This research, investigating retailer-consumer relationships, has three distinct intended contributions: (1) It shows that different relationship marketing tactics have a differential impact on consumer perceptions of a retailer's relationship investment; (2) it demonstrates that perceived relationship investment affects relationship quality, ultimately leading to behavioral loyalty; and (3) it reveals that the effect of perceived relationship investment on relationship quality is contingent on a consumer's product category involvement and proneness to engage in retail relationships. The authors empirically cross-validate the underlying conceptual model by studying six consumer samples in a three-country, transatlantic, comparative survey that investigates two industries.
Service recovery research remains conflicted in its understanding of consumers' recovery expectations and of why similar goods or service failures may lead to different recovery expectations. The authors argue that this conflict results from the assumption that consumer recovery expectations are monolithic and largely homogeneous, driven mainly by behavioral, relational, or contextual stimuli. Instead, recovery scenarios involving high-involvement (i.e., self-relevant) goods and service failures may activate closely held, identity-related cultural models that, though ultimately applied to regain balance (a foundational schema), differ according to their sociocultural heritage and create a range of unique consumer recovery preferences. The authors empirically identify three embodied cultural models-relational, oppositional, and utilitarian-that consumers apply to goods or service failures. Furthermore, the authors discuss implications for service recovery research and services marketing practice and introduce adaptive service recovery diagnostics that enable providers to identify and respond to consumers' varying recovery preferences.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential roles for service robots (i.e. socially assistive robots) in value networks of elderly care. Taking an elderly person’s perspective, it defines robot roles according to their value co-creating/destroying potential for the elderly user (i.e. focal actor), while acknowledging consequences for a network of users around the elderly (i.e. network actors). Design/methodology/approach This qualitative, interpretative study employs in-depth phenomenographic interviews, supported by generative cards activities (i.e. Contextual Value Network Mapping), to elicit an elderly person’s tacit knowledge and anticipate the effects of introducing an automated actor on institutionalized value co-creation practices. Findings The proposed typology identifies six roles of socially assistive robots in an elderly person’s value network (enabler, intruder, ally, replacement, extended self, and deactivator) and links them to three health-supporting functions by robots: safeguarding, social contact, and cognitive support. Research limitations/implications Elderly people have notable expectations about the inclusion of a socially assistive robot as a new actor in their value networks. The identified robot roles inform service scholars and managers about both the value co-destruction potential that needs to be avoided through careful designs and the value co-creation potential that should be leveraged. Originality/value Using network-conscious phenomenographic interviews before the introduction of a novel value proposition sheds new light on the shifting value co-creation interplay among value network actors (i.e. elderly people, formal and informal caregivers). The value co-creation/destruction potential of socially assistive robots and their corresponding roles in care-based value networks offer insights for the design of meaningful robotic technology and its introduction into the existing service networks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.