CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 325Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyService and Product InnovationAI in Service Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Service Recovery and Fairness Perceptions in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts

Mattila, Anna S., Patterson, Paul G.·2004·Journal of Service Research
DOI 10.1177/1094670503262947
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As in other social exchanges, cultural norms and values are likely to influence customers’ perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with the service recovery process. This study contrasts the impact of two recovery attributes (compensation and explanation) on customers’ postrecovery perceptions in a cross-cultural context (East-Asia versus United States). The results from this experimental study indicate that compensation seems to drive customers’ fairness perceptions, in particular with American consumers. Offering an explanation for the failure had a positive impact on customer perceptions regardless of the customer’s cultural orientation. Finally, the study’s findings show that perceived fairness is directly linked to postrecovery satisfaction.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094670503262947

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brislin, R. W., W. J. Lonner, and R. M. Thorndike (1973), Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley.
  2. Cropanzano, R. (1998), “Organizational Justice and Culture,” paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April Dallas, TX.
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1038 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Prasongsukarn, Karn and Paul G. Patterson (2001), “A Model of Service Recovery across East-West Cultures,” Australian and New Zealand Marketing Educators Conference, December, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–324 of 324

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mattila, A. S., & Patterson, P. G.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Service Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-05
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
336-346
ISSN
  • 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7379
DOI
10.1177/1094670503262947
OpenAlex
W2153088094
Cited by
325
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
FWCI
13.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Service Research (publishedVersion)
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 recovery, perceived fairness, compensation, explanation, collectivist culture, individualistic culture, cross-cultural comparison, East Asia, United States, customer satisfaction, cultural values

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