Cited by 1,204Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyService and Product InnovationAI in Service Interactions

A Longitudinal Study of Complaining Customers' Evaluations of Multiple Service Failures and Recovery Efforts

Maxham, James G., Netemeyer, Richard G.·2002·Journal of Marketing

Abstract

The authors report a repeated measures field study that captures complaining customers' perceptions of their overall satisfaction with the firm, likelihood of word-of-mouth recommendations, and repurchase intent during a 20-month span that includes two service failures and recovery attempts. The findings suggest that though satisfactory recoveries can produce a “recovery paradox” after one failure, they do not trigger such paradoxical increases after two failures. Furthermore, “double deviations” can occur following two consecutive unsatisfactory recoveries or following an unsatisfactory recovery in response to a second failure. The findings indicate that customers reporting an unsatisfactory recovery followed by a satisfactory recovery reported significantly higher ratings at the second postrecovery period than did customers reporting the opposite recovery sequence. The outcome of the second recovery also demonstrated a significant influence on customer ratings (positively if the recovery was satisfactory, negatively if the recovery was unsatisfactory), regardless of whether the customer found the first recovery satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In addition, although the increased change in recovery expectations and failure severity ratings from the first failure to the second is more dramatic for customers who previously reported a satisfactory recovery, the increase in attributions of blame toward the firm is more pronounced for customers who previously reported an unsatisfa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1509/jmkg.66.4.57.18512

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Venue
Journal of Marketing
Published
2002-10
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
57-71
ISSN
  • 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7185
OpenAlex
W1970492996
Cited by
1,204
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 64
FWCI
26.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of 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 failure, service recovery, customer complaints, customer satisfaction, word-of-mouth recommendation, repurchase intention, recovery expectations, failure severity, blame attribution, repeated failure

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