Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responding to the 98%: face-enhancing strategies for dealing with rejected customer ideas

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although companies receive a staggering amount of ideas from consumers, only a small fraction of the ideas are actually usable, with as many as 98% being rejected. This research examines the influence of firms’ responses to consumer-generated ideas on consumers’ self-perceptions of face and their tendency to return in the future with more ideas. Specifically, we examine the impact of firm response to consumers’ rejected ideas. The results show that consumers respond to a rejected idea with an increased of face threat, leading to a decrease in future idea sharing. However, the presence of face enhancement reduces these negative effects. Recognizing managers’ dilemma, we identify three buffering responses that may drive perceptions of face enhancement and thus buffer the negative repercussions of face threat from rejecting consumer ideas: (1) considering consumers’ past experiences (success/failure) with submitting ideas, (2) creating a unique group identity, and (3) offering an excuse. We also show the impact of a public versus private firm acknowledgment of consumer ideas on both consumers’ perceptions of face and future idea sharing behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We reran all the reported models in the paper with these latent factor scores, and results were consistent.

  2. We also tested the impact of no past experience, and the results were consistent with Study 1a. Space limitations prevent us from reporting this replication here.

  3. We also estimated the two sequential (mediation) models for each main model, and patterns were consistent with previous results.

References

  • Ammons, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: a survey and tentative theoretical formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 54(2), 279–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J. J., White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). Social comparison theory and deception in the interpersonal exchange of consumption information. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(3), 370–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, L., Darke, P. R., & Schaller, M. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barasch, A., & Berger, J. (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: how audience size impacts what people share. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, T. (2010). To MROC or not to MROC. That’s the question. Market Insights Professionals. blogs.forrester.com.

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., & Jewell, R. D. (2014). How brand innovativeness creates advertising flexibility. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(3), 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, B. L. (2013). Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: an analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management Science, 59(1), 226–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, J. (2012). The psychology of trolling and lurking: the role of defriending and gamification for increasing participation in online communities using seductive narratives. In H. Li (Ed.), Virtual community participation and motivation: Cross-disciplinary theories (pp. 160–176). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

  • Bolton, R., & Saxena-Iyer, S. (2009). Interactive services: a framework, synthesis and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: a reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. R. (1970). Face-saving following experimentally induced embarrassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(3), 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullinger, A. C., Neyer, A. K., Rass, M., & Moeslein, K. M. (2010). Community‐based innovation contests: where competition meets cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(3), 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G. M. (2013). Losing face on social media: threats to positive face lead to an indirect effect on retaliatory aggression through negative affect. Communication Research, 42(6), 819–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E.Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler & H. Wang ( Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Cox, D. F., & Rich, S. U. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer decision-making: the case of telephone shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(4), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coxe, S., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2009). The analysis of count data: a gentle introduction to poison regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cupach, W. R., & Carson, C. L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(4), 443–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhan, D. F., Johnson, S. D., Wilcox, J. B., & Harrell, G. D. (1997). Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: the relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2001). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, & organizations. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 398–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V., & Whang, Y. (2003). Account-giving for a corporate transgression influences moral judgement: when those who ‘spin’ condone harm-doing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombelle, P. W., Jarvis, C. B., Ward, J., & Ostrom, L. (2012). Leveraging customers’ multiple identities: identity synergy as a driver of organizational identification. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4), 587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foote, N. N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatly, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Henning, V., & Sattler, H. (2007). Consumer file sharing of motion pictures. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 1–18.

  • Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, S. M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D.A. (2011). Psychometrics. http://davidakenny.net/cm/psycho.htm.

