This article represents an initial effort to analyze the complex linkages among co-production, perceived control and satisfaction. Co-production refers to the consumer participation in production activities and is here considered a proxy for behavioral control as it allows consumers to have some control over the process of the desired product or service. Considering the increase of co-production in consumption activities, understanding the linkage between the control from the co-production process and the satisfaction toward the related consumption may be quite useful to firms interested in adopting such a managerial tool. Two experimental studiesone in a service setting and the other in a product settingshow that co-production positively affects customer's satisfaction through the mediating effect of perceived control. Information gain and refund choice, representing cognitive and decisional controls respectively, also enhance customers' perceived control.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine when (i.e. after a shorter or longer length of time) organizations should offer an apology or a promise of non-recurrence of a failure to recover trust following a failed service recovery (a double deviation). Design/methodology/approach This paper reports the results of a pilot study with a convenience sample and two experiments with samples from different populations, students and employees of a financial institution in one study and workers recruited through Mechanical Turk in the other. Findings An apology was most effective to recover trust when offered shortly after the double deviation (e.g. Study 1: after two days; Study 2: immediately and after two days), while making a promise was most effective when offered at a later time after the double deviation (e.g. Study 1: after 30 days; Study 2: after 15 days). Consumers consider an apology offered shortly after the double deviation as a sign of integrity and a promise communicated sometime after the double deviation as a sign of competence. Originality/value This paper complements prior research that demonstrates the effectiveness of apology and promise as trust recovery tactics. The findings show that managers should carefully consider the time at which they use these tactics to recover trust following a double deviation.

Trust plays a crucial role in interpersonal relationships, including customer–company relationships, where the customer expects that a company will behave predictably in any particular situation. Companies do not always fulfill customers' expectations and thereby breach the trust relationship. To avoid negative consequences of this trust violation, companies may issue a formal apology as one possible path to regaining customer trust. In the same way, a previous social interaction, which can increase the customer's levels of oxytocin, can help to recover trust after service failures. In this study, three experiments were conducted as follows: the first manipulating a simulated social interaction with images; the second manipulating a physical social interaction, (i.e., a hug); and the third with exogenous oxytocin administration. The results showed that both physical interaction, (i.e., a hug) and simulated social interaction, (i.e., images of people interacting with each other) had a positive effect on customer trust recovery and provided support for oxytocin release as the underlying mechanism in this process. This research contributes to understanding of the link between social interactions and trust by elucidating the effects of both simulated and physical interactions on trust recovery.

This research investigates the impact of customers' thought speeds in a service failure setting. Fast-thinking induces not only heuristic processing, but also positive affect. As both factors predict a different outcome on whom customers blame for the failure, this study examines rival hypotheses. Findings from three experiments show that fast-thinking leads respondents to attribute failures to the service providers (i.e., showing a selfserving bias). In addition, fast-thinking also has more downstream consequences, as it negatively affects repurchase intentions and positively affects intentions to spread negative word of mouth. Therefore, service providers are encouraged to stimulate slow thought during service encounters

No abstract

No abstract

Pay-what-you-want (PWYW) and name-your-own-price (NYOP) participative pricing mechanisms are becoming more popular among firms. In response, researchers have examined separate outcomes for each mechanism. However, questions remain, especially regarding which mechanism is most beneficial for consumers and companies. Therefore, our main objective is to investigate the role of these participative pricing mechanisms on consumers' pricing satisfaction, pain of payment, and amount of money they intend to pay. We also explore perceived control as mediating the effect of pricing mechanism on pricing satisfaction and pain of payment. Results from two experimental studies indicate that consumers are more satisfied with the pricing mechanism and feel less pain of payment under PWYW offers rather than under NYOP offers, but they intend to pay less than they would have paid for NYOP. External reference prices (ERPs) act as a boundary condition. That is, in both PWYW and NYOP pricing conditions, when retailers use ERPs, consumers intend to pay more but they are less satisfied with pricing and feel more pain of payment. The article concludes with implications for retailers using participative pricing. | INTRODUCTIONRetailers know that when consumers perceive that prices are reasonable, they are more satisfied with their purchases and form increased

Although service recovery tactics have been extensively investigated, little is known about what firms should do when service recovery fails (i.e., double deviation). It is primordial to understand whether and how customer trust may be recovered after a double deviation. The results of an experimental study show that it is possible to recover customer trust through improvements in organizational processes (i.e., regulation) and discounts (i.e., financial compensation). Remarkably, regulation and financial compensation lead to similar trust levels, which means that these trust recovery tactics are equally successful. Moreover, attributions of benevolence explain why regulation and financial compensation can recover customer trust after a double deviation.