International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Effect of employee incivility on customer retaliation through

psychological contract breach: The moderating role of moral identity
Ali Bavik a , Yuen Lam Bavik b,∗
a
Tourism College, Institute of Tourism Studies, China
b
Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigates the effect of employee incivility on customer retaliation through psychological
Received 6 March 2015 contract breach in the context of upscale restaurants. Results of our study (N = 2014) show that psycho-
Received in revised form 14 June 2015 logical contract breach mediates the positive relationship between employee incivility and three forms
Accepted 29 July 2015
of customer retaliatory behaviors. Further, drawing upon the moral identity perspective, we found that
customers who are high in moral identity tend to be more likely to seek revenge by engaging in vindictive
Keywords:
complaining (but not third party complaining or negative word of mouth) subsequent to their experi-
Employee incivility
ence of psychological contract breach. Our study yielded both theoretical contributions and practical
Customer retaliation
Psychological contract breach
implications.
Moral identity © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction supervisor-to-subordinate, and subordinate-to-supervisor (Lim

Encountering rudeness and discourteous behaviors from service
employees is perhaps a prevalent phenomenon that customers in
many parts of the world have experienced before. Employee inci-
vility is defined as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous
intention to harm” (Andersson and Pearson, 1999, p. 457). In this
study, we refer to employee incivility as the mistreatment of
employees toward their customers. Such mild form of mistreat-
ment is often associated with detrimental effects that may directly
and/or indirectly harm an organization. Studies have also shown
that the behaviors of frontline employees directly influence cus-
tomer satisfaction and loyalty (Liao and Chuang, 2007; Schneider
et al., 2005). Indeed, employee incivility has been found to not only
provoke negative emotion such as anger among customers but may
also lead to customer turnover and trigger a spiral effect that results
in customer incivility toward employees (Andersson and Pearson,
1999; Porath et al., 2010; van Jaarsveld et al., 2010).
Numerous studies have indicated the severity of damage caused
by uncivil behaviors at workplace (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina and
Magley, 2009; Kern and Grandey, 2009; Porath and Pearson, 2013).
However, prior studies on incivility have mainly focused on inter-
nal stakeholders in organizations, such as coworker-to-coworker,
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ali@ift.edu.mo (A. Bavik), yuenlam.bavik@connect.polyu.hk
(Y.L. Bavik).
and Lee, 2011; Sakurai and Jex, 2012). Investigation on the effect
of employee incivility on external stakeholders is relatively scarce.
A key question is, for example, how may employee incivility affect
customers? A recent study conducted by Lee et al. (2013) shows that
customers’ perception of low employee service quality is positively
related to their greater desire and intention to take revenge as well
as to terminate their relationship with the service provider. It could
be postulated that customer retaliation is a probable consequence
of employee incivility. To our knowledge, the present study pio-
neers an empirical investigation on the linkage between employee
incivility and customers’ actual retaliatory behaviors.
Despite the numerous studies on employee incivility, the issues
of how and when employee incivility may negatively influence
organizations have not been explored fully (Porath et al., 2010).
For instance, a meta-analysis conducted by Zhao et al. (2007) on
psychological contract breach shows that psychological contract
provides an important framework for understanding corporate
relationships with employees and customers (see also Deery et al.,
2006). Previous studies have also demonstrated that psychological
contract breach is associated with individuals’ undesirable behav-
ioral responses as a result of interpersonal offenses (Lee et al., 2013;
Zagenczyk et al., 2014). Building upon these scholarly works, we
posit that psychological contract breach is important for under-
standing customer reaction to service failure.
Shao and Skarlicki (2014), however, suggest that individuals
vary in their propensity to take revenge (Shao and Skarlicki, 2014).
Such variation could be caused by individual differences such as