  • Klarner, P., Sarstedt, M., Hoeck, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2013). Disentangling the effects of team competences, team adaptability, and client communication on the performance of management consulting teams. Long Range Planning, 46(3), 258–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: how the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, R., & Morgan, R. M. (2009). Consumer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., & Gal, D. (2011). Bringing us together or driving us apart: the effect of soliciting consumer input on consumers’ propensity to transact with an organization. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 242–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, L., & Toubia, O. (2015). Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task structure based on consumers’ domain-specific knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 79(5), 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGeorge, E., Lichtman, R. M., & Pressey, L. C. (2002). The evaluation of advice in supportive interactions. facework and contextual factors. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 451–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P. R., Matthing, J., & Kristensson, P. (2003). Managing user involvement in service innovation experiments with innovating end users. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manchanda, P., Packard, G., & Pattabhiramaiah, A. (2015). Social dollars: the economic impact of customer participation in a firm-sponsored online customer community. Marketing Science, 34(3), 367–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2007). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: self-enhancing biases in threat appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: a literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16(Jul), 522–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., III, & Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the work–family interface: links to job stress, customer service employee performance, and customer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 130–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models. Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs (2dth ed.). Homewood: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). Smart PLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J. (1775/1992). A discourse on inequality. Donald A Cres, Trans. Indiana: Hackett.

  • Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: the Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self‐presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M., Fuchs, C., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). The innovation effect of user design: exploring consumers’ innovation perceptions of firms selling products designed by users. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, J., Dahl, D. W., & Gorn, G. G. (2002). Misrepresentation in the consumer context. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of defense: Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 63–84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, E. A. (2010). A group effort: more companies are turning to the wisdom of the crowd to find ways to innovate. Marketing News, 44(2), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ginkel, E. (2004). The mediator as face-giver. Negotiation Journal, 7(October), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waring, H. Z. (2007). Complex advice acceptance as a resource for managing asymmetries. Text & Talk, 27(1), 107–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., Cao, Q., & Grigoriou, N. (2011). Consciousness of social face: the development and validation of a scale measuring desire to gain face versus fear of losing face. Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, 202 Hayden Hall, 360 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Paul W. Fombelle

  2. Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, Business 302B, 3500 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322-3500, USA

    Sterling A. Bone

  3. Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Fulton Hall 444, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

    Katherine N. Lemon

Authors
  1. Paul W. Fombelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sterling A. Bone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine N. Lemon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul W. Fombelle.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 52 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 51 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 157 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1

Study 1a, 1b, 2, and 3a acknowledgments

Study 1a

Firm acknowledgment

1. Idea Not Used: We really appreciate your recent idea. Unfortunately, we will not be using your idea. Receiving ideas is critical to our continued ability to improve our services.

2. Noncommittal: We really appreciate your recent idea. Receiving ideas is critical to our continued ability to improve our services.

3. No Firm Acknowledgment

Study 1b

Past experience

Current Response:

1. Idea Not Used: same as study 1a

2. Noncommittal: same as study 1a

Past Experience:

1. Idea Used in Past: Just as you have done before with your bank, you decide to share an idea with them, so you contact your bank’s customer service department and suggest that they change the current layout. You are hopeful they will accept your idea since they accepted your previous idea.

2. Idea Not Used in Past: Just as you have done before with your bank, you decide to share an idea with them, so you contact your bank’s customer service department and suggest that they change the current layout. You are hopeful they will accept your idea since they rejected your previous idea.

Study 2

Group identity

1. Group Identity - Idea Not Used: We really appreciate your suggestion. Unfortunately, we will not be implementing your idea. Because of your recommendation, we have added you to our superstar recommenders group that is made up of a select few. Although we didn’t use your specific recommendation, we have recently made changes to our website based on the recommendations of your group, the superstar recommenders. Suggestions from our superstar recommenders are critical to our continued ability to improve our services.

2. Excuse - Idea Not Used: We really appreciate your recent suggestion. Unfortunately, we will not be implementing your idea. We currently do not have the economic feasibility to pursue your suggestion but hopefully in the future we will be able to look into it. Receiving suggestions are critical to our continued ability to improve our services.

