Cited by 194Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyService and Product InnovationAI in Service Interactions

The impact of choice on fairness in the context of service recovery

Mattila, Anna S., Cranage, David·2005·Journal of Services Marketing

Abstract

Purpose: The paper proposes introducing a new antecedent to service recovery – that is customers' choice over some components of the service delivery process. The authors also examined the interactive effects of tangible compensation and apology on perceived fairness in a context of restaurant services. Design/methodology/approach: A 2 (choice) × 2 (compensation) × 2 (apology) between‐subjects design was used to test the hypotheses. Subjects were exposed to a written scenario describing a restaurant experience. A total of 280 undergraduate students served as the subject pool. Findings: The study results indicate that choice, compensation and apology jointly influence customers' perceptions of informational fairness. The combined effects of apology and compensation were observed for interactional fairness, whereas only main effects were found for distributive justice. Finally, the findings suggest that the four facets of justice (distributive, procedural, interactive, and informational) are highly linked to post‐recovery satisfaction. Research limitations/implications: Several limitations regarding this research should be kept in mind. First, students served as the sample pool for this investigation. Although the choice of students somewhat limits the generalizability of the results, the behaviors and responses of students and other market segments are likely to be more similar than different in service recovery incidents. Second, the manipulations involved absence and presence of three service recovery attributes (choice/no choice; compensation/no compensation, and apology/no apology). Consequently, different levels of these attributes might produce differential responses. Practical implications: The findings of this study highlight the benefits of a proactive management of the service recovery process. Originality/value: This research sheds some light on the role of choice in customer perceptions of service recovery processes. It also introduces a fourth dimension of justice – informational justice – to the service recovery literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/08876040510609899

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mattila, A. S., & Cranage, D.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Services Marketing
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
271-279
ISSN
0887-6045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1971107992
Cited by
194
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
13.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Services Marketing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
service recovery, consumer choice, perceived fairness, informational justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, apology, post-recovery satisfaction, restaurant service, consumer perception

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