The impact of choice on fairness in the context of service recovery
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
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?
Perceptions of justice affect overall satisfaction with the service encounter.
“In addition, in the services literature, it has been found that perceptions of justice affect the overall satisfaction with the service encounter (Mattila and Cranage 2005;Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999;Sparks and McColl-Kennedy 2001;Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998).”
From Recovery Voice and Satisfaction After Service Failure: An Experimental Investigation of Mediating and Moderating Factors (2007) · cites this paper as Mattila and Cranage 2005
Granting a customer voice enables the customer to serve as a cocreator in a service encounter.
“Likewise, granting a customer voice enables the customer to serve as a cocreator in a service encounter and enhances the customer's satisfaction should a failure occur later (Mattila and Cranage 2005).”
From Recovery Voice and Satisfaction After Service Failure: An Experimental Investigation of Mediating and Moderating Factors (2007) · cites this paper as Mattila and Cranage 2005
Granting a customer voice enhances the customer's satisfaction should a failure occur later.
“Likewise, granting a customer voice enables the customer to serve as a cocreator in a service encounter and enhances the customer's satisfaction should a failure occur later (Mattila and Cranage 2005).”
From Recovery Voice and Satisfaction After Service Failure: An Experimental Investigation of Mediating and Moderating Factors (2007) · cites this paper as Mattila and Cranage 2005
Cites
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585 · see citing works
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942 · see citing works
Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)90014-3 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Karande, K., Magnini, V. P., & Tam, L. (2007) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670507309607 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mattila, A. S., & Cranage, D.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- ORCID
- Mattila, Anna S.
- 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