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.011
0278-4319/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76
their self-importance of moral identity (Barclay et al., 2014), which
is an essential self-regulatory mechanism that guides individuals’
behavioral responses to their social environment, particularly in the
context of interpersonal mistreatment (Aquino and Reed, 2002). As
moral identity may be more chronically accessible and active for
some than others, individuals may interpret moral incidents and
react differently (Aquino et al., 2011). Accordingly, in this paper we
propose that there is an interactive effect of psychological contract
breach and moral identity on customer retaliation.
In order to account for the effect of employee incivility on
customer retaliation through psychological contract breach, the
following research aims were formulated prior to the study:
(i) to identify the consequence of employee incivility on external
stakeholders;
(ii) to examine the role of psychological contract breach in the rela-
tionship between employee incivility and customer retaliatory
behaviors, and
(iii) to investigate the moderating effect of moral identity on the
model.
By addressing these research issues, the present study con-
tributes to the broader literature on employee incivility in several
ways. First, the primary contribution of this study is to extend the
understanding about the consequences of employee incivility on
customers as external stakeholders. Previous studies have shown
that simply witnessing uncivil behaviors among employees may
trigger an individual’s anger and their negative impression about
the organizations (Porath et al., 2010; Skarlicki and Rupp, 2010).
And being the direct target of employee incivility may even arouse
hostility, and customer misbehaviors from customers (Andersson
and Pearson, 1999; van Jaarsveld et al., 2010). Customer mis-
behaviors are associated with detrimental implications such as
taking revenge, withdrawing from the relationship with the service
provider, and damaging the reputation and public image of an orga-
nization (Grégoire et al., 2009, 2010; Harris and Reynolds, 2003;
He and Harris, 2014; Lee et al., 2013). These undesirable outcomes
underscore the need to further explore the potential antecedents
of negative customer behaviors (Daunt and Harris, 2011; Gelbrich,
2010; Grégoire et al., 2009). Our study addresses this gap by exam-
ining employee incivility as a factor leading to both instant and
subsequent retaliatory behaviors from customers. In addition, this
current study responds to the call for more research on poten-
tial mediators in the relationship between incivility and customer
behaviors (Porath et al., 2010). Porath et al. (2010) revealed anger
as an affective response from customers when they witness uncivil
interactions among employees. According to Grégoire and Fisher
(2008), when customers feel betrayed, they are motivated to take
actions to restore justice and such feeling and intention are partially
cognitive in nature. Building upon these arguments, this present
research examines psychological contract breach as a mediating
mechanism that consists of both cognitive and affective compo-
nents. This study asserts that even employee mistreatment toward
customers with a mild intensity may result in feelings of betrayal,
resulting in radical behavioral responses among customers and
detrimental effects to organizations. Our study also proposes a
novel integration of the research on psychological contract breach
(Robinson, 1996) with social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner,
1979) that accounts for the effect of employee incivility on cus-
tomers. Rooted in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), research
on psychological contract breach suggests that breach of perceived
promises is a form of violation of trust, which may in turn spark
“readiness for action” (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Robinson,
1996). However, according to the social identity literature, moral
identity, as a part of one’s social self-schema, guides an individual’s
moral behaviors to be consistent with his/her self-concepts (Aquino
67
and Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1984; Damon and Hart, 1992). Individuals
high in moral identity, as a part of one’s social self-schema, gener-
ally exhibit fewer tendencies to take retaliatory actions as a result of
unfair treatment and negative behaviors with retaliation (Barclay
et al., 2014; Skarlicki et al., 2008). However, retaliation1 may not
be necessarily immoral (Bies and Tripp, 1996; Folger and Skarlicki,
1998). Skarlicki and Folger (2004) refer retaliation as “a person’s
orientation and motivation to make the wrongdoer pay” (p. 374).
Therefore, in this study, we may also speculate that moral identity
may interact with psychological contract breach to differentially
moderate different forms of customer retaliatory behaviors. Finally,
previous studies on incivility were predominantly conducted in
Western firms, yet employee incivility is equally common in Asia
(Lim and Lee, 2011). The consequences of employee incivility war-
rant more investigations in different national and cultural contexts.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Employee incivility and psychological contract breach
Despite the low intensity and ambiguous intention associated
with incivility to cause harm, it is a precursor of more serious
and negative long-term consequences (Penney and Spector, 2005).
Andersson and Pearson (1999) cited a few examples of workplace
incivility which may be adapted to the context of hospitality: a hotel
staff answered customers either on phone or face-to-face with a
short response without saying thank you or please, talking to a cus-
tomer regarding his/her personal issues loudly, and chatting loudly
with another service representative and neglected customers’
requests during service encounter. Generally, employee incivil-
ity targeted at customers may be understood as mild employee
mistreatment manifested in rude comments, thoughtless less, and
negative gestures toward customers (Neuman and Baron, 1997).
Psychological contract theory posits that entities in relation-
ships are bound by their obligations to exchange and to reciprocate
the resources they owe each other (Aselage and Eisenberger, 2003;
Gouldner, 1960; Rousseau, 1995). One’s belief about another per-
son’s failure in fulfilling his/her obligations is termed psychological
contract breach (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). The concept of
psychological contract breach has been widely adopted for inves-
tigating employer–employee relationships (e.g., Deery et al., 2006;
Lub et al., 2012; Restubog et al., 2012), because it is an essential
factor in shaping employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Aselage and
Eisenberger, 2003). In the context of employee–customer relation-
ship, customers possess certain expectations on the service delivery
from service employees (Ariffin and Maghzi, 2012; Limpanitgul
et al., 2013; Prayag and Ryan, 2012). These expectations mani-
fest customers’ beliefs about the obligations of service providers
and their employees in return for their patron and expenditure.
Prayag and Ryan (2012) specified that hotel employees are cru-
cial in delivering the ‘moment-of-truth’ (Urry, 1990) in order to
fulfill customers’ expectations on the integrity and respect associ-
ated with their services. For example, when a customer dines at
a restaurant in a five-star hotel, they will expect excellent service
and a considerate attitude from its staff (cf. Prayag and Ryan, 2012).
Therefore, even uncivil behaviors without a clear intention to cause
harm in hotels may betray customers’ expectations and confidence
on the professionalism and obligations of service employees.
1
Retaliation is defined as “a person’s orientation and motivation to make the
wrongdoer pay” (Skarlicki and Folger, 2004, p. 374). Furthermore, customer retali-
ation refers to actions taken by customers to restore equity and perceived injustice
as a result of violated norms and unfulfilled promises (Aquino et al., 2001; Bordia
et al., 2008).
68 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76
Hypothesis 1. Employee incivility is positively related to a cus-
tomer’s psychological contract breach.
2.2. Psychological contract breach and customer retaliation
Customer retaliation refers to actions taken by customers to
restore equity and perceived injustice as a result of violated norms
and unfulfilled promises (Aquino et al., 2001; Bordia et al., 2008;
Skarlicki and Folger, 2004). This study adopts the conceptualization
of customer retaliation introduced by Grégoire and Fisher (2008),
which classifies it into three different forms, including vindictive
complaining, third party complaining, and negative word-of-
mouth. Vindictive complaining is regarded as a problem-solving
form of retaliatory behavior to perceived injustice (Gelbrich, 2010).
By engaging in vindictive complaining, customers seek to directly
inform frontline employees or organizations about their wrong
doings through customer–employee interactions and by offering
customers a chance to recover their service quality (Bonifield and
Cole, 2007; Gelbrich, 2010; Grégoire and Fisher, 2008). An alter-
native way for offended customers to seek revenge against uncivil
behaviors of employee is through the spreading of negative word-
of-mouth comments, which refers to ‘customers’ efforts to share
his or her negative experience with, and to denigrate a service firm
to friends and family” (Grégoire and Fisher, 2006, p. 36). Third-
party complaining is another indirect form of customer retaliatory
behavior. It represents an indirect action taken by customers to
publicly inform a third party entity such as the media, an agency,
or a legal unit in order to spread the wrongdoings of a service
provider (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008; Singh, 1988; Wangenheim,
2005). It differs from negative word-of-mouth in a way that it aims
to spread the service failure to a broader audience in order to warn
other potential customers of danger and/or to intentionally harm
the service provider (cf. Grégoire and Fisher, 2006). By publicizing
the service failure, the reputation and public image of an organiza-
tion will be damaged, leading to a reduction of patronization (De
Wulf et al., 2001; Grégoire and Fisher, 2008; Ward and Ostrom,
2006).
Consistent with social exchange theory, psychological contract
breach may result in both negative affective and cognitive reac-
tions, which drive a person’s subsequent behaviors to restore
inequity (Rousseau, 1995; Zhao et al., 2007). Retaliatory behav-
ior may be adopted by customers as a coping strategy to reduce
the tension and frustration caused by their experience of unfair-
ness as either a victim or a witness (Gelbrich, 2010; Porath et al.,
2010; Tripp and Bies, 1997). Grégoire and Fisher (2008) conducted
a field study with 226 travelers who were told to recall an incident
of service failure associated with an airline company. Findings of
their study reveal that feeling of betrayal was directly linked to the
customer retaliation.
Hypothesis 2. Psychological contract breach is positively related
to customer retaliation, including vindictive complaining (H2a),
third party complaining (H2b), and negative word-of-mouth (H2c).
2.3. The mediating role of psychological contract breach
In spite of the abundant evidence supporting the effect of service
failure as a result of the negative behaviors of customers, the under-
lying mechanism channeling such relationships remains under
searched. Psychological contract breach is a dichotomous concept
that primarily consists of transactional and relational dimensions
(Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Breach of transaction contracts
concerns unfulfilled obligations mainly regarding exchange of eco-
nomic resources within a short time frame such as the food and
timely service provided by a café in hotel for customers’ payment
(Rousseau, 1990, 1995). However, breach of relational contracts
is characterized by failure in accomplishing relatively long-term
contractual duties concerning non-monetary resource exchange
such as a sincere smile, professional service with integrity, or long-
term trust of a hotel staff toward customers (Robinson et al., 1994;
Robinson and Rousseau, 1994).
Employee incivility is expected to trigger customers’ percep-
tions of employees’ failure in fulfilling both their transactional and
relational obligations. Employees in hotels are often expected to
uphold a certain level of professionalism during the course of their
service delivery (Walker and Miller, 2010). However, in reality, it is
not uncommon for frontline employees in hotels to fail customers
with deviant behaviors such as bad service attitudes and violation
of company values (Clark et al., 2008; Tsang and Qu, 2000). Violation
of the expected service standard is likely to lead to psychologi-
cal contract breach among customers. Customers’ perceptions of
host–guest contract breach may in turn induce their intention to
take revenge through a cognitive response (Funches et al., 2008;
Grégoire and Fisher, 2008).
Hypothesis 3. The relationship between employee incivility and
customer retaliation is mediated by psychological contract breach.
2.4. The moderating role of moral identity
Moral identity is defined as “a self-conception organized around
a set of moral traits” (Aquino and Reed, 2002, p. 1424). Individuals
may consider the moral traits of a social referent that may be a
well-known (e.g., Mother Teresa) or unknown person (e.g., God),
or a membership group (e.g., Red Cross) as their mental image for
constructing their own moral identity (Aquino and Reed, 2002).
According to Aquino and Reed (2002), moral identity is a dual-
dimensional construct that consists of internalization, which refers
to the extent to which a set of moral traits being central to one’s
self-concept, and symbolization, which refers the degree to which
individuals emphasize on expressing those traits in form of their
behaviors displayed to others. The concept of moral identity is com-
monly measured by researchers in terms of the centrality of certain
moral traits to individuals’ self-concepts (Aquino and Reed, 2002).
Previous studies have indicated that the centrality of moral identity
is an important factor affecting individuals’ ethical behaviors and
moral decision-making (see Aquino et al., 2007, 2009; Colby and
Damon, 1992), since people have a tendency to act consistently
with their self-concept (Blasi, 2004).
Although prior studies provide general support for a negative
linkage between moral identity and retaliation (Barclay et al., 2014;
Skarlicki et al., 2008), recent research suggests that individuals
high in moral identity may in fact experience stronger reactions
when they witness mistreatment and injustice (Folger et al., 2005;
Greenbaum et al., 2013). These negative reactions in turn may
prompt individuals to engage in behaviors that are negative but
not necessarily immoral in nature (Greenbaum et al., 2013; Shaw
et al., 2005).
Retaliatory behavior may not necessarily be malicious and
unethical in nature. According to Tripp et al. (2002), retaliation may
encompass behaviors targeting to restore a moral social order or to
combat misbehaviors. However, Funches et al. (2008) argue that
retaliation might not be all-time destructive because customers
sometimes take revenge against an organization for noble reasons
such as protecting other customers from harm in the future. Thus,
we expect employees high in moral identity to respond to various
forms of retaliation differently, depending on the usefulness of a
particular form of retaliation in maintaining moral social order and
justice.
Vindictive complaining is also known as ‘problem-solving com-
plaining’ (Gelbrich, 2010, p. 567), which is a direct means for an
offended customers to ‘get even’ with poor service they receive
 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76 69

