Do we need empathy to be satisfied in webcare? : an experimental study on the interaction between empathy and problem solving in online complaint handling on the customers’ satisfaction, trust and commitment

(1)

1

University of Amsterdam - Graduate School of

Communication - Persuasive Communication

Science - Gert-Jan de Bruijn – 24

th

_{of June, 2015}

DO WE NEED

EMPATHY TO BE

SATISFIED IN

WEBCARE?

An experimental study on the interaction between empathy

and problem solving in online complaint handling on the

customers’ satisfaction, trust and commitment.

(2)

2

Abstract

Several studies have been conducted with the purpose to determine effective strategies that

should be incorporated in the handling of complaints in a social media setting, while

especially focusing on the why, when, how and where. Few studies however have focused on

the content of effective strategies in online complaint handling. Building on complaint

handling literature in an offline setting, this study analyzes the effects of the roles of empathy

and problem solving in a webcare setting on what has been identified as the three key

determinants associated with a successful relationship, which are satisfaction, trust and

commitment. Data were obtained from 207 participants using validated questionnaires after

being exposed to one out of four experimental conditions, which constituted of different

interactions between empathy and problem solving. Findings indicated that when the

company is unable to solve the problem of the customer, showing empathy is a significantly

important component in engendering positive levels of satisfaction, trust and commitment. When the company is able to solve the customer’s problem, showing empathy will only be a

necessity in order to engender significantly higher levels of satisfaction. This means that,

regarding trust and commitment, incorporating empathy will not make a significant difference

when the problem can be solved. The information obtained in this study allows for a better

understanding of effective webcare strategies as it complements existing studies and as it

deviates from existing offline complaint handling literature.

Keywords: empathy, problem solving, social media, complaint handling, relationship

(4)

4

Introduction

Due to the changes in technological spheres in recent years, and especially the role of

social networking sites, the marketing of relationships between companies and consumers ask

for adjusted strategies. These adjusted strategies stem from previous research into the field of

customer and company relationships, in which the focus has been on the importance of

building satisfaction, trust and commitment, which are found to be key determinants

associated with a successful relationship (Belanche, Casaló & Guinalíu, 2013; Caceres &

Paparoidamis, 2007; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner & Gremler, 2002; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In

the association of these determinants with customer service, the importance of the recovery of

service failures when receiving complaints has been acknowledged, which was built on the

justice theory (Tax et al., 1998). This process associated several aspects with a successful customer care process which entails more than ‘only’ fixing the problem, and includes

showing personal care such as empathy. In the scenarios of offline studies regarding customer

service, it appeared that solving the problem with efficient speed and convenience - but

without providing personal care - leads to most of the consumers still feeling negatively

regarding the service, and hence the company (Tax et al.,1998; Hart, Heskett & Sasser 1989).

Due to the changes in technological spheres, the rise of social media offered a new

perspective to the relationship marketing in complaint handling. Where in the more traditional

customer service setting the emphasis is on the communication between the service

representative and the customer alone (van Noort, Willemsen, Kerkhof & Verhoeven, 2014),

social media is characterized by its enormous scope and consumer empowering character. As

it removes the limitation of only communicating with people who you directly interact with,

and as it enables people to share experiences, opinions, and ask questions - which are found to

significantly impact other stakeholders due to the trustworthy character (Sen & Lerman, 2007;

(5)

5 aim to draw the company’s attention and enforcing them to provide favorable services (van

Noort et al., 2014). This act of engaging in the online interaction by the company is called

webcare (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012), and it is even found that a great amount of

consumers prefer reaching out with their complaints to companies for customer service

online, rather than through other forms like the telephone (Nielsen, 2012). Due to these

changes within the character of complaining to companies - which entail a mediated

separation that can erode the effectiveness of care if not used correctly and dampen the

transmission of certain important emotions - strategies should be adjusted in order to create

comprehensive understandings of effective ways to achieve high levels of satisfaction, trust

and commitment.

The changes in establishing, developing or maintaining relationships in the context of

social media and webcare have been getting attention based on the why, when, how and

where of online complaint handling. Distinctions have been made between user-generated and

brand-generated platforms, proactive and reactive strategies (van Noort & Willemsen, 2012),

the underlying motive of the customer (Hennig-Thurua, Gwinner, Walsh & Gremler, 2004;

Willemsen, Neijens & Bronner, 2013), the types of failure (Roschk & Gelbrich, 2014), the

types of compensation in relation to service failure (Rosck & Gelbrich, 2014) and the tone of

voice (Kerkhof, Vonkeman, Beukeboom & Utz, 2011; van Noort & Willemsen, 2012). However, when it comes to the ‘what’ regarding online complaint handling – in other words

the content - many assumptions are established based on literature in the area of offline

customer services due to the lack of actual scientific support regarding the online area.

Therefore, this study tries to clarify the strategies that should be adopted content-wise online

in order to avoid detrimental consequences for the relationship between company and

consumer. Due to the significant effects empathy and problem solving showed to have, this

(6)

6 question if showing empathy versus no empathy differs in effect on perceived webcare quality,

which includes satisfaction, trust and commitment, if the problem is solved or not.

Seeking answers to this question not only contributes to the scientific field as it

complements existing literature regarding webcare strategies, and specifically the content of

it, it also extents literature on relationship marketing in offline settings. Simultaneously, this

study produces new interesting possibilities for research as new insights within the area are

developed that ask for a deeper understanding. Besides amplifying scientific studies, this

research helps companies to implement efficient webcare strategies in order to generate the

most favorable outcomes of the given situation.

