Whom do customers blame for a service failure? Effects of thought speed on causal locus attribution

Abstract

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

Investigating the effectiveness of monetary vs. non-monetary compensation on customer repatronage intentions in double deviation

“…Used alone, promises not only to have a positive effect on repatronage intentions in a double deviation scenario but also is the most effective strategy when compared to monetary compensation whether delayed or immediate (used alone). This finding is consistent with previous studies that found promises to be a strong service recovery strategy in a double deviation scenario particularly if the failure is related to "competence violation" (Basso and Pizzutti, 2016; Pacheco et al 2018). Apology on the contrary, when used alone, did not have a significant impact on repatronage intentions which is consistent with findings from previous studies (McDougall and Levesque 1999; Joreiman et al 2013; Basso and Pizzuti, 2016).…”

“…Some research suggests that different types of service failure may require a different type of compensation (Smith et al, 1999;Rosch and Gelbrich, 2014) and this is even more pertinent for monetary reparation where the compensation varies in terms of time (immediate vs. delayed) and nature (refund, discounts, gifts, etc.). Furthermore, time seems to be of the essence when it comes to service recovery, and many studies stressed the importance of providing recovery promptly (Boshoff, 1999;Johnston & Fern, 1999;Craighead et al, 2004;Pacheco et al 2018). This raises the question of whether the time is also important when presenting customers with compensation.…”

“…Therefore, they are important because they give customer reassurances on the quality of future interactions with the organization and are therefore expected to have a positive effect on the intentions of the re-permanence. For instance, both Basso and Pizzutti (2016) and Pacheco et al (2018) found promises to be associated with increased integrity and thus, competence. As stated previously most of these studies investigated the effectiveness of these strategies in single deviation and to the best of our knowledge, no study to date has examined their effectiveness on repatronage intentions in double deviation.…”

There is no smoke without fire: How frequency information and the experience attribution make negative online restaurant reviews more harmful

“…Experience (issue) attribution outside vs. inside a restaurant. Similar to Pacheco et al [74], we used single-item measurements for causal attribution of a service failure. Specifically, the participants indicated whether they attributed the issue with the cleanliness (in the highfrequency condition) or the waiting time (in the low-frequency condition) to the restaurant.…”

Hospitality-based service recovery, outcome favourability, satisfaction with service recovery and consequent customer loyalty: an empirical analysis

“…The perceptions of controllability tend to create more demanding expectations of SR among customers (Hess et al , 2003). According to previous literature (Jackson, 2019; Pacheco et al , 2018), attribution plays a key role in customers’ assessments and determining customers’ emotions, satisfaction, dissatisfaction and behavioural intentions and responses. The results shed light on a relationship between attribution and a customer’s likelihood of forgiving a service failure (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002) and consequently behavioural intentions and loyalty (Swanson and Hsu, 2011).…”