and

.060; for satisfaction, .270, .214, and .276, and for NWOM, .460, .508, and .439.

These results show that across the three services, price unfairness directly affects perceived

service quality, satisfaction, and NWOM, however, the explanatory powers of the models are

smaller compared to the explanatory powers of the moderated mediation models that include the

conditioning effects of price unfairness perceptions.

12.
 Table A6a. Alternative Models: Railway Services
Railway services Service quality Satisfaction Negative word of mouth
Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI

1. Moderate Serial Mediation Model

Captivity emotions –.169*** –.226, –.111 –.303*** –.388, –.218 .239*** .171, .307
(.029) (.043) (.035)
Service quality — — .607*** .455, .760 –.222*** –.348, –.096
(.078) (.064)
Satisfaction — — — — –.334*** –.416, –.252
(.042)
Price unfairness perceptions –.037 –.108, .033 –.099* –.198, .000 .093* .018, .167
(.036) (.050) (.038)
Price unfairness perceptions  Captivity emotions –.013 –.022, .049 .014 –.039, .068 –.001 –.043, .044
(.018) (.027) (.022)
Price unfairness perceptions  Service quality — — .089* .008, .171 –.013 –.077, .051
(.041) (.033)
Price unfairness perceptions  Satisfaction — — — — –.083*** –.131, –.034
(.024)
R2 = .112 R2 = .377 R2 = .557
F(3, 323) = 13.599, p < .001 F(5, 321) = 38.912, p < .001 F(7, 319) = 57.262, p < .001

2. Customer captivity’s direct effect only

Customer captivity –.107*** –.166, –.049 –.072 –.160, .016 .093** .026, .159
(.030) (.045) (.034)
Service quality — — .790*** .629, .950 –.273*** –.410, –.136
(.082) (.070)
Satisfaction — — — — –.470*** –.552, –.388
(.042)
R2 = .038 R2 = .248 R2 = .458
F(1, 325) = 12.116, p < .001 F(2, 324) = 53.779, p < .001 F(3, 323) = 90.816, p < .001

13.
3. Moderated mediation model with customer
captivity
Customer captivity — — –.073 –.161, .016 .104** .039, .170
(.045) (.033)
Service quality — — .789*** .628, .950 –.276*** –.411, –.141
(.082) (.069)
Satisfaction — — — — –.456*** –.537, –.374
(.041)
Customer captivity  Service quality — — .005 –.073, .083 –.001 –.064, .066
(.040) (.033)
Customer captivity  Satisfaction — — — — –.067** –.109, –.026
(.021)
R2 = .248 R2 = .478
F(3, 323) = 35.416, p < .001 F(5, 322) = 58.857, p < .001

4. Price unfairness perceptions’ direct effect only

Price unfairness perceptions –.092* –.162, –.021 –.185*** –.287, –.083 .120** .041, .200
(.036) (.052) (.040)
Service quality — — .776*** .619, .933 –.291*** –.427, –.156
(.080) (.070)
Satisfaction — — — — –.456*** –.539, –.373
(.042)
R2 = .020 R2 = .270 R2 = .460
F(1, 325) = 6.541, p < .05 F(2, 324) = 59.888, p < .001 F(3, 323) = 91.630, p < .001

14.
 Table A6b. Alternative Models: Postal Services
Postal services Service quality Satisfaction Negative word of mouth
Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI

1. Moderate Serial Mediation Model

Captivity emotions –.155*** –.210, –.100 –.213*** –.298, –.127 .218*** .153, .282
(.028) (.044) (.033)
Service quality — — .462*** .304, .621 –.170** –.291, –.048
(.080) (.062)
Satisfaction — — — — –.514*** –.592, –.336
(.040)
Price unfairness perceptions –.123*** –.174, –.033 –.096* –.177, –.016 –.011 –.070, .048
(.026) (.041) (.030)
Price unfairness perceptions  Captivity emotions –.008 –.015, .030 .002 –.034, .038 –.007 –.034, .020
(.011) (.018) (.014)
Price unfairness perceptions  Service quality — — –.025 –.094, .043 .008 –.046, .062
(.035) (.027)
Price unfairness perceptions  Satisfaction — — — — –.051** –.084, –.018
(.017)
R2 = .188 R2 = .266 R2 = .574
F(3, 348) = 26.811, p < .001 F(5, 346) = 25.141, p < .001 F(7, 344) = 66.417, p < .001

