A DIP-construct of perceived justice in negative service encounters and complaint handling in the Norwegian tourism industry Sander Svari and Go ¨ran Svensson Oslo School of Management, Oslo, Norway Terje Sla ˚tten Lillehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway, and Bo Edvardsson CTF-Service Research Centre, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe and test a construct of perceived justice and its DIP-dimensions (i.e. distributive, interactional, and procedural) in the context of both the consumers’ initial negative service experiences’ and the following processes of complaint handling. The objective is also to investigate similarities and differences of perceived justice in negative service experiences and complaint handling, and the validity of the constructs over time. Design/methodology/approach – A triangular approach is used, based upon interviews and a survey in the Norwegian tourism industry. This paper reports on the results from a survey consisting of 3,104 customers. Comparative and confirmatory testing of perceived justice during the initial service encounter and subsequent complaint-handling process has been performed. Findings – The DIP-dimensions of the construct of perceived justice in the service encounters tested have indicated a satisfactory fit, validity, and reliability. Research limitations/implications – The empirical findings provide a seed for future research to refine and extend corporate endeavors in managing critical incidents of both service encounters and service recovery. Practical implications – Strategies to manage the perceived justice in negative service encounters and complaint handling should aim at managing the DIP-dimensions of negative incidents in service encounters. Originality/value – The DIP-construct brings together, complements and fortifies existing theory and previous research in the context of justice in service encounters and complaint handling. Addressing both pre- and post-complaint processes provides a complementary contribution to the field in focus. Keywords Justice, Service failures, Complaints, Consumer behaviour, Norway, Tourism Paper type Research paper Introduction Firms strive to offer “zero-defect” services and favorable customer experiences. A service experience may be seen as a service process that creates the customers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses, resulting in a mental mark, a memory (Johnston and Clark, 2001). The possibility of failures or incidents in service encounters The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm MSQ 20,1 26 Managing Service Quality Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010 pp. 26-45 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-4529 DOI 10.1108/09604521011011612
Transcript
A DIP-construct of perceivedjustice in negative serviceencounters and complainthandling in the Norwegian
tourism industrySander Svari and Goran SvenssonOslo School of Management, Oslo, Norway
Terje SlattenLillehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway, and
Bo EdvardssonCTF-Service Research Centre, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe and test a construct of perceived justice and itsDIP-dimensions (i.e. distributive, interactional, and procedural) in the context of both the consumers’initial negative service experiences’ and the following processes of complaint handling. The objectiveis also to investigate similarities and differences of perceived justice in negative service experiencesand complaint handling, and the validity of the constructs over time.
Design/methodology/approach – A triangular approach is used, based upon interviews and asurvey in the Norwegian tourism industry. This paper reports on the results from a survey consistingof 3,104 customers. Comparative and confirmatory testing of perceived justice during the initial serviceencounter and subsequent complaint-handling process has been performed.
Findings – The DIP-dimensions of the construct of perceived justice in the service encounters testedhave indicated a satisfactory fit, validity, and reliability.
Research limitations/implications – The empirical findings provide a seed for future research torefine and extend corporate endeavors in managing critical incidents of both service encounters andservice recovery.
Practical implications – Strategies to manage the perceived justice in negative service encountersand complaint handling should aim at managing the DIP-dimensions of negative incidents in serviceencounters.
Originality/value – The DIP-construct brings together, complements and fortifies existing theory andprevious research in the context of justice in service encounters and complaint handling. Addressing bothpre- and post-complaint processes provides a complementary contribution to the field in focus.
Keywords Justice, Service failures, Complaints, Consumer behaviour, Norway, Tourism
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionFirms strive to offer “zero-defect” services and favorable customer experiences.A service experience may be seen as a service process that creates the customers’cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses, resulting in a mental mark, a memory(Johnston and Clark, 2001). The possibility of failures or incidents in service encounters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm
MSQ20,1
26
Managing Service QualityVol. 20 No. 1, 2010pp. 26-45q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-4529DOI 10.1108/09604521011011612
cannot be completely eliminated, because of the variety of factors that may impact theprocess of service co-creation, service consumption, and a customer’s perceived value(Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008). Accordingly, service encounters are difficult tomaintain without dissatisfaction occurring now and then. Complaint handling mayconsequently be seen as crucial for firms in their efforts to satisfy and retain theircustomers.
There is a substantial literature on how to handle customers’ complaint behaviorand customers’ complaint handling in general (Stauss and Seidel, 2004; Tronvoll, 2009).Contemporary research in the field shows that perceived justice in service encountershas an important impact on customer satisfaction (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003;Sindhav et al., 2006; Smith et al., 1999). Furthermore, previous studies have indicatedthat the customers’ perceived justice influences complaint behaviors (Schoefer andDiamantopoulos, 2008), as well as their emotions and loyalty towards the firm (DeWittet al., 2008). Subsequently, customers experiencing perceived injustice in serviceencounters may cause negative effects for firms.
