Recovery speed, types of explanations and repurchase intention

Two of the hypotheses about the repurchase intention were not supported by this study.

Results showed that repurchase intention was affected by the recovery speed. The faster the recovery speeds, the higher the repurchase intention. But, types of explanation did not affect the repurchase intention. There was no significant interaction between recovery speed and types of explanation.

One of reasons why the repurchase intention unlike customer satisfaction, was not affected by the two independent variables was absence of compensation after service failure in any of the scenarios in this study. Other research has shown that compensation level was an important variable which might significantly effect repurchase intention of customers after service failures. Without compensation customers might avoid going the same repair station again, even though they accepted the explanations from the attendants and were satisfied with the end result at the time.

5.1.3 Adequate explanations

In general, compared to a delayed recovery, an immediate recovery usually resulted in higher customer satisfaction. But results from this study indicated that customer satisfaction was not differ significantly whether an immediate recovery combined with outcome-oriented is provided or a delayed recovery combined with process-oriented is provided. Immediate recoveries combined with explanations focused on outcome resulted in the highest customer satisfaction level. But, delayed recoveries combined with explanations focus on the process could result in a high level of customer satisfaction approaching the highest level.

5.1.4 Genders

Hypothesis 4a was not supported. Results showed there were no three-way interactions between recovery speeds, types of explanations and genders. When the types of explanation emphasized the outcome under immediate recovery circumstances, there were no significant effects on either male or female customers. Similarly, if the types of explanation emphasized the process under delayed recovery circumstances, there were no significant effects on customers of either gender. Both genders felt satisfied when the explanations were adequate to the recovery speed, and felt dissatisfied when the explanations were inadequate. There was no interaction between recovery speed and gender.

However, hypothesis 4b was supported. Results indicated that if type of explanation

focused on outcome, then male customers were more satisfied; whereas, if it focused on process, female customers were more satisfied. This was in accorded with the prediction that male customers attach importance to the final products, while and female customers pay more attention to the process; women want to figure out how does the process of recovery run.

When service failures happened, men usually looked at final results as more important than the process of handling that failure. If final results were pretty good, they would felt satisfied.

Women, on the contrary, they usually wanted to know details about the handling process and then referred to final results and processes to decide satisfaction level.

5.2 Implications

This study indicated that service failure recoveries should be done as fast as possible after service failure. Immediate recovery speed usually resulted in higher customer satisfaction.

Especially the immediate recoveries associated with explanations focused on outcome. In real life, a company’s reaction is sometime delayed, and then provides delayed recovery to customers. In this situation, attendants should give explanations focused on the process, carefully describing how the failure was settled and why the recovery was delayed.

Companies thus have an opportunity to improve customer satisfaction to a higher level.

Companies should give adequate explanations in order to improve the customer satisfaction under different situations. When recovery is immediate, a company should give an

explanation describing how excellent the final result is whereas, if recovery is delayed, a company should give an explanation describing how all the specifics are handled throughout the process.

The gender of customers is the other point that companies should keep an eye on. Male customers make the most of the final product in a service recovery. Companies should do their best to encourage male customers to believe that the final result is good enough. On the other hand, female customers attach great importance to process in service recovery, and prefer to be given details of the process. Companies should try to make female customers agree that all parts of the process are necessary and acceptable.

If companies could choose adequate explanations for different customers in different situations, customer satisfaction would be improved as much as companies’ wish. Companies could improve customer satisfaction after service failure by giving the right explanations to right customers at right time.

5.3 Limitations

The results of this study give researchers and managers some ideas about service recovery strategies, but still with certain limitations. First, 60 percent of the participants were students of NCTU and NTU. Their perception of crowding might not be the same as other consumers by different occupation. Sixty-five percent of participants were under 25 years old. Younger

customers have distinct experience and preference which differ from those of older customers.

To make the research more general, the method of data collection could cover different age groups and occupation groups.

Second, to maximize the internal validity of this kind of research, designed scenarios rather than an actual experience of service failure were used in this study. Some participants might not experience analogous situations. Designed situations in scenarios could not cover all situations in real world, and the external validity might consequently be reduced. Results in this study could not be completely spread to other situation with different service failure, compensation level, and explanations. Furthermore, the scenarios were described in writing and not showed on video. Participants could not see the behaviors, manners and tones of attendants in the repair station. Such limitations might also influence the results.

Third, men and women would pay more attention on different types of explanation.

However, each gender had other unique attributes might confound with measurement of customer satisfaction in this study. For example, different genders might own different amount of computer knowledge. Generally, male customers were expected to have more computer knowledge than female. Amount of computer knowledge might affect their customer satisfaction. Participants who own lots of computer knowledge could judge whether the explanations from attendants were reasonable or not, but participants who own little computer knowledge could not. Different genders have different levels of customer

satisfaction after the service failure might not only because of they focused on different parts of explanations, but also result from the amount of computer knowledge they owned. Besides, female usually were more careful when filled the questionnaire than male. The difference in involvement of this study between male participants and female participants could result in different customer satisfaction.