from frontline employees and to inform an organizations about its Table 1

Descriptive characteristics of respondents.
need for improvement (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008; Joireman et al.,
2013). By definition, vindictive complaining incorporates a con- N %
structive intention to reduce injustice and unfavorable treatment. Gender
Therefore, we expect that customers who are high in moral iden- Men 1061 52.7
tity not to completely avoid vindictive complaining, as they might Female 953 47.3
consider this as serving a legitimate way that restores fairness. In Total 2014 100
Age
fact, they may even favor vindictive complaining as an appropri-
18–27 1325 65.8
ate way for expressing their frustration. Aquino and Reed (2002) 28–37 427 21.2
developed a scale for capturing moral identity with nine traits that 38–47 193 9.6
were identified by the majority of their respondents as charac- 48 or above 69 3.4
Total 2014 100
teristics of a moral individual. In their scale, being ‘fair’ is one of
Education
these traits qualifying one to be a moral person. Following this line Primary school or below 119 5.9
of reasoning, when a customer high in moral identity encounters High school 534 26.5
employee incivility, they may be further stimulated to take actions Bachelor degree 1268 63
to restore fairness because the unfavorable behaviors of employees Postgraduate 93 4.6
Total 2014 100
may seriously violate a moral principle (e.g., fairness) in their (the
Monthly income
customer’s) self-concept. 10,000 MOP or below 1070 53.1
In contrast, third party complaining and negative word-of- 10,001–20,000 MOP 647 32.1
mouth have been regarded as indirect and rather destructive means 20,001–30,000 MOP 228 11.3
30,001 MOP or above 69 3.4
of customer retaliatory behaviors engaged to intentionally hurt an
Total 2014 100
organization’s business by reducing its future patronage (Grégoire Country of origin
and Fisher, 2006; Joireman et al., 2013). Unlike vindictive com- Mainland China 864 42.9
plaining, these two forms of retaliation do not enable the uncivil Macau 872 43.3
employee(s) or the organization to receive immediate complaints Hong Kong 180 8.9
Others 98 4.9
from customers. Instead of engaging in direct confrontation, cus-
Total 2014 100
tomers who complained to third parties or spreading negative word
Note: n = 2014.
of mouth to others subsequent to the service failure intend to
restore justice ‘at the back’ of the service providers. Although pub-
licizing service failure may force an organization to remedy the
situation with certain solutions (Grégoire and Fisher, 2006, 2008), A survey was distributed (in either English or Chinese) as the
these two forms of retaliation may result in destructive effects instrument for data collection. Since the original items of all the
because the service providers do not only suffer from damaged scales adopted in this study were developed in English, we specif-
reputation but may also a potential loss of future business. It is ically invited faculty members in Macau University of Science and
expected that customers high in moral identity may be less likely Technology to back-translate (Brislin, 1970; Brislin et al., 1973)
to apt for these forms of retaliation when they feel betrayed. the items from English into Chinese and to further test the cross-
linguistic comparability of the two versions of our questionnaire. In
Hypothesis 4. Moral identity moderates the relationship between
the current study, we adopted critical incident techniques to accu-
psychological contract breach and vindictive complaining such
rately elicit a salient experience of unfavorable experience related
that, when a customer’s moral identity is high, the effect of psycho-
to employee incivility (Aquino et al., 2006; Skarlicki and Folger,
logical contract breach on vindictive complaining will be stronger.
1997). Specifically, respondents were first asked to recall and
Hypothesis 5. Moral identity moderates the relationship between describe a dining experience at an upscale restaurant in any five-
psychological contract breach and third party complaining such star hotel in Macau during the past three months. Subsequently,
that, when a customer’s moral identity is high, the effect of psycho- they responded to the items on the survey that were designed
logical contract breach on third party complaining will be weaker. to capture all the variables in our hypothesized model, including
employee incivility, psychological contract breach, three different
Hypothesis 6. Moral identity moderates the relationship between
forms of customers retaliation, and respondents’ moral identity on
psychological contract breach and negative word-of-mouth such
a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
that, when a customer’s moral identity is high, the effect of psycho-
Of the 2850 surveys distributed, we obtained a final sample of 2014
logical contract breach on negative word-of-mouth will be weaker.
valid responses (n = 2014), yielding a response rate of 70.7%.
Fig. 1 depicts all the hypotheses of our theoretical model.

