Understanding complaints: the role of moral transgressions in e-commerce interactions

0
Understanding complaints: the role of moral transgressions in e-commerce interactions

In this section, we illustrate the findings of moral transgressions in e-commerce service encounters, focusing first on distributive moral transgression and then on interactional moral transgression. Note that a single complaint interaction may encompass both types of transgressions. Our preliminary quantitative analysis reveals a greater prevalence of distributive moral transgressions compared to interactional ones, with 51 instances of distributive moral transgression versus 10 instances of interactional moral transgression. We use the pronoun her to refer to customers and him to describe service agents. The following analysis will illustrate how these transgressions manifest in actual service encounters on Taobao, drawing on specific examples. Examples have been translated and presented in English due to space constraints.

Distributive moral transgression

Distributive moral transgression concerns perceived unfairness in terms of outcome distributions. In the data, we find that service agents are perceived to transgress distributive justice by overriding customers’ epistemic, deontic and benefactive rights to delegitimize her ideas and decisions regarding outcome distributions. Extract 1 illustrates this.

Extract 1 demonstrates a case where a customer discovers two tiny bugs in the fried chicken powder purchased from store A. Typically, when a customer finds a product spoiled, service agents would address the issue through redressive measures, such as arranging a refund to maintain customer satisfaction. However, in this instance, the service agent dismisses the complaint, questioning the customer’s epistemic authority regarding the spoilage. Distributive justice is transgressed in this complaint episode when the service agent is perceived to challenge the customer’s epistemic authority over reasons for the spoiled product, attempting to unilaterally decide on the solution.

The modal verb should is repeatedly used by the service agent to claim his epistemic and deontic rights over the matter at hand while intruding into the customer’s epistemic and deontic territory (Heritage 2012; Stevanovic and Peräkylä 2012), after the customer reports the unfavorable situation of spoiled powder. At line 1, using the modal verb should have, the service agent displays his epistemic knowledge over the proper order of using the chicken powder (i.e., to use the product purchased earlier before using the new product), with the implication that the customer’s way of using the product is problematic as well as that the problematic use leads to spoiled product. Seen from the perspective of deontics (Stevanovic and Peräkylä 2012), the expression should have displays the agent’s claimed strong sense of deontic authority, and can be read as an unmitigated request of what the customer should do rather than respect for the customer’s own deontic authority to determine how to use the product.

The service agents’ claim of epistemic and deontic authorities is resisted by the customer, who at lines 2 and 3, cancels the agent’s implication. Using a direct rebuttal and a rhetorical question, the customer undermines the service agent’s claim with its underlying epistemic authority. In doing so, the service agent’s epistemic transgression is made explicit, for which she and the store are held accountable, hence formulating a complaining act. This complaining act is further realized and strengthened through recurrent assertions in interrogative and declarative formats at lines 11, 12, 14, 18 and 19, where the customer displays her epistemic entitlement (Clifton et al. 2018; Raymond and Heritage 2006) over the method of product preservation. In the meanwhile, these assertions clash with the service agent’s unjustified epistemic authority which is translated to his requesting the customer to keep the product away from damp places (see line 17), thereby increasing the force of the complaint on the service agent. Notably, the epistemics of the specifics of spoiled product lies within the customer’s territory (at least from her point of view), and it is this violation of the customer’s epistemic authority regarding the spoiled product that underpins this customer complaint. The competition between the customer and the service agent’s epistemic authority is consequential since, if the customer is held accountable for her method/behavior of using and preserving the product, then the service agent could claim strong sense of deontic authority in finalizing the complaint solution and possibly avoiding compensation. Outcome distribution is thus affected when there is incongruity between the epistemic authorities of customers and service agents.

Extract 2 illustrates another instance of distributive moral transgression where the service agent infringes on the customer’s deontic authority. In this episode, the customer requests to return products. However, the service agent conditions the return on the customer bearing the freight cost, contrary to the store’s advertisement that promised coverage of shipping and return shipping charges.