It appears that most studies have used consistent dimensions to measure theconstruct of perceived justice (Table I). Nevertheless, to the authors’ knowledge, nonehave studied the consistency of the justice construct and its dimensions in aprocess-based perspective. In fact, there appears to be no research whatsoever that hasfocused both on perceived justice in the service encounter and the following processesof handling the complaint. The objective is, therefore, to describe and test a construct ofperceived justice and its dimensions (i.e. distributive, interactional, and procedural) –henceforth called the DIP-construct – in the context of both negative serviceencounters and the following processes of complaint handling. The objective is also todescribe similarities and differences of perceived justice in service encounters andcomplaint handling.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows:
(1) a theoretical framework of service experience and complaint handling in thecontext of customers’ perceived justice is presented;
(2) methodology and empirical findings are described;
(3) implications and conclusions of customers’ perceived justice in serviceencounters and complaint handling are addressed; and
(4) research limitations and proposals for the future are provided at the end.
Theoretical frameworkThere is a debate among scholars concerning the adequate definition of the construct ofperceived justice and how it should be studied (Tax et al., 1998). Nevertheless, theconstruct of justice often represents the extent to which people ascertain the fairness of anexchange between themselves and another party (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003;Deutsch, 1985; Greenberg, 1990; Lind and Tyler, 1988). The construct of justice iscommonly divided into the three dimensions. For example, Voorhees and Brady (2005)define “distributive justice” as the degree to which customers feel they have been treatedfairly with respect to the outcome of the service encounter. “Interactional justice” isdefined by Bies and Moag (1986) as the degree to which customers are treated fairly intheir interactions with a firm’s employees. Goodwin and Ross (1989) introduce“procedural justice,” which assesses the justice of the firm’s policies and procedures.
Tax et al. (1998) Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Satisfaction with complainthandling, that in turn affected;(2) trust; and (3) commitment, wasused as a dependent variable in apost-complaint perspective,focusing on complaint handling
Smith et al. (1999) Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Satisfaction with the serviceencounter was used as a dependentvariable in a pre-complaintperspective studying the effects ofjustice when dealing with airportsecurity
Distributive justice – (1) fair outcome;(2) got as deserved; (3) the requiredcompensation; and (4) the rightoutcome Procedural justice – (1) timetaken to resolve problem; and (2)adequate flexibilityInteractional justice – (1) concern;(2) effort; (3) appropriatecommunications; and (4) courtesy
McCollough et al. (2000) Divided justice into the twodimensions distributive andinteractional justices. The studywas qualitative, so no items wereused to measure the variables
(1) Customer satisfaction was usedas a dependent variable in a post-complaint perspective studying theeffects of justice on satisfaction afterservice failure and recovery
Maxham and Netemeyer(2003)
Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Overall satisfaction;(2) satisfaction with recovery;(3) word-of-mouth; and (4) purchaseintent were used as dependentvariables. Justice was bothmeasured within the organization,and during service recovery
Distributive justice – (1) positiveoutcome; (2) fair outcome given timeand hassle; (3) fair outcome giventhe inconvenience; and (4) more thanfair outcomeProcedural justice – (1) quickresponse; (2) timely response; (3) fairpolicies and practices; and (4) fairwith respect to policies andproceduresInteractional justice – (1) courteoustreatment; (2) showed a real interest;(3) worked as hard as possible; and(4) honest and ethical
(continued )
Table I.Selected studies oncustomers’ perceivedjustice in serviceencounters
One construct was used, measuringdistributive and interactional justicesusing one set of items including: (1)fair outcome; (2) gave what wasneeded; (3) concerned about theproblem; (4) courtesy; and (5) effort
(1) Tested in the effect of justice(fairness perceptions), collectivistand individualist contexts (cross-cultural context) in a post-complaintperspective, focusing on servicerecovery
Kim and Smith (2005) Applied the DIP dimensions ofjustice, but used a construct called“perceived justice”
(1) Related to satisfaction based on apre-complaint service encounterswhen examining customers’responses to service organizations’penalties
Distributive justice – (1) fair; (2)right amount; and (3) got asdeservedInteractional justice – (1) courtesy;(2) politeness; and (3) appropriatelevelProcedural justice – (1) had a say;and (2) adapted policies
Shapiro and Nieman-Gonder (2006)
Two dimensions of justice (1) Investigate the effects oforganizational justice-basedrecovery strategies and the mode ofcommunication used following aservice failure on customersatisfaction, loyalty, andcomplaining behavior in a pre-complaint perspective
Distributive justice – distributivejustice was defined as a descriptionof the compensation offered to thecustomer after the failure wasreportedInteractional justice – interactionaljustice was defined as: (1) anapology combined with; (2) anexplanation for the failure; (3)politeness; (4) courtesy; (5) concern;and (6) empathy
Colquitt (2001) Four dimensions of justice(i.e. DIP þ I)
Explores the dimensionality oforganizational justice and providesevidence of construct validity. Themeasure was then validated in twoseparate studies. In a universitysetting, and on employees in anautomobile parts manufacturingcompany
Distributive justice – (1) reflectseffort; (2) appropriate outcome; (3)outcome reflect what you havecontributed to the organization; and
In Study 1, the effects on: (1)outcome satisfaction; (2) collectiveesteem; (3) rule compliance; (4)leader evaluation were measured.
In (4) outcome is justified, givenyour performance
Study 2, the effect on: (1)instrumentality; (2) collectiveesteem; (3) group commitment; and(4) helping behavior were measuredin a pre-complaint perspective
Interpersonal justice – (1) treatedpolitely; (2) treated with dignity; (3)treated with respect; and (4) noimproper remarks or commentsProcedural justice – (1) ability toexpress views and feelings; (2)influence over the outcome; (3)procedures have been appliedconsistently; (4) procedures havebeen free of bias; (5) procedures havebeen based on accurate information;(6) it has been able to appeal theoutcome; and (7) procedures haveupheld ethical and moral standardsInformational justice – (1) can did in(his/her) communications; (2)explained the proceduresthoroughly; (3) reasonableexplanations regarding theprocedures; (4) communicateddetails in a timely manner; and (5)communications tailored toindividuals’ specific needs
Schoefer and Ennew(2005)
Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Considering the role of perceivedjustice of perceived justice in theelicitation of differential emotionsfollowing complaint-handlingexperiences, using service scenarioscripts, using check in for flights asa setting in a pre-complaintperspective
Distributive justice was measuredas: (1) a compensation being givenInteractional justice was measuredas: (1) apologize; and (2) offering anexplanationProcedural justice was measured as:(1) solving the problem
McCole (2004) Used the DIP-dimensions of justice,but created a construct called“justice perception”
(1) Positive emotions; (2) negativeemotions; and (3) trust were used asdependent variables in a post-complaint perspectiveDistributive justice was measured
with three items adopted from Smithet al. (1999) consisting of: (1) fairoutcome; (2) got as deserved; and (3)compensation the customer neededInteractional justice was measuredwith three items adopted fromSmith et al. (1999)consisting of: (1)concern; (2) effort; and (3)communicationProcedural justice was measuredwith three items adopted fromBlodgett et al. (1997) and Smith et al.(1999) consisting of: (1) quick
response; (2) flexibility; and (3)policies and procedures
Voorhees and Brady(2005)
Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Encounter specific customersatisfaction; and (2) futurecomplaint intentions were used asdependent variables in a pre-complaint perspective
Distributive justice – (1) fairoutcome; (2) right outcome; (3) fairdeal; (4) positive outcome; and (5)fair final outcomeInteractional justice – (1) showed areal interest; (2) courteous treatment;(3) worked as hard as possible; (4)honest and ethical; and (5) treatedfairlyProcedural justice – (1) quickresponse; (2) fair policies andpractices; (3) handled encounterfairly with respect to policies andprocedures; (4) the process was fair;and (5) overall fair procedures.
Sindhav et al. (2006) Four dimensions of justice(i.e. DIP þ I)
(1) Satisfaction was used as adependent variable in a pre-complaint perspective, studying theeffects of justice when dealing withairport security
Distributive justice – (1) hassle; (2)safer; (3) worth the time andinconvenience; and (4) same hassleas othersInterpersonal justice – (1) courtesy;(2) respect; and (3) professionalismProcedural justice – (1) adequateprocedures; (2) consistent;(3) unbiased manner; (4) possibilityto appeal; and (5) fairly designedInformational justice – (1) open incommunication; (2) thoroughlyexplained rules; (3) reasonableexplanation; and (4) communicateddetails in a timely manner
Schoefer andDiamantopoulos (2008)
Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Emotions was used as adependent variable in a post-complaint perspective
Distributive justice was measuredwith four items adapted from Taxet al. (1998) and Smith et al. (1999)consisting of: (1) adequatecompensation; (2) samecompensation as in similar cases; (3)the required compensation; and (4)overall fair compensationInteractional justice was measuredwith five items adapted from Taxet al. (1998), Smith et al. (1999) andMcCollough et al. (2000) consistingof: (1) interest; (2) understanding; (3)
(continued ) Table I.
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
31
Negative service encountersThe construct of justice has been linked to service encounters in literature. For example,Voorhees and Brady (2005) argue that justice leads to specific service-encountercustomer satisfaction, while Tax et al. (1998) state that justice affects satisfaction withthe handling of complaints. Schoefer and Diamantopoulos (2008) contend that perceivedjustice is an antecedent of post-complaint behavioral responses such as: negativeword-of-mouth, reduced re-purchase intentions and third-party actions. While Sindhavet al. (2006) examine perceived justice during initial service, encounters, others (Tax et al.,
rudeness; (4) willingness to solve theproblem; and (5) fair overallbehaviorProcedural justice was measuredwith three items adapted fromSmith et al. (1999) and Tax et al.(1998) consisting of: (1) quickresponse; (2) listening to customer;and (3) fair problem handling
DeWitt et al. (2008) Used the DIP-dimensions of justice,but created a construct called“justice perception”
(1) Positive emotions; (2) negativeemotions; and (3) trust were used asdependent variables in a post-complaint perspectiveDistributive justice was measured
with three items adopted fromSmith et al. (1999) consisting of: (1)fair outcome; (2) got as deserved;and (3) compensation the customerneededInteractional justice was measuredwith three items adopted fromSmith et al. (1999) consisting of: (1)concern; (2) effort; and (3)communicationProcedural justice was measuredwith three items adopted fromBlodgett et al. (1997) and Smith et al.(1999) consisting of: (1) quickresponse; (2) flexibility; and (3)policies and procedures
Iyer and Muncy (2008) Three dimensions of justice (i.e. DIP) (1) Satisfaction; (2) emotionalresponse; and (3) word-of-mouthwere used as dependent variables ina post-complaint perspectivestudying the effects of justice
Distributive justice – (1) fairoutcome; (2) got as deserved; (3) therequired compensation; and (4) theright outcomeProcedural justice – (1) time takento resolve problem; and (2) adequateflexibilityInteractional justice – (1) concern;(2) effort; (3) appropriatecommunications; and (4) courtesyTable I.
MSQ20,1
32
1998; Smith et al., 1999; DeWitt et al., 2008) use a post-complaint perspective, definingperceived justice as a result of handling the complaint.
Research concerning the construct of justice has focused on two different stages inservice encounters, namely pre- and post-complaint processes (Table I). Whether usingthe same construct of justice to study pre-complaint interaction (the service encounterwhere the negative incident takes place) in service encounters as for post-complaintinteraction (when the company responds to a complaint) is appropriate, or if theperceived justice differs from pre- to post-complaint behavior, is yet to be tested. If themeasures of the justice construct remain valid and reliable simultaneously, butindependently, across different stages of service encounters, previous findings inresearch might have a larger applicability than previously expected.
Complaint handling“Complaint handling” refers to the actions that a firm takes to respond to defects orfailures in service delivery (Gronroos, 1988). To handle complaints adequately is vitalto satisfy and retain customers (Stauss and Seidel, 1998). In a service recoveryperspective, complaints expressed to the firm can be also seen as an opportunity tostrengthen the bond between the customer and the firm (Goodman, 2006). Complaintsthat are handled well can have a positive impact on the customer experience, thusturning the situation from negative to positive for both the customer and the firm(Blodgett et al., 1997; Fornell and Wernefelt, 1987; Kelley et al., 1993). When a negativeincident does occur, the customer often feels the need to utter a complaint (Stephensand Gwinner, 1998). However, it is not only during the initial service but also encounterthat unfair treatment may affect the end result. When a complaint is uttered, theperceived justice of the service recovery is crucial for the customer’s future behavior(Schoefer and Diamantopoulos, 2008).
To warn family and friends, or to stop patronizing a particular restaurant, are oftenmore likely reactions to negative service encounters than a complaint directly to thecompany (Heung and Lam, 2003). A quick response instead of waiting for the customerto utter a complaint to the firm might therefore save the company from a loss ofcustomers, and negative word-of-mouth. Understanding what the customer considersfair might assist the firm in choosing a suitable response (Goodwin and Ross, 1992;Smith et al., 1999; McCole, 2004), both when the incident occurs and when thecomplaint is expressed. But are the same constructs of perceived justice and theirdimensions valid and reliable during the initial service encounter as when thecomplaint is uttered, or do they change from the moment the incident occurs to the timethe customer utters the complaint? Only a small share of customers complain directlyto the firm (Oliver, 1996; Bougie et al., 2003). The customer’s impression may thereforevary over time, perhaps change over time, and may even loose its significance. There iscurrently a gap in the knowledge concerning the stability of the construct of justice,from the time of the incident and at a later stage. Studying justice at both stages of thecomplaint process (i.e. at the initial negative service encounter and the complainthandling) would contribute to fill this knowledge gap.
If the firm is able to understand the customer’s perception of justice, it should still wantto respond to the customer’s needs and wants in a proper way. When experiencing unjusttreatment, the customer reacts to the incident in a wide range of ways; from changing toanother firm to uttering a complaint to the firm, a third-party or friends and family
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
33
(Schoefer and Diamantopoulos, 2008). If understanding the construct of perceived justice,the firms can to larger extent elaborate preventive processes, and provide training toemployees in handling different situations related to both pre- and post-complaints inservice encounters. The success of the complaint handling is related to how appropriatethe complaint handling is to the situation (Bitner et al., 1990; Smith et al., 1999). Voorheesand Brady (2005) write that customers who perceived the service encounter to be fairtended to be more satisfied with the complaint handling than customers who reportedunsatisfactory perceptions of justice in service encounters. These findings imply thateither the force of the justice, or the type of justice, may offer an explanation of how tounderstand the relationship between justice and complaint handling. Previous studies ofjustice provide a basis to understand the role of justice in complaint handling and anunderlying structure of justice in service encounters.
Studies on justiceCustomers’ perceived justice varies to a minor extent from being a uni-dimensionalconstruct having inherent DIP-dimensions embedded (Kim and Smith, 2005; DeWittet al., 2008) to that of a multi-dimensional one with unique effects (Sindhav et al., 2006).As indicated previously, a common typology for classifying the construct of justice inservice encounters is based upon the distributive, interactional, and proceduraldimensions (Tax et al., 1998). However, McCollough et al. (2000) limit justice todistributive and interactional dimensions. Sindhav et al. (2006) apply a construct ofjustice consisting of four dimensions, namely: distributive, procedural, interpersonal,and informational. The measure items used for interpersonal justice refer tointeraction, including propriety and truthfulness (Colquitt, 2001). However, proprietyand truthfulness are more often included as measures of interactional justice (Table I).
A review of previous studies on justice reveals a distinct pattern as shown in Table I.Two aspects become evident, namely:
(1) that previous research has applied different dimensions of the justice construct;and
(2) at what stage of the service process the research has focused on.
In fact, there is a rather fragmented selection of items used in examining the construct.Nevertheless, there are a few common denominators that may be distinguished basedupon the theoretical framework presented in Table I. The following dimensions of thejustice construct may be crystallized:
. distributive;
. interactional; and
. procedural (i.e. DIP).
These dimensions are not consistently constructed (in terms of items used), and maybenefit from being tested more thoroughly. In addition, there is no research thatstresses these dimensions of the justice construct during both the initial negativeservice encounters and the complaint handling. The question is whether the samedimensions of the justice construct are valid and reliable in the contexts of both serviceencounters and complaint handling.
MSQ20,1
34
MethodologyThe study was conducted in the Norwegian tourism industry, which was chosen as itprovides access to a variety of negative service encounters. The tourism industry has ahigh level of customer-employee interaction (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2007), in particular,with customers’ experiences of negative service encounters in the tourism industry.These negative encounters create an arena of perceived injustice, and lead to the needfor handling complaints.
The study was performed in two steps:
(1) interviews; and
(2) a survey.
The interviews were undertaken to identify what customers perceived as just innegative service encounters. As Table I illustrates, several different items have beenused to identify justice in service encounters. The purpose of the interviews was toidentify which items were the most appropriate for measuring justice in negativeservice encounters when complaints are handled in a Norwegian context.
The critical incident technique was used to collect the qualitative data focusing onspecific situations. Critical incident technique can be used when studying events thatdeviate significantly, either positively or negatively, from customer expectations in aservice encounter (Chung and Hoffmann, 1998; Edvardsson, 1992). In this case, theexperienced justice deviated negatively from customer expectations. The techniqueinvolves asking informants to recall a specific situation and further explain thecircumstances that caused the situation, and the customers’ reactions to that situation.In total, 269 interviews were performed to identify which items were the mostappropriate when studying customers’ perceived justice in service encounters.
A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect the qualitative data. Eachinterview started by giving the respondent a brief introduction about the purpose ofthe study. Then, the respondent was asked to recall a situation related to the tourismindustry during the last 12 months involving:
. a negative incident and what the firm did to make the incident negative; and
. the perceived justice.
Those informants who actually complained to the firm were then asked to describe, the:. content of the negative incident and the firm’s handling of their complaint; and. perceived justice.
The respondents were free to describe the perceived injustice caused to them in theirown words.