2. Customer captivity’s direct effect only

Customer captivity –.090* –.151, –.029 –.062 –.151, –.027 .112*** .047, .177
(.031) (.045) (.033)
Service quality — — .653*** .503, .804 –.212*** –.333, –.091
(.077) (.062)
Satisfaction — — — — –.591*** –.668, –.514
(.039)
R2 = .023 R2 = .187 R2 = .523
F(1, 350) = 8.399, p < .01 F(2, 349) = 40.095, p < .001 F(3, 348) = 127.294, p < .001

15.
3. Moderated mediation model with customer
captivity
Customer captivity — — –.067 –.157, .024 .125** .067, .189
(.077) (.033)
Service quality — — .653*** .503, .804 –.227*** –.345, –.110
(.077) (.060)
Satisfaction — — — — –.564*** –.640, –.489
(.038)
Customer captivity  Service quality — — .021 –.053, .094 –.013 –.070, .044
(.037) (.029)
Customer captivity  Satisfaction — — — — –.082*** –.120, –.044
(.019)
R2 = .188 R2 = .553
F(3, 348) = 26.780, p < .001 F(5, 346) = 85.654, p < .001

4. Price unfairness perceptions’ direct effect

only
Price unfairness perceptions –.171*** –.221, –.121 –.150*** –.228, –.072 .017 –.043, .077
(.025) (.040) (.031)
Service quality — — .568*** .412, .723 –.226*** –.353, –.100
(.079) (.064)
Satisfaction — — — — –.597*** –.676, –.517
(.040)
R2 = .116 R2 = .214 R2 = .508
F(1, 350) = 46.000, p < .001 F(2, 349) = 47.634, p < .001 F(3, 348) = 119.737, p < .001

16.
 Table A6c. Alternative Models: Mobile Phone Services
Mobile phone services Service quality Satisfaction Negative word of mouth
Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI Coeff. (s.e.) 95% CI

1. Moderate Serial Mediation Model

Captivity emotions –.160*** –.119, –.138 –.126*** –.193, –.059 .108*** .046, .171
(.030) (.034) (.032)
Service quality — — .459*** .341, .576 –.367*** –.484, –.251
(.060) (.059)
Satisfaction — — — — –.367*** –.467, –.267
(.051)
Price unfairness perceptions –.110*** –.173, –.046 –.120*** –.189, –.051 .035 –.030, .100
(.032) (.035) (.033)
Price unfairness perceptions  Captivity emotions –.009 –.036, .018 –.035* –.065, –.006 –.006 –.033, .021
(.014) (.015) (.014)
Price unfairness perceptions  Service quality — — .032 –.024, .088 –.075* –.133, –.018
(.029) (.029)
Price unfairness perceptions  Satisfaction — — — — –.030 –.076, .015
(.023)
R2 = .135 R2 = .324 R2 = .483
F(3, 334) = 17.352, p < .001 F(5, 332) = 31.848, p < .001 F(7, 330) = 44.038, p < .001

2. Customer captivity’s direct effect only

Customer captivity –.170*** –.237, –.103 –.176*** –.250, –.102 .115** .046, .185
(.034) (.038) (.035)
Service quality — — .525*** .410, .639 –.409*** –.526, –.293
(.058) (.059)
Satisfaction — — — — –.399*** –.497, –.301
(.050)
R2 = .066 R2 = .288 R2 = .455
F(1, 336) = 25.017, p < .001 F(2, 335) = 67.594, p < .001 F(3, 334) = 92.800, p < .001

