Satisfaction with service recovery: Perceived justice and emotional responses

What Drives Successful Complaint Resolutions on Social Media?: Evidence from the Airline Industry

“…[16] found that a large percentage of unsatisfactory service encounters were related to employees' inability or unwillingness to respond effectively to service failure situations. Furthermore, prior studies indicate that operational failures themselves do not necessarily lead to customer dissatisfaction, since most customers accept that things may sometimes go wrong [2]. However, if it is the organizational employees which failed to live up to customer expectations of service, it is less likely that they will be satisfied with their experience.…”

“…Previous studies indicate that failures themselves do not necessarily lead to customer dissatisfaction, since most customers accept that things may sometimes go wrong [2]. Instead, the service provider's response or lack of response to the failure is the most likely cause of dissatisfaction [3].…”

The Role of Customer Knowledge Management Process in Service Recovery Performance: An Applied Study to the Egyptian National Railways

“…The first part was designed to examine CKM process and it contains four constructs: CK capture reflected by statements (1-4), CK sharing reflected by statements (5-9), CK acquisition reflected by statements (10)(11)(12), and CK application reflected by statements (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). The second part was designed to identify SRP and it includes five constructs: making an apology reflected by statements (23)(24)(25), problem solving reflected by statements (26)(27)(28)(29), being courteous reflected by statements (30)(31)(32)(33), providing an explanation reflected by statements (34-36), and prompt handling reflected by statements (37-39). The questionnaire provided to ENR's customers consists of the same 17 statements of SRP contained in the second part of employees' questionnaire; in order to facilitate the comparing process between the two populations' opinions regarding the SRP of the ENR.…”

Identification of the four-factor structure of customers’ perceived fairness

“…However, the integrity of the two-factor structure of fairness was questioned when Bies and Moag 7 introduced interactional fairness , which refers to ' interpersonal treatment people receive as procedures are enacted ' 8 (p. 386). Although some scholars 19,20 have argued that interactional justice is a part of procedural justice, others including marketing scholars 3,4,6 have identifi ed the independence of interactional justice from the other two types of justice in a research model, supporting their discriminant validity. Since interpersonal interaction between buyers and sellers is critical for the resolution of complaint situations 21 and in service encounters, 22 interactional justice has been found to infl uence satisfaction with complaint handling, 6,18 customers ' behavioral and emotional reactions, 3,4 service quality evaluation, 22 and satisfaction with service encounters.…”

“…Fairness has been viewed as a multifaceted construct in the marketing context, consisting of three dimensions: distributive, procedural and interactional justice. 3,4 Distributive, procedural and interactional aspects address the outcome of a transaction, the process of a transaction and the interpersonal treatment during a transaction, respectively. More recently psychologists have identifi ed a fourth dimension of fairness, ' informational fairness ' , which focuses on the achievement of relevant information during a transaction.…”