Theoretical Framework

Empathy and Customer Service Quality

When engaging with customer complaints online as a company, a wide range of

approaches can be incorporated in these interactions in relation to successful customer

relationships. As social media offers different and, relative to offline settings, limited options

to interact due to factors such as typing space and difficulties in portraying emotions, attention

should be given to the words that are chosen and the actions that are made. One of the

important variables that has been found to lead to successful customer care and relationships,

both online and offline, is empathy. Early on, customer perceptions of service quality were

significantly expanded on by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988), with the formulation

of a service quality construct. This construct consisted of five dimensions including the

dimension of empathy, and has been widely used in all sorts of service areas (Oh, 1999;

Caruana, Money & Berthon, 2000; Sultan & Simpson, 2000). A relatively more recent study

by Klein, Moon and Picard (2002) also illustrated the significant favorable effect empathy can

(7)

7 to which computer mediated interactions could manage and restore negativity of the

consumer, it was shown that cases in which the service representative showed forms of

empathy, the frustrated customer chose to interact longer with the service than when empathy

forms were not displayed. The possibility of displaying empathy in a mediated setting was

also demonstrated by Peiris, Gregor and Alm (2000), who found that when showing human

techniques such as empathy in a computer mediated interview, the effectiveness increased.

The idea that showing empathy to another person is able to make positive

contributions in the development of relationships, is drawn from three functions. These

functions maintain that first, showing empathy is able to produce supportive communication.

Second, empathy is able to increase the accuracy of reflective communication. And third,

empathy is able to produce comforting and helping behaviors (Redmond, 1989). In order for

the communication between the sender and receiver to be competent, showing empathy

should function as understanding another as completely and accurately as possible, while also

being able to predict or anticipate the reaction or the action of the other (Redmond, 1989).

This level of understanding is found to increase the ability to behave appropriately to the

person in a particular situation (Redmond, 1989).

The positive contributions that empathy has towards the establishment, development or maintenance of the company’s relationship with consumers, has been studied (separately)

in light of satisfaction, trust and commitment. These three key variables that are associated

with successful relationships, as well as the causal effects between them, will therefore be

discussed next in light of both real life and computer-mediated settings.

Empathy and Satisfaction

Although the notion of satisfaction does not know one clear definition, it is suggested

that the important underlying thought of satisfaction is characterized by an evaluation process

(8)

8 confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm in order to explain the cognitive process in being

satisfied or not with a particular service or product. By cognitively comparing the service

outcome with a previously held standard, a conclusion based on the level of satisfaction is

derived (Oliver, 1980). From another perspective, literature has focused on satisfaction being

the result of an evaluation of all previous experiences and relationship history which makes

up the relationship (Belanche et al.2013; Severt, 2002; Shankar, Smith, & Rangaswamy,

2003). With satisfaction being studied as distinct, though closely-related, to the concept of

relationship quality (Spreng & Mackoy, 1996; Oliver, 1993; Cronin & Taylor, 1992), the

direct link with empathy – being identified as a component of relationship quality

(Parasuraman et al., 1988) – is assumed to be an important determinant of the level of

satisfaction.

Regarding the relation to a positive level of satisfaction, the importance of showing

empathy was proposed in a study by Tax et al. (1998), in which the focus was put on effective

ways of dealing with customer complaints in order to increase the satisfaction of those

customers. By closely monitoring interpersonal treatment of the company to the customer in

its entire process, they suggest that the three identified justice dimensions (procedural,

distributive and interactional) play an important role in the recovery of the consumer’s

satisfaction (Tax et al., 1998). In the case of interactional justice, which includes

communicating and behaving fairly by showing politeness, honesty and empathy, it was

shown that in cases where the company has failed, the appreciation of interpersonal treatment

is higher than in normal service scenarios (Tax et al., 1998). Furthermore, focusing on the

effects on satisfaction, showing forms of inter alia empathy is able to mitigate the anger in

customers. Moreover, cases in which the service representative acted rude and uncaring, the

anger was aggravated (Tax et al., 1998).

(9)

9 (2009) who treated each dimension of the relationship quality concept by Parasuraman et al.

(1988) separately in relation to customer satisfaction. It was found that, next to reliability and

tangibility, empathy has a direct significant effect on satisfaction (Jamal & Anasasiadou,

2009). Next to others (Arasli, Mehtap-Smadi & Katircioglu, 2005; Baumann, Burton, Elliott

& Kehr, 2007; Parasuraman, 1988,), this study illustrated and confirmed the importance of

companies giving individual attention and providing understanding in customer’s situations in

order for them to be satisfied.

Satisfaction, being one of the key determinants of a successful relationship between

company and customer, is hence positively influenced when empathy is incorporated in the

interaction. This is found to be especially the case when the scenario involves service failures,

and recovery of the satisfaction is needed. As satisfaction is found to involve notions of

meeting expectations, it is stated that satisfaction can reinforce the level of trust, and is

therefore discussed next as being a second key determinant of successful relationships

(Ganesan, 1994; Tax et al., 1998).

Empathy and Trust

In a situation where the customer may experience uncertainty, a lack of knowledge or

information, or a high degree of risk, the need for trust is especially present (Mayer, Davis &

Schoorman, 1995). When there is trust between two parties, a willingness can be found to

take a risk that needs dependence of the other party (Deutsch, 1958). In addition to this, in

order to establish, develop or maintain a relationship, building trust is essential (Singh &

Sirdeshmukh, 2002; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Besides the important role of trust in relationship

marketing offline, trust is an important player in the online world as, due to the physical

distance and lack of direct personal contact, uncertainties and risks are perceived greater than

offline (Reichheld & Schefter, 2000). In order to establish trust between two parties, research

(10)

10 focused on the service representative’s personal characteristics which included similarity,

empathy and politeness, and found a significant relationship of these characteristics with trust.

This was especially found to be the case when the consumer was in the early stage of the

relationship with the company. This significant link between empathy and trust was also

found by Feng, Lazar and Preece (2004) in an online setting, who made a distinction between

the empathic accuracy of the service representative and the supportive response, and

concluded that both forms are significantly related to the online trust of the receiver/customer.

Similar to findings regarding satisfaction and empathy, it can be stated that empathy

positively influences the level of trust. With this knowledge, incorporating empathy in the

interaction is especially found to be important as the difficulty to positively influence trust

may be greater in online settings due to the felt uncertainties and risks. Furthermore, as it is

suggested that in order to create successful relationships trust cannot go without commitment

(Morgan & Hunt, 1994), this key determinant is discussed next.

Empathy and Commitment

Being a direct effect of satisfaction and trust, commitment is an integral part of

marketing a successful relationship (Belanche et al., 2013; Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000;

Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Ribbink, van Riel, Liljander & Streukens, 2004). However, when

defining the concept of commitment, academic research shows various results due to the

blurring line of commitment and the notion of loyalty within the scientific field (Pritchard,

Havitz & Howard, 1999). Therefore, this study uses the definition that has been used to

describe both as one, being “the enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman,

Zaltman & Deshpande, 1992. P.316; Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000). This “desire” of both

parties to maintain the relationship is the result of a favorable attitude towards the experience

which results in a repeating behavior (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003, p. 125), and shows the

(11)

11 Johnson, 1999). This associative link of satisfaction and commitment as well as trust and

commitment has been treated as important in existing studies in order to explain certain

outcomes, such as the effects of empathy. It is found that first of all, a positive level of

satisfaction contributes to further participation in a relationship between the company and

customer, which in time leads to a committed relationship (Kelley & Davis, 1994; Tax et al.

1998). Second, as establishing, developing or maintaining a committed relationship can be

perceived as uncertain, being trustworthy partners is especially important here, and hence

explains the causal relationship between trust and commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994;

Sharma & Patterson, 1999; Belanche et al., 2013). The causal relationships that satisfaction

and trust seem to have with commitment in turn suggest the presence of an indirect

association of empathy on commitment (Sharma & Patterson, 1999).

Hence, as the effect of empathy on the consumer’s level of satisfaction and trust has

been illustrated, and subsequently the effect satisfaction and trust have on commitment, it is

shown that incorporating empathy in the customer service interaction will indirectly and

positively influence the consumer’s level of commitment.

Having illustrated the importance of incorporating personal care within the interaction

between customer and service representative regarding the key determinants of a successful

relationship, the role of solving the problem within a customer service scenario is elaborated

on next.

Problem Solving and Customer Service Quality

Defined as “the consumer's evaluation of FLE (frontline employees) and management

motivations to anticipate and satisfactorily resolve problems that may arise during and after a

service exchange” (Sirdeshmukh, Singh & Sabol, 2002. P. 18), the handling of complaints in

a problem solving manner is an important part of the overall satisfaction with customer

(12)

12 Problem solving strategies can be divided into individual forthcoming strategies, collective

forthcoming strategies, and defensive strategies (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014). In this light,

individual forthcoming strategies include compensation, sympathy, and sharing of

information; collective strategies include corrective and apologetic responses; and defensive

strategies include denying and justifying responses. These clusters have been formed through

conducting a content analysis by Huibers and Verhoeven (2014) based on the social media

platform Twitter. In a subsequent study, the authors of this research looked at the effects of

the three clusters and concluded that the most effective strategies are those focused on

individual interests. Although it is important for companies to deal with negative eWOM

internally, it is suggested to not communicate such correcting actions with stakeholders due to

the lack of personal attention it reflects towards them (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014). Due to

these findings, this study will focus on problem solving in light of individual interests, and

specifically compensation.

Overlooking academic literature on individual forthcoming problem solving, work by

Tax et al (1998) considers problem solving as a part of the bigger concept called complaint

handling. This concept of complaint handling not only includes fixing the problem at hand,

which is in turn part of the notion of allocating compensations such as refunds, repairs and

apologies (distributive justice), but also links it to the manner in which this is done, including

fairness of means, and fairness of interpersonal treatment (interactional justice) (Tax et al.,

1998). The results suggest that the concept of complaint handling – which includes all three

justice perceptions mentioned - is significantly and strongly related to the satisfaction, trust

and commitment of the customer in the company (Tax et al., 1998). More specifically, the

study illustrates the significant interaction between distributive justice (compensating) and

interactional justice (personal care, including empathy) in offline customer settings. Other

(13)

13 problem solving as a separate and distinct dimension rather than a part of the distributive

justice perception formulated by Tax et al. (1998), while acknowledging the important role it

maintains within complaint handling processes in order to generate positive outcomes

(Dabholkar et al., 1995; Hart, Heskett & Sasser, 1989; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). An

important conclusion that can be made regarding problem solving is that it should be used as

part of a greater strategy since providing complaining customers with generous dispute

settlements will most probably not be enough to gain positive satisfaction, trust and

commitment if the service representative is uncaring or the procedure went unfairly (Tax et

al., 1998). This is supported by Hart, Heskett and Sasser (1989), who concluded that problems ‘only’ resolved with efficient speed and convenience result in more than half of the customers

having negative feelings towards the service.

Hypotheses

Based on the overview of existing literature regarding empathy and problem solving,

and satisfaction, trust and commitment, it is hypothesized that the interaction between

empathy and problem solving is crucial in engendering high levels of satisfaction, trust and

commitment, and hence inseparable. This also means that solving a problem will generate less

positive levels of satisfaction, trust and commitment, if no empathy is shown. However,

considering the significant effects empathy has shown to have in existing literature, the

assumption is made that when the problem could not be solved, empathy is able to mitigate

the dissatisfaction, as well as the possible decline in trust and commitment, compared to when

no empathy is shown.

H1: Showing empathy and solving the problem will make a significant positive difference

compared to when the problem is solved but no empathy is shown, regarding the (a)

(14)

14 H2: Showing empathy without solving the problem will make a significant positive difference

compared to when no empathy is shown and the problem is not solved, regarding the (a)

satisfaction, (b) trust and (c) commitment.

Figure 1. Experimental expectations of the interacting strategy effects

Method

Research Participants and Design

In order to test the formulated hypotheses, an experiment was conducted with a 2

(empathy vs. no empathy) x 2 (problem solving vs. no problem solving) between-subjects

design. Each participant was shown a webcare scenario which consisted of either an empathy

and problem solving strategy, a no-empathy and problem solving strategy, an empathy and

no-problem solving strategy, or a no-empathy and no-problem solving strategy. 132 women

participated in this study and 74 men, which makes a total of 206 participants. Satisfaction Trust Commitment Empathy + Problem Solving No Empathy + Problem Solving Empathy + No Problem Solving No Empathy + No Problem Solving

(15)

15

Stimulus Materials

Four experimental conditions were created which constituted of a customer complaint

(which was identical in every condition) and a response by the company including empathy

vs. no empathy and problem solving vs. no problem solving. All posts were created as similar

as possible to the online platform of Facebook, which has been the most visited social

networking site for years (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart & Madden, 2015), in order to

increase external validity. As problem solving knows different shapes and hence asks for

multiple strategies (e.g. compensation, providing information, denying, justifying, internal

corrections etc. (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014)), a pre-test was conducted in order to make sure

that the problem shared by the complainant was indeed perceived as solvable. This pre-test

constituted of two scenarios: a complaint to Transavia regarding a broken suitcase, and a

complaint to IKEA regarding a discount that the customer missed. Results showed that the

complaint towards Transavia was perceived as highly solvable for the company (MTransavia =

1.55, SDTransavia = 1.10; MIKEA = 2.05, SDIKEA = 1.43) (see also Appendix B, Table 4). Hence,

the scenario of the broken suitcase was used in the main experiment in order to receive fair

results.

In the Transavia webcare communication created for this study, the complaint

regarded the scenario in which the customer returned from a trip and noticed her broken

suitcase. The customer mentioned that after seeking assistance on the airport, no help was

given and she therefore approached the company through social media. The importance of

getting a new suitcase was emphasized in the complaint. The webcare responses from

Transavia constituted of either: an empathy and problem solving approach, a non-empathy

and problem solving approach, an empathy and problem solving approach, or a

(16)

16

Procedure

Mainly through social media and email notifications, participants were approached

with a request to participate in an online experiment on webcare. When opening the link, the

participants were redirected to the online experiment via Qualtrics and were randomly

assigned to the stimulus materials of one of the four conditions. After the exposure, the

participants were asked to answer a series of questions regarding their satisfaction towards the

webcare response and company, their trust towards the company, and their commitment

towards the company. Finally, all respondents were thanked for their cooperation.

Measures Satisfaction

The satisfaction of the respondent towards the company’s webcare service was

measured using a seven-point semantic differential scale including the items displeasing /

pleasing, very dissatisfying / very satisfying, did a poor job / did a good job and more.

Furthermore, the satisfaction with the company was measured using two seven-point

statements that included overall, the purchase of the product from this company would be a

good decision and overall, after the complaint, I would be very satisfied with the company’s response, and could be answered with strongly disagree to strongly agree (Homburg & Fürst,

2005). Lastly, the participants were asked for their overall satisfaction towards the webcare

response, with 7-point answer possibilities ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. In

these measurements, higher scores indicated a higher level of satisfaction. Internal

consistencies for the scale items were very high (all conditions alpha > .89) and, in order to

(17)

17

Trust

A seven-point likert scale assessed the level of trust the participant had towards the

company, and included items such as I feel that I can trust this airline company, this airline

company would be honest and truthful with me, this airline company would treat me fairly and justly, this airline company puts the customer's interest first, I can count on this airline company to provide a good service, and more (Larzelere & Huston, 1980; Verhoef, Franses &

Hoekstra, 2002). In these measurements, higher scores indicated a higher level of trust.

Internal consistency analyses indicated excellent scale items scores (all conditions alpha >

.91) and were combined in order to create a single measure for trust.

Commitment

One of the scales measuring the customer’s probability of using the airline in the

future was composed of three seven-point items, and could be answered with very unlikely

ranging to very likely. The questions included the likelihood of: doing most of your future

travel with this airline? Recommending this airline to friends, neighbors, and relatives? Using this airline the very next time you need to travel? (Sirdeshmukh, Singh & Sabol, 2002).

Next to the aforementioned three items, the commitment variable was measured using

eight seven-point scales. These scales assessed the degree to which the participant would buy

from the company and whether he/she would engage in positive eWOM. The items included I

would say positive things about this airline to other people, I would recommend this airline to someone who seeks my advice, and I would encourage friends and relatives to do business with this airline, and more. The answers to these items ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. (Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman, 1996). In these measurements, higher

scores indicated a higher level of commitment. Internal consistency analyses indicated

(18)

18

Results

Preparatory Analyses Sample Characteristics

With a total of 206 respondents, the average age was found to be 26.1 (SD = 9.1). Of

the 206 respondents, 65.6% was female and 34.5% was male. A majority of them completed a

bachelor education (50.0%), while 21.4% completed a master education. 19.4% completed

HBO; 3.4% MBO; and lastly 5.8% high school. Being interested in their social media use

when it comes to complaining to companies, the sample was divided into most of them never

doing this (63.1%), 35.0% having this done ‘a few times’, 1.5% indicating always doing this

when having a complaint, and 0.5% having done this regularly (see also Appendix B, Tables

5 & 6).

Randomization Checks

A new variables was created in order clearly examine the conditions which were

assigned to each respondent. The variable conditiontransl included the four conditions of the

Transavia Facebook posts, and consisted of empathy and problem solving having the value 1,

no empathy and problem solving having the value 2, empathy and no problem solving having

the value 3, and no empathy and no problem solving having the value 4.

In order to examine whether the randomization of the conditions was performed

successfully, the distribution of education level, gender and social media use for complaining

was investigated conducting a chi square test. Examining whether this randomization was also

successfully performed for age was done by conducting a one-way ANOVA.

The results suggested that regarding education level and the conditions of Transavia

Facebook posts, no statistically significant difference was found between the four groups,

(19)

19 Transavia conditions, a chi square test showed that also no statistically significant difference

was found, X²(3) = 7.320, p =.062. The social media use by the participants for complaining

to companies showed to also be randomized successfully among the four conditions, X²(9) =

9.008, p =.437. When conducting a one-way ANOVA, results suggested the successful

randomization of age among the four conditions, F(30,175) = 1.007, p =.464.

Confound Checks

A confound check revealed that the gender of participants in the third condition

(empathy and no problem solving) was significantly associated to their level of satisfaction,

rs=-.17, p = .009, trust, rs=-.19, p = .004 and commitment, rs=-.17, p = .011. This variable was therefore included in the analyses as a covariate (see also Appendix B, Tables 9, 10 &

11).

Results Main Analyses Satisfaction

It was proposed that the interaction between empathy and problem solving in the

webcare strategy applied yields significantly higher levels of satisfaction compared to the

condition problem solving and no empathy (H1a). Furthermore, it was proposed that the

interaction between empathy and no problem solving yields significantly higher levels of

satisfaction compared to the condition of no empathy and no problem solving (H2a). In order

to test these hypotheses, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. In this

analyses, empathy (yes vs. no) and problem solving (yes vs. no) served as the independent

variables and the level of satisfaction as the dependent variable, while gender was

incorporated as a covariate.

The results of the ANCOVA showed regarding satisfaction a significant main effect of

(20)

20 Table 1. For the main effect of empathy, results demonstrated that the participants in the

empathy conditions had higher scores for satisfaction (M = 39.31, SD = 17.26), compared to

those in the no-empathy conditions (M = 32.88, SD = 18.96).

Table 1

Empathy and problem solving effects on satisfaction Source Sum of

Squares

Mean Square

F(1,201) Sig. Partial Eta Squared Empathy 2723.96 2723.96 23.38 <.001 .10 Problem Solving 42658.15 42658.15 366.07 <.001 .75 Empathy * Problem Solving 393.68 393.68 3.38 .068 .02

Regarding the main effect of problem solving, results demonstrated that the

participants in the problem solving conditions had higher scores for satisfaction (M = 50.80,

SD = 12.86), compared to those in the no-problem solving conditions (M = 22.13, SD = 9.87).

The interaction effect of empathy and problem solving was decomposed using a

planned comparison, and showed results which demonstrated that the effect of empathy is

different for problem solving than for no-problem solving. It was demonstrated that empathy

yields greater scores when the problem is solved (M = 53.02) compared to when the problem

is not solved (M = 27.00; Mdifference = 26.02, p <.001). However, when there is no empathy,

greater differences in satisfaction scores are yielded in the case when the problem is solved

(M = 48.46) and not solved (M = 16.86; Mdifference = 31.60, p <.001). Additionally, when

solving the problem, showing empathy (M = 53.02) is able to make a difference in the level of

satisfaction compared to when no empathy is shown (M = 48.46; Mdifference = 4.56, p =.035).

This is in line with the scenario when the company is not able to solve the problem as

(21)

21 to when no empathy is displayed (M = 16.86; Mdifference = 10.14, p <.001) (see also Appendix

C, Tables 14 & 15). Therefore, H1(a) and H2(a) can be accepted.

Trust

webcare strategy applied yields significantly higher levels of trust compared to the condition

problem solving and no empathy (H1b). Furthermore, it was proposed that the interaction

between empathy and no problem solving yields significantly higher levels of trust compared

to the condition of no empathy and no problem solving (H2b). In order to test these

hypotheses, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. In this analyses, empathy

(yes vs. no) and problem solving (yes vs. no) served as the independent variables and the level

of trust as the dependent variable, while gender was incorporated as a covariate.

The results of the ANCOVA showed regarding trust a significant main effect of

empathy, problem solving, and a marginally significant interaction effect as can be seen in

Table 2. For the main effect of empathy, results demonstrated that the participants in the

empathy conditions had higher scores for trust (M = 28.59, SD = 9.82), compared to those in

the no-empathy conditions (M = 25.41, SD = 11.75).

Table 2

Empathy and problem solving effects on trust Source Sum of

Squares

Mean Square

F(1,201) Sig. Partial Eta Squared Empathy 602.01 602.01 9.75 .002 .05 Problem Solving 11220.72 11220.72 181.70 <.001 .48 Empathy * Problem Solving 217.93 217.93 3.43 .062 .02

(22)

22 Regarding the main effect of problem solving, results demonstrated that the

participants in the problem solving conditions had higher scores for trust (M = 34.52, SD =

8.20), compared to those in the no-problem solving conditions (M = 19.86, SD = 7.91).

The interaction effect of empathy and problem solving was decomposed using a

planned comparison, and showed results that demonstrated that the effect of empathy is

greater differences in trust scores are yielded in the case when the problem is solved (M =

33.81) and not solved (M= 16.96; Mdifference = 16.85, p <.001). Additionally, when solving the

problem, showing empathy (M = 35.19) is not able to make a difference in the level of trust

compared to when no empathy is shown (M = 33.81; Mdifference = 1.39, p =.378). However, in

the scenario when the company is not able to solve the problem, showing empathy (M =

22.49) makes a significant greater difference in trust compared to when no empathy is shown

(M = 16.96; Mdifference = 5.53, p =.001) (see also Appendix C, Tables 17 & 18). In this light, H1(b) can be rejected while H2(b) can be accepted.

Commitment

webcare strategy applied yields significantly higher levels of commitment compared to the

condition problem solving and no empathy (H1c). Furthermore, it was proposed that the

interaction between empathy and no problem solving yields significantly higher levels of

commitment compared to the condition of no empathy and no problem solving (H2c). In order

to test these hypotheses, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. In this

analyses, empathy (yes vs. no) and problem solving (yes vs. no) served as the independent

(23)

23 incorporated as a covariate.

The results of the ANCOVA showed regarding commitment a significant main effect

of empathy, problem solving, and a marginally significant interaction effect as can be seen in

Table 3. For the main effect of empathy, results demonstrated that the participants in the

empathy conditions had higher scores for commitment (M = 43.71, SD = 14.26), compared to

those in the no-empathy conditions (M = 37.69, SD = 14.89).

Table 3

Empathy and problem solving effects on commitment Source Sum of

Squares

Mean Square

F(1,201) Sig. Partial Eta Squared Empathy 2304.23 2304.23 14.75 <.001 .07 Problem Solving 10764.92 10764.92 68.91 <.001 .26 Empathy * Problem Solving 565.81 565.81 3.62 .058 .02

Regarding the main effect of problem solving, results demonstrated that the

participants in the problem solving conditions had higher scores for commitment (M = 48.10,

SD = 12.38), compared to those in the no-problem solving conditions (M = 33.75, SD =

13.60).