Prior to Extract 2, the customer conveyed her dissatisfaction with the large-sized packing of the product (the first complainable) and was determined to return the product for a refund; however, her request was met with conditional acceptance. From line 1 to line 5, the service agent attempts to shrug off the culpability ascribed to him by suggesting that it is the customer’s fault for not telling the store whether she wanted small or big packages, and by explaining that small and big packages are the same. The suggesting and accounting (Drew 1998, p. 314), thus serve to cancel the customer’s need to return them. In the meanwhile, the service agent displays his epistemic status regarding the product (line 5), which lays the foundation for his implicated deontic authority over what the customer should do (i.e., she should not ask for return and refund). At lines 6 and 7, the customer, after deploying a comparison (Rääbis et al. 2019), makes the second complainable (i.e., being asked to pay the shipping charges) explicit. It is worth noting that the “free freight” policy entails that customers are exempt from shipping fees when buying and returning. In such sense, the charge for shipping fee is obviously at odds with the policy advertised by the service agent in the first place. Therefore, this comparison encodes the customer’s strong disagreement with the service agent’s deontic authority over the fee-charging, pointing to her perceived deontic transgression underpinning the complaint.

In response, at line 8, the service agent reclaims his epistemic authority in explaining that the free freight condition for the current transaction does not obtain (which also transgresses the honesty principle since free shipping is advertised by the store, but is not the customer’s major concern in this case). In doing so, the service agent intends to reconfigure the epistemics of free freight condition, i.e., it does not obtain when the product is returned, thus justifying his deontic authority in determining the complaint solution. At line 9, the customer reverts to the first complainable of packing, suggesting that the product could be fake given that it is not properly packaged, followed by the agent’s explanation of the product being genuine at lines 10, 11 and 13. It is not until line 14 that the customer shifts the interactional focus back to returning the product through a positive-negative interrogative. At lines 16 and 17, the service agent approves of the request, followed by a but-initiated condition, which generally anticipates something dispreferred or unexpected. Within this line, he requires the customer to pay the shipping fee. The modal verb need again encodes the agent’s deontic authority (Stevanovic and Peräkylä 2012) in imposing freight charge for returning the product. This conditional acceptance characterized by strong deontic authority are again met with strong opposition from the customer, as shown at line 19. Through this opposing wh-interrogative (Monzoni 2008), the customer directly challenges the service agent’s deontic authority, making evident her perceived deontic transgression. At the subsequent lines, the negotiation of the freight policy and of the obligation to pay the shipping fee continues with the complaint going unresolved. The service agent is perceived to intentionally redefine the free freight policy, based on which he claims strong sense of deontic authority in requiring shipping fee, hence the escalated complaint.

In this extract, underpinning the customer complaint is the service agent’s deliberate violation of the customer’s deontic authority. It is the intrusion into the customer’s deontic territory that we include in the domain of distributive moral transgression since this is what ultimately leads to an unfair outcome distribution (see also Extract 1). In addition, we reveal that the customer’s complaining acts are primarily realized through assertions, opposing wh-interrogatives, comparisons and unmitigated directives in two extracts.

Distributive moral transgression can be more visibly seen in the service agents’ overt violation of customers’ benefactive rights, i.e., the rights to receive fair benefits and interests during and after purchasing a product. Extract 3 provides an example.

Prior to this extract, the customer reports to the service agent that the two packs of fried-chicken breading have leaked and that she wants to appeal for a product return and refund. At lines 1, 2, and 3, the customer restates the problem she has with the product, demonstrating her intention to return the product and procure rectification from the store. At line 4, without directly responding to the customer’s request, the service agent reassures that the product is safe to use and that it is impossible for the store to sell spoiled goods. Despite in a covert manner, this response can be interpreted as withholding remedial actions from the store since if the product is without any magnitude of problems (see the use of hedge: Only a little bit leaking…), there is no need to return it. Irrespective of the customer’s insistence that the leaked goods cannot be used anymore, the agent claims that leaking will not affect the product quality, attempting to disperse the customer’s concern while transforming the potential compensation (e.g., a full refund) to a nonsubstantive proposal (You just use it first). In response, at lines 7 and 8, the customer, blatantly rejecting the agent’s proposal, requests a full return of payment from the store and delivers her annoyance that her payment deserves intact product through a check question. In so doing, the customer makes evident the unfair benefactive outcome she receives, that is, benefactive transgression underpinning the complaint. In addition, by conveying this message in a strong tone, the customer projects the acceptance of her request as the next preferred action (Craven and Potter 2010), which at this time is finally acknowledged by the service agent at line 9. This example thus shows how a service agent can violate a customer’s fair outcome distributions by affronting benefactive rights.