17.
3. Moderated mediation model with customer
captivity
Customer captivity — — –.168*** –.241, –.095 .113** .043, .183
(.037) (.036)
Service quality — — .480*** .365, .595 –.408*** –.525, –.291
(.059) (.060)
Satisfaction — — — — –.382*** –.486, –.278
(.053)
Customer captivity  Service quality — — .087*** .038, .136 –.004 –.051, .058
(.025) (.028)
Customer captivity  Satisfaction — — — — –.019 –.061, –.024
(.022)
R2 = .312 R2 = .456
F(3, 334) = 50.569, p < .001 F(5, 332) = 55.677, p < .001

4. Price unfairness perceptions’ direct effect

only
Price unfairness perceptions –.150*** –.213, –.086 –.144*** –.215, –.074 .032 –.034, .098
(.032) (.036) (.034)
Service quality — — .539*** .424, .654 –.426*** –.543, –.308
(.058) (.060)
Satisfaction — — — — –.429*** –.527, –.517
(.050)
R2 = .060 R2 = .276 R2 = .439
F(1, 336) = 21.283, p < .001 F(2, 335) = 63.859, p < .001 F(3, 334) = 87.026, p < .001

18.
A7. Qualitative study informants

Table A7 provides the characteristics of the 20 informants interviewed in the qualitative study.

Table A7. Characteristics of the informants

Informant Initials Age Gender Service

1. C.R 30–34 Female Mobile Phone
2. M.D. 30–34 Male Mobile Phone
3. T.B. 35–39 Female Mobile Phone
4. D.M. 35–39 Male Mobile Phone
5. H.K. 55–59 Female Mobile Phone
6. M.P. 60–64 Female Mobile Phone
7. B.L. 70–74 Male Mobile Phone
8. R.B. 75–79 Female Mobile Phone
9. S.P. 25–29 Male Railways
10. S.R. 25–29 Male Railways
11. S.M. 25–29 Male Railways
12. J.B. 35–40 Female Railways
13. A.T. 40–44 Female Railways
14. D.I. 45–49 Male Railways
15. P.L. 65–69 Male Railways
16. C.P. 30–34 Female Post
17. M.B. 30–34 Female Post
18. P.C. 30–34 Male Post
19 B.H. 50–55 Female Post
20 L.M. 65–70 Female Post

19.
A8. Coding scheme

Table A8 details the coding scheme resulting from this multistep iterative coding process and

provide illustrative quotes from the interviews.

Table A8. Coding scheme

First-order
Second-order themes Illustrative quotes
codes
Conditions for customer Perceived We are being held hostage because everybody uses it (mobile phone) and it
captivity need costs so much (B.L. – phone).
For my business trips to Geneva or Zurich, I don’t have any other option
than to use the Swiss railway company (P.L. – railways).
I have a lot of things delivered by the Post. I would say that I order 80% of
my purchases that are not food-related online. Anyway, I expect deliveries
many times per week [...] I am captive from the Post…like a prisoner (C.P.
– post).

Lack of With the Swiss railways, I totally [felt captive]. This was because, on some
available routes, you could only take the train, there were no other available
Customer captivity

alternatives alternative (S.P. – railways).

The Post is the only option [...] when things go wrong, I would like to have
another alternative. (M.B. – post).
You don’t have that much options. You have to go to the Post for some
things. You have to use the Swiss railways. And also, for your monthly
phone plan, you are kind of stuck between three or four providers (A.T. –
post, railways, phone).
No choice No choice I realized I had made a mistake [...] I had no choice […] for a period of 12
or 24 months [...] I felt helpless because of the terms of my contract (D.M.
– phone).
I realized after a few months that I was not necessarily using it [mobile data
and other conditions included in contract]. At that time, I was forced to stay
with them until the end of my contract (D.M. – phone).
They [telecom operator] didn’t offer any solution because for them there
was no problem. […] I felt like I couldn’t do anything as I had no control
over what could happen (T.B. – phone).
Captivity Frustration Frustration How frustrated I was. I was even more frustrated because I couldn’t use
emotions because no another railways company. I had a bad experience. But I thought, it wasn’t
choice because I didn’t have the choice to change services that it gave the right to
(the railway company) to treat me like that (S.M. – railways).
Manifestations of captivity

