Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Service Problems and Recovery Stratégies: An Experiment

Levesque, Terrence J., McDougall, Gordon H.G.·2000·Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration

Abstract

This experiment examines the effectiveness of recovery stratégies after a service failure on customer loyalty and complaint intentions. Respondents encountered different core failures in ternis of problem severity (denial or delay) and criticality levels (high or low). The results suggest the effectiveness of service recovery strategies—assistance (fixing the problem) and/or compensation (defraying the costs incurred)—varied depending on the txpe of service, problem severity, and criticality levels. The implication is that recovery strategies need to be matched to the specific incident. Service firms should focus on avoiding or reducing core failures. Getting it right the first time is the best strategy. Résumé: La présente recherche examine au moyen d'une expérience l'efficacité de différentes stratégies de récupération sur la fidélité et les intentions de porter plainte de la clientèle à la suite d'une défaillance de service. Les participants ont été confrontés à différentes défaillances de service en termes de gravité (interruption du service ou délai) et de niveau critique (élevé ou faible). Les résultats indiquent que l'efficacité des stratégies de récupération—aide technique (résolution du problème) et/ou compensation financière (défraiement des coǔts encourus)—varie en fonction du genre de service, de la gravité du problème et des niveaux critiques. Les résultats de l'étude laissent supposer que les stratégies de récupération doivent ětre associées à un incident spécifique. Les entreprises de services doivent mettre l'accent sur l'évitement ou la réduction des défaillances. La meilleure stratégie consiste encore à donner le service correctement.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00204.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Levesque, T. J., & McDougall, G. H. G.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-03
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
20-37
ISSN
  • 0825-0383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4490
OpenAlex
W2056952650
Cited by
273
References
6
FWCI
9.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Service Problems and Recovery Stratégies: An Experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00204.x
The paper
Levesque, T. J., & McDougall, G. H. G. (2000). Service Problems and Recovery Stratégies: An Experiment. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00204.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.