Lastly, the interaction effect of empathy and problem solving was decomposed using a

planned comparison, and showed results that demonstrated that the effect of empathy is

greater differences in commitment scores are yielded in the case when the problem is solved

(24)

24 solving the problem, showing empathy (M = 49.74) is not able to make a difference in the

level of commitment compared to when no empathy is shown (M = 46.32; Mdifference = 3.42, p

=.171). However, in the scenario when the company is not able to solve the problem, showing

empathy (M = 38.61) makes a significant greater difference in commitment compared to when

no empathy is displayed (M = 28.51; Mdifference = 10.10, p <.001) (see also Appendix C, Tables

20 & 21). In this light, H1(b) can be rejected while H2(b) can be accepted.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine whether showing empathy versus no empathy

differs in effect on perceived webcare quality, which includes satisfaction, trust and

commitment, if the problem is solved or not. Results demonstrated that besides the significant

effect solving the problem has regarding the service quality, showing forms of empathy is

able to significantly increase the perceived service quality when the company is not able to

solve the problem. Regarding the situation when the problem can be solved by the company,

showing empathy is only found to be necessary in order to positively affect the satisfaction.

Satisfaction

As hypothesized showing empathy when the problem is solved makes a positive

difference in satisfaction to when the problem is solved but no empathy is shown.

Additionally, results of this study demonstrated that when the problem could not be solved by

the company, showing empathy will make a positive significant difference compared to

showing no empathy. Hence, confirming both hypotheses, showing empathy is able to

significantly and positively influence the satisfaction regardless of whether the problem is

solved or not. These outcomes support existing literature stating the determining role of

empathy in relation to satisfaction (Arasli et al., 2005; Baumann et al., 2007; Parasuraman,

(25)

25 complements the work by Tax et al (1998) as it is demonstrated that by showing empathy, the

dissatisfaction can be mitigated, and the other way around, showing no empathy can

aggravate dissatisfaction. Hence, it is recommended to always give individual attention as

well as showing understanding when handling complaints online.

Trust & Commitment

Slight differences in outcomes can be found compared to satisfaction regarding customer’s levels of trust and commitment. As both trust and commitment yield similar

results, the discussion of their outcomes are in a combined setting.

The results of this study demonstrated that in cases where the problem is not solved,

empathy is able to make a significant difference compared to no empathy regarding both trust

and commitment. This means that in situations where the company is unable to solve the customer’s problem, the service representative should show forms of empathy such as

personal attention and caring behaviors, in order to increase the level of trust and

commitment. Therefore, the second hypothesis regarding trust and commitment, as well as

satisfaction, can be accepted. These outcomes can be explained using existing literature

regarding the connection of empathy and trust, and in turn commitment, as this significant

relation has been extensively demonstrated (Coulter & Coulter, 2002; Feng et al., 2004; Jamal

& Anastasiadou, 2009; Tax et al., 1998). Further explanations regarding this outcome stem

from the assumption that in this scenario - where the customer is coping with a problem that

cannot be solved - feelings such as uncertainty and perceived risk may be higher, and can be

mitigated using forms of empathy (Mayer et al., 1995). Furthermore, in relation to the online

scenario in which the complaint handling takes place, risks and uncertainties may be

perceived as higher due to the physical distance between customer and employee as well as

the lack of direct personal contact (Reichheld & Schefter, 2000). It is in turn suggested that

(26)

26 be unlikely for people to be committed if no trust is established (Morgan & Hunt, 1994;

Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Therefore, empathy is a determining factor in the avoidance of

the aggravation of such emotions.

The hypothesis stating that showing empathy and solving the problem makes a

significant positive difference compared to when no empathy is shown and the problem is

solved, cannot be completely accepted due to the different outcomes that trust and

commitment have engendered compared to satisfaction. It is demonstrated how, in light of

building trust and commitment, empathy is unable to make a significant difference when the

problem is solved compared to showing no empathy. This means that, in cases where the

company is able to fix the problem of the complainant, the service representative does not

necessarily have to provide care and individual attention, as this most likely will not make a

difference regarding the trust and commitment of the customer. This outcome therefore

contradicts existing causal effects between satisfaction and trust, and satisfaction and

commitment, as different results were yielded. Explaining this outcome regarding the

different outcomes in trust and commitment compared to satisfaction, may be adapted from

literature indicating that the notion of satisfaction is cumulative, and is hence composed of

several components (Czepiel, Rosenberg & Akerele, 1974; Westbrook, 1981). The results in

satisfaction in this study may therefore be an accumulation of several evaluations, and

sequentially differ from trust and commitment as it encompasses more factors that may have

affected the outcome. In the case where the problem is not solved, empathy may overrule this

notion. However, future research is necessary to make grounded conclusions regarding this

finding.

Another important notion in this study is the contradicting results compared to

problem solving in offline complaint handling. It is stated by both Tax et al. (1998) and Hart

(27)

27 positive levels of satisfaction, trust and commitment, and that ‘only’ solving the problem still

leads to negativity amongst the customers. However, taking into consideration the significant

main effect of problem solving as well as the mean scores in the situation where the problem

is solved but no empathy is shown, results still indicate relatively high scores. This suggest

that it is not necessarily the case that when the problem is ‘only’ resolved, negative outcomes

will follow.

Limitations and Future Research

This study leads to four suggestions for future studies. First of all, future research may

focus on the role explanation plays when added to the different conditions. Because this study

focused on the interaction between empathy and problem solving, the decision has been made

to keep other possible suitable components of a webcare message out in order to isolate the

two variables. However, when the company refuses to solve the customer’s problem, no

explanation of this decision was given within the stimuli example while this may play a

crucial role in the levels of satisfaction, trust and commitment. As previous studies showed

the positive effects explanations can yield (Tax et al., 1998; Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Shaw,

Wild & Colquitt, 2003), future research may focus on this role in relation to the online

interaction between empathy and problem solving. Sequentially, as this study is able to

demonstrate different results regarding complaint handling in an online setting compared to

the offline setting, future studies may focus on other components that are considered to be

important aspects of offline complaints handling, next to explanation giving. As empathy and

problem solving are one of many aspects of the justice perceptions proposed by the study of

Tax et al. (1998), other aspects such as timing and speed of the service may contribute to the

search in creating the most effective webcare messages. Moreover, the moderating value of

price may play an important role in especially the likelihood of future buying behaviors as it

(28)

28 research.

Second, results have indicated a different outcome in satisfaction compared to trust

and commitment when the problem is solved, which may be due to the limitation of this study

that the measurement of satisfaction is composed of an accumulation of evaluations rather

than distinct components. Future research may therefore focus on the dynamic behind the

different outcomes in satisfaction when the problem could be solved, by for instance isolating

several components that make up the overall satisfaction concept. Furthermore, as Garbarino

and Johnson (1999) have illustrated the different outcomes in satisfaction compared to trust

and commitment based on the level of relational orientation, such factors should be

incorporated as it may explain differences. Moreover, the differences in results of the three

service quality components may also be due to factors of trust and commitment. It is therefore

proposed to further look into this matter in future studies as it may explain and hence

complement results of this study.

Third, as the “desire” of the customer to maintain the relationship with the company,

which results in repeating (buying) behaviors (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003, p. 125), is

rather a long-run perspective of the interactions, it may be suggested to measure the

customer’s commitment through the corporate’s image perception. As the perceived image of

the company is found to be a powerful predictor of future commitment actions (Zin, 2001),

such measures may yield different results in the same time-frame. Furthermore, as the brand’s

image/reputation has been repeatedly linked to eWOM, which is an important part of

engaging in webcare, (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; van Noort & Willemsen, 2011; Kerkhof

et al., 2011, van Noort et al., 2014), focusing on the interacting effects of problem solving and

empathy on brand reputation may complement the existing research field even further.

Fourth, interesting for future research may be the differences between new and

(29)

29 company was used, results could be affected by previous experiences regarding the company.

Comparing these results with results of new companies may yield interesting outcomes as

research has shown how brand familiarity and age of the relationship are able to produce

distinct results regarding the formation of satisfaction, behavioral intentions (Tam, 2008),

trust and commitment (Grayson & Ambler, 1999). Hence, when extending this study by

incorporating stimuli of a fictive company, results may indicate differences which may have

implications in the extent and the strength to which webcare is able to generate certain

evaluative outcomes.

Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study show the importance of incorporating empathy in situations

where the company is able to solve the problem, and situations where the company is unable

to solve the problem. However, exceptions are found regarding trust and commitment when

the company is able to solve the problem, as showing empathy will not make significant

differences. Nonetheless, outcomes of this study do indicate a relatively higher outcome when

empathy is incorporated in any given situation. This outcome is also found to be higher in

cases where the problem is solved compared to when the problem could not be solved,

regardless of the interaction with empathy. Therefore, it is recommended to always

incorporate forms of empathy next to the effort of solving the problem in order to generate the

most possible positive outcomes.

Taken the results of this study together with existing literature in online complaint

handling regarding the why, where, how and when, this study is complementing as it

integrates insights into the ‘what’ of webcare. Moreover, this study yields new and different

insights in relation to offline settings of complaint handling, and hence serves as a valuable

addition to the creation of webcare strategies for companies seeking to step up their online

(30)

30

References

Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E‐satisfaction and e‐loyalty: A contingency framework. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 123-138.

Arasli, H., Mehtap-Smadi, S., & Turan Katircioglu, S. (2005). Customer service quality in the

greek cypriot banking industry. Managing Service Quality: An International

Journal, 15(1), 41-56.

Baumann, C., Burton, S., Elliott, G., & Kehr, H. M. (2007). Prediction of attitude and

behavioural intentions in retail banking. International Journal of Bank

Marketing, 25(2), 102-116.

Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Guinalíu, M. (2013). The role of consumer happiness in

relationship marketing. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 12(2), 79-94.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal

accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199-218.

Caruana, A., Money, A. H., & Berthon, P. R. (2000). Service quality and satisfaction-the

moderating role of value. European Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12), 1338-1353.

Caceres, C. R., & Paparoidamis, N. G. (2007). Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust,

commitment and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing,

41(7/8), 836-867.

Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2002). Determinants of trust in a service provider: the

moderating role of length of relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(1), 35-50.

Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and

(31)

31 Czepiel, J.A., Rosenberg, L.J. and Akerele, A. (1974). Proceedings from AMA Educators:

Perspectives on consumer satisfaction. Chicago: American Marketing Association,

119-23.

Dabholkar, P. A., Thorpe, D. I., & Rentz, J. O. (1995). A measure of service quality for retail

stores: scale development and validation. Journal of the academy of Marketing

Science, 24(1), 3-16.

Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265-279.

Duggan, M.., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A. & Madden, M. (2015). Social media

update 2014. Retrieved from Pew Research Center, Pew Internet & American Life

Project site: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/

Feng, J., Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2004). Empathy and online interpersonal trust: A fragile

relationship. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 97-106.

Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and

commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.

Grayson, K. & Ambler, T. (1999). The dark side of long-term relationships in marketing

services. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 132-141.

Hart, C. W., Heskett, J. L., & Sasser Jr, W. E. (1989). The profitable art of service recovery.

Harvard business review, 68(4), 148-156.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship

marketing outcomes and integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.

(32)

32 Homburg, C., & Fürst, A. (2005). How organizational complaint handling drives customer

loyalty: an analysis of the mechanistic and the organic approach. Journal of

Marketing, 69(3), 95-114.

Huibers, J., & Verhoeven, J. (2014). Webcare als online reputatiemanagement. Tijdschrift

voor Communicatiewetenschap, 42(2), 165-189.

Jamal, A., & Anastasiadou, K. (2009). Investigating the effects of service quality dimensions

and expertise on loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 398-420.

Kelley, S. W., & Davis, M. A. (1994). Antecedents to customer expectations for service

recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 52-61.

Klein, J., Moon, Y., & Picard, R. W. (2002). This computer responds to user frustration:

Theory, design, and results. Interacting with Computers, 14(2), 119-140.

Kerkhof, P., Vonkeman, C., Beukeboom, C., & Utz, S. (2011). Customer service as PR:

Audience effects of customer care in social media. Paper submitted for publication.

Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding

interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(3),

595-604.

Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (ewom): How ewom platforms

influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3),

473-499.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of

(33)

33 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and

users of market research: The dynamics of trust. Journal of Marketing Research,

29(3), 314-328.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Nielsen (2012). State of the media: The social media report 2012. Retrieved on 08-05-2015

from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2012-

Reports/The-Social-Media-Report-2012.pdf

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic

perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67-82.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction

decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction:

compatible goals, different concepts. Advances in Services Marketing and

Management, 2(4), 65-85.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual. Journal of retailing,

64(1), 12-40.

Peiris, D. R., Gregor, P., & Alm, N. (2000). The effects of simulating human conversational

style in a computer-based interview. Interacting with Computers, 12(6), 635-650.

Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment-loyalty

link in service contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 333-348.

(34)

34 Ribbink, D., Van Riel, A. C., Liljander, V., & Streukens, S. (2004). Comfort your online

customer: Quality, trust and loyalty on the internet. Managing Service Quality: An

International Journal, 14(6), 446-456.

Redmond, M. V. (1989). The functions of empathy (decentering) in human relations. Human

Relations, 42(7), 593-605.

Roschk, H., & Gelbrich, K. (2014). Identifying appropriate compensation types for service

failures: A meta-analytic and experimental analysis. Journal of Service Research,

17(2), 195-211.

Sen, S. & Lerman, D. (2007) Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative

consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), pp. 76–94.

Severt, D. E. (2002). The customer’s path to loyalty: A partial test of the relationships of

prior experience, justice, and customer satisfaction. Doctoral dissertation. Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in

online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 20(2), 153-175.

Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness and

service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional services.

Journal of services marketing, 13(2), 151-170.

Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review

of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 444-458.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in

(35)

35 Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction

and loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150-167.

Spreng, R. A., & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived

service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201-214.

Sultan, F., & Simpson Jr, M. C. (2000). International service variants: Airline passenger

expectations and perceptions of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3),

188-216.

Tam, J. L. (2008). Brand familiarity: Its effects on satisfaction evaluations. Journal of

Services Marketing, 22(1), 3-12.

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service

complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. The Journal of

Marketing, 62(2), 60-76.

Van Noort, G., & Willemsen, L. M. (2012). Online damage control: The effects of proactive

versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated

platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 131-140.

van Noort, G., Willemsen, L. M., Kerkhof, P., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2014). Webcare as an

integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing:

A literature review. Integrated Communications in the Postmodern Era, 77-99.

Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2002). The effect of relational constructs on

customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider:

Does age of relationship matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3),

(36)

36 Westbrook, R. A. (1981). Sources of consumer satisfaction with retail outlets. Journal of

Retailing, 57(3), 68-85.

Willemsen, L., Neijens, P. C., & Bronner, F. A. (2013). Webcare as customer relationship and

reputation management? Motives for negative electronic word of mouth and their

effect on webcare receptiveness. Advances in Advertising Research 4(1), 55-69.

Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. Review of Marketing, 4(1), 68-123.

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of

service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.

Zin, A. H. (2001). Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: Some

experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service

(37)

37

Appendix A: Experiment

Hi,

Thank you for participating in this research! Before we begin, I’d like to tell you a bit more about this study. It is part of a research project being carried out under by the ASCoR research institute, which is part of the University of Amsterdam. ASCoR conducts scientific research into media and communications in society. This particular study looks at webcare.

Your participation is voluntary. Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes of your time.

◦ I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described above, and agree with the following statements below:

- I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is

completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.

- If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact Mathilde Simon: mathildesimon223@hotmail.com

- Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR

secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680 ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.

Again, thank you for participating in this research! Click the button in the right lower corner of this screen to go to the next page.

Best,

Mathilde Simon

Please confirm that you understand the terms above to start the survey. If you do not agree, please close this window.

(38)

38 PAGE BREAK

First, I would like to know what your overall impression of the airline company Transavia is? (7-point scale) 1. good / bad 2. favorable / unfavorable 3. negative / positive PAGE BREAK

On the next page you will see a conversation that takes place on social media between a customer and the airline company Transavia. Based on this online conversation, you will be asked a few questions.

PAGE BREAK

Please read the conversation below carefully as there will not be an option to look at it again when you proceed to the next page (loading of the image may take some time).

1 of 4 Transavia stimulus *

PAGE BREAK

Please indicate how satisfied you are with the company’s service by checking the space that best gives your answer.

(7-point scale)

1. displeasing / pleasing

2. very dissatisfying / very satisfying 3. did a poor job / did a good job 4. unhappy with / happy with 5. bad value / good value

6. very unfavorable / very favourable

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

(7-point scale, strongly disagree- strongly agree)

(39)

39 2. Overall, after the complaint, I would be very satisfied with the company’s response.

3. I feel pleased with what the company has done in the scenario.

Please answer the following question.

How satisfied are you overall with the quality of the webcare response? (7-point scale, very dissatisfied – very satisfied)

PAGE BREAK

Please answer the following questions.

(7-point scale, strongly disagree – strongly agree) 1. I feel that I can trust this airline company

2. This airline company would be honest and truthful with me. 3. This airline company would treat me fairly and justly.

4. I feel that this airline company can be counted on to help me when I need it. 5. I feel that this airline company does show me enough consideration

6. This airline company puts the customer's interest first.

7. I can count on this airline company to provide a good service.

PAGE BREAK

How likely are you to:

(7-point scale, very unlikely – very likely)

1. Do most of your future travel with this airline?

2. Recommend this airline to friends, neighbors, and relatives? 3. Use this airline the very next time you need to travel?

Please answer the following questions.

(7-point scale, strongly disagree – strongly agree)

Do we need empathy to be satisfied in webcare? : an experimental study on the interaction between empathy and problem solving in online complaint handling on the customers’ satisfaction, trust and commitment

University of Amsterdam - Graduate School of

Communication - Persuasive Communication

Science - Gert-Jan de Bruijn – 24

of June, 2015

DO WE NEED

EMPATHY TO BE

SATISFIED IN

WEBCARE?

An experimental study on the interaction between empathy

and problem solving in online complaint handling on the

customers’ satisfaction, trust and commitment.

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Method

Results

Discussion

References

Appendix A: Experiment

_{of June, 2015}