An overview of the literature on brand responses to different types of online complaints
| Author/Year | Type(s) of brand response | Context of online complaint(s) | Nature and type of online complaint(s) | Perspective | Key findings | Limitations or research gaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dens et al. (2015) | Accommodative response | Website | Negative reviews | Complaining customers and bystanders | Brand responses, especially apologies, improve brand attitudes and positive WOM intentions | Does not examine civil vs. uncivil complaint tone as a boundary condition |
| Chang et al. (2015) | Accommodative vs. defensive response | Website | Severity of complaint (severe vs. minor) | Complainants | Accommodative responses improve fairness and satisfaction, especially in severe complaints | Focuses on complainants; tone/incivility and bystanders are not central |
| Esmark Jones et al. (2018) | Harsh vs. mild response | Website | Tone of review (Harsh, wordily negative review vs. mildly negative review) | Consumers | Positive responses are better than no response; harsh reviews harm brand attitude | Considers review harshness but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone in bystander evaluations |
| Weitzl and Hutzinger (2017) | Accommodative vs. defensive response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative reviews | Bystanders | Accommodative responses improve bystanders’ brand attitudes and WOM intentions | Does not test complaint tone as a moderator of accommodative response effectiveness |
| Bacile et al. (2018) | Addressing online incivility vs. not addressing via brand response | Social media (Facebook) | Complaint incivility from other consumers | Complainants and bystanders | Firm intervention reduces the negative impact of consumer-to-consumer incivility | Focuses on addressing C2C incivility accountability, not accommodative responses to civil vs. uncivil complaints |
| Johnen and Schnittka (2019) | Accommodative vs. defensive response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative complaints | Observers (bystanders) | Defensive responses can outperform accommodative responses in some contexts | Examines response strategy and observers, but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone |
| Piehler et al. (2019) | Explanation, compensation, or both | Online hotel review | Negative customer reviews | Potential customers | Explanation plus compensation leads to the highest purchase intentions | Focuses on response combinations, not complaint tone or incivility |
| Hutzinger and Weitzl (2021) | Recovery source vs. defensive recovery type response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative complaints | Bystanders | Consumer-generated recovery responses influence bystanders’ brand attitudes | Examines bystanders, but not how complaint tone changes accommodative response effects |
| Batista et al. (2022) | Assertive vs. sarcastic brand response | Social media (Facebook) | Uncivil language used | Consumers | Assertive responses improve brand attitude; sarcastic responses harm evaluations | Examines uncivil comments and response style, but not accommodative response vs. no response to online complaint tone (civil vs. uncivil) from a bystander perspective |
| Dineva and Daunt (2023) | Conflict de-escalation response | Facebook brand communities | C2C conflicts | Observing consumers (active bystanders) | Consumer-to-consumer conflicts reduce brand attitude despite de-escalation efforts | Focuses on C2C conflict, not bystanders’ interpretation of brand responses to civil vs. uncivil complaints |
| Wolter et al. (2023) | Response vs. no response | Social media (Facebook) | Uncivil consumer reply (supportive vs. uncivil comment) | Consumers | Responding to uncivil comments reduces negative perceptions and improves engagement | Focuses on C2C incivility, not examine complaint tone as a moderator of accommodative response effectiveness |
| Herhausen et al. (2023) | Active listening and empathic firm response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative complaints | Customers | Active listening and empathy reduce negative arousal in text-based complaints | Focuses on customers rather than observing bystanders |
| Huang and Ha (2024) | Civil vs. uncivil advocate response | Social media (Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, etc.) | Psychological distance from the complainant’s experience (near vs. far) | Fellow customers | Civil advocate responses influence satisfaction through C2C interactional justice | Focuses on advocate responses rather than brand accommodative responses |
| Kim et al. (2025) | Accommodative approach (relational commitment) | Social media | Negative complaints | Consumers | Accommodative approach enhances consumer trust in supportive communication intent | Does not examine whether complaint tone changes response effectiveness |
| Zhang and Zhang (2025) | Compensation and/or apology | Facebook brand pages (airline, auto, hotel) | General negative comments | Community/other users | Compensation may prolong complaint cycles; apologies can neutralize negativity | Examines response types, but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone as a moderator from bystander perpspective |
| Ku et al. (2021) | Successful vs. unsuccessful complaint handling | Social media (Facebook-simulated environment) | Online complaints (positive vs. negative) | Observers | Observers adjust trust based on successful versus unsuccessful complaint handling | Focuses on complaint handling success, not civil vs. uncivil tone |
| Liao et al. (2025) | Publicly oriented vs. privately oriented (e.g. “DM us”) | Social media (e.g. X/Twitter) | Product quality complaints | Observers | Public-first responses enhance observers’ brand attitudes | Focuses on response visibility, not complaint tone (civil vs. uncivil) |
| Floriano (2025) | Responsiveness (speed) and personalization | Online platform (e-commerce) | Varying clarity and severity | Observers | Personalization increases satisfaction and purchase intention | Examines response characteristics, but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone |
| Riedel et al. (2025) | Deny, diminish, or apologize | Service organization (gym/café) | Trolling (aggressive vs. hypocriticizing) | Bystanders | Response strategy effectiveness depends on troll type | Focuses on trolling, not ordinary complaint tones civil vs. uncivil |
| Jeseo and Tatara (2025) | Callout (defensive), apology, or no response | Service provider (catering) | Illegitimate/fake negative reviews | Third-party observers | Defensive callouts increase purchase intention under low aggression | Focuses on fake/illegitimate reviews rather than complaints in civil vs. uncivil tone |
| Tan et al. (2025) | ChatGPT (vs. human employee) response | Social media | ChatGPT managerial responses | Consumers | AI-generated responses are evaluated less positively than human responses | Focuses on response source, not complaint tone or bystander interpretation |
| This paper | Accommodative response vs. no response | Social media (Facebook; airline and hotel contexts) | Complaint tone (civil vs. uncivil) in publicly visible interactions | Observing bystanders | Accommodative responses increase bystanders’ purchase intentions through brand attitude; this indirect effect is stronger for civil complaints and weaker for uncivil complaints | Integrates accommodative response, complaint tone, and observing bystanders in one publicly visible online complaint framework |
| Author/Year | Type(s) of brand response | Context of online complaint(s) | Nature and type of online complaint(s) | Perspective | Key findings | Limitations or research gaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accommodative response | Website | Negative reviews | Complaining customers and bystanders | Brand responses, especially apologies, improve brand attitudes and positive WOM intentions | Does not examine civil vs. uncivil complaint tone as a boundary condition | |
| Accommodative vs. defensive response | Website | Severity of complaint (severe vs. minor) | Complainants | Accommodative responses improve fairness and satisfaction, especially in severe complaints | Focuses on complainants; tone/incivility and bystanders are not central | |
| Harsh vs. mild response | Website | Tone of review (Harsh, wordily negative review vs. mildly negative review) | Consumers | Positive responses are better than no response; harsh reviews harm brand attitude | Considers review harshness but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone in bystander evaluations | |
| Accommodative vs. defensive response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative reviews | Bystanders | Accommodative responses improve bystanders’ brand attitudes and WOM intentions | Does not test complaint tone as a moderator of accommodative response effectiveness | |
| Addressing online incivility vs. not addressing via brand response | Social media (Facebook) | Complaint incivility from other consumers | Complainants and bystanders | Firm intervention reduces the negative impact of consumer-to-consumer incivility | Focuses on addressing C2C incivility accountability, not accommodative responses to civil vs. uncivil complaints | |
| Accommodative vs. defensive response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative complaints | Observers (bystanders) | Defensive responses can outperform accommodative responses in some contexts | Examines response strategy and observers, but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone | |
| Explanation, compensation, or both | Online hotel review | Negative customer reviews | Potential customers | Explanation plus compensation leads to the highest purchase intentions | Focuses on response combinations, not complaint tone or incivility | |
| Recovery source vs. defensive recovery type response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative complaints | Bystanders | Consumer-generated recovery responses influence bystanders’ brand attitudes | Examines bystanders, but not how complaint tone changes accommodative response effects | |
| Assertive vs. sarcastic brand response | Social media (Facebook) | Uncivil language used | Consumers | Assertive responses improve brand attitude; sarcastic responses harm evaluations | Examines uncivil comments and response style, but not accommodative response vs. no response to online complaint tone (civil vs. uncivil) from a bystander perspective | |
| Conflict de-escalation response | Facebook brand communities | C2C conflicts | Observing consumers (active bystanders) | Consumer-to-consumer conflicts reduce brand attitude despite de-escalation efforts | Focuses on C2C conflict, not bystanders’ interpretation of brand responses to civil vs. uncivil complaints | |
| Response vs. no response | Social media (Facebook) | Uncivil consumer reply (supportive vs. uncivil comment) | Consumers | Responding to uncivil comments reduces negative perceptions and improves engagement | Focuses on C2C incivility, not examine complaint tone as a moderator of accommodative response effectiveness | |
| Active listening and empathic firm response | Social media (Facebook) | Negative complaints | Customers | Active listening and empathy reduce negative arousal in text-based complaints | Focuses on customers rather than observing bystanders | |
| Civil vs. uncivil advocate response | Social media (Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, etc.) | Psychological distance from the complainant’s experience (near vs. far) | Fellow customers | Civil advocate responses influence satisfaction through C2C interactional justice | Focuses on advocate responses rather than brand accommodative responses | |
| Accommodative approach (relational commitment) | Social media | Negative complaints | Consumers | Accommodative approach enhances consumer trust in supportive communication intent | Does not examine whether complaint tone changes response effectiveness | |
| Compensation and/or apology | Facebook brand pages (airline, auto, hotel) | General negative comments | Community/other users | Compensation may prolong complaint cycles; apologies can neutralize negativity | Examines response types, but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone as a moderator from bystander perpspective | |
| Successful vs. unsuccessful complaint handling | Social media (Facebook-simulated environment) | Online complaints (positive vs. negative) | Observers | Observers adjust trust based on successful versus unsuccessful complaint handling | Focuses on complaint handling success, not civil vs. uncivil tone | |
| Publicly oriented vs. privately oriented (e.g. “DM us”) | Social media (e.g. X/Twitter) | Product quality complaints | Observers | Public-first responses enhance observers’ brand attitudes | Focuses on response visibility, not complaint tone (civil vs. uncivil) | |
| Responsiveness (speed) and personalization | Online platform (e-commerce) | Varying clarity and severity | Observers | Personalization increases satisfaction and purchase intention | Examines response characteristics, but not civil vs. uncivil complaint tone | |
| Deny, diminish, or apologize | Service organization (gym/café) | Trolling (aggressive vs. hypocriticizing) | Bystanders | Response strategy effectiveness depends on troll type | Focuses on trolling, not ordinary complaint tones civil vs. uncivil | |
| Callout (defensive), apology, or no response | Service provider (catering) | Illegitimate/fake negative reviews | Third-party observers | Defensive callouts increase purchase intention under low aggression | Focuses on fake/illegitimate reviews rather than complaints in civil vs. uncivil tone | |
| ChatGPT (vs. human employee) response | Social media | ChatGPT managerial responses | Consumers | AI-generated responses are evaluated less positively than human responses | Focuses on response source, not complaint tone or bystander interpretation | |
| This paper | Accommodative response vs. no response | Social media (Facebook; airline and hotel contexts) | Complaint tone (civil vs. uncivil) in publicly visible interactions | Observing bystanders | Accommodative responses increase bystanders’ purchase intentions through brand attitude; this indirect effect is stronger for civil complaints and weaker for uncivil complaints | Integrates accommodative response, complaint tone, and observing bystanders in one publicly visible online complaint framework |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.