Frustration I felt captive from the postal delivery schedules, which were very often
because no incorrectly announced. I was literally held captive at home, like a prisoner
control [...] I felt a lot of frustration, I had no control, I had no alternatives (C.P. –
post).
Frustration I didn’t have any other options. [...], you felt as if you were [...] frustrated
and feeling and vulnerable too (H.K. – phone).
vulnerable
Helplessness Helplessness There was no way to change things. I had a feeling of helplessness (S.P. –
because no railways).
possible
change

20.
 Anger / Anger We couldn’t do anything as long as the contract was not finished. [...] I was
Being upset angry, because it was unfair to pay 150 CHF extra when everything
(service) was not working (R.M. –phone).
Being upset it (captive situation) puts me in a position that makes me upset (B.L. –
phone).

Indifference Indifference Knowing that there was no competitor that provided the same service, I felt
quite indifferent (D.I. – railways).
Detachment I didn’t get upset if I had to go to the post office. It was like taking the
garbage out. Something you didn’t like to do, but you have to (P.C. – post).
Stress Stress It was stressful because I really felt like I couldn't do anything about it
because no (captive situation) and I felt being taken advantage of (T.B. – phone).
possible
action and
feeling of
being taken
advantage of
Feeling of Feeling of We are being held hostage because everybody uses it (mobile phone) and it
being held being held costs so much (B.L. – phone).
hostage hostage
because of
high prices
and need for
service
Price Overpriced Feeling of They know it, and they don’t adapt their prices. They maintain their [high]
unfairness service being taken prices because they know that [we are living] in villages, in the
perceptions advantage of countryside. You feel that you are being taken advantage of (H.K. –
because of phone).
high prices
Feeling of We are being held hostage [...] because it costs so much. It’s upsetting. It is
being held 3 to 4 times more expensive than in other European countries (B.L. –
hostage phone).
because of
high prices
Feeling upset People like me, who commute every day, we are quite upset with the Swiss
because of railways because the prices are expensive [...] and there are many delays,
high prices cancellations and other problems like that (D.I. – railways).
compared to I thought it was too expensive in regard to the quality of service, but I’m
service not able to change anything (S.P. – railways).
quality
Complaining Complaining [I wrote] to customer service, I said [...] this was really appalling that you
payed this amount of money and you even made the effort of booking in
advance, you tried to be on time, [...] and still you always ended up having
an issue. So, I gave them an earful [...] I didn’t think my voice was heard
because I never got a reply (A.T. – railways).
Coping with captivity

I called customer service several times, they took note and said they
understood [my situation] but that they could do nothing more. We made a
joint complaint [...]” (C.P. – postal services).
Resignation Resignation We had to stay. Even if we found something else cheaper, we couldn’t just
cancel [the subscription] like that. [...] sometimes I told myself that I’m the
one who chose it. So, I had to take responsibility (C.R. – phone).
I thought it was too expensive in regard to the quality of service, but I’m
not able to change anything” (S.P. – railways).
Emotional support seeking NWOM Immediately after that trip, I shared this negative experience with my
NWOM parents, [...] I wanted to externalize my frustration, formalize it so I
wouldn’t keep it inside (S.M. – railways).

21.
 I was frustrated, and I found the situation revolting. So, it (sharing the
experience) made me feel good to talk about it, so that people understood
my situation (T.B. – phone).
[I shared this experience] not for revenge], but as I was captive from the
telecom company. I had no way to punish them! […] it was nice to talk
about it with friends and say words you would have liked to say to the
service provider (M.D. – phone).
Reducing captivity feelings Releasing I was angry and stressed, I knew that my wife was waiting for me. Being
negative able to criticize the service with my wife helped me mitigate the situation
emotions (S.R. – railways).
Outcomes of NWOM

Regaining As it was an injustice, I didn’t want it to happen to me or to others. [From

control this perspective], sharing my experience allowed me to feel as I was
regaining control, yes clearly. [...] And I felt relieved. Liberated is the word
(M.D. – phone).
Reinforcing I felt more understood. Even if friends didn’t understand the technical
social ties problem, at least they understood the human problem and my frustration.
[...] It didn’t solve my problem, but it helped to get this frustration out by
sharing it with someone (M.D. – phone).
So, I felt better because I was not alone, at least not the only one who got
screwed (C.R. – phone).

