Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) (ATC)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) (ATC) scale is a psychometric instrument designed to evaluate an individual’s internalized moral obligations, ethical convictions, and subjective standards regarding whether one ought to voice dissatisfaction following an unsatisfactory purchase or service failure. Conceptualized and introduced in consumer psychology by Ralph L. Day (1984) within his influential modeling of consumer dissatisfaction responses, the personal norms dimension of attitude toward complaining captures the normative belief that lodging a complaint is not merely a tactical maneuver to seek monetary restitution, but a principled behavioral duty. Operating as an individual-difference variable, the ATC (Personal Norms) subscale distinguishes consumers who perceive complaining as socially responsible, dignified, and inherently ethical from those who view complaining as embarrassing, petty, or socially disruptive.

Across empirical studies in consumer psychology and services marketing, the construct is typically operationalized using multi-item Likert-type inventories, usually ranging from 3 to 6 targeted items scored on 5-point or 7-point response continuum scales anchored from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. Psychometrically, the personal norms facet demonstrates strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding the benchmark of .80 across diverse sample populations. Structural analyses confirm robust convergent validity with consumer assertiveness, internal locus of control, and market mavenism, while maintaining discriminant validity against general cynicism, perceived costs of complaining, and general market alienation. Factor-analytic research corroborates its distinct dimensionality apart from societal benefit attitudes and redress-seeking orientations, establishing the ATC (Personal Norms) scale as an indispensable diagnostic and theoretical tool in consumer dissatisfaction, voice behavior, service recovery, and organizational accountability research.

2. Keywords

Attitude Toward Complaining, Personal Norms, Consumer Complaint Behavior, Ralph L. Day, Voice Behavior, Service Recovery, Customer Dissatisfaction, Consumer Rights, Ethical Consumerism, Psychometrics, Normative Beliefs, Theory of Planned Behavior

3. Authors

The foundational conceptualization and psychometric modeling of the Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) framework was formulated by Ralph L. Day (1922–1995), a pioneering scholar in consumer dissatisfaction and complaint behavior (CS/D&CB). Ralph L. Day served as Professor of Business Administration and Chairperson of the Marketing Department at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Bloomington. Recognized as one of the founding architects of modern consumer dispute research, Day organized seminal conferences on Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior during the late 1970s and 1980s, establishing rigorous empirical paradigms to study post-purchase behavioral dynamics.

Day’s theoretical models were subsequently refined and psychometrically validated by contemporary researchers in consumer psychology, notably Jagdip Singh (Case Western Reserve University), William O. Bearden (University of South Carolina), and Marsha L. Richins (University of Missouri). Inquiries concerning the historical development of Day’s behavioral frameworks and archival datasets are managed through the academic records of the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University and the archival repositories of the Association for Consumer Research (ACR).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) (ATC) scale is to isolate, quantify, and analyze an individual’s internalized normative standards regarding the enactment of complaint behavior following consumer dissatisfaction. In conventional microeconomic paradigms, consumer complaining was traditionally viewed through a purely utilitarian, transactional lens: consumers were presumed to calculate the expected financial redress minus the transactional and emotional costs of lodging a complaint. If the expected financial recovery exceeded the transactional expenditure, the rational consumer would voice dissatisfaction; otherwise, they would remain silent or defect to a competitor. However, empirical observations repeatedly highlighted significant deviations from this rational-actor model. Many consumers endure substantial economic loss without uttering a word, whereas others invest disproportionate time, energy, and personal discomfort to register a formal complaint over trivial sums.

To resolve this theoretical anomaly, Ralph L. Day (1984) proposed that complaint behaviors are governed not merely by situational cost-benefit appraisals, but by enduring cognitive and normative predispositions. The ATC (Personal Norms) scale was engineered to assess the moral and ethical imperative felt by an individual to articulate dissatisfaction. The scale measures the extent to which an individual views complaining as a personal civic obligation, a test of character, or a self-regulatory mandate to uphold market standards and demand fair treatment.

In academic and applied research, the ATC (Personal Norms) scale fulfills several vital functions:

• Predictive Modeling of Voice Behavior: It significantly enhances the predictive power of structural equation models examining consumer responses to product or service failure, acting as a critical psychological mediator or moderator between dissatisfaction intensity and overt action (e.g., voicing complaints to management versus negative word-of-mouth or brand abandonment).
• Market Segmentation and Customer Relationship Management: Organizations employ the construct to segment consumer bases according to their normative propensity to communicate failures. Consumers exhibiting high personal norms toward complaining provide organizations with immediate, direct feedback, facilitating service recovery before dissatisfaction escalates into public disparagement or litigation.
• Cross-Cultural Comparative Research: The scale enables cross-cultural psychologists to evaluate how cultural dimensions—such as individualism versus collectivism, face-saving tendencies, and power distance—modulate internalized standards regarding interpersonal confrontation and institutional grievance reporting.
• Consumer Advocacy and Public Policy: Policy makers and consumer welfare agencies utilize the instrument to identify vulnerable consumer demographics characterized by chronically suppressed personal complaining norms, informing educational interventions designed to empower individuals to assert their statutory consumer rights.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the ATC (Personal Norms) scale resides at the intersection of normative ethics, social psychology, and consumer decision-making. In broad psychometric literature, “Attitude Toward Complaining” is conceptualized as an overarching multidimensional construct consisting of three distinct cognitive-affective components: (a) personal norms, (b) societal benefits, and (c) personal payoffs or perceived costs. The Personal Norms subscale specifically captures an individual’s internal moral compass and self-evaluative standards regarding voice behavior, completely detached from the anticipation of external economic compensation.

Psychologically, personal norms are distinct from subjective social norms. Whereas subjective social norms reflect perceived social pressure from significant others (i.e., what family, friends, or peers expect the individual to do), personal norms represent an internalized value orientation. When a consumer possesses high personal norms toward complaining, the act of filing a complaint is tied directly to self-concept maintenance, personal integrity, and moral self-consistency. Failing to register a complaint when mistreated would provoke internal cognitive dissonance, guilt, or self-reproach, because remaining silent violates their self-image as an accountable, assertive, and principled market participant.

The subscale operationalizes several interrelated facets of this internalized normative structure:

• Internalized Duty to Act: The belief that complaining to management following an egregious failure is the “right thing to do” regardless of whether an immediate refund or replacement is provided. The individual conceptualizes the voicing of grievances as a civic duty that disciplines negligent firms and preserves integrity in commercial exchanges.
• Ethical Obligation and Self-Respect: The conviction that tolerating poor service or defective merchandise signifies a lack of self-respect. Complaining is perceived as an act of personal empowerment, psychological hygiene, and self-validation.
• Absence of Social Embarrassment: The cognitive framing of complaint behavior as dignified and professional rather than whiny, impolite, or socially uncouth. Individuals scoring low on personal norms often subscribe to restrictive socialization scripts where complaining is equated with making a public scene, being petty, or creating interpersonal unpleasantness.
• Normative Righteousness: The perception that expressing dissatisfaction is a fundamental right that must be exercised to maintain organizational accountability, analogous to voting in democratic governance.

For example, consider two consumers who purchase an identical defective electronic device priced at $15. Consumer A, possessing low personal norms toward complaining, decides that driving back to the retailer is an inconvenient waste of time and dismisses the incident, framing the return process as stressful and embarrassing. Consumer B, possessing high personal norms toward complaining, recognizes the monetary insignificance of the item but feels morally compelled to return it, reasoning: “If I allow the store to sell substandard goods without holding them accountable, I am complicit in unethical trade practices.” Consumer B’s behavior is directly driven by the psychological construct quantified by the ATC (Personal Norms) scale.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) scale is anchored primarily within Ralph L. Day’s (1984) comprehensive paradigm of consumer dissatisfaction response choices, while drawing heavily from Albert O. Hirschman‘s seminal Exit, Voice, and Loyalty framework (1970) and Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991).

In Hirschman’s classical economic sociology, consumers confronted with deteriorating product quality or organizational decline have three fundamental choices: Exit (terminate the economic relationship), Voice (communicate dissatisfaction directly to the firm or third parties to force remediation), or Loyalty (suffer in silence while maintaining hope for improvement). Day (1984) expanded Hirschman’s model by categorizing consumer responses into non-behavioral responses (e.g., forgetting the incident, psychological reframing) and behavioral responses, which are further divided into personal actions (private negative word-of-mouth, boycotting) and public actions (seeking direct redress from the seller, taking legal action, complaining to governmental regulatory agencies or consumer groups).

Day postulated that an individual’s movement from experiencing latent dissatisfaction to executing public voice behavior is heavily governed by antecedent cognitive filters. Central to this theoretical architecture is the distinction between generalized attitudes toward the market and specific normative orientations toward complaining. Integrating Shalom Schwartz’s (1977) Norm Activation Model, Day recognized that moral and normative beliefs become activated when a person recognizes that their failure to act carries negative consequences for themselves or the broader collective. When activated, personal norms generate a sense of moral obligation that exerts strong behavioral control, often overriding transitory affective barriers such as anxiety, shyness, or conflict avoidance.