In summary, the analyzed complaint episodes illustrate a range of expressions used to convey dissatisfaction, including rebuttals, rhetorical questions, assertions, comparisons, and unmitigated directives. These rhetorical strategies are employed by customers to construct and intensify their negative evaluations of both the service agents and the stores they represent. The analysis reveals that the service agents have transgressed distributive justice by infringing upon customers’ epistemic, deontic, and benefactive rights. This violation forms the basis for the customers’ complaints. In the following section, we turn our attention to interactional moral transgression.

Interactional moral transgression

Interactional moral transgression pertains to violations of interpersonal or interactional justice. Research on complaint handling underscores that the nature of communication between service agents and customers significantly impacts customer satisfaction with both the agents and the business organization (Goodwin and Ross 1992). Customers may feel unjustly treated not only when outcomes are perceived as unfair but also when service agents’ conduct undermines their face or dignity, even if the outcome itself appears just (Bies and Shapiro 1987).

Our data analysis reveals that interactional moral transgression manifests in two main ways: when customers perceive service agents as acting irresponsibly in resolving complaints, and when service agents provide misleading information, thus breaching the principle of honesty. Extract 4 exemplifies a situation where the service agent is perceived to violate the principle of responsibility.

In this complaint episode, the customer complains about the service agent’s attempted shifting of responsibility and appeals for a solution from the service agent. Instead of offering a full refund to the customer, the service agent suggests a half refund. The word attitude emerges as a key word in this instance, which is used by the customer to display her negative feelings toward the service agent and accuse his irresponsible attitude in handling the complaint.

The rapport between the customer and the service agent or the store is at stake in this complaint episode. At line 2, in response to the customer complaint, the service agent first uses a reported speech to suggest that no other consumers have made the same complaint. In other words, the complainable may be construed as accidental or even untrue since other customers have not reported this problem. By doing so, the service agent perceives the customer’s complaint as invalid and delegitimate. In response, through negative comment, the customer disapproves at line 3 that when a problem arises (e.g., when there are defective goods), the claim that the store is also losing money cannot be given as an excuse for withholding compensation. This comment also demonstrates the customer’s metacommunicative awareness (Culpeper and Haugh 2014, p. 253), calling into question the service agent’s manner of complaint handling (this is not how you run a business), which brings the agent’s responsibility transgression to the forefront. Following the metacommunicative comment on the service agent’s complaint handling, the customer adds at line 4 that she has cooperated with the store many times, which implicitly shows that she values sustainable interpersonal relationships between customers and business owners.

In case that the store should lose this repeat customer, the service agent replies at lines 5 and 6 that the store will compensate her loss. Using emphatic devices ([We’re] not saying…, I’m only saying…), the service agent first cancels his previous nonsubstantive proposal, emphasizing that they will offer compensation, and then solicits mutual understanding from the customer by characterizing both the customer and the store owner as entrepreneurs. The solicitation can be read as a move to affiliate with the customer’s previous labeling of herself as business partner with the store. However, at line 6, the service agent notably shifts the responsibility (or at least part of the responsibility) to the courier by suggesting that the damaged goods are due to the courier’s misconduct and that the store itself would not receive compensation from the courier either. This shifting of responsibility to the third party is taken up at line 7 by the customer, who openly denounces the service agent’s complaint handling manner (You deal with the problem with such an attitude. Is it appropriate to shift all the responsibility to couriers?). The word attitude here is connotated with a negative metacommunicative evaluation (Culpeper and Haugh 2014, p. 253), which implicitly positions the service agent’s attitude or manner as unacceptable and inappropriate. The negative evaluation is followed by more interrogatively-formatted metacommunicative comments at lines 7 and 8, where the customer displays her strong disappointment toward both the service agent and the store.

It can be said that the perceived responsibility transgression on the part of the service agent and the store has severely damaged the customer’s satisfaction and loyalty to the store, to the point that the complaint has upgraded to disappointment: this is portrayed by the customer at line 11 when she explicitly states that she is disheartened by the service agent’s attitude. At this juncture of potentially losing a repeat customer, at lines 12 and 13, the service agent reformulates his proposal, attempting to restore a positive relationship with the customer. However, the subsequent responses at lines 14 and 15 show that the customer refuses to accept the agent’s offer of compensation. It is argued that the service agent’s misconduct of responsibility transgression has injured the customer’s satisfaction with the store, even though the store offers financial compensation. This extract provides further evidence that not all customer complaints involve unfair outcome distributions. As shown above, even when service agents attempt to repair distributive moral transgression to restore customers’ loyalty to the store, customers may still hold the store complainable and accountable given that the perceived interactional moral transgression has not been properly addressed.