Study 3a

1. Idea Not Used-Group Identity-Public: same as study 2 (posted publicly)

2. Idea Not Used-Group Identity-Private: same as study 2 (posted privately)

3. Idea Not Used-No Group Identity-Public: same as study 2 (posted publicly)

4. Idea Not Used-NO Group Identity-Private: same as study 2 (posted privately)

5. Noncommittal-Group Identity-Public: same as study 2 (posted publicly)

6. Noncommittal-Group Identity-Private: same as study 2 (posted privately)

7. Noncommittal-No Group Identity-Public: same as study 2 (posted publicly)

8. Noncommittal-No Group Identity-Private: same as study 2 (posted privately)

Appendix 2

Key constructs

Constructs

Item loadings

Study 1a/Study 1b/ Study 2/ Study 3a

Key mediators and dependent measures

 Face enhancement

  The bank’s response to my idea made me look good in the eyes of others.

.92/.93/.91/.90

  The bank’s response to my idea made me feel useful.

.96/.96/.95/.95

  The bank’s response to my idea made me feel liked.

.95/.96/.94/.96

  The bank’s response to my idea showed that my abilities were evaluated highly.

.95/.96/.93/.94

 Face threat

  The bank’s response to my idea showed disrespect towards me.

.82/.87/.81/.89

  The bank’s response to my idea embarrassed me.

.90/.90/.90/.92

  The bank’s response to my idea gave me less confidence.

.88/.92/.87/.90

 Future idea sharing

  I will submit ideas in the future.

.94/.98/.99/.97

  How likely are you to submit ideas to this bank in the future?

.98/.98/.99/.98

  How likely are you to provide feedback to this bank in the future?

.98/.98/.98/.98

Covariates

 Self-esteem

  Because of the bank’s response I am worried about whether I am regarded as a success or failure.

.89/.88/.75/.83

  The bank’s response made me feel self-conscious.

.76/.90/.87/.91

  The bank’s response made me worried about what other people think of me.

.88/.95/.93/.95

  The bank’s response made me feel concerned about the impression I am making.

.92/.94/.94/.94

  The bank’s response made me worried about looking foolish.

.92/.94/.92/.91

 Face-Sensitivity

  I’m concerned about my style of doing things.

.72/.80/.79/.81

  I’m concerned about the way I present myself.

.74/.86/.90/.88

  I’m self-conscious about the way I look.

.80/.83/.90/.81

  I usually worry about making a good impression.

.76/.85/.77/.83

  I’m concerned about what other people think of me.

.76/.84/.62/.60

 Consciousness of face

  Desire to gain face

   I hope people think I can do better than most others

na/.79/na/.82

   I hope that I can talk about things that most others do not know

na/.77/na/.77

   It is important for me to get praise and admiration.

na/.66/na/.77

   I hope to let people know that I have association with some big names.

na/.69/na/.68

   I hope that I have a better life than most others in others view.

na/.78/na/.78

  Fear of Losing Face

   I always avoid talking about my weakness.

na/.76/na/.74

   I try to avoid letting others think that I am ignorant even if I really am.

na/.78/na/.79

   I do my best to hide my weakness before others.

na/.80/na/.84

   If I work in an organization of bad reputation I will try not to tell others about that.

na/.65/na/.70

   It is hard for me to acknowledge a mistake even if I am really wrong.

na/.65/na/.57

 Attribution

  External

   The bank’s response to my idea was due to the bank’s policies.

.83/.92/.87/.87

   The bank’s response to my idea was due to the bank’s circumstances.

.83/.88/.89/.87

  Internal

   The bank’s response to my idea was due to my suggestion.

.96/.97/.94/.92

   The bank’s response to my idea was due to my actions.

.96/.95/.93/.92

Notes: All items were measured using seven-point scales.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fombelle, P.W., Bone, S.A. & Lemon, K.N. Responding to the 98%: face-enhancing strategies for dealing with rejected customer ideas. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 44, 685–706 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0469-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0469-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation