THE JOINT EFFECTS OF SERVICE FAILURE MODE, RECOVERY EFFORT, AND GENDER ON CUSTOMERS' POST‐RECOVERY SATISFACTION
Open accessAbstract
An ever increasing number of customers choose to interact with service firms via technology (e.g., online or using self‐service technologies). Despite this growing trend, research on technology‐based service failures is scarce. To bridge that gap, the present investigation examined the role of failure mode (SST versus face‐to‐face encounter), recovery effort, and gender on customers' service recovery perceptions. Results from an experimental study suggest that offering compensation to male customers is more effective in enhancing post‐recovery satisfaction with human rather than SST failures. For female customers, failure type failed to influence their post‐recovery satisfaction. Moreover, offering compensation alone was not as effective among female participants; an apology was necessary to boost satisfaction above neutral levels. Managerial implications of these findings are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research consistently shows that an apology has a positive main effect on satisfaction.
“and satisfaction (Mattila, Cho, and Ro 2009; Wirtz and Mattila 2004)”
From A Meta-Analysis of Organizational Complaint Handling and Customer Responses (2011) · cites this paper as Mattila, Cho, and Ro 2009
Cites
Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)90014-3 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
Consumer responses to compensation, speed of recovery and apology after a service failure
Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2004) · International Journal of Service Industry Management · doi:10.1108/09564230410532484 · Cited by 725 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Previous research has shown that these two recovery efforts jointly influence post-recovery satisfaction (e.g., Goodwin & Ross 1992; Mattila, 2001; Sparks & McColl-Kennedy, 2001; Wirtz & Mattila, 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationIacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1993) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80017-4 · Cited by 324 · cited 3× · see citing works
“This finding is consistent with women’s focus on the process component of the service delivery process (e.g., Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1993).”
BackgroundResult
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Meta-Analysis of Organizational Complaint Handling and Customer Responses
Gelbrich, K., & Roschk, H. (2011) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670510387914 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mattila, A. S., Cho, W., & Ro, H.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Seoul Women's University (KR)
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mattila, Anna S.
- Venue
- Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 120-128
- ISSN
- 1054-8408 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-7306
- OpenAlex
- W1963865109
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing (publishedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Keywords
- service failure, service recovery, post-recovery satisfaction, gender differences, compensation, apology, self-service technology, customer satisfaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
