Customer in-role and extra-role behaviours in a retail setting

Abstract

Purpose Prior research does not provide a clear picture of how managers can effectively manage customer in-role and extra-role behaviours in a retail setting. This study aims to test the differential impact of the two main customer relationship predictor paths – identity-based and satisfaction-based paths – on customer in-role and extra-role behaviours. Design/methodology/approach A random sample of 500 customers from the flagship store of an up-market, international department store chain participated in a written survey. Purchase spending data for each customer was obtained from the retailer’s loyalty card database. Findings The two studied predictor paths possess a differential impact on customer extra-role behaviours. Civic virtue and co-creation behaviours are exclusively driven by the identity-based path, whereas sportsmanship is driven solely by the satisfaction-based path. Moreover, the identity-based path impacts purchase behaviour only when symbolic purchase motivation is high. Overall satisfaction has no impact on purchase behaviour. Research limitations/implications In some retailing contexts, extra-role behaviours such as co-creation or civic virtue might simply be irrelevant (e.g. discount chains). Practical implications Managers, who have the intention to stimulate customers to give constructive feedback on products or services, or to involve them in co-creation activities, are well advised to also invest in identity-based path activities. Originality/value This study is the first to empirically test the effects of customer identification and overall customer satisfaction on the various dimensions of customer in-role and extra-role behaviours. Customer extra-role behaviours should not be conceptualised as one global construct but should comprise distinct dimensions of discretionary behaviours that have different antecedents.

Consumer suggestion sharing: helpful, pragmatic and conditional

“…Prior research has found positive (Eisingerich et al, 2014;Groth, 2005), null (Paulssen et al, 2019) and negative (Verleye et al, 2014) relationships between satisfaction and customer feedback sharing. Such discrepant findings may be a function of two contrasting effects:…”

“…In studies of customer citizenship behavior, the goal of helping others is seen as a primary driver of helpful behaviors (Choi and Lotz, 2016). Indeed, customer extra-role behaviors have been defined as "voluntary acts on behalf of customers" (Paulssen et al, 2019(Paulssen et al, , p. 2504. Relatedly, concern for other consumers is a leading predictor of both direct and online WOM behavior (Hennig-Thurau et al, 2004;Sundaram et al, 1998).…”

“…Suggestion sharing has commonly been characterized as firm-helping behavior (Kumar and Pansari, 2016;Paulssen et al, 2019;Romero, 2017;van Doorn et al, 2010). Research indicates that customers engage in extra-role engagement behaviors at least in part to help firms they are satisfied with (Eisingerich et al, 2014) or with which they identify and hence want to support (Ahearne et al, 2005;Paulssen et al, 2019).…”

“…Suggestion sharing has commonly been characterized as firm-helping behavior (Kumar and Pansari, 2016;Paulssen et al, 2019;Romero, 2017;van Doorn et al, 2010). Research indicates that customers engage in extra-role engagement behaviors at least in part to help firms they are satisfied with (Eisingerich et al, 2014) or with which they identify and hence want to support (Ahearne et al, 2005;Paulssen et al, 2019). Choi and Lotz (2016) find that the desire to support a service provider is a key motivator of customer citizenship behaviors, while research on WOM indicates that consumers often share information with others to help firms (Hennig-Thurau et al, 2004;Sundaram et al, 1998).…”

“…(1) an effect based on social exchange theory wherein satisfied customers are more motivated to reciprocate favorable treatment by sharing helpful information; and (2) an effect based on complaint behavior wherein dissatisfied customers both have more ideas on how firms can improve their products or services and are more motivated to voice to address their dissatisfaction (Paulssen et al, 2019;Bettencourt, 1997).…”