3. Methodology 3.2. Measures

3.1. Samples and procedures 3.2.1. Employee incivility

We drew our sample from a targeted population comprising
of customers who patronized in upscale restaurants in Macau
throughout the past three months before the period of data
collection (i.e. between September 2014 and January 2015). A non-
probability sampling technique was adopted for data collection in
the current study. In an effort to maximize the response rate, the
research team collected data in venues with a relatively high flow
of customers and tourists such as hotel lobbies, restaurants in five-
star hotels, hotel bus stations, airport, and ferry terminals. Table 1
represents the descriptive characteristics of respondents.
We measured employee incivility using six items from the Inci-
vility Scale developed by Cortina et al. (2001). The scale has been
widely adopted in order to examine employee deviance (e.g. Lim
and Cortina, 2005; Lim et al., 2008; Penney and Spector, 2005). The
following question was presented on the survey right before the
incivility items as instructions in guiding respondents’ responses:
“During the past three months, have you been in a situation where
you encountered any of the following behaviors from an employee
serving you at an upscale restaurant in a five-star hotel?”. A sam-
ple item is “paid little attention to your statement or showed little
interest in your opinion” (˛ = .85).
70 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76
H1+ Psychological
Employee
Contract
Incivility
Betrayal
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.
3.2.2. Psychological contract breach
The five-item scale from Robinson and Morrison (2000) was
adapted to measure respondents’ psychological contract breach.
A sample item is “I have not received everything promised to me
in exchange for my expenditure” (˛ = .91).
3.2.3. Vindictive complaining
Hibbard et al.’s (2001) four-item scale was used to measure
respondents’ retaliatory behavior in form of vindictive com-
plaining. A sample item is “I complained to the restaurant to
constructively discuss the problem” (˛ = .77).
3.2.4. Third party complaining
Third party complaining was captured with the five-item Third-
party Complaining for Publicity Scale (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008).
A sample item is “I complained to an agency or institution to have
it make public the behaviors of the restaurant” (˛ = .92).
3.2.5. Negative word-of-mouth
The three-item scale was adapted from Wangenheim (2005) to
measure negative word-of-mouth. The scale was originally devel-
oped for measuring customers’ behavior of spreading experience
regarding their misadventure with an airline company. There-
fore, industry-specific wordings such as “ticket” and “airline” were
replaced with “restaurant”. A sample item is “When my friends
were looking for a restaurant, I told them not to patron that restau-
rant” (˛ = .86).
3.2.6. Moral identity
We used the 10-item Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale
from Aquino and Reed (2002) to capture the two sub-dimensions
of moral identity, namely internalization and symbolization. Specif-
ically, respondents were presented with nine traits that have been
identified as common features of a moral prototype (Aquino and
Reed, 2002), including caring, compassion, fairness, friendliness,
generosity, helpfulness, hardworking, honesty, and kindness. After-
wards, respondents were told to think about a person with these
traits before they responded to the items. A sample item of the
Internalization is “being someone who has these characteristics is
an important part of who I am” and one of the symbolization items
is “I am actively involved in activities that communicate to others
that I have these characteristics” (˛ = .78).
Moral
Identity
H4+ H6-
H5- Customer Retaliation
Vindictive
Complaining
H2a+
H2b+
Third Party
Complaining
H2c+
Negative Word-
of-mouth
3.2.7. Control variables
Previous studies suggest that customer demographics such as
gender, age, level of education, income, country of origin, and inter-
action frequency with the service provider may affect customers’
perception and responses to service delivery as well as individuals’
retaliation (Aquino et al., 2001; Grégoire et al., 2010; Hess et al.,
2003; Skarlicki et al., 2008; Smith et al., 1999). Therefore, they were
all measured as control variables.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Descriptive analysis was conducted on participants’ demo-
graphic profiles, correlations among all hypothesized vari-
ables. Their means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations
coefficients are presented in Table 2. As the hypothesized model
in this study involves moderation hypotheses and moderated
mediations, all the independent and moderating variables were
mean-centered prior to subsequent analyses to increase the inter-
pretability of the results (Aiken and West, 1991; Baron and Kenny,
1986; Cohen et al., 2003).
4.2. Reliability and validity
Reliability of the scales was examined by checking their alpha
coefficients. Results show that all the scales obtained a Cronbach’s
alpha of .70 or above (range from .70 to .92), signaling a satisfactory
level of reliability.
Further, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
examine the convergent and discriminant validity of all the six
latent factors (employee incivility, psychological contract breach,
vindictive complaining, third party complaining, negative word-
of-mouth, and moral identity). As previously suggested (Hu and
Bentler, 1999; Lei and Wu, 2007), results of CFA can be assessed
by examining model fit indices including comparative fit index
(CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit
index (NFI), and root mean square residual (RMR). Table 3 indicates
the model fit indices for our hypothesized model and alternative
models. Results indicate that two moral identity items did not load
on the scale with a factor loading being less than .50 and thus they
were removed. The hypothesized six-factor model provides a good
fit with the data (CFI = .95, NFI = .95, RMR = .06, RMSEA = .08), with
 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76 71

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Employee incivility 2.48 0.76 1

2 PCB 2.48 0.86 .60** 1
3 Vindictive complaining 2.40 0.75 .52** .60** 1
4 Third party complaining 2.40 0.89 .48** .59** .70** 1
5 NWOM 2.68 0.94 .54** .61** .59** .57** 1
6 Moral identity 3.42 0.53 −.05** .06** .01 .06* .03 1

Note: n = 2014.
PCB, psychological contract breach; NWOM, negative word of mouth.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

all the parameters having a factor loading of .50 or above in relation distributed. It is also regarded as a more formal test for examin-
to their respective factor (range from .50 to .89). The baseline mode ing the hypothesized indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes, 2004).
(six-factor model) also demonstrated a better model fit than other To support the predicted mediation, the confidence interval in the
competing models. output should not include zero (Sakurai and Jex, 2012).
In addition, as all the variables in this study were self-reported,
our data set may be susceptible to measurement error caused
4.3.1. Hypotheses 1–3
by common method bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). To check
Table 4 presents the results of the moderated regression anal-
whether common method variance significantly influenced our
ysis performed for analyzing the relationships among employee
data, the Harman’s single-factor test was conducted along with
incivility, psychological contract breach, and the three forms of cus-
a confirmatory factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The ratio-
tomer retaliation. Results supported Hypothesis 1 which posits that
nale behind the test is to examine whether all the variance in the
employee incivility is positively related to customers’ psychological
data can be explained with a single factor regarding the source of
contract breach (ˇ = .59, p < .001).
data (Iverson and Maguire, 2000). Results of the Harman’s single-
On the other hand, the effect of psychological contract breach
factor test indicated that the one-factor model had a poor model
on the three forms of customer retaliation was also supported.
fit (CFI = .85, NFI = .85, RMR = .12, RMSEA = .17), which shows that
Specifically, there was a significantly positive effect of psycholog-
common method variance did not create significant problems to
ical contract breach on vindictive complaining (ˇ = .44, p < .001),
the data.
third party complaining (ˇ = .46, p < .001), and negative word-of-
mouth (ˇ = .45, p < .001), supporting Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c.
Hypothesis 3 speculates that psychological contract breach
4.3. Hypotheses testing
serves as a mediator transforming a customer’s experience of
employee incivility into retaliatory behaviors. After inputting psy-
To test the hypothesized mediating role of psychological con-
chological contract breach into the regression formula, the effect
tract breach in Hypothesis 3 and the moderating role of moral
of employee incivility on the three forms of customer retaliation,
identity specified in Hypotheses 4–6 (see Fig. 1), all independent
though remained significant, decreased substantially. It implies
and moderating variables were mean-centered prior to conducting
that the psychological mechanism of perceived contract breach
three sets of hierarchical moderated regression analyses (Baron and
accounted for a large portion of variance in the relationship
Kenny, 1986; Cohen et al., 2003). In each set of the analyses, one of
between employee incivility and customer retaliation. To further
the three dependent variables was entered as the criterion variable
test our mediation hypotheses, a bootstrapping test was run which
and the analyses were conducted following a four-step approach.
examined the indirect effect. Results shown in Table 5 indicate
First, the control variables were inputted into the equation. Then,
the indirect effect of employee incivility on vindictive complaining
the predicting variable (employee incivility) was entered, followed
(.22, .31), third party complaining (.27, .38), and negative word-of-
by the mediating variable (psychological contract breach) and the
mouth (.23, .31). Taken together, Hypothesis 3 is also supported.
moderator (moral identity). Finally, the interaction term of psy-
chological contract breach and moral identity was included in the
regression equation. 4.3.2. Hypotheses 4–6
Additionally, to further test the indirect effect, a supplementary Hypothesis 4 predicted that the linkage between psychologi-
bootstrapping test (Hayes, 2009; Preacher and Hayes, 2008) was cal contract breach and vindictive is moderated by a customer’s
conducted with 5000 resamples at 99% confidence interval while moral identity such that the higher the level of one’s moral identity,
controlling for all the control variables. According to MacKinnon the more likely one will respond employee incivility with vindic-
et al. (2002), bootstrapping is more preferred over the Sobel (1982) tive complaining. Regression analysis showed that the two-way
test because it does not assume the data set being normally interaction of psychological contract breach and moral identity

Table 3
Results of confirmatory factor analyses.

Model Measurement models NFI CFI RMR RMSEA

0. Baseline six-factor model .95 .95 .06 .08

1. Combined EI and PCB .94 .94 .07 .10
2. Combined EI, PCB and MI .90 .90 .11 .13
3. Combined VC, TPC, and NWOM .93 .93 .08 .11
4. Combined PCB, VC, TPC, and NWOM .90 .90 .08 .14
5. One factor model .85 .85 .12 .17

Note: n = 2014.
EI, employee incivility; PCB, psychological contract breach; MI, moral identity; VC, vindictive complaining; TPC, third party complaining; NWOM, negative word-of-mouth.
72 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76

Table 4
Results of regression analyses predicting customer retaliation.

Variables PCB VC TPC NWOM

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Control variables
Gender (Dummy 1) .05** .11*** .07*** .05** .05** .07** .04 .01 .01 .05* .01 −.01 −.01
Age (Dummy 2) .01 .04 .03 .02 .02 .05* .04 .04 .04 .00 −.01 −.02 −.02
Education (Dummy 3) −.01 −.02 −.02 −.02 −.02 .01 .00 .00 .00 .05* .04 .04* .04*
Income (Dummy 4) .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 −.01 −.01 .02 .01 .01 .01
Origin (Dummy 5) .02 .02 .03 .02 .02 .01 .02 .01 .01 −.06* −.04* −.05* * −.05**
Number of visit (Dummy 5) −.04* −.02 −.02 .00 .00 −.02 −.02 .00 .00 −.02 −.02 .00 .00
Predicting variable
EI .59*** .51*** .25*** .25** .47*** .20*** .20*** .54*** .27*** .27***
Mediator
PCB .44*** .44*** .46*** .46*** .45*** .45***
Moderator
MI −.03 −.03 .02 .02*** −.02 −.02
Interaction term
PCB X MI .05** .03 −.01
R2 .36 .02 .28 .40 .41 .01 .23 .37 .37 .01 .30 .43 .43
R2 .36 .02 .26 .13 .00 .01 .22 .14 .00 .01 .29 .13 .00

Note: n = 2014.
EI, employee incivility; PCB, psychological contract breach; MI, moral identity; VC, vindictive complaining; TPC, third party complaining; NWOM, negative word-of-mouth.
ˇ values are standardized coefficients.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Fig. 2. Two-way interaction of psychological contract breach and moral identity on vindictive complaining. Note: PCB, psychological contract breach; MI, moral identity
(internalization and symbolization).

on vindictive complaining was significant (ˇ = .05, p < .001). Subse-

Table 5 quently, a simple slope analysis was conducted to further delineate
Results of bootstrapping for the mediating role of psychological contract breach. the moderated relationship graphically Results presented in Fig. 2
Psychological contract breach demonstrate that the effect of psychological contract breach on
vindictive complaining relationship is stronger when one’s moral
Dependent variable M SE LL 99% CI UL 99% CI
identity was high (ˇ = .56, p < .001) than when one’ moral identity
Bootstrap results for indirect effect was low (ˇ = .46, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 4. Hypotheses 5
Vindictive complaining .26 .02 .22 .31
and 6 respectively proposed the effect of psychological contract
Third party complaining .32 .02 .27 .38
Negative word of mouth .33 .02 .23 .31 breach on third party complaining and negative word-of-mouth
depends on one’s moral identity such that the higher the level
Note. n = 2014.
Standardized regression coefficients are reported.
of one’s moral identity, the weaker the relationships will be. Our
Bootstrap sample size = 5000. moderated regression analyses showed that the effects of the inter-
LL, lower limit; CI, confident interval; UL, upper limit. action term combining psychological contract breach and moral
 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76 73

identity on third party complaining (ˇ = .03, ns) and negative deviance with ambiguous intention to harm, such as employee inci-
word-of-mouth (ˇ = −.01, ns) were both non-significant. Hence, vility, may indirectly trigger customer misbehaviors, resulting in
Hypotheses 5 and 6 could not be confirmed. damaged customer relationships and tremendous reputation losses
to an organization.
Second, our research draws on psychological contract theory
5. Discussion and conclusion
to propose psychological contract breach as a novel mechanism
accounting for the effect of employee incivility on customer retalia-
In this article, we examined the interplay between employee
tion. That is, when customers experience rude behaviors in upscale
incivility, psychological contract breach, moral identity, and three
restaurants, they feel compelled to take actions to retaliate because
different forms of customer retaliation, namely vindictive com-
they perceive a violation of their psychological contract. Our study
plaining, third party complaining, and negative word-of-mouth.
affirms that the literature of customer misbehavior warrants more
Our results show that, after controlling individuals’ demographic
novel integration with other new perspectives and theory for fur-
differences, employee incivility directed at customers would gen-
ther investigation.
erally motivate customers to take revenge against the wrong doer
Third, our findings supplement the recent work of Lee et al.
(the “uncivil employee”) and/or the service providing organization.
(2013), which showed that relational benefits moderates the effect
Such an effect can be explained by the fact that even mild- and low-
of perceived betrayal on customers’ desire for revenge such that
intensive form of rude behaviors engaged by service staff might lead
loyal customers are more likely to turn their “love” into “hate”
to psychological contract breach among customers. Our findings
toward a service provider. Our results demonstrate with strong
were consistent with empirical evidence demonstrated in recent
empirical evidence that not only a relationship plays a role in
studies which found that psychological contract breach is a key
influencing customers’ sensitivity to service failure, but customers’
psychological mechanism that mediates the effects of perceived
moral identity may also serve as a crucial factor in affecting their
violation of fairness and service failure on customers’ misbehav-
propensity to adopt “an-eye-for-an-eye” approach to unfavorable
iors such as revenge and withdrawal (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008;
treatment.
Lee et al., 2013).
Moreover, our research also substantially contributes to stud-
Our results further suggest, whether or not an offended cus-
ies on moral identity by offering a counterargument regarding the
tomer would engage in retaliatory behaviors and the form of
effect of moral identity on retaliation. Recently, researchers have
retaliatory behaviors a wronged customer would prefer depends
increasingly related moral identity with moral cognition in order
on the moral identity of the customer. Specifically, customers high
to examine its effect on moral-related behaviors (Aquino et al.,
in moral identity are more likely to engage in vindictive com-
2009; Skarlicki and Rupp, 2010). So far, moral identity has demon-
plaining subsequent to their experience with employee incivility.
strated a generally negative relationship with unethical behaviors.
Yet, contrary to our prediction, moral identity did not influence
For example, Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) found that moral identity
customers’ propensity to engage in third party complaining and
interacts with moral judgment to positively shape individuals’ eth-
negative word-of-mouth subsequent to experiencing employee
ical behavior. Another study conducted in the context of customer
incivility. We attempted to interpret and justify our findings based
service setting also demonstrated that moral identity regulates
on the results of a recent study conducted by He and Harris (2014)
unethical behaviors such that individuals high in moral identity
in the context of the hospitality industry. Specifically, they found
were less likely to engage in sabotage (Skarlicki et al., 2008).
that while retaliatory behaviors resulting from service failure might
Our study specifically revealed that an offended customer with
incorporate different motives of customers, mainly those with a
high levels of moral identity might have a stronger tendency to
rather explicit motive to cause damage to the wrong doer would
engage in vindictive complaining. Findings supported our predic-
be subjected to the influence of individuals’ moral identity (cf.
tion regarding the function of vindictive complaining as a direct
Grégoire et al., 2010). Consistent with their findings, we found that
and instant means to restore fairness. In the literature, vindic-
the effect of service failure on retaliatory behaviors that are vin-
tive complaining is regarded as a problem-solving solution that
dictive in nature was evidently moderated by moral identity due
one may take to constructively improve the service of an organi-
to the moral implication associated with vindictive complaining.
zation (Gelbrich, 2010). Hence, customers high in moral identity
However, in spite of their destructive nature and the potential harm
may perceive it as a legitimate way for serving two moral-oriented
caused to service providers, third party complaining and negative
objectives. First, such direct confrontation punishes the wrong doer
word-of-mouth may not manifest an intentional motive to destroy
who violated the principle of “fairness” that is essential to cus-
an organization. Instead, they may be regarded as coping strate-
tomers’ moral self-concept (Aquino and Reed, 2002). Second, it
gies for customers to proactively resolve their frustration through
instantly prompts the organization to address its service failure to
voicing their dissatisfaction and hence gaining social support (cf.
prevent other customers from being victims in the future. Our find-
Cortina and Magley, 2003). Thus, customers’ retaliatory behaviors
ings inform research on the regulatory power of moral identity on
that do not involve unethical motives to intentionally cause harm
customers’ retaliatory behaviors may depend on the legitimacy and
to service employees or service providers may not be regulated by
specific motives associated with different forms of retaliation.
customers’ moral identity.
5.2. Managerial implications
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study communicates a message to managers regarding
Our study makes several important contributions. First, we the factors that may provoke customer misbehaviors. Managers
identified employee incivility as an antecedent of actual retalia- should ensure that all levels of service employees are well informed
tory behaviors engaged by customers toward both employees and about the importance of their professionalism and the mainte-
the service providing organizations. Although empirical evidence nance of high quality of service. One strategy for organizations to
demonstrates a linkage between service failure and customer mis- tackle employee incivility is to regularly provide training and work-
behaviors, few studies have focused on investigating specific types shops to inform their service employees about examples of uncivil
of employee deviance that contribute to customers’ retaliatory behaviors that they may unintentionally display. Related training
behaviors. Drawing on the literature of counterproductive work interventions can include demonstrating scenarios of employee
behaviors, our study indicates that even mild forms of employee incivility with role-play. Doing so may help reduce the frequency
74 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76
and possibility with which their employees treat customers with
incivility.
Second, managers should be aware of the fact that instant feed-
back and complaints from customers may not at all be a negative
sign. Our research shows that customers whose sense of moral
identity is strong tend to choose vindictive complaining rather than
other indirect means to constructively express their discontent and
to cope with their frustrations. In other words, compared to third
party complaining and negative word of mouth, vindictive com-
plaining provides both the service employees and the organizations
an opportunity to instantly learn from their service failure and to
make improvements. To regain customers’ confidence, managers
may take a proactive approach to prepare service employees for
vindictive complaining and then to respond with proper solutions.
5.3. Limitations and directions for future research
The current study is vulnerable to both certain methodological
and theoretical limitations. First, variables investigated in the cur-
rent study were self-reported which may be subjected to common
method variance. Although results of the Harman’s single-factor
analysis show that common method bias was not problematic in
our data, future studies should attempt to diversify the sources of
data by involving both employees in organizations and customers
to obtain a higher level of objectivity in the data set.
Second, the cross-sectional design of our study limits our abil-
ity to draw a strong causal inference from the data. For instance,
according to prior research (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010), customer
misbehaviors may in fact lead to employee incivility. Thus, we
recommend further studies that replicate our study with alterna-
tive methodologies such as longitudinal studies and experimental
design to further validate the findings of this present study.
Third, our findings are subjected to the limitations of our method
design that incorporated elements of the critical incident technique
(Flanagan, 1954). Details and information about the experience of
interpersonal offenses caused by employee incivility may vary in
depth, depending on the time of the experience recalled (i.e., recent
versus distant) and participants’ memory (Chell and Pittaway,
1998).
From a theoretical perspective, our study only investigated the
moderating role of customers’ moral identity in the relationship
between their psychological contract breach and subsequent retal-
iatory behaviors. Recent research suggests that other personal
factors such as self-efficacy may influence the degree to which
individuals are motivated to restore injustice by revenge (Ho and
Gupta, 2014). Hence, more exploration is still needed of how other
facets of self-perception may moderate the effect of contextual or
interpersonal factors on retaliation.
Finally, it is also important to note that our results suggest a
potential influence of gender difference on the indirect employee
incivility–customer retaliation relationship. Specifically, male cus-
tomers generally demonstrated a greater tendency to engage in
retaliation subsequent to the experience of employee incivility and
psychological contract breach. More research is required which
explores the role of gender in influencing customer responses to
service failure (see also Rehg et al., 2008).
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Manuel Anto-
nio Rivera and three anonymous reviewers for their efforts in
improving this manuscript. We would also like to declare equal con-
tributions made by the first and the second author in conducting
this study and in preparing this manuscript.
References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression. Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills.
Andersson, L.M., Pearson, C.M., 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in
the workplace. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (3), 452–471.
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed II, A., Lim, V.K., Felps, W., 2009. Testing a
social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of
situations and moral identity centrality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97 (1),
123–141.
Aquino, K., McFerran, B., Laven, M., 2011. Moral identity and the experience of
moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 100 (4), 703–718.
Aquino, K., Reed II, A., 2002. The self-importance of moral identity. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 83 (6), 1423–1440.
Aquino, K., Reed II, A., Thau, S., Freeman, D., 2007. A grotesque and dark beauty:
how moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence
cognitive and emotional reactions to war. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43 (3), 385–392.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., Bies, R.J., 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power,
procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness,
reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 (3), 653–668.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., Bies, Robert J., 2001. How employees respond to personal
offense: the effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on
revenge and reconciliation. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 52–59.
Ariffin, A.A.M., Maghzi, A., 2012. A preliminary study on customer expectations of
hotel hospitality: influences of personal and hotel factors. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
31 (1), 191–198.
Aselage, J., Eisenberger, R., 2003. Perceived organizational support and
psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. J. Organ. Behav. 24 (5),
491–509.
Barclay, L.J., Whiteside, D.B., Aquino, K., 2014. To avenge or not to avenge?
Exploring the interactive effects of moral identity and the negative reciprocity
norm. J. Bus. Ethics 121 (1), 15–28.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Bies, R.J., Tripp, T.M., 1996. Beyond distrust: getting even and the need for revenge.
In: Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T. (Eds.), Trust in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 246–260.
Blasi, A., 1984. Moral identity: its role in moral functioning. In: Kurtines, W.,
Gewirtz, J. (Eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development. Wiley,
New York, pp. 128–139.
Blasi, A., 2004. Moral functioning: moral understanding and personality. In:
Lapsley, D.K., Narvaez, D. (Eds.), Moral Development, Self, and Identity.
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 335–348.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Publishers.
Bonifield, C., Cole, C., 2007. Affective responses to service failure: anger, regret, and
retaliatory versus conciliatory responses. Mark. Lett. 18 (1–2), 85–99.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S.L.D., Tang, R.L., 2008. When employees strike back:
investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach
and workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (5), 1104–1117.
Brislin, R.W., 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-cult.
Psychol. 1 (3), 185–216.
Brislin, R.W., Lonner, W.J., Thorndike, R.M., 1973. Cross-cultural Research Methods.
J. Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 32–58.
Chell, E., Pittaway, L., 1998. A study of entrepreneurship in the restaurant and café
industry: exploratory work using the critical incident technique as a
methodology. Hosp. Manag. 17, 23–32.
Clark, R.A., Hartline, M.D., Jones, K.C., 2008. The effects of leadership style on hotel
employees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hosp. Q. 50 (2), 209–231.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S., 2003. Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Colby, A., Damon, W., 1992. Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral
Commitment. Free Press, New York.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., 2003. Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8 (4),
247–265.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., 2009. Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in
the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14 (3), 272–288.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H., Langhout, R.D., 2001. Incivility in the
workplace: incidence and impact. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6 (1), 64–80.
Damon, W., Hart, D., 1992. Self-understanding and its role in social and moral
development. In: Bornstein, M., Lamb, M.E. (Eds.), Developmental Psychology:
An Advanced Textbook. , 3rd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 421–464.
Daunt, K.L., Harris, L.C., 2011. Customers acting badly: evidence from the
hospitality industry. J. Bus. Res. 64 (10), 1034–1042.
De Wulf, K., Oderkerken-Schroder, G., Iacobucci, D., 2001. Investment in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. J. Market. 65,
33–50.
Deery, S.J., Iverson, R.D., Walsh, J.T., 2006. Toward a better understanding of
psychological contract breach: a study of customer service employees. J. Appl.
Psychol. 91 (1), 166–175.
Flanagan, J.C., 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 51 (4), 327–358.
Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., 2005. What is the relationship between
justice and morality? In: Greenberg, J., Colquitt, J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Justice. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 215–245.
 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76
Folger, R., Skarlicki, D.P., 1998. When tough times make tough bosses: managerial
distancing as a function of layoff blame. Acad. Manag. J. 41 (1), 79–87.
Funches, V., Markley, M., Davis, L., 2008. Reprisal, retribution and requital:
investigating consumer retaliation. J. Bus. Res. 62 (2), 231–238.
Gelbrich, K., 2010. Anger, frustration, and helplessness after service failure: coping
strategies and effective informational support. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (5),
567–585.
Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am.
Sociol. Rev., 161–178.
Greenbaum, R.L., Mawritz, M.B., Mayer, D.M., Priesemuth, M., 2013. To act out, to
withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse
of customers and the moderating role of employee moral identity. Human
Relat. 66 (7), 925–950.
Grégoire, Y., Fisher, R.J., 2008. Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best
customers become your worst enemies. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36 (2), 247–261.
Grégoire, Y., Fisher, R.J., 2006. The effects of relationship quality on customer
retaliation. Mark. Lett. 17 (1), 31–46.
Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., Tripp, T.M., 2010. A comprehensive model of customer
direct and indirect revenge: understanding the effects of perceived greed and
customer power. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (6), 738–758.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T.M., Legoux, R., 2009. When customer love turns into lasting
hate: the effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and
avoidance. J. Mark. 73 (6), 18–32.
Hayes, A.F., 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the
new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76 (4), 408–420.
Harris, L.C., Reynolds, K.L., 2003. The consequences of dysfunctional customer
behavior. J. Serv. Res. 6 (2), 144–161.
He, H., Harris, L., 2014. Moral disengagement of hotel guest negative WOM: moral
identity centrality, moral awareness, and anger. Ann. Tour. Res. 45,
132–151.
Hess, R.L., Ganesan, S., Klein, N.M., 2003. Service failure and recovery: the impact of
relationship factors on customer satisfaction. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 31, 127–145.
Hibbard, J.D., Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., 2001. Examining the impact of destructive
acts in marketing channel relationships. J. Mark. Res. 38, 45–62.
Ho, V.T., Gupta, N., 2014. Retaliating against customer interpersonal injustice in a
Singaporean context: moderating roles of self-efficacy and social support.
Appl. Psychol. 63 (3), 383–410.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55.
Iverson, R.D., Maguire, C., 2000. The relationship between job and life satisfaction:
evidence from a remote mining community. Human Relat. 53 (6), 807–839.
Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., Devezer, B., Tripp, T.M., 2013. When do customers offer
firms a “second chance” following a double deviation? The impact of inferred
firm motives on customer revenge and reconciliation. J. Retail. 89 (3), 315–337.
Kern, J.H., Grandey, A.A., 2009. Customer incivility as a social stressor: the role of
race and racial identity for service employees. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14 (1),
46–57.
Lee, J.S., Pan, S., Tsai, H., 2013. Examining perceived betrayal, desire for revenge
and avoidance, and the moderating effect of relational benefits. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 32, 80–90.
Lei, P.W., Wu, Q., 2007. Introduction to structural equation modeling: issues and
practical considerations. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 26 (3), 33–43.
Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: a
multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building
long-term service relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (4), 1006–1019.
Lim, S., Cortina, L.M., 2005. Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the
interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. J. Appl.
Psychol. 90 (3), 483–496.
Lim, S., Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., 2008. Personal and workgroup incivility: impact
on work and health outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (1), 95–107.
Lim, S., Lee, A., 2011. Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: does
family support help? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 16 (1), 95–111.
Limpanitgul, T., Robson, M.J., Gould-Williams, J., Lertthaitrakul, W., 2013. Effects of
co-worker support and customer cooperation on service employee attitudes
and behaviour: empirical evidence from the airline industry. J. Hosp. Tour.
Manag. 20, 23–33.
Lub, X., Nije Bijvank, M., Matthijs Bal, P., Blomme, R., Schalk, R., 2012. Different or
alike? Exploring the psychological contract and commitment of different
generations of hospitality workers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 24 (4),
553–573.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., Sheets, V., 2002. A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable
effects. Psychol. Methods 7, 83–104.
Morrison, E.W., Robinson, S.L., 1997. When employees feel betrayed: a model of
how psychological contract violation develops. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (1),
226–256.
Neuman, J.H., Baron, R.A., 1997. Aggression in the workplace. In: Giacalone, R.A.,
Greenberg, J. (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, pp. 37–67.
Penney, L.M., Spector, P.E., 2005. Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): the moderating role of negative affectivity. J. Organ. Behav. 26
(7), 777–796.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903.
75
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:
problems and prospects. J. Manag. 12 (4), 531–544.
Porath, C., Macinnis, D., Folkes, V., 2010. Witnessing incivility among employees:
effects on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. J.
Consum. Res. 37 (2), 292–303.
Porath, C., Pearson, C., 2013. The price of incivility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 91 (1–2),
115–121.
Prayag, G., Ryan, C., 2012. Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: the role
and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement,
and satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 51 (3), 342–356.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36
(4), 717–731.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res.
Methods 40 (3), 879–891.
Rehg, M.T., Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P., Van Scotter, J.R., 2008. Antecedents and
outcomes of retaliation against whistleblowers: gender differences and power
relationships. Organ. Sci. 19 (2), 221–240.
Restubog, S.L.D., Zagenczyk, T.J., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., Chapman, G.J., 2012. If you
wrong us, shall we not revenge? Moderating roles of self-control and
perceived aggressive work culture in predicting responses to psychological
contract breach. J. Manag., http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312443557
Reynolds, S.J., Ceranic, T.L., 2007. The effects of moral judgment and moral identity
on moral behavior: an empirical examination of the moral individual. J. Appl.
Psychol. 92 (6), 1610–1624.
Robinson, S.L., 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Admin. Sci. Q.,
574–599.
Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S., Rousseau, D.M., 1994. Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: a longitudinal study. Acad. Manag. J. 37 (1),
137–152.
Robinson, S.L., Morrison, E.W., 2000. The development of psychological contract
breach and violation: a longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 21 (5),
525–546.
Robinson, S.L., Rousseau, D.M., 1994. Violating the psychological contract: not the
exception but the norm. J. Organ. Behav. 15 (3), 245–259.
Rousseau, D., 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s
obligations: a study of psychological contracts. J. Organ. Behav. 11,
389–400.
Rousseau, D., 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding
Written and Unwritten Agreements. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sakurai, K., Jex, S.M., 2012. Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort
and counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating role of supervisor
social support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17 (2), 150–161.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Mayer, D.M., Saltz, J.L., Niles-Jolly, K., 2005.
Understanding organization–customer links in service settings. Acad. Manag. J.
48 (6), 1017–1032.
Shao, R., Skarlicki, D.P., 2014. Service employees’ reactions to mistreatment by
customers: a comparison between North America and East Asia. Pers. Psychol.
67 (1), 23–59.
Shaw, J.D., Gupta, N., Delery, J.E., 2005. Alternative conceptualizations of the
relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance.
Acad. Manag. J. 48 (1), 50–68.
Singh, J., 1988. Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: definitional and
taxonomical issues. J. Mark. 52, 93–107.
Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R., 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 (3),
434–443.
Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R., 2004. Broadening our understanding of organizational
retaliatory behavior. Dark Side Organ. Behav., 373–402.
Skarlicki, D.P., van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D., 2008. Getting even for customer
mistreatment: the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer
interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. J. Appl. Psychol. 93 (6),
1335–1347.
Skarlicki, D.P., Rupp, D.E., 2010. Dual processing and organizational justice: the
role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to
workplace mistreatment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (5), 944–952.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N., Wagner, J., 1999. A model of customer satisfaction with
service encounters involving failure and recovery. J. Mark. Res. 36, 356–372.
Sobel, M.E., 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equations models. In: Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, pp. 290–312.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin,
W.G., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Brookes-Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33–47.
Tripp, T.M., Bies, R.J., 1997. What’s good about revenge? The avenger’s perspective.
In: Lewicki, R.J., Bies, R.J. (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol.
6. JAI Press, New York, pp. 145–160.
Tripp, T.M., Bies, R.J., Aquino, K., 2002. Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The
aesthetics of revenge. Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 89, 966–984.
Tsang, N., Qu, H., 2000. Service quality in China’s hotel industry: a perspective from
tourists and hotel managers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 12 (5), 316–326.
Urry, J., 1990. The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London.
van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D., Skarlicki, D.P., 2010. The role of job demands and
emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee
incivility. J. Manag. 36 (6), 1486–1504.
76 A. Bavik, Y.L. Bavik / International Journal of Hospitality Management 50 (2015) 66–76

Walker, J.R., Miller, J.E., 2010. Supervision in Hospitality Industry: Leading Human
Resources. John Wiley & Sins, Inc., New Jersey.
Wangenheim, F.V., 2005. Postswitching negative word of mouth. J. Serv. Res. 8 (1),
67–78.
Ward, J.C., Ostrom, A.L., 2006. Complaining to the masses: the role of protest
framing in customer-created complaint web sites. J. Consum. Res. 33 (2),
220–230.
Zagenczyk, T.J., Restubog, S.L.D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., Tang, R.L., 2014.
Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and
employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. J. Manag. 40 (4), 1098–1122.
Zhao, H.A.O., Wayne, S.J., Glibkowski, B.C., Bravo, J., 2007. The impact of
psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Pers. Psychol. 60 (3), 647–680.