Customer Aggression Scale

What it measures

A 19-item, four-dimensional scale measuring the range of customer aggression behaviours experienced by frontline retail and service employees. Grounded in displaced aggression theory and the retail-specific constructs of customer sovereignty, low-status shield, and isolated service encounters, the scale captures four theoretically distinct forms of aggression: proactive-expressive (deliberate verbal aggression to attain benefits), proactive-inexpressive (covert dishonest acts such as false reviews to gain outcomes), reactive-expressive (physical or overt verbal aggression triggered by perceived service failures), and reactive-inexpressive (subtle non-verbal hostility such as ignoring or intimidating). Respondents are frontline employees rating the frequency with which they experience each behaviour from customers.

Response format

7-point scale (1=strongly disagree/never, 7=strongly agree/always)

Scale items

Proactive-Expressive Aggression — PEA (α = .937, CR = .937, AVE = .714). 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree/never, 7=strongly agree/always). Items describe goal-directed verbal aggression by customers.

• Customers make direct verbal threats to get a refund.
• To 'get what they want', customers yell aggressively.
• To obtain benefits they are not entitled to, customers will raise their voices in a threatening manner.
• Customers seek to 'get something for nothing' by using hostile language.
• Customers swear to obtain more favourable outcomes.
• To get financial benefits, customers can be insulting.

Proactive-Inexpressive Aggression — PIA (α = .947, CR = .947, AVE = .750). 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree/never, 7=strongly agree/always). Items describe covert, dishonest goal-directed aggression.

• To get their own way, customers will make misrepresentations about the service they receive.
• Customers post false reviews about their service experience to obtain benefits.
• To attain better service outcomes, customers falsely complain about the way they were served.
• Dishonestly complaining is a way customers get what they want.
• To obtain an advantage, customers put in false complaints about the way they were served.
• To take advantage, customers will proactively post fake comments about the service they received.

Reactive-Expressive Aggression — REA (α = .933, CR = .933, AVE = .777). 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree/never, 7=strongly agree/always). Items describe overt physical or aggressive reactions to perceived service failures.

• When customers believe their problems are not resolved, their reaction is to become physically aggressive.
• In response to perceived poor service, customers have reacted aggressively by throwing things.
• Customers will become physically hostile when they are not satisfied with the service they receive.
• Getting 'physically aggressive' is becoming the norm when complaints aren't handled well.

Reactive-Inexpressive Aggression — RIA (α = .837, CR = .843, AVE = .643). 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree/never, 7=strongly agree/always). Items describe subtle non-verbal hostility triggered by perceived service failures.

• Customers simply ignore reasonable requests when they believe something has gone wrong.
• My advice is ignored by customers when they believe a service failure has occurred.
• Customers just disregard my suggestions when I am trying to serve them.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Developed across five studies: Study 1 (item generation, n=211 student frontline workers), Study 2 (Delphi expert review, n=7), Study 3 (EFA + CFA, n=251 frontline employees; initial 20-item four-factor solution), Study 4 (criterion validity CFA, n=389; one PEA item removed due to cross-loading, yielding 19 items), and Study 5 (nomological validity SEM, n=391). Final CFA fit (Study 5): χ²/df=2.099, CFI=.950, RMSEA=.053. All alpha values exceeded .70, with RIA being the lowest at .837. AVE ranged from .643 (RIA) to .777 (REA). Discriminant validity confirmed via Fornell-Larcker criterion. Criterion validity established against customer incivility, misbehaviour, and workplace violence scales. Nomological validity confirmed: all four aggression dimensions significantly predicted employee emotional exhaustion, which in turn predicted job stress, organisational deviance, and turnover intention. Common method bias tested and ruled out via Harman's single-factor test and marker variable method. Scale validated in the Australian retail and service context.

Citation

Mortimer, G., Wang, S., & Osorio Andrade, M. L. (2023). Measuring customer aggression: Scale development and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, 103348.

Keywords