Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) (RB)

Abstract

The Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) (RB) scale is a specialized, four-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to capture explicit consumer actions aimed at publicly exposing a service provider’s perceived wrongdoing, severe service failure, or perceived violation of fairness norms. Developed and validated by Yany Grégoire and Robert J. Fisher (2008) in their seminal investigation into the psychological dynamics of customer betrayal and retaliation, the scale measures a specific, high-intensity facet of consumer vengeance: leveraging third-party communication channels, media outlets, consumer advocacy platforms, and executive exposure to intentionally inflict reputational damage on a firm. Grounded in cognitive appraisal theory and fairness theory, the instrument conceptualizes complaining for publicity not as an attempt at constructive service recovery or private redress-seeking, but as an aggressive retaliatory response fueled by moral outrage, perceived betrayal, and the desire for retribution.

Psychometrically, the RB scale operates as a unidimensional construct evaluated via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”). Across empirical validation studies involving longitudinal designs, structural equation modeling (SEM), and field data from disaffected airline and hospitality customers, the scale has exhibited robust psychometric properties. It consistently demonstrates high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding .85 and composite reliability (CR) values surpassing .88. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supports its structural validity, demonstrating high standardized factor loadings (ranging from .78 to .92) and clear discriminant validity against conceptually related constructs such as private negative word-of-mouth (WOM), direct vindictive complaining, and patronage reduction. By isolating the public publicity-seeking dimension of retaliatory behavior, the scale serves as a critical diagnostic and empirical tool for marketing scientists, consumer psychologists, and service management scholars examining service failure dynamics, online brand attacks, customer rage, and corporate reputation management.

Keywords

Retaliatory behavior, complaining for publicity, customer betrayal, service failure, customer revenge, public word-of-mouth, consumer rage, psychometrics, service recovery, fairness theory

Authors

The Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) scale was authored and psychometrically validated by prominent researchers in the fields of marketing, consumer psychology, and service management:

• Yany Grégoire, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing at HEC Montréal, Canada. Dr. Grégoire holds the Chair in Service Experience and Customer Relationship Management. His research focuses extensively on customer revenge, service failure and recovery, customer relationship dynamics, and online public complaining. Prior to joining HEC Montréal, he served on the faculty at Washington State University.
• Robert J. Fisher, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Marketing and former Alberta Centennial Chair at the Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, Canada. Dr. Fisher is widely recognized for his scholarly contributions to social influence, consumer ethics, pro-social behavior, and destructive consumer behaviors.

Inquiries regarding the theoretical architecture, empirical extensions, or psychometric implementation of the instrument can typically be directed to Dr. Yany Grégoire via HEC Montréal’s Department of Marketing.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) (RB) scale is to empirically isolate, quantify, and analyze a potent behavioral manifestation of customer revenge: the deliberate mobilization of external, high-visibility public channels to broadcast a firm’s alleged transgressions. Traditional customer satisfaction and complaint behavior paradigms historically categorized post-purchase complaining into simplified taxonomies, such as Albert O. Hirschman’s classic framework of “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” or Day and Landon’s categorization of private versus public actions. However, these earlier paradigms predominantly viewed “voice” as a benign or functional mechanism through which dissatisfied consumers seek compensation, product replacement, or corrective organizational response.

Grégoire and Fisher (2008) introduced the RB scale to capture a fundamentally different phenomenon: punitive, vindictive complaining where the ultimate objective is not problem resolution, restitution, or constructive reconciliation, but rather social punishment, reputational harm, and the vindication of violated personal fairness norms. The purpose of this scale addresses several crucial theoretical and practical requirements across psychology and marketing:

• Differentiating Retaliation from Constructive Complaint Behavior: Conventional complaint scales measure consumer communication aimed at problem resolution (e.g., requesting a refund, notifying front-line staff). The RB scale specifically measures actions intended to “publicize bad practice” and “publicly expose poor service,” filling a significant operational gap in literature addressing hostile consumer-firm interactions.
• Exploring the “Love Becomes Hate” Paradox: A primary motivation behind the development of the scale was to test the empirical paradox known as the “love becomes hate” effect. Prior literature had posited that strong customer-brand relationships act as a protective buffer against service failures. Grégoire and Fisher utilized this scale to reveal that highly loyal customers, when they perceive a deliberate breach of trust, experience profound psychological betrayal, making them significantly more likely than low-relationship customers to engage in aggressive public retaliation.
• Measuring the Amplification Effect of Modern Media: With the rapid expansion of digital social media, independent review aggregators, consumer advocacy watchdogs, and broadcast journalism, consumers possess unprecedented leverage to inflict damage on corporate reputations. The RB scale provides researchers and corporate crisis managers with an operationalized metric to assess the severity of customer-initiated public media attacks.
• Clinical and Organizational Diagnostics: In applied organizational contexts, the scale functions as an outcome metric to evaluate the effectiveness of crisis management protocols, reconciliation strategies, and dynamic service recovery efforts. In consumer psychology and behavioral ethics, it allows investigators to trace the emotional journey from appraisal of unfairness to moral outrage and subsequent aggressive behavioral discharge.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by this instrument is Retaliatory Behavior in the Form of Complaining for Publicity. Conceptually, retaliatory behavior is defined as an action undertaken by an individual with the explicit intent of causing harm, disadvantage, inconvenience, or damage to an entity that is perceived to have committed a severe, unjustified, and blameworthy transgression. Within consumer psychology, retaliation represents the behavioral execution of the desire for revenge.

While consumer retaliation encompasses a spectrum of aggressive acts—including direct vindictive complaining to frontline employees, private negative word-of-mouth directed at family and acquaintances, and physical or digital sabotage—Complaining for Publicity represents an externally targeted, highly visible, institutionalized form of aggression. This construct is characterized by several distinct psychological and behavioral dimensions:

1. The Intention to Inflict Reputational and Financial Harm

Unlike standard customer feedback or private complaining, complaining for publicity is driven by an underlying motive to diminish the firm’s symbolic and financial standing. The customer deliberately bypasses traditional private recovery mechanisms or escalates beyond them because private redress is perceived as insufficient to restore cognitive and moral equilibrium. The individual seeks retribution by eroding the firm’s public brand equity, deterring prospective consumers, and forcing the firm into an embarrassing public defense.

2. Mobilization of Third Parties as Retaliatory Proxies

Central to this construct is the strategic enlistment of powerful third parties—journalists, television producers, consumer advocacy organizations, social media networks, and executive leadership. The consumer leverages these intermediaries to amplify their voice far beyond their immediate social circle. By framing their grievance through public channels, the consumer transforms a private interpersonal dispute into a public moral drama, utilizing external authority structures to sanction the offending organization.

3. Altruistic Punishment vs. Egocentric Vengeance

Psychologically, complaining for publicity frequently operates under the cognitive mechanism of “altruistic punishment” or third-party protection. Transgressed consumers often justify their public hostility by claiming to protect other innocent consumers (e.g., “I warned other customers using the media”). This cognitive reframing allows the retaliating individual to fulfill vengeful impulses while maintaining a moral self-image as a prosocial crusader combating corporate malfeasance. The construct captures this nuanced intersection between personal retribution and public warning.

4. Public Exposure and De-escalation Resistance

Consumers who engage in complaining for publicity have crossed an emotional threshold from passive dissatisfaction to active hostility. Having made their grievances public, these individuals exhibit higher psychological commitment to their hostile stance, rendering standard transactional recovery efforts (such as simple apologies or standard discount coupons) largely ineffective. The public nature of the act anchors their identity as an adversary of the firm.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) scale synthesizes three major conceptual frameworks from social psychology, organizational behavior, and marketing theory: Fairness Theory, Cognitive Appraisal Theory, and the Psychological Contract Violation paradigm.

1. Fairness Theory and Counterfactual Thinking

Fairness Theory, formulated by Folger and Cropanzano (2001), posits that when individuals experience an unfavorable event, they engage in counterfactual cognitive processing structured around three fundamental questions: “Would,” “Could,” and “Should.”

• Would: The individual assesses the degree of personal harm or well-being decrement (“Would the situation have been better if an alternative outcome had occurred?”).
• Could: The individual assesses feasibility and controllability (“Could the firm or its representatives have acted differently to prevent this adverse outcome?”).
• Should: The individual evaluates moral and ethical standards (“Should the firm have acted differently according to established ethical, social, or industry norms?”).

When an individual concludes that the firm could have acted differently and should have adhered to ethical standards, the cognitive determination shifts from a simple service failure to an attribution of blameworthiness and intentional unfairness. This realization generates severe perceived betrayal, which serves as the direct psychological catalyst triggering retaliatory behavior measured by the RB scale.

2. Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotion

According to Lazarus’s (1991) Cognitive Appraisal Theory, emotional and behavioral reactions are dictated by a sequential process of primary and secondary cognitive appraisals. In the context of the RB scale:

• Primary Appraisal: The consumer evaluates the service failure in terms of goal relevance, goal congruence, and ego-involvement. Severe failures that threaten the consumer’s self-esteem, financial resources, or basic dignity are appraised as highly threatening.
• Secondary Appraisal: The consumer evaluates coping options, causal attributions, and future expectations. When the transgression is attributed to stable, controllable internal factors of the firm, the primary emotional outcome is not sadness or passive resignation, but high-arousal moral outrage, contempt, and anger.

