I need summarize the following paragraphs :

"Always use please and thank you," "don't complain aboutpricesand don't argueaboutyourtab"and"don'tbangonthebar or waive money."These are common items on etiquettelistsofhowconsumersshouldbehavetowardfrontlineserviceemployees (FSEs) in the hospitality industry to facilitate apositiveserviceexperienceandcreatevalue.Accordingtotheservice-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), customersplay an important role in co-creating the value of a service.Furthermore,theseco-creationeffortsinvolvetheirinteractionwithFSE(Grnroos,2011).Yet,customersoftenexhibitrudeanduncivilbehaviorwheninteractingwithFSEswhetheratbars,restaurants,clothingstoresorsupermarkets.Consequently,customersmay facilitate the destruction of the service's value, which is aninteractional process in which the customers experience adecline in their own well-being during a service encounter (PlandCceres,2010).

Given that FSEs are the face of the organization and areresponsible for not only maintaining a consistent brand imagebutalsothecustomerexperience(ElmadaVgetal.,2008;Hartlineetal.,2000;Punjaisrietal.,2009),thequestionis,whyand when do employees retaliate against uncivil customer byalso behaving uncivilly? We address this question in this paperbyexaminingtheservicelevelsofferedbyFSEsinresponseto

uncivil customer behavior. Customer incivility is a milder formof dysfunctional or aberrant customer behavior (Fisket al.,2010)andissometimesalsoreferredtoascustomermisbehavior(Tonglet,2002).Acrossthedifferentlabels,dysfunctional or aberrant customer behavior is when customersengageinthoughtlessorabusivebehaviortowardemployees,customers or organizations (Bitneret al., 1994;Groveet al.,1989), such as faking insurance claims, shoplifting or taxdeception.Incontrast,incivilityisdenedasa"low-intensitydeviant behavior, perpetrated by someone in a customer orclient role, with ambiguous intent to harm an employee, inviolationofsocialnormsofmutualrespectandcourtesy"(Sliteretal.'s,2010,p.468).Uncivilbehaviorviolatessocialexchangerelationship norms and is interpersonal in that it requires aperpetrator and a target (Sliteret al., 2010). In the case ofcustomer incivility, the customer is the perpetrator and the FSEisthetargetwhoreceivesthenormviolation.

FSEmaycopewithcustomerincivilitybyretaliatingand

reciprocating the incivility. We dene retaliatory behavior asany behavior toward the customer that reects a lower servicelevelthantheemployeewouldhaveprovidedotherwise,regardless of whether the customer observes the lower servicelevel.Therefore,wealsoassesswhetherservicevalueisdestroyed as a result of customer incivility. Specically, wefocus on understanding the underlying processes that lead toemployees'perceptions of incivility as a threat and why someemployeesfeelcompelledtoreciprocatebyretaliatingwithlowerservicelevels.

Weconsidertwopossibleexplanationsforemployeeretaliatorybehaviorbasedon affective events theory (AET)(Rupp and Spencer, 2006) and social exchange theory (SET)(CropanzanoandMitchell,2005).Boththeoriesfocusonexplainingworkplacebehaviorsofindividualsaspartofinteractionsandarethereforewell-suitedinthecontextofnorm violations in FSE and customer interactions. AlthoughAET suggests that an affective process results in retaliatorybehaviorbecauseofcustomerincivility,SETproposesanequity-drivenexplanationpathdrivingemployeeretaliationafter such a norm violation. After exploring the mechanismbehindFSEretaliationinservices,weexamineapotentialboundaryconditionunderwhichtheidentiedaffectiveprocessbasedAET-egothreat-occurs.

We examine FSE retaliation of uncivil customer behavior inhospitalityservicecontextswhereFSEsareintegralinprovidingthecustomerexperienceastheyrequireahighdegreeofinteractionbetweencustomerandFSEs.Thus,inthiscontext, FSEs play an important role in creating value with thecustomer.Furthermore,FSEandcustomerinteractionsinhospitality contexts can be prone to uncivil customer behaviorbecauseservicedissatisfactionoccursfrequentlyandcanimpactcustomers'moods(Allenetal.,2015;Tangetal.,2018).

Previous research has examined customer incivility from theperspective of the customer and that of employees. Researchhas primarily focused on factors in the service environment andcustomercharacteristicsthatimpactretaliatorybehavior,(JergerandWirtz,2017)employeereactionstocustomerincivility(Henkeletal.,2017;HershcovisandBhatnagar,2017) and adverse work and health outcomes for employees(vanJaarsveldetal.,2010;Sliteretal.,2010).Researchhasalso explored individual differences in employees that increase thelikelihoodof retaliation and sabotage (Harris andOgbonna,2002;Judgeetal.,2006;Grifnet al.,1998;Sliteretal.,2012).Our research contributes to this literature stream by explainingwhy and when FSEs may retaliate. Furthermore, this researchmakes contributions to theories that focus on the importance ofFSE-customerinteractionsduringservicedelivery.Forinstance,theservicefailureliteratureextensivelyfocusesontheimportance of recovery efforts (Hesset al., 2003;Smithet al.,1999;Weunet al., 2004) and assumes that employees respondbyaidingrecoveryefforts.Yet,employeesmaynotbewillingtohelp customers if their behavior is impolite and rude, and ourresearch addresses why employees may not provide recoveryefforts. The present research also adds to the literature on valueco-destruction in services (Pl, 2016;Pl and Cceres, 2010;Zhangetal.,2018),particularlycontributingtoresearchexamining the impact ofemployee-customerinteractionsincontexts where the customer engages with the employee in anegative manner. The key contribution of the present researchto these literature streams is increasing our understanding ofwhyandwhenFSEsretaliateandareunwillingtoprovideconsistentservicelevelsinthecontextofuncivilandrudecustomerbehavior.

Inaddition,Employee-relatedresearchintheserviceliterature is still scarce. Less than 10% of articles in the serviceliteraturementionthewordemployeeintheabstract,indicating an unfullled potential of employee-related researchin service management (Subramonyet al., 2017). In theirseminal paper, Subramonyet al.(2017) call for increasedresearch on collective turnover, service climate, emotionallabor and occupational stress of service employees. Many typesof services are characterized by intense dyadic client-employeeinteractions and by a high level of personal rapport betweencustomersandFSEs(GremlerandGwinner,2000).Furthermore, previous research has shown that a"prevalentstressor in service roles is customer misbehaviour"(Subramonyetal.,2017p.859).ForFSEs,negativecustomerinteractionscan culminate into a major source of resource depletion thatincreases employees'need to cope (Reynolds and Harris,2006).

Inadditiontothetheoreticalimplications,understandingFSEresponsestouncivilcustomerbehaviorhassignicantimplicationsforpractice.WhenFSEsreciprocateuncivilbehaviorincustomer-employeeinteractions,companiesrunthe risk of increasing customer dissatisfaction, negative word-of-mouth and churn-all of which have negative consequencesfor a rm's bottom-line (Luo, 2009). Moreover, reciprocatinguncivilbehaviorhasthepotentialtotriggerwhatisknownasan"incivilityspiral,"resultinginanescalationofconict(AnderssonandPearson,1999;BiesandTripp,1995).Areport by New Voice Media estimates that US companies alonelost $75bn in 2018-an increase from $62bn in 2016-becauseofFSEsprovidingrudecustomerservice(Hyken,2018).Therefore,it is imperative for companiestounderstandwhyand when employees react negatively to customer incivility toreduce reciprocal behavior and reduce top-line and bottom-linelosses.

Theresearchquestionisexaminedthroughaseriesofthreestudies: one eld experiment and two online experiments.ThroughStudy1'seldexperiment,weestablishthatFSEs

retaliate against uncivil customer behavior by providing lowerservicelevels.Study2extendsthisndingtoacontrolledlaboratory setting and examines the two possible processes thatmay explain FSE retaliatory behavior. Building on the ndingsfrom Study 2, the purpose of Study 3 is twofold. First, Study 3increasesthegeneralizationsofourndingsbytestingourhypothesesinadifferentservicesetting,and,second,itexamines FSE emotional intelligence (EI), which can enable orhindertheretaliatoryprocessidentiedinStudy2.