User:PbnJamer/sandbox

Complaining is a form of communication that expresses dissatisfaction regardless of having actually experienced the subjective feeling of dissatisfaction or not. It may serve a range of intrapsychic and interpersonal purposes, including connecting with others who feel similarly displeased, reinforcing a sense of self, or a cathartic expression of personal emotion.

Complaining may be a method of notification, especially in the context of a consumer of goods or services, that one party has failed to satisfy normal standards, and is expected to rectify a perceived grievance, such as replacing a defective item.

Complaining may be formalized into an organizational system of filing a written grievance as part of a dispute resolution process. Alternatively, it may be a purely informal process among friends or acquaintances that allows for the expression and validation of some personal perspective, often referred to as venting. There is some evidence to suggest that complaining may be harmful for physical or mental health by increasing stress levels.

The American proverb, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, is sometimes used to convey the idea that complaining about a problem is an effective means of spurring its resolution, although it has also been noted that there is no necessary correlation between stridency and merit, so that the problem that gets resolved due to complaints may not actually be the most pressing problem requiring resolution.

Theoretical Models
Traverso (2009) suggested a structure for complaining behaviour consisting of four stages:


 * 1) Initiation: The complainer wishes to have their problem be acknowledged by the recipient.
 * 2) Core part: In this stage, if the complaint recipient affiliates or agrees with the complaint, the activity proceeds to the next stage. However, if there is rejection, there will be negotiations where the recipient might simply not follow up or challenge the complaint. After more attempts to help co-participants reach affiliation, the next stage will then take place.
 * 3) Complaint Development: The complainant will try to sustain the complaining activity while the recipient will switch to alternative methods of continuing the conversation such as explaining behaviour or even begin criticising the complaint subject themselves. This switch usually develops into other similar activities like criticising and explaining. As a result, the activity continues until the participants can switch topics or come to an agreement.
 * 4) Closing

This model was fit for the purpose of the study it was used in, however, its utility as a general model is limited to only indirect complaints (complaints addressed to a non-present third party) and is not compatible with one-to-one direct complaints (complaints addressed to the complaint recipient). Furthermore, assuming that complaints always go through these stages is unrealistic, there may be cases where a complaint is just noted with no further engagement, terminating the complaint development stage or affiliation does not happen at all where an argument may ensue.

A theoretical model created by Robin Kowalski (1996) suggested that complaining behaviour does not only originate from dissatisfaction, rather it is reliant on two subjective thresholds: the dissatisfaction threshold and complaining threshold. The dissatisfaction and complaining thresholds are the subjective sensitivity and level of tolerances one has for events, where one will feel dissatisfied and/or complain when these experienced events have reached those thresholds. The height of these thresholds depend on the situation an individual is in, an individual who is unhappy in a relationship would have a low dissatisfaction threshold but the circumstances would either allow complaining behaviour (low complaining threshold) or inhibit it (high complaining threshold). Complaining behaviour, regardless of dissatisfaction, occurs only when one perceives complaining as a way to achieve a desired outcome such as fixing a relationship problem or increase fair treatment in the office for example.

Although this model illustrates a holistic view of complaining, not narrowing complaining to a behaviour that is always accompanied by dissatisfaction, the model is still too general and explains too little about why complaining happens, the thresholds utilised in the model are not studied enough yet to fully explain complaining behaviour. These thresholds are affected by numerous individual and situational variables such as neuroticism, extraversion, control, etc. The paper does acknowledge and discuss these variables’ potential effects on the thresholds and complaining behaviour, but too few empirical studies have been done to directly investigate those effects. This indicates further research on the relationship between the thresholds, complaining behaviour, and these variables is needed. Perhaps, future studies could create a psychometric measure to gauge people's thresholds to quantitatively test the effect of variables on thresholds and complaining behaviour. Nonetheless, the model still provides a fair general outlook on how individuals may decide to complain.

Emotional Contagion
Wojciszke et al. (2009) found that when participants listened to or uttered affirmations or complaints, their moods would increase and decrease in equal strength, respectively. The results show that complaining can induce a negative affect within co-participants and the complainer, named the “saying is experiencing effect”. This effect is explained by the underlying mechanism of mood contagion and the dual process theory for social cognition. Our impulsive system relies on automatic links of similar cues and representations as suggested by Smith & DeCoster (2000), and due to this it functions under a compatibility principle, where perception, affect and behaviour must be compatible to facilitate each other. Therefore, when one listens and perceives a complaint, a negative event, they will start to experience a negative affect as result of automatic association and mood contagion.

Acceptance and Rejection of Complaints
When receiving a complaint from another party, one chooses to either accept or reject the complaint. As mentioned before, complaining serves many functions, but accepting or rejecting a complaint also have several functions depending on the context. These contexts refer to who is complaining, what or who is being complained about and who the complaint recipient is.

In the special issue by Heinemann & Traverso (2009), two categories of complaints were investigated in multiple contexts: direct and indirect.

Direct complaints: Context and social roles play a big part in the dynamic of complaints. When a third party is present in a parent-child argument, the complainant will gain support from the witness to promote the complainants’ views as the complaints serve the purpose of behaviour regulation, but the witness will also actively attempt to prevent the formation of an overly aggressive argument. In the context of emergency phone services however, the reaction to a complaint is not as simple. The emergency phone service worker who in this case, is the subject and receiver of the complaint, will accept the complaint as true but will deflect the blame away from themselves. This serves the function of alleviating responsibility to avoid any potential legal repercussions.

Indirect complaints: Complaints in conversations between friends and family are usually accepted. However, similar to direct complaints, the institutional role one possesses and context may impact their reaction towards certain complaints. For instance, if the complaint is about a work client or an institutional competitor, there will be more acceptance of the complaint. However, there will be rejection when the complaint is about one’s peers. This rejection indicates that institutional roles may influence one’s reaction towards complaints through the need for maintaining loyalty, and their relationships colleagues. The acceptance of complaints against clients may help build a defence against complaints addressed to themselves by constructing a joined front, redirecting the blame to the client. Finally, the acceptance of complaints towards competitors serves the function of building rapport with clients to promote further preference for their own institution.

These studies were done in real-life settings with real caretakers, patients, families, workers etc. This shows that the effects of context and social/institutional roles exist in real-life setting. However, it is important to note that the sample in the studies were too small due to the time-costly nature as interview studies, meaning that these results cannot be generalised to the whole population until further replication is done.