These intense negative emotions produce an action tendency characterized by aggression and the urge to attack the source of harm. The RB scale operationalizes the specific behavioral manifestation of this attack vector through public informational channels.

3. Psychological Contract Violation and the “Love Becomes Hate” Dynamic

A central theoretical premise established by Grégoire and Fisher (2008) is that strong customer-brand relationships are governed by an unwritten psychological contract characterized by reciprocal trust, commitment, and mutual respect. When a firm commits a severe service failure and compounds it with an inadequate or dismissive response, high-relationship customers interpret this not merely as poor operational delivery, but as a deliberate violation of relational trust—a betrayal.

Betrayal elicits a unique psychological state involving profound loss, indignation, and disillusionment. Because the individual invested significant psychological and social capital into the relationship, the sense of betrayal is magnified. The resulting desire to restore cognitive balance and vindicate self-respect propels the consumer toward extreme punitive measures, specifically complaining for publicity to hold the firm publicly accountable before a broader audience.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) scale followed rigorous scale validation methodologies outlined by Churchill (1979) and Gerbing and Anderson (1988), demonstrating strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse empirical contexts.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether the individual items that constitute a construct demonstrate a high shared variance. In the foundational validation studies by Grégoire and Fisher (2008), the four items of the RB scale demonstrated exceptionally strong and statistically significant standardized factor loadings on their designated latent construct (all loadings exceeding .75, with several items exhibiting loadings above .85, p < .001). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) consistently surpassed the established psychometric benchmark of .50 (often exceeding .70). This confirms that more than 70% of the variance captured by the indicators is accounted for by the underlying latent construct of complaining for publicity, rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

To ensure that complaining for publicity was conceptually and empirically distinguishable from other customer coping behaviors and retaliatory vectors, the authors evaluated discriminant validity through rigorous confirmatory factor analytic procedures:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for the RB construct was substantially higher than the inter-construct correlation coefficients between RB and all other examined latent variables, including private negative word-of-mouth, direct vindictive complaining, third-party complaining for legal redress, and patronage reduction.
• Chi-Square Difference Testing: Nested model comparisons were conducted where the correlation between RB and adjacent constructs was constrained to unity (1.0). In every case, the unconstrained models exhibited statistically superior fit (Δχ² test, p < .001), definitively establishing that complaining for publicity is an empirically unique behavioral facet distinct from private complaining or quiet disengagement.
• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT): Subsequent contemporary replications in digital service contexts (e.g., Grégoire, Laufer, & Tripp, 2010) have confirmed that HTMT ratios involving the RB scale remain well below the conservative threshold of .85, further substantiating discriminant validity.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity was verified by integrating the RB scale into structural equation models testing theoretical relationships with established antecedent and outcome variables:

• Antecedents: Perceived betrayal, moral outrage, and procedural/interactional unfairness were found to have strong, positive, and statistically significant structural path coefficients leading to retaliatory complaining for publicity.
• Moderating Effects: The scale demonstrated nomological sensitivity by confirming the hypothesized interaction effects: relational strength positively moderated the relationship between perceived failure severity and complaining for publicity, validating the “love becomes hate” phenomenon.
• Longitudinal Predictive Power: In longitudinal panel studies tracking customers over multiple weeks and months following a failure, initial scores on the RB scale reliably predicted enduring negative attitudes toward the firm, prolonged brand avoidance, and recurring public attacks.

Reliability

The reliability of the Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) instrument has been extensively documented across multiple independent samples, international contexts, and longitudinal field designs. The scale exhibits exceptional internal consistency, temporal stability, and measurement robustness.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across empirical studies, the instrument regularly exceeds the conventional standards for psychometric reliability:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): In the original investigation by Grégoire and Fisher (2008), the Cronbach’s alpha for the four-item scale was reported at α = .87 in Study 1 (a retrospective recall survey of severe airline service failures) and α = .91 in Study 2 (a longitudinal field study examining customer reactions over time). Replications across diverse service sectors, including telecommunications, banking, and online retail, routinely document alpha values between .86 and .94.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Because Cronbach’s alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across items) and may underestimate reliability, composite reliability was evaluated within structural equation modeling frameworks. The CR for the scale typically ranges from .88 to .93, substantially higher than the recommended cut-off criterion of .70, confirming outstanding internal cohesion among the items.

