Table A1 Preliminary study Objective... | Emerald Publishing

Table A1

Preliminary study


Objective	Examining how reasonable selective response strategies affect complainants’ customer orientation perceptions and attitudes toward the firm
Data collection	November 2023, questionnaire distributed on social networks
Sample	One hundred and forty active European social network users (64% female, 34% male, 2% diverse; average age: 29 years) 74% used social networks several times a day, the others once a day or several times a week
Experimental design	Two groups (response strategy: reply to negative only vs some positive and negative)
Study context	Fictitious hotel stay: the participants had to imagine that they had booked a hotel’s special offer from a social network and learned at check-in that the promotion’s conditions do not apply. Unable to cancel, they decided to stay. They then had to imagine that they shared their negative experience under the hotel’s post using an alias. The participants saw the hotel’s special offer post, the consumer comments, including the comment of their alias, and the firm’s replies in a video
Stimulus	Seven consumer comments appeared one after another to realistically simulate scrolling through a vivid social network thread Four positive and three negative comments (as there are usually more positive than negative comments, East et al., 2007, but negative comments are often longer, Homburg and Fürst, 2007); based on actual firm response behavior and pretested
Experimental conditions	reply to only negative comments: hotel replied accommodatively to all negative comments by apologizing (e.g. “we are very sorry to hear that …”), showing the willingness to recover failures (e.g. “we would like to find a solution for …”), and/or offering compensation (“we would like to give you a 20% discount on your next booking”) reply to some positive and negative comments: hotel replied to two negative comments (see above) and two positive comments (by expressing appreciation, “We are happy to hear that”, and gratitude, e.g. “Thanks”)
Account type	Humanized account with photo, name and e-mail address
Procedure	Watching the video with the hotel’s post, consumer comments and hotel’s replies → rating attitudes toward the firm and perceptions of customer orientation (see Table 4) → indicating whether the hotel replied only to negative or some positive and negative comments (one option to tick, all participants passed this check) → evaluating scenario realism → providing information about social media usage and demographics
Scenario realism across groups	(1) “The described situation was realistic to me”: t = −0.023, p > 0.10 (2) “I was well able to put myself in the situation”: t = 0.140, p > 0.10 (3) “It is likely that social media users experience such response behavior in real life”: t = −0.323, p > 0.10
Social media usage across groups	(1) “I see myself as an active and engaging social media user”: t = −0.734, p > 0.10 (2) “I regularly like postings and leave comments on social media”: t = −1.331, p > 0.10 (3) “I regularly take part in discussions on social media”: t = −1.022, p > 0.10
Results	Perceived customer orientation: M_{neg_only} = 4.68, M_{pos_neg} = 4.27 (t = 2.077, p < 0.05) Attitude toward the firm: M_{neg_only} = 4.17, M_{pos_neg} = 4.00 (t = 1.017, p > 0.10)
Interpretation	Complaining commenters perceive service firm replies to only negative comments as more customer-oriented than replies to some positive and negative comments when accommodative responses are provided from humanized accounts (no direct effect on attitudes toward the firm). As replying to only negative comments seems to result in better perceptions among commenters and address complaints more effectively, we investigate the impact of accommodative vs defensive responses and the role of standard vs humanized accounts related to the “reply to negative only” strategy in more detail through focus groups


Objective	Examining how reasonable selective response strategies affect complainants’ customer orientation perceptions and attitudes toward the firm
Data collection	November 2023, questionnaire distributed on social networks
Sample	One hundred and forty active European social network users (64% female, 34% male, 2% diverse; average age: 29 years) 74% used social networks several times a day, the others once a day or several times a week
Experimental design	Two groups (response strategy: reply to negative only vs some positive and negative)
Study context	Fictitious hotel stay: the participants had to imagine that they had booked a hotel’s special offer from a social network and learned at check-in that the promotion’s conditions do not apply. Unable to cancel, they decided to stay. They then had to imagine that they shared their negative experience under the hotel’s post using an alias. The participants saw the hotel’s special offer post, the consumer comments, including the comment of their alias, and the firm’s replies in a video
Stimulus	Seven consumer comments appeared one after another to realistically simulate scrolling through a vivid social network thread Four positive and three negative comments (as there are usually more positive than negative comments, East et al., 2007, but negative comments are often longer, Homburg and Fürst, 2007); based on actual firm response behavior and pretested
Experimental conditions	reply to only negative comments: hotel replied accommodatively to all negative comments by apologizing (e.g. “we are very sorry to hear that …”), showing the willingness to recover failures (e.g. “we would like to find a solution for …”), and/or offering compensation (“we would like to give you a 20% discount on your next booking”) reply to some positive and negative comments: hotel replied to two negative comments (see above) and two positive comments (by expressing appreciation, “We are happy to hear that”, and gratitude, e.g. “Thanks”)
Account type	Humanized account with photo, name and e-mail address
Procedure	Watching the video with the hotel’s post, consumer comments and hotel’s replies → rating attitudes toward the firm and perceptions of customer orientation (see Table 4) → indicating whether the hotel replied only to negative or some positive and negative comments (one option to tick, all participants passed this check) → evaluating scenario realism → providing information about social media usage and demographics
Scenario realism across groups	(1) “The described situation was realistic to me”: t = −0.023, p > 0.10 (2) “I was well able to put myself in the situation”: t = 0.140, p > 0.10 (3) “It is likely that social media users experience such response behavior in real life”: t = −0.323, p > 0.10
Social media usage across groups	(1) “I see myself as an active and engaging social media user”: t = −0.734, p > 0.10 (2) “I regularly like postings and leave comments on social media”: t = −1.331, p > 0.10 (3) “I regularly take part in discussions on social media”: t = −1.022, p > 0.10
Results	Perceived customer orientation: M_{neg_only} = 4.68, M_{pos_neg} = 4.27 (t = 2.077, p < 0.05) Attitude toward the firm: M_{neg_only} = 4.17, M_{pos_neg} = 4.00 (t = 1.017, p > 0.10)
Interpretation	Complaining commenters perceive service firm replies to only negative comments as more customer-oriented than replies to some positive and negative comments when accommodative responses are provided from humanized accounts (no direct effect on attitudes toward the firm). As replying to only negative comments seems to result in better perceptions among commenters and address complaints more effectively, we investigate the impact of accommodative vs defensive responses and the role of standard vs humanized accounts related to the “reply to negative only” strategy in more detail through focus groups

Source(s): Authors’ work