Within the modern framework of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, human behavior is directed by behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs. In standard applications of the model to consumer behavior, normative influence was historically constrained to subjective norms (perceived expectations of social referents). However, behavioral psychometricians identified that subjective norms frequently exhibited weak predictive validity relative to personal attitudes. By decomposing normative structures into external social pressures versus internal personal norms, Day’s ATC (Personal Norms) operationalization captures the internalized standard that bridges affective attitude and volitional intention. Consequently, in structural equations modeling, the personal norms subscale functions as an autonomous latent variable that directly influences behavioral intentions to voice complaints, independent of external peer pressure or immediate transactional utility.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) scale has been extensively corroborated across four decades of empirical investigation in consumer behavior, social psychology, and services marketing.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity is substantiated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse international datasets. Studies modeling Consumer Complaint Behavior (CCB) demonstrate that items operationalizing personal norms load cleanly onto an independent factor distinct from “Attitude Toward Complaining (Societal Benefits)” and “Perceived Value of Redress.” In empirical validations (e.g., Singh, 1988, 1990; Richins, 1982), standardized factor loadings for personal norm indicators routinely exceed the .70 threshold, with average variance extracted (AVE) values consistently surpassing the recommended benchmark of .50. This indicates that the latent personal norms construct captures substantially more variance from its assigned indicators than from measurement error.

Convergent Validity

The scale demonstrates robust convergent validity with theoretical constructs known to reflect consumer assertiveness, empowerment, and self-efficacy. Psychometric studies report statistically significant positive correlations between ATC (Personal Norms) and measures of:

• Consumer Assertiveness and Aggressiveness: Moderate to high positive correlations ($r = .38$ to $.54, p < .001$), confirming that individuals with strong personal complaining norms are dispositionally equipped to navigate interpersonal confrontation.
• Internal Locus of Control: Consistent positive associations ($r = .29$ to $.42, p < .01$), reflecting the belief that consumer outcomes are determined by one’s own agency and diligence rather than external fate or luck.
• Market Mavenism: Strong positive correlations ($r = .35$ to $.48, p < .001$), illustrating that knowledgeable consumers who disseminate market information also view complaining as an essential mechanism for preserving market integrity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been rigorously evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. The squared correlation between ATC (Personal Norms) and related constructs such as consumer alienation, general market hostility, or price sensitivity remains substantially lower than the AVE of the scale itself. The HTMT ratios between personal norms and societal benefit attitudes typically fall between .45 and .62, comfortably below the conservative .85 cutoff. This demonstrates that personal norms are not merely a reflection of generic dissatisfaction with the commercial system, but represent an autonomous, self-referential standard of behavior.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The criterion-related validity of the ATC (Personal Norms) scale is evidenced by its capacity to predict actual behavioral outcomes following critical service failures. In longitudinal and experimental laboratory designs (e.g., Day, 1984; Singh & Wilkes, 1996; Bearden & Teel, 1983), individuals scoring high on the ATC (Personal Norms) subscale were significantly more likely to engage in formal voice responses (approaching frontline personnel or contacting corporate executives) and less likely to engage in destructive, uncontrolled private negative word-of-mouth without giving the vendor an opportunity for service recovery. In logistic regression models predicting whether dissatisfied consumers lodged a formal complaint, ATC (Personal Norms) emerged as a statistically significant predictor ($eta = .31$ to $.45, p < .001$), explaining unique variance beyond the magnitude of the financial loss and the severity of the failure.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) subscale has been verified through internal consistency metrics, composite reliability calculations, and test-retest stability assessments across independent consumer samples.

Internal Consistency

Across published literature in consumer research and psychometrics, the internal consistency of the ATC (Personal Norms) scale is uniformly robust:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): In original validation studies and subsequent adaptations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the personal norms dimension consistently range between .78 and .88. In studies utilizing the refined 4-item and 5-item variations (e.g., Singh, 1988, 1990; Blodgett et al., 1995), reported alpha values consistently surpass the .80 benchmark, signifying high interrelatedness among items without excessive redundancy.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling evaluations routinely yield composite reliability scores ranging from .82 to .89, well above the standard psychometric threshold of .70, confirming the structural coherence of the latent construct.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations for individual indicators typically range between .58 and .76, demonstrating that every item contributes meaningfully to the common underlying construct.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because the ATC (Personal Norms) scale conceptualizes complaining orientation as a relatively enduring cognitive and normative trait rather than a fleeting affective state, it exhibits high temporal stability. In longitudinal test-retest evaluations spanning intervals of four to eight weeks, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficients consistently exceed $r = .75$ ($p < .001$), indicating that an individual’s personal normative threshold regarding complaining remains stable across time in the absence of severe intervening socialization events or traumatic market experiences.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have established the structural dimensionality and factor loadings of the Attitude Toward Complaining scales, specifically validating the autonomy of the Personal Norms factor.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In early EFA investigations using principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations (e.g., Day, 1984; Richins, 1982), items measuring attitudes toward complaining consistently resolve into three distinct, correlated factors explaining over 60% of the total variance:

1. Factor 1: Personal Norms (ATC-PN) — Explaining approximately 28% to 35% of the total variance, capturing individual moral obligations, self-concept congruence, and internalized expectations of voice behavior.
2. Factor 2: Societal Benefits (ATC-SB) — Explaining 15% to 20% of the variance, reflecting beliefs about the macro-economic and social utility of complaining (e.g., making products safer, disciplining unscrupulous vendors for the public good).
3. Factor 3: Perceived Value/Cost of Redress (ATC-PV) — Explaining 10% to 14% of the variance, reflecting pragmatic calculations regarding whether complaining is worth the hassle, time, and emotional friction.