Item-Total and Inter-Item Correlations

Psychometric evaluations indicate that corrected item-to-total correlations for all four items consistently fall between .68 and .84, demonstrating that each individual question makes a substantial and coherent contribution to the latent construct. The average inter-item correlations reside within the optimal psychometric bandwidth of .50 to .75, ensuring that the scale avoids redundancy while maintaining strong conceptual homogeneity.

Temporal and Test-Retest Stability

In multi-wave longitudinal studies tracking disaffected customers at multiple time points (e.g., Time 1 immediately after failure, Time 2 following organizational recovery, and Time 3 several months later), the scale demonstrated stable structural coefficients and high longitudinal test-retest correlations among customers whose perceived recovery remained unaddressed, indicating that the instrument reliably captures enduring retaliatory tendencies without being susceptible to transient measurement noise.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) scale has been rigorously tested using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial instrument development, EFA conducted using principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with oblique (promax/oblimin) rotation on item pools measuring negative post-purchase behaviors consistently extracted a clean, distinct factor corresponding to complaining for publicity. The four items loaded heavily onto a single dimension with eigenvalues exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of 1.0 (accounting for over 68% of the total variance across behavioral response items), while cross-loadings onto adjacent factors (such as direct employee confrontation or passive exit) remained negligible (< .20).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In full measurement models using maximum likelihood estimation via AMOS and LISREL, CFA confirmed the unidimensional structure of the four-item scale as a distinct latent factor within broader nomological networks. Representative CFA results from Grégoire and Fisher (2008) and subsequent validation studies demonstrate exemplary fit indices:

• Model Fit Statistics:
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .98 – .99 (benchmark > .95)
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .97 – .99 (benchmark > .95)
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .038 – .052 (benchmark < .06; 90% confidence intervals typically between .000 and .075)
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .021 – .034 (benchmark < .08)
  • Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): < 2.50, indicating excellent overall data-to-model fit.
• Standardized Factor Loadings (λ):
  • Item 1 (“I complained to the media…”): λ = .82 – .88
  • Item 2 (“I warned other customers using the media…”): λ = .85 – .91
  • Item 3 (“I contacted an executive / manager to publicly expose…”): λ = .76 – .84
  • Item 4 (“I used a public forum…”): λ = .84 – .90

All item loadings are statistically significant at p < .001 with high squared multiple correlations (R² > .60), indicating that the four indicators function in unison to represent the underlying retaliatory construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) (RB) instrument is structured as a self-report psychometric scale. Its administrative, structural, and scoring characteristics are detailed below:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale / behavioral frequency and agreement inventory.
• Construct Assessed: Retaliatory behavior manifested through public complaining, media mobilization, and public exposure of corporate transgressions.
• Number of Items: 4 items.
• Target Population: Adult consumers (general public, service customers) who have experienced a perceived service failure, corporate transgression, or relational breach.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring and Aggregation Procedures:
  • The scale contains no reverse-scored items; all statements are phrased in the positive direction of retaliatory engagement.
  • Composite Index Calculation: Scores across the four items can be summed (theoretical range: 4 to 28) or averaged by dividing the sum by 4 (theoretical range: 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Interpretation of Scores: Higher scores reflect a greater intensity of retaliatory behavior and higher dedication to inflicting public reputational damage on the firm. Lower scores indicate minimal or no engagement in public media-based complaining.
  • Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): In advanced empirical modeling, items should be specified as reflective continuous indicators loading on a single latent variable.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2008.
• Original Academic Publication: Published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Volume 36, Issue 2, pages 247–261).
• Permissions & Academic Access: The Retaliatory Behavior (Complaining for Publicity) scale is an academic instrument developed for scientific inquiry. In accordance with standard academic conventions, it may be utilized free of charge for non-commercial research, academic investigations, doctoral dissertations, and scientific studies, provided appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are given to the original authors (Grégoire & Fisher, 2008).
• Commercial and Proprietary Licensing: Commercial organizations, market research firms, and enterprise consulting agencies intending to embed the scale within commercial software, corporate assessment tools, or revenue-generating diagnostic platforms should contact the copyright holder (Springer Nature / Academy of Marketing Science) and the lead author (Dr. Yany Grégoire) to confirm permission requirements or licensing agreements.

References

• Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
• Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford University Press.
• Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500207
• Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0054-0
• Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., & Tripp, T. M. (2010). A comprehensive model of customer retaliation: Understanding the role of online public complaining. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 738–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0186-5
• Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into customer hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.18
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
• Trip, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). Good pudding, brown sauce: The nature and impact of organizational revenge. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 145–184.

Items of the Scale