The Moderating Role of Attribution in Penalty Judgment: An Empirical Study in the Financial Service Industry

Many financial service organizations use various types of penalties (e.g., late payment fee, overdraft fee), often inflicting customer complaints and, in extreme cases, attrition. This study examines how customers evaluate penalties using concepts from attribution theory and literatures of social justice and customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The study hypothesizes that both cognitive (i.e., attribution, perceived fairness, disconfirmation) and affective (i.e., emotion) responses influence customer's penalty judgment and tests the effect of moderation between attribution and perceived fairness on penalty judgment. The study uses a cross sectional survey design and collects data using the critical incident technique. The results show that attributions have significant moderating effects on the relationship between perceived fairness and dissatisfaction with the penalty and that perceived fairness, emotion, and attribution have a significant influence on penalty evaluation. The study provides discussion of the findings and managerial implications.