Providing explanations to customers for service and recovery failures: The impact on satisfaction, loyalty, and complaining behavior

The purpose of this research study was to assess the impact a service recovery process has on customer satisfaction, loyalty intentions, formal complaining behavior, and negative word of mouth intentions. The study expanded on previous research and also replicated two research studies that sampled from two different populations. The study used a 2 x 5 randomized between-subjects scenario-based factorial design. Each scenario described a service failure that was either one deviation or two deviations and five different interactional justice treatments were manipulated to demonstrate how the organization handled the failure. Both levels of deviations (single and double) as well as two levels of interactional justice (absent and an empathetic apology with an adequate explanation) were replicated using similar samples (working adults and undergraduates) with the same setting and measuring the same dependent variables. In addition, to further tease out interactional justice, three more levels were added: straight apology, empathetic apology, and straight apology with an adequate explanation.;The setting of the study was a home delivery subscription service of a newspaper which was manipulated through ten written scenarios that described the service failure and how the organization resolved the failure. Through random assignment, each participant read a scenario and answered a questionnaire that assessed four dependent variables: customer satisfaction, loyalty intentions, formal complaining behavior, and negative word of mouth intentions. A critical hypothesis was that service failures occurring in double deviations would be more likely to lead to greater customer satisfaction, increased loyalty intentions, reduced formal complaining behavior, and reduced negative word of mouth intentions when an empathetic apology with an explanation is provided as opposed to when either no interactional justice, an empathetic apology, a straight apology, or a straight apology with an explanation is provided. The study produced similar differences in samples (working adults vs. undergraduates) and found that the informational component of interactional justice was the most salient as it produced significant main effects in both samples.