22.
A9. Characteristics and manifestations of customer captivity

Prior to addressing informants’ coping behaviors and their effectiveness, the interviews started

with opening questions related to the characteristics and manifestations of customers’ captivity.

These opening questions were meant to help informants remember their affective state in captivity

situations. From a methodological point of view, the answers to these questions are useful to better

understand customers’ feelings of captivity, as well as price unfairness perceptions and captivity

emotions, as two manifestations of customer captivity. Findings confirm that customers feel

captive because they do not have the possibility to leave the service relationship, due to a

perceived need for the service and a lack of alternatives. Then, customer captivity manifests itself

through the perceptions of unfair pricing practices and negative emotions induced by captivity. In

addition, the data also provide face validity for the items used in the questionnaire-based survey to

measure customer captivity, price unfairness perceptions, and captivity emotions, but also allow

for a deeper understanding of these complex phenomena, notably in the range of captivity

emotions and how prices are perceived as too expensive and unfair in captivity settings.

The characteristics of customers captivity

How do captive customers perceive their captivity? The analysis of the interview data reveals that

the perception of captivity is reflected through three related themes: (1) a perceived need for the

services, (2) a lack of alternatives and (3), feelings of not having any choice.

Perceived need. Informants revealed that they feel dependent on the provider for obtaining

the service they need, as stated by this railway user: “For my business trips to Geneva or Zurich, I

don’t have any other option than to use the Swiss railway company” (P.L. – railways). This other

customer elaborated on her need for postal services: “I have a lot of things delivered by the Post. I

would say that I order 80% of my purchases that are not food-related online. Anyway, I expect

deliveries many times per week [...] I am captive from the Post…like a prisoner” (C.P. – post). In
23.
other situations, for example in the case of mobile phone services, customers feel the need to use

the service to keep up with other people, as everybody uses it (B.L. – phone).

Lack of alternatives. Informants also related their captivity feelings to the lack of available

alternative providers to obtain the service they needed, such as: “On some routes, you could only

take the train, there were no other available alternative” (S.P. – railways) or “The post is the only

option [...] when things go wrong, I would like to have another alternative” (M.B. – post).

No choice. Data show that the feeling of not having any choice is a key sentiment of captive

customers and the most frequently mentioned, either because of having no control over the

situation, as a mobile phone customer explained: “They [telecom operator] didn’t offer any

solution because for them there was no problem […] I felt like I couldn’t do anything as I had no

control over what could happen” (T.B. – phone), In other cases, customers feel that they do not

have any choice because they are forced to stay in their service relationship. Informants described

their impression of being captive using expressions such as being stuck (A.T. – railways) and

being forced to stay (C.R. – phone) with the same provider. Some informants felt they made a

mistake in choosing a specific service provider and once their choice was made, there was no way

back, no exit, they were unable to leave: “I realized after a few months that I was not necessarily

using it [mobile data and other conditions included in contract]. At that time, I was forced to stay

with them until the end of my contract” (D.M. – phone).

Manifestations of customer captivity

The interview data also provide face validity for the two manifestations of customer captivity:

captivity emotions and price unfairness perceptions.

Captivity emotions. Customer captivity negatively impact customers’ affective state.

