CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 725Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyService and Product InnovationAI in Service Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consumer responses to compensation, speed of recovery and apology after a service failure

Wirtz, Jochen, Mattila, Anna S.·2004·International Journal of Service Industry Management
DOI 10.1108/09564230410532484
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This experimental study examined how the three dimensions of fairness (distributive, procedural and interactional) influence consumers' attributional processes, their post‐recovery satisfaction and behavioral responses (repatronage intent and negative word‐of‐mouth) in a service failure context that does not involve monetary costs to the consumer. Our results indicate that recovery outcomes (e.g. compensation), procedures (e.g. speed of recovery) and interactional treatment (e.g. apology) have a joint effect on post‐recovery satisfaction. Specifically, our findings suggest that compensation may not enhance satisfaction when the recovery process is well‐executed (an immediate response combined with an apology). Similarly, compensation failed to lessen dissatisfaction with a poor recovery process (a delayed response without apology). It thus seems that compensation is a poor substitute for a good recovery process. However, offering compensation was effective in increasing satisfaction in mixed‐bag recovery situations (delayed recovery with an apology, or immediate recovery without apology). Furthermore, we found that service recovery satisfaction acted as a full mediator between service recovery attributes (compensation, recovery speed and apology) and behavioral intentions (repurchase intent and negative WOM). Finally, our findings suggest that consumer attributions for stability and controllability for the failure vary across recovery efforts. Managerial implications for these findings are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09564230410532484

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brockner, J. and Wisenfeld, B. (1993), “Living on the edge: the effects of layoffs on those who remain”, in Murnighan, J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 119‐40.
  2. Churchill, G.A. Jr (1995), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 6th ed., Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
  3. Cropanzano, R. and Folger, R. (1991), “Procedural justice and worker motivation”, in Steers, R. and Porter, L. (Eds), Motivation and Work Behavior, McGraw‐Hill, New York, NY.
  4. Folger, R. (1993), “Reactions to mistreatment in work”, in Murnighan, J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 161‐83.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 725

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Service Industry Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2004-04-01
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
150-166
ISSN
0956-4233 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/09564230410532484
OpenAlex
W2062193161
Cited by
725
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 39
FWCI
21.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Service Industry Management (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
service failure, service recovery, compensation, recovery speed, apology, distributive fairness, procedural justice, interactional justice, consumer attributions, post-recovery satisfaction, repurchase intention, negative word-of-mouth, consumer behavior

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