Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBradley, Grahamen_US
dc.contributor.authorSparks, Beverleyen_US
dc.contributor.editorCharles Martinen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T09:01:58Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T09:01:58Z
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.date.modified2012-08-08T00:14:58Z
dc.identifier.issn08876045en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1108/08876041211199715en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/46089
dc.description.abstractPurpose: This study investigated if, when and how the use of four different types of explanations affect customer satisfaction after a service failure. Methodology/Approach: The study used written scenarios of a hypothetical service failure to manipulate explanation type, failure magnitude and compensation offered. Participants were randomly assigned to read and respond to one version of the scenario, whilst imagining they were the customer experiencing the service failure. Findings: Explanation type, explanation quality, failure magnitude and compensation each had significant effects on customer evaluations. Explanation type and explanation quality interactively affected the extent to which customers were satisfied with service recovery: Apologies and excuses yielded higher satisfaction levels than did justifications and referential accounts but only when the explanations were perceived to be of high (vs. low) quality. Specific types of attributions and forms of justice were shown to mediate the effects of three of the explanation types. Practical Implications: The study shows that customer evaluations following service failure vary with the type of explanation provided. Service firms need to provide an explanation in such circumstances, preferably a high quality excuse or apology, and need to understand the "process variables" that determine whether the explanation will satisfy aggrieved customers. Originality/Value: This is one of very few studies that have compared the efficacy of different types of explanations in service situations. The research sheds light not only on what types of explanations work best, but also on how they have their effect.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherEmeralden_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom41en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto51en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Services Marketingen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume26en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMarketing Management (incl. Strategy and Customer Relations)en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchTourism Marketingen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchIndustrial and Organisational Psychologyen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode150503en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode150604en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode170107en_US
dc.titleExplanations: if, when, and how they aid service recoveryen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2012
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record