During the interviews, informants expressed that when they feel captive, they are subject to a

24.
range of negative emotions and feelings such as: (1) frustration, (2) helplessness, (3) anger and

being upset, (4) indifference, (5) stress, and (6) feeling of being held hostage. Frustration is the

negative emotion the most frequently mentioned by the informants in relation to their feelings of

captivity, and more specifically with the perception of not having any choice, as mentioned by this

railway customer: “How frustrated I was. I was even more frustrated because I couldn’t use

another railway company. I had a bad experience. But I thought, it wasn’t because I didn’t have

the choice to change services that it gave the right to (the railway company) treat me like that”

(S.M. – railways). Data also shows that customers tend to feel frustrated when they consider the

situation to be out of their control: “I felt captive from the postal delivery schedules, which were

very often incorrectly announced. I was literally held captive at home, like a prisoner [...] I felt a

lot of frustration, I had no control, I had no alternatives” (C.P. – post). This frustration is also

related to a feeling of vulnerability, as in the case of this mobile phone user: “I didn’t have any

other options. [...], you felt as if you were [...] frustrated and vulnerable too.” (H.K. – phone).

Helplessness is an emotion which includes both the feelings of powerlessness and dependency.

When the feelings of captivity persist, such that customers believe the adverse situation could not

be changed in the future, they feel helpless, as expressed by this railway customer: “There was no

way to change things. I had a feeling of helplessness.” (S.P. – railways). Contrary to frustration,

only few informants expressed anger or being upset with respect to their feeling of captivity.

Anger is more likely to occur when there is a service failure attributed to the service provider,

which exacerbates the feeling of captivity: “We couldn’t do anything as long as the contract was

not finished. [...] I was angry, because it was unfair to pay 150 CHF extra when everything

(service) was not working.” (R.M. –phone). Moreover, for some customers, “[the feeling of

captivity] wasn’t something extremely strong, except in the cases of a service failure.” (S.M. –

railways). Stress is closely linked with the feeling of having no power over the captivity situation,

25.
as revealed by this telecommunication service customer: “It was stressful because I really felt like

I couldn't do anything about it (captive situation) and I felt being taken advantage of” (T.B. –

phone). Finally, some informants described their feeling of being held hostage because of their

need for the service and price unfairness perceptions: “We are being held hostage because

everybody use it (mobile phone) and it costs so much” (B.L. – phone).

Price unfairness perceptions. Captivity feelings are often associated with impressions of

price unfairness, as stated by a railway customer: “With the Swiss railways, I totally [felt captive].

This was because, on some routes, you could only take the train, there were no other available

alternative. [...] I thought it was too expensive in regard to the quality of service, but I’m not able

to change anything” (S.P. – railways). Customers feel that they must stay with their current

service provider despite high prices and sometimes poor-quality service, because they do not have

any attractive alternative and do not have control over the situation, as a train user explained:

“People like me, who commute every day, we are quite upset with the Swiss railways because the

prices are expensive [...] and there are many delays, cancellations and other problems like that”

(D.I. – railways). Some informants also expressed their feelings of being taken advantage of by

their service provider. This perception is notably driven by their belief that, in a captivity situation,

services are opportunistically overpriced. One respondent felt that her mobile operator was

benefiting from being the only functioning option for people living in remote areas, which led to

the feeling of being taken advantage of: “They know it, and they don’t adapt their prices. They

maintain their [high] prices because they know that [we are living] in villages, in the countryside.

You feel that you are being taken advantage of.” (H.K. – phone). Some informants perceived

captivity as a power asymmetry in favor of service providers, which allowed them to increase

prices (I.D. – railways) and reduce the quality of service (M.D. – phone).

26.
 References

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2014), A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cronin Jr, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55–68.
Fliess, S. and Volkers, M. (2020), “Trapped in a service encounter: exploring customer lock-in and
its effect on well-being and coping responses during service encounters”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 79–114.
Hayes, F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Second edition. New York, NY, London, Guilford Press.
Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W. and Stick, S.L. (2006). “Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: from theory to practice”, Field Methods, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3–20.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp.
12–40.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879–903.
Rayburn, S.W. (2015), “Consumers’ captive service experiences: it’s YOU and ME”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 15/16, pp. 806–825.
Sabadie, W. (2003), “Conceptualisation et mesure de la qualité perçue d’un service public
[Conceptualization and measure of the perceived quality of a public service]”, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing (French Edition), Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1–24. (in French).

27.

View publication stats