The results from the interviews formed the basis of items of the justice constructthat were used in the survey questionnaire. Additionally, findings from previousstudies (Table I) were used. Measurement scales and a “don’t know” option were used(to prevent respondents from answering neutrally when they could not relate to thequestion). In total, 3,104 customers participated. The samples were collected at airportsand public places in Norway and were limited to people who had experienced anegative incident in the tourism industry within the last year.
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
35
The respondents of the survey were from all parts of Norway. They were bornbetween 1921 and 1999 (50 percent before 1975). Furthermore, 53 percent of therespondents referred to a negative incident during a holiday, 29 percent werenon-work-related, and 17 percent were from a business trip. Gender was equallydistributed. The respondents included people traveling alone (22 percent), withfamily/spouse (37 percent), friends (26 percent), in a tourist group (5 percent), and withcolleagues (9 percent). The negative incidents were experienced in a wide range ofservices including: hotel, transportation, restaurants, and travel agencies.
The criteria for participating in the survey were:. to be a Norwegian citizen; and. having experienced a negative service encounter in the tourism or hospitality
industry during the last year.
This was done so that the respondent could have a clear memory of the incident, and atthe same time have had the chance to complain and experience the company’s handlingof the complaint.
The survey took place at crucial hubs of transportation in Norway, such as: airports,railway stations, and bus stations. The interviews were performed by a team ofstudents handpicked through interviews. They were trained at several workshops for atwo-month period so as to understand the purpose of the survey and to learnappropriate interview techniques. The team was supported by a research assistanthired specifically for the project, and supervised by the researchers.
The survey was conducted in Norwegian, using Scandinavian experts withinservice research and linguistic expertise from the researchers’ university for accurateand back translations. The measures used for “justice” were the same for both thenegative service encounter and the complaint handling, with the exception of minoradjustments made to adapt the questions to fit a post-complaint experience.
Empirical findingsThe results of each item used in the questionnaire are shown in Table II, which isdivided into two sections, the:
(1) initial negative service encounter; and
(2) firm’s handling of the complaint.
Respondents responded to seven-point Likert-type scales for all variables. Thesemeasures were anchored at 7 – strongly agree and 1 – strongly disagree. Pearsoncorrelation and paired samples t-tests have been used in the comparative analyses. Thefollowing abbreviations are used to illustrate the univariate outcome of each item in thetable referred to: n – number of observations, Mn – mean, SD – standard deviation,Corr. – correlation coefficient, Sig. – significance, and Mn D – mean difference.
The findings shown in Table I indicate on almost every item that there is a lowersignificant level of perceived justice after the complaints were handled compared to theperceived justice in the initial negative service encounters (see columns of pairedsamples t-test). There is also on each item a significant correlation (see columns ofPearson’s correlation test) between the perceived justice of the initial negative serviceencounter and the perceived justice of the complaint handling. This indicates that thehigher the initial level of perceived justice of negative service encounter, the higher it
MSQ20,1
36
remains after the complaint-handling processes, and vice versa. In other words,customers’ perceived injustice in service encounters tends to diminish from when thenegative service encounter occurs to when the complaint is handled, but does notdisappear completely.
Theory testingBased upon presented theory and previous studies, the theory testing was limited tothe measurement properties among three dimensions of the justice construct:distributive, interactional, and procedural. The measurement model is labelled as theDIP-construct (Figure 1).
Negative emotionsCustomers’ service
experienceFirms’ service
recoveryPearson’s
correlation testPaired samples
t-testItem(s)a n Mn SD n Mn SD Corr. Sig. Mn D Sig.
Notes: Questionnaire items of negative service encounters and complaint handling; asee Table III fordetails of the items used
Table II.Univariate and
comparative analyses
Figure 1.The DIP-construct of
negative serviceencounters and complaint
handling
Distributive Interactional
Procedural
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
37
Goodness-of-fit measures – measurement models of negative service encounters andcomplaint handlingTo test the measurement properties between the constructs of the DIP-construct innegative service encounters and during complaint handling, respectively, confirmatoryfactor analysis was used (Arbuckle, 2008). The initial diagnostics at this stage showedthat no items used in the questionnaire should be removed. Confirmatory factoranalyses were then run with the items and three-construct measurement models (i.e. 15indicator variables as shown in Figure 2) using the SPSS/AMOS 16.0 software. Scaleitems are shown in Table III.
When the measurement model of negative service encounters was tested, thegoodness-of-fit measures were found to follow the recommended guidelines (Hair et al.,2006, pp. 745-9). For example, the x 2 was 3739.524 with 87 degrees of freedom. This x 2
was statistically significant ( p ¼ 0.000); maybe that was due to the sample size(n ¼ 3.104). As a result, other fit statistics were examined. The normed x 2 (x 2/df) was42.983 (due to sample size), while the NFI was 0.922, the RFI was 0.905, the IFI was0.923, the TLI was 0.907, the CFI was 0.923, and RMSEA was 0.116 (confidence interval90 percent: 0.113-0.120), all of which follows satisfactorily the recommended guidelinesexcept for RMSEA.
When the measurement model of complaint handling was tested, the goodness-of-fitmeasures were found to be fairly well within the recommended guidelines. Forexample, the x 2 was 1364.119 with 87 degrees of freedom. This x 2 was statisticallysignificant ( p ¼ 0.000). As a result, other fit statistics were examined. The normed x 2
(x 2/df) was 15.680 (due to sample size), while the NFI was 0.949, the RFI was 0.930, the
Figure 2.Negative serviceencounters and complainthandling
Interactional
a) b) c) d)
Distributive
e)d)c)b)a)
Procedural
d)c)b)a)
e)
e)
Note: Three construct measurement models
MSQ20,1
38
IFI was 0.952, the TLI was 0.934, the CFI was 0.952, and RMSEA was 0.069 (confidenceinterval 90 percent: 0.066-0.072), all of which follows the recommended guidelines.
Assessment of construct validity and reliabilitySeveral measures were used to assess the validity and reliability of the DIP-constructs(Table IV). Convergent validity is the extent to which the individual items in a constructshare variance between them and is measured based on the variance extracted fromeach construct. The variance extracted for all constructs in both measurement models ofnegative service encounters and complaint handling exceeded the recommended 50percent (Hair et al., 2006) as shown in Table IV, ranging between 72 and 80 percent. Thereliability is also considered when evaluating constructs. All constructs in negativeservice encounters and complaint handling exhibited composite trait reliability levelsthat exceeded 0.7 (Hair et al., 2006, p. 777), ranging between 0.90 and 0.94.
Discriminant validity examines whether the constructs are measuring differentconcepts (Hair et al., 2006) and is assessed by comparing the variance extracted to thesquared inter-construct correlations. The variance extracted should be larger than thecorresponding squared inter-construct correlations and this condition was met in all
Negative service encounter Complaint handling
Distributive1. The outcome I received was fair 1. The outcome from the complaint I received was
fair2. The outcome I received was right 2. The outcome I received was right3. The company gave me the right value for
money3. The company gave me the right compensation
for my complaint4. The company’s efforts resulted in a fair
outcome for me4. The company’s efforts resulted in a fair
outcome for me5. The final outcome I received from the company
was fair, given the time and hassle5. The final outcome I received from the company
was fair, given the time and hassle with thecomplaint
Interactional1. The company really tried to be fair 1. The company really tried to be fair2. The company gave me the respect I deserved 2. The company gave me the respect I deserved3. The company’s employees worked as hard as
could be expected for this service3. The company’s employees worked as hard as
could be expected when I complained4. The company’s employees were honest and
ethical in dealing with me during the encounter4. The company’s employees were honest and
ethical in dealing with me during the encounter5. I was treated fairly by the company 5. I was treated fairly by the companyProcedural1. The company responded quickly to my needs 1. The company responded quickly to my
complaint2. The company had fair policies and practices for
dealing with customers2. The company had fair policies and practices for
complaint handling3. The company applied their guidelines and
procedures fairly3. The company applied their guidelines and
procedures fairly4. The company gave me the service I was entitled
to have4. The company handled the complaint as I was
entitled to have5. Overall, the procedures followed by the
company were fair5. Overall, the complaint handling procedures
followed by the company were fairTable III.Scale items
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
39
cases in both measurement models (Table IV). Consequently, the DIP-constructs ofnegative service encounters and complaint handling exhibited discriminant validity.Nomological validity means the relationships between the constructs is consistent withtheory (Figure 2). The constructs’ relationships were consistent with theory, thusconfirming nomological validity.
In conclusion, the recommended guidelines for convergent, discriminant, andnomological validity, as well as construct reliability, were all fairly well met. Therefore,it is concluded that the measurement properties of the DIP-constructs of negativeservice encounters and complaint handling applied in Norwegian customer-firmservice encounters indicate satisfactory validity and reliability.
Implications and conclusionsThe DIP-construct applied and tested in this study consists of 15 paired items ofperceived justice in negative service encounters and the complaint-handling processes,all of which generated the same three dimensions, namely:
(1) distributive;
(2) interactional; and
(3) procedural.
The results indicated that there should be three dimensions of justice instead of four,splitting interactional justice into the two dimensions of interpersonal andinformational justices. It should be noted that the dimensions were tested in parallelconfirmatory factor analyses indicating fairly satisfactory fit estimates. Furtherassessment verified acceptable construct validity and reliability.
An implication based upon the empirical findings and testing of the measurementmodels is that the dimensions of the DIP-construct might assist in the management ofperceived justice in customer-firm service encounters. Management might, i.e. benefitfrom using the items of the three dimensions as a checklist, or to create guidelines ofimportant factors for making sure that customers perceive the service as fair. Using thefindings of the study, these checklists can include the procedures, interactions andfairness of results, reflecting the three dimensions of justice. This study alsocontributes to confirm a 3D construct of perceived justice in both negative serviceencounters and for complaint handling. Furthermore, it has indicated how firms mayexamine and evaluate the process of customers’ perceived justice and their ownprocesses of service recovery in these service encounters.
As stated previously, the empirical findings indicated that the DIP-construct ofperceived justice in negative service encounters and complaint handling may be
classified into three dimensions. These dimensions were not time-dependent since thetime when the incidents occurred (i.e. ranging from 0 to 12 months). Furthermore, itconfirms the findings of identified dimensions in other and recent studies. This impliesthat the range of items used, and dimensions suggested in recent studies, may becategorized into the logic and classification of DIP-construct in customer-firm serviceencounters.
If there are three different dimensions of customers’ perceived justice in serviceencounters that can be expected as a reaction to negative incidents, it raises the concernof having one standardized way of service recovery, as it may not be enough.Strategies to manage the service recovery should consider the differentDIP-dimensions of negative incidents. Having dissatisfied customers afterinteracting with the firm is not appropriate for the customer-firm service encounter,so there should be a strategy to recover from any negative situation. Being prepared forthese three dimensions of perceived justice should hopefully enable the firm tomaintain and achieve successful processes of service recovery.
Based upon the findings in the current study, it is concluded that even though thecustomers’ perceived justice varies in strength over time, it may remain fairlyunchanged from the time when the negative incidents occur until after service recoveryprocesses haven taken place. Therefore, the link between the initial negative serviceencounters and the actual handling of the complaint is crucial in managing criticalincidents in service encounters.
Research limitations and proposals for the futureThe authors have reported on a study based upon customer-firm service encounters inthe Norwegian tourism industry. The study has tested the measurement properties of atheoretical model – the DIP-construct – consisting of the dimensions of distributive,interactional and procedural justices. The empirical findings have indicatedsatisfactory fit, validity, and reliability. Subsequently, the tested DIP-construct ofnegative service encounters and complaint handling may be seen as a basis for furtherresearch to refine and extend corporate effort in managing critical incidents of serviceencounters and complaint handling in customer-firm service encounters. Furthermore,the findings may also be relevant to customers’ perceived justice in other kinds ofservice encounters.
Whilst the empirical findings indicate satisfactory fit, validity, and reliability, thereare some research limitations that should be acknowledged. For example, it should benoted that the DIP-construct has only been tested on a sample consisting of specificcustomer-firm service encounters in the Norwegian tourism industry, which mayindicate less applicability and generality in other countries, cultures or contexts.Furthermore, the DIP-construct was tested on customer-firm service encounters,whereas other kinds of service encounters may possess other measurement properties.
Nevertheless, these research limitations provide opportunities for further researchin testing the items and the dimensions involved in the tested DIP-construct. Oneproposal for further research is to test the construct in other contexts that differ from,or alternatively are similar to, the one surveyed in the current study. It would bevaluable to examine whether there are any similarities amongst other contexts ofsimilar characteristics and/or if there were similarities or dissimilarities across othercontexts that are decidedly different from the context in focus.
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
41
Finally, like most survey research on a selected sample, the authors feel confidentthat the DIP-construct is accurate for the sample of those customer-firm serviceencounters examined in the current study, but potentially it may be a valid and reliablemeasurement model for other samples, service encounters, cultures and countries too.In summary, the authors believe that the DIP-construct tested in this study bringstogether, complements and fortifies previous theory and research in the context ofperceived justice in negative service encounters and complaint handling, and therefore,makes a valuable contribution to the research field in focus.
Finally, like most survey research on a selected sample, the authors feel confidentthat the DIP-construct is accurate for the sample of those customer-firm serviceencounters examined in the current study, but potentially it may be a valid and reliablemeasurement model for other samples, service encounters, cultures, and countries too.In summary, the authors believe that the DIP-construct tested in this study bringstogether, complements and fortifies previous theory and research in the context ofperceived justice in negative service encounters and complaint handling, and therefore,makes a valuable contribution to the research field in focus.
References
Arbuckle, J.L. (2008), AMOS 17.0 User’s Guide, SPSS and AMOS Development Corporation,Chicago, IL.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations inOrganizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosingfavorable and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997), “The effects