Forth, in this study, content of explanations was reasonable no matter focus on outcome or focus on process. Giving reasonable explanations would increase customer satisfaction.

Which meant “type” was not the only element would affect customer satisfaction, rationality of content might be the other element. But this element was not considered in this study. For research convenience, rationality of content was controlled as the same.

5.4 Future research

Results of the study indicated that recovery speed and types of explanations do affect customer satisfaction after service failure, but do not affect repurchase intention. This may have been caused by the absence of any mention of compensation to the customers for service failures. Many studies have confirmed that compensation level was an important variable in repurchase intention, which could be added in future researches to test its influence.

The two dependant variables in this study might also have been affected by other independent variables, such as word of mouth, customer loyal, and willing to pay, some

degree. These independent variables should be considered in future researches as they would create some practical implications for companies.

After service failure, there were many kinds of recovery strategies that company could take.

Such as doing the thing right, making an apology, and giving customers compensation. In this study, attendant made an apology with explanation and repaired the notebook computer well.

According to designed scenarios in this study, there was significant interaction between recovery speed and types of explanation to customer satisfaction. In future research, this interaction effect could be examined in different scenarios, where recovery strategies and service failure were different from this study. There might be adequate recovery strategy for specific situations.

REFERENCE

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53-66.

Archer, J. (1996). Sex Differences in Social Behavior Are the Social Role and Evolutionary Explanations Compatible? American Psychologist, 51(9), 909-917.

Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The Role of Emotions in Marketing.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing 27(2), 184.

Bateson, J. E. G., & Hui, M. K. (1992). The Ecological Validity of Photographic Slides and Videotapes in Simulating the Service Setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 271-281.

Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in organizational behavior, 9, 289-319.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199-218.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71-84.

Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 185-210.

Blodgett, J. G., Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1995). The effects of customer service on consumer complaining behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(4), 31-42.

Clemmer, E. C., & Schneider, B. (1996). Fair Service. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 5(S 109), 126.

Conlon, D. E., & Murray, N. M. (1996). Customer Perceptions of Corporate Responses to Product Complaints: The Role of Explanations. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1040-1056.

Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

Dabholkar, P. A. (1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options:

An investigation of alternative models of service quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 29-51.

DeWitt, T., & Brady, M. K. (2003). Rethinking Service Recovery Strategies: The Effect of Rapport on Consumer Responses to Service Failure. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 193.

Dunning, J., Pecotich, A., & O'Cass, A. (2004). What happens when things go wrong? Retail sales explanations and their effects. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 553-572.

Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63(4),

Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining customer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-34.

Gilly, M. C., & Gelb, B. D. (1982). Post-Purchase Consumer Processes and the Complaining Consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 323-328.

Halstead, D., Morash, E. A., & Ozment, J. (1996). Comparing objective service failures and subjective complaints An investigation of domino and halo effects. Journal of Business Research, 36(2), 107-115.

Hart, C. W., Heskett, J. L., & Sasser Jr, W. E. (1990). The profitable art of service recovery.

Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 148-156.

Iacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1993). Gender Differences in the Impact of Core and Relational Aspects of Services on the Evaluation of Service Encounters. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 257-286.

McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Daus, C. S., & Sparks, B. A. (2003). The Role of Gender in Reactions to Service Failure and Recovery. Journal of Service Research, 6(1), 66.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and Judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 84-96.

Michel, S. (2001). Analyzing service failures and recoveries: a process approach.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(1), 20-33.

Newman, J. W., & Werbel, R. A. (1973). Multivariate Analysis of Brand Loyalty for Major Household Appliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 404-409.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and Disconfirmation Perceptions as Influences on Merchant and Product Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372-383.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.

Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study.

Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78.

Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215.

Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2000). Applications of evolutionary psychology in marketing.

Psychology and Marketing, 17(12), 1005-1034.

Smith, A. K., & Bolton, R. N. (1998). An Experimental Investigation of Customer Reactions to Service Failure and Recovery Encounters: Paradox or Peril? Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 65.

Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356-372.

Sparks, B. A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2001). Justice strategy options for increased customer satisfaction in a services recovery setting. Journal of Business Research, 54(3), 209-218.

Spreng, R. A., & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201-214.

Stauss, B., & Friege, C. (1999). Regaining Service Customers: Costs and Benefits of Regain Management. Journal of Service Research, 1(4), 347.

Stauss, B., & Neuhaus, P. (1997). The qualitative satisfaction model. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 236-249.

Tax, S. S., & Brown, S. W. (1998). Recovering and learning from service failure. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 75-88.

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60-76.

White, C., & Yu, Y. (2005). Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral intentions.

Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 411-420.

Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2004). Consumer responses to compensation, speed of recovery and apology after a service failure. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(2), 150-166.

Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. (2007). Mental simulation and preference

consistency over time: The role of process-versus outcomefocused thoughts. Journal of Marketing Research

APPENDIX I

Scenario A (Immediate recovery with explanation focus on outcome)

After being used for half of a year, your notebook cannot boot up without problems. You bring it to the repair station in your neighborhood. After your statement, the decent attendant replies: “It seems necessary to have a detailed detection to confirm the cause of the problem.

Since it may not be possible to finish repairing today, we may ask you to come to get it back after 3 o'clock tomorrow.”

You reach the repair station the next afternoon as told. The attendant returns the repaired notebook to you. After personally testing it and satisfied with the correction of booting problem, you notice a new problem that did not exist: the notebook detects none of the wireless networks. It turns out that the repairman accidentally damaged some parts.

The attendant says: “We are very sorry about that. We will deal with that now.” And then the attendant explains: “Please wait a few minutes. This problem will be resolved in 15 minutes. After being changed component and repaired, it will never have the problem about detecting no wireless network. And it will be more comfortable and convenient to send and receive mails and to surf the internet. We are sorry to cause the inconvenience and beg your pardon.”

After 15 minutes, the repairman returns the notebook to you in time. There's no any problem any more.

Scenario B (Immediate recovery with explanation focus on process)

After being used for half of a year, your notebook cannot boot up without problems. You bring it to the repair station in your neighborhood. After your statement, the decent attendant replies: “It seems necessary to have a detailed detection to confirm the cause of the problem.

Since it may not be possible to finish repairing today, we may ask you to come to get it back after 3 o'clock tomorrow.”

You reach the repair station the next afternoon as told. The attendant returns the repaired notebook to you. After personally testing it and satisfied with the correction of booting problem, you notice a new problem that did not exist: the notebook detects none of the wireless networks. It turns out that the repairman accidentally damaged some parts.

The attendant says: “We are very sorry about that. We will deal with that now.” And then the attendant explains: “Please wait a few minutes. This problem will be resolved in 15 minutes.” And then the attendant explains: “After checking out the in-store data, we found that the component which has to be replaced was out of production. We do not have the component in this station because it was sold out. We have already back ordered the

component from other repair station. However, it will take longer for repairing your notebook.

We are sorry to cause the inconvenience and beg your pardon.”

After 15 minutes, the repairman returns the notebook to you in time. There's no any problem any more.

Scenario C (Delayed recovery with explanation focus on outcome)

After being used for half of a year, your notebook cannot boot up without problems. You bring it to the repair station in your neighborhood. After your statement, the decent attendant replies: “It seems necessary to have a detailed detection to confirm the cause of the problem.

Since it may not be possible to finish repairing today, we may ask you to come to get it back after 3 o'clock tomorrow.”

You reach the repair station the next afternoon as told. The attendant returns the repaired notebook to you. After personally testing it and satisfied with the correction of booting problem, you notice a new problem that did not exist: the notebook detects none of the wireless networks. It turns out that the repairman accidentally damaged some parts.

The attendant says: “We are very sorry about that. We will deal with that now.” And then the attendant explains: “Please wait three day patiently. This problem will be resolved after 3 days. After being changed component and repaired, it will never have the problem about detecting no wireless network. And it will be more comfortable and convenient to send and receive mails and to surf the internet. We are sorry to cause the inconvenience and beg your pardon.”

While you coming back after 3 days, the repairman returns the notebook to you in time.

There is no any problem any more.

Scenario D (Delayed recovery with explanation focus on process)

After being used for half of a year, your notebook cannot boot up without problems. You bring it to the repair station in your neighborhood. After your statement, the decent attendant replies: “It seems necessary to have a detailed detection to confirm the cause of the problem.

Since it may not be possible to finish repairing today, we may ask you to come to get it back after 3 o'clock tomorrow.”

You reach the repair station the next afternoon as told. The attendant returns the repaired notebook to you. After personally testing it and satisfied with the correction of booting problem, you notice a new problem that did not exist: the notebook detects none of the wireless networks. It turns out that the repairman accidentally damaged some parts.

The attendant says: “We are very sorry about that. We will deal with that now.” And then the attendant explains: “Please wait 3 days patiently. After checking out the in-store data, we found that the component which has to be replaced was out of production. We do not have the component in this station because it was sold out. We have already back ordered the

component from other repair station. However, it will take longer for repairing your notebook.

We are sorry to cause the inconvenience and beg your pardon.”

While you coming back after 3 days, the repairman returns the notebook to you in time.

There is no any problem any more.

APPENDIX II Scenarios in Chinese 情境情境

情境情境 A

用了半年的筆記型電腦出現問題，無法正常開機，於是你帶著筆記型電腦到住處附

用了半年的筆記型電腦出現問題，無法正常開機，於是你帶著筆記型電腦到住處附