IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/vision/v22y2018i4p347-355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Perception of Complaint Management System on Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Dissonance

Author

Listed:
  • S.K. Chadha
  • Purva Kansal
  • Suriti Goel

Abstract

Traditionally, purchase intention has been a very popular dependent variable among the marketers and researchers. A very important antecedent of purchase intention is cognitive dissonance (CD). CD, in turn, is affected by a number of factors. One such factor is the risk of the consumer of not getting a proper redress solution in case he faces any problem with the product after its use. This risk is termed ‘the perceived recourse and redress risk (PRRR)’. It is used as a measure to analyse the efficiency of complaint management systems (CMSs). The study aims to analyse how consumers perceive the CMS of companies and its effect on the perception of CD with its subsequent effect on purchase intention. The study was carried out in the pre-purchase context on a sample of 600 respondents across five cities. The structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyse the data. The results indicated that among the eight dimensions of PRRR, only four dimensions affected the CD of customers, namely: no response, rudeness, extended delay and no action from customer care. The study leaves an implication for marketers to work on these dimensions and make the CMS more effective in order to increase the purchase intention of consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • S.K. Chadha & Purva Kansal & Suriti Goel, 2018. "The Effect of Perception of Complaint Management System on Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Dissonance," Vision, , vol. 22(4), pages 347-355, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:vision:v:22:y:2018:i:4:p:347-355
    DOI: 10.1177/0972262918803473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0972262918803473
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0972262918803473?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Shiv, Baba & Huber, Joel, 2000. "The Impact of Anticipating Satisfaction on Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 202-216, September.
    3. Moon, Junyean & Chadee, Doren & Tikoo, Surinder, 2008. "Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer purchase intention to buy personalized products online," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 31-39, January.
    4. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2, March.
    5. Tsiros, Michael & Mittal, Vikas, 2000. "Regret: A Model of Its Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 401-417, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristine D. Delnevo & Michelle Jeong & Ollie Ganz & Daniel P. Giovenco & Erin Miller Lo, 2021. "The Effect of Cigarillo Packaging Characteristics on Young Adult Perceptions and Intentions: An Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Haans, Hans, 2011. "Evaluating retail format extensions: The role of shopping goals," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 389-396.
    3. Ralph Stinebrickner & Todd R. Stinebrickner, 2014. "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 426-472.
    4. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    5. Clément Bellet, 2017. "Essays on Inequality, Social Preferences and Consumer Behavior," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/vbu6kd1s68o, Sciences Po.
    6. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    7. Jos'e Raimundo Carvalho & Diego de Maria Andr'e & Yuri Costa, 2023. "Individual Updating of Subjective Probability of Homicide Victimization: a "Natural Experiment'' on Risk Communication," Papers 2312.08171, arXiv.org.
    8. Nugroho, Adi, 2021. "Study of Airport Service Quality and Profitability in Indonesia," OSF Preprints ah2ns, Center for Open Science.
    9. Kirstin Lindloff & Nadine Pieper & Nils C. Bandelow & David M. Woisetschläger, 2014. "Drivers of carsharing diffusion in Germany: an actor-centred approach," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(3/4), pages 217-245.
    10. Tine Janžek & Petra Ziherl, 2013. "Overview of models and methods for measuring economic agent’s expectations," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth IFC Conference on "Statistical issues and activities in a changing environment", Basel, 28-29 August 2012., volume 36, pages 172-179, Bank for International Settlements.
    11. Camille Magron & Maxime Merli, 2012. "Stocks repurchase and sophistication of individual investors," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2012-02, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    12. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    13. Silvia Balia, 2007. "Reporting expected longevity and smoking: evidence from the SHARE," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 07/10, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Romaniuk, Jenni & Nenycz-Thiel, Magda, 2016. "Lapsed buyers' durable brand consideration in emerging markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3645-3651.
    15. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    16. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    17. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    19. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    20. Das, J.W.M. & Dominitz, J. & van Soest, A.H.O., 1997. "Comparing Predictions and Outcomes : Theory and Application to Income Changes," Discussion Paper 1997-45, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:vision:v:22:y:2018:i:4:p:347-355. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.