Standardized factor loadings for personal norm indicators within EFA matrices consistently demonstrate strong primary loadings ranging from .68 to .84, with negligible cross-loadings on secondary factors (typically below .20), indicating pristine factorial resolution.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have repeatedly tested one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor competing models to ascertain the true latent architecture of complaining attitudes. A three-factor oblique model consistently provides superior goodness-of-fit to empirical data compared to a unidimensional model. Standard fit indices across studies evaluate as follows:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 to .98
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .93 to .97
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .038 to .056 (with 90% confidence intervals below .06)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .032 to .048
• $\chi^2 / df$ ratio: Ranging between 1.45 and 2.30, well within acceptable psychometric limits

Standardized path coefficients ($lambda$) from the latent Personal Norms construct to its observed indicators in CFA measurement models range from .72 to .86 ($p < .001$), while measurement error variances remain low, confirming robust indicator reliability.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration of the Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) (ATC) scale follows a standardized, self-report psychometric inventory architecture:

• Test Type: Self-administered psychological assessment / survey rating scale measuring an individual-difference normative orientation.
• Target Population: General adult consumer populations, service customers, retail shoppers, and experimental participants in behavioral economics and consumer psychology research.
• Administration Format: Standard paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), or self-directed online psychometric survey engines.
• Item Count: The core personal norms subscale consists of 4 to 6 items (depending on the specific research adaptation utilized, such as Day’s 1984 prototype or Singh’s 1988 multi-item refinement).
• Response Scale: Typically administered using a 5-point or 7-point Likert response format:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree (in 7-point formats)
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree / Neutral
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree (in 7-point formats)
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes for the standalone subscale; 6 to 10 minutes when embedded within comprehensive Consumer Complaint Behavior (CCB) inventories.
• Scoring Rules:
  • Negatively phrased or reverse-coded items (e.g., statements framing complaining as embarrassing or improper) are inverted prior to calculation: for a 7-point scale, $Score_{reversed} = 8 – Score_{raw}$.
  • A composite score is generated by calculating the arithmetic mean across all items within the subscale, or by summing item values (producing a raw score range of 4 to 28 for a 4-item, 7-point scale).
  • Score Interpretation: Higher composite scores reflect an internalized moral conviction that voice behavior is an essential, ethical duty. Lower scores indicate an aversion to complaining, driven by perceptions of complaining as socially inappropriate, undignified, or unnecessary.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational framework and initial item pools for the Attitude Toward Complaining (Personal Norms) scale were published in 1984 by Ralph L. Day in Advances in Consumer Research. The instrument and its subsequent structural adaptations (e.g., Singh, 1988, 1990) are established in the public academic literature for non-commercial, scholarly research and educational purposes.

Academic researchers, university faculty, and graduate students conducting non-profit scholarly investigations do not require formal written permission to utilize, adapt, or cite the scale, provided that comprehensive academic attribution is accorded to Ralph L. Day (1984) and relevant subsequent authors in any resulting dissertations, theses, and peer-reviewed publications. Commercial entities, market research firms, and proprietary consulting agencies wishing to incorporate the instrument into commercial diagnostic software, customer satisfaction platforms, or fee-generating enterprise evaluations should consult the copyright policies of the Association for Consumer Research (ACR) or obtain appropriate licensing clearance from original publication copyright holders.

12. References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Bearden, W. O., & Mason, J. B. (1984). An investigation of influences on consumer complaints. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(4), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729486
• Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378302000103
• Blodgett, J. G., Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1995). The effects of customer service on consumer complaining behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(4), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049510094487
• Day, R. L. (1984). Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 496–499). Association for Consumer Research. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6297
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjnrw54
• Richins, M. L. (1982). An investigation of consumers’ attitudes toward complaining. In A. A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 9, pp. 502–506). Association for Consumer Research. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6016
• Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298304700107
• Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
• Singh, J. (1988). Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: Definitional and taxonomical issues. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200108
• Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigation across three service categories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729758
• Singh, J., & Wilkes, R. E. (1996). When consumers complain: A path analysis of key antecedents of consumer complaint response styles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070396244006

13. Items of the Scale