In addition to responsibility transgression, our data shows that interactional moral transgression also occurs when service agents are perceived to breach the principle of honesty. Honesty here refers to the moral standard that the service agents and stores need to provide authentic information and products to customers. When the honesty principle is violated, customers may feel that they have been deceived by service agents, which would affect the interpersonal relationship between customers and service agents/business organizations. Extract 5 illustrates this type of perceived moral transgression. The following instance revolves around a customer’s complaints about the misleading information regarding shipment status offered by the store.

In the first three lines, the customer raises doubts about the shipping status of the goods that she has purchased. In the Taobao application, the logistics system shows that the goods have been shipped, but the customer is not convinced by this information. At lines 4 and 5, the agent replies that they have printed the receipt and clicked already shipped in the system, which in normal circumstances means that the store has indeed shipped the products. However, it is pertinent to note that at these two lines the service agent has not directly responded to the customer’s inquiry. A direct answer would be as follows: Yes, we have shipped the goods. The service agent’s reply is thus picked up by the customer who repeats the question of whether the goods have been shipped. This repeated question is characterized by the emotionally loaded term on earth, displaying her distrust toward the service agent. At line 7, the service agent’s reply attests to the customer’s doubts. It is at this juncture that the customer launches her complaints about the store’s misconduct. The assessment-implicative interrogative (Egbert and Vöge 2008) at line 8 (how can you run the business like this) directly threatens the store’s reputation, accusing it of improper business practice. The metacommunicative comment (Culpeper and Haugh 2014, p. 253) at line 9 (How can you pretend that it has been shipped [when it is not]) is tantamount to a business lecture on proper business practices. Also, the explicit comparison between other stores’ delivery speed and that of this store at line 10 serves as a negative assessment of the store.

The negative assessment continues at line 12, even after the service agent attempts to apologize by explaining that the delay in delivery is owing to high-volume shipments piled during the Spring Festival. The interrogatively-formatted metacommunicative comment at line 12 (You literally haven’t shipped the products, but you let your buyers think that you have shipped the product. Is this correct?) is designed to prefer a no answer, which implicitly positions the agent/store’s behavior as incorrect and improper. At lines 13 and 14, the service agent apologizes and repeats his explanation about the delay in delivery and promises that the products will be shipped that day. To some extent, it may be read that the service agent’s apology is aligning with the customer’s complaints, but this act still hides the fact that the store has lied to the customer. Therefore, at line 15 the customer makes it explicit that the service agent and the store have lied to customers. The usage of the word lie is a metacommunicative comment on the agent and the store’s misbehavior, which constitutes a direct affront to the store’s reputation. This comment indicates that the store is dishonest and does not treat its relationship with customers sincerely. From the indirect negative assessments at lines 3, 8, 9, and 10 to the upgraded metacommunicative comments on the store improperly running business and lying to customers at lines 12 and 15, we can summarize that the violation of the honesty principle on the part of the service agent and the store, warrants and underpins the customer’s strong dissatisfaction and complaint. At the final four lines, based on the moral warrant of honesty principle, the customer asserts her deontic authority in determining what the store should do to solve the problem. Invoking Taobao’s shipping policy at line 18 also lends support to the customer’s deontic authority (Stivers et al. 2018).

In summary, the analysis of the two extracts above reveals that the principles of responsibility and honesty are important normative and moral standards that customers rely on to evaluate service agents and business organizations’ behaviors as being morally and socially unacceptable. The linguistic realizations of these evaluations include direct negative assessments, assessment-implicative interrogatives, metacommunicative comments and accusations. On the complainee’s side, we find that the service agents tend to position themselves as not irresponsible and not lying to customers by attempting to offer nonsubstantive proposals and apologies to customers or allocating responsibility to a third party, such as the courier. On the complainant’s side, the moral transgressions of interactional and distributive justice discussed above are made explicit and relevant by customers in e-commerce service encounters, demonstrating that customers do use moral values to warrant and underpin their complaints.

link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *