| Literature DB >> 34970197 |
Guofu Chen1, Shuhao Li1.
Abstract
Given that customer voice behaviors are confused with customer complaint behaviors in usage, this study thoroughly explains the essential differences between the two constructs. On that basis, this study investigates how employee-customer interaction (ECI) quality affects customers' prohibitive voice behaviors, which is an crucial type of customer voice behaviors, by examining customer trust and identification as mediators. Data from 395 restaurant customers are collected and analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results show that ECI quality positively affects customers' prohibitive voice behaviors. In this effect, customer trust and identification play direct and sequential mediating roles. This study contributes theoretically to the current knowledge by clearly distinguishing customer voice behaviors from customer complaint behaviors and by providing new insights into the mechanism of customers' prohibitive voice behaviors from the perspectives of service interaction and relational benefit enhancement. The practical implications of this study can help pointedly foster customers' prohibitive voice behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: customer identification; customer trust; customer voice behaviors; employee–customer interaction quality; prohibitive voice behaviors; restaurant
Year: 2021 PMID: 34970197 PMCID: PMC8712316 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.773354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model. Mediating paths (H4, H7, and H9) are not presented.
Sample profiles.
| Profiles | Categories | Number | Percent (%) |
| Gender | Male | 164 | 41.5 |
| Female | 231 | 58.5 | |
| Age | 18–24 | 76 | 19.2 |
| 25–34 | 130 | 32.9 | |
| 35–44 | 108 | 27.4 | |
| 45–54 | 69 | 17.5 | |
| More than 55 | 12 | 3.0 | |
| Education level | Primary school or below | 4 | 1.0 |
| Junior high school | 27 | 6.8 | |
| Senior high/Technical secondary school | 37 | 9.4 | |
| Junior college | 64 | 16.2 | |
| Undergraduate | 188 | 47.6 | |
| Master’s or above | 75 | 19.0 | |
| Monthly income | CNY 3,000 or less | 92 | 23.3 |
| CNY 3,001–5,000 | 131 | 33.2 | |
| CNY 5,001–7,000 | 92 | 23.3 | |
| CNY 7,001–9,000 | 25 | 6.3 | |
| CNY 9,001 or more | 55 | 13.9 | |
| Frequency of visit | First time | 196 | 49.6 |
| More than one time | 199 | 50.4 |
Results of CFA.
| Constructs and items | Means | Standard deviations | Factor loadings | AVE | Composite reliability | Cronbach’s alpha |
|
| 0.594 | 0.814 | 0.814 | |||
| I interact well with employees of this restaurant | 3.64 | 0.840 | 0.751 | |||
| I enjoy interacting with employees of this restaurant | 3.64 | 0.871 | 0.784 | |||
| Interacting with employees of this restaurant makes me feel comfortable | 3.78 | 0.869 | 0.776 | |||
|
| 0.709 | 0.879 | 0.878 | |||
| I think this restaurant is reliable | 3.95 | 0.699 | 0.792 | |||
| I have confidence in this restaurant | 3.81 | 0.767 | 0.878 | |||
| I think this restaurant has high integrity | 3.87 | 0.783 | 0.853 | |||
|
| 0.667 | 0.889 | 0.887 | |||
| I fairly identify with this restaurant | 3.85 | 0.689 | 0.817 | |||
| I feel good to be a customer of this restaurant | 3.81 | 0.748 | 0.839 | |||
| I like to tell that I am a customer of this restaurant | 3.69 | 0.818 | 0.825 | |||
| This restaurant fits me well | 3.70 | 0.813 | 0.784 | |||
|
| 0.704 | 0.877 | 0.875 | |||
| I would reflect the possible problems in product and service to the restaurant to help them improve | 3.49 | 0.979 | 0.864 | |||
| I would report the actual problems encountered in receiving service to the restaurant to help avoid its re-occurrence | 3.60 | 0.906 | 0.826 | |||
| I would comment on the issues that are not conducive to the development of the restaurant to improve its performance | 3.37 | 0.950 | 0.827 |
Results of discriminant validity test.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 1. ECI quality |
| |||
| 2. Customer trust | 0.522[ |
| ||
| 3. Customer identification | 0.610[ | 0.808[ |
| |
| 4. Customers’ prohibitive voice behaviors | 0.566[ | 0.503[ | 0.610[ |
|
**P < 0.01.
FIGURE 2Results of hypothesis test. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, and *p < 0.05.
Results of mediation analysis.
| Paths | Indirect effects | Standard errors | Confidence intervals |
| ECI quality → Customer trust → Customer prohibitive voice behaviors | 0.106 | 0.057 | [0.008, 0.232] |
| ECI quality → Customer identification → Customer prohibitive voice behaviors | 0.068 | 0.034 | [0.009, 0.143] |
| ECI quality → Customer trust → Customer identification → Customer prohibitive voice behaviors | 0.093 | 0.046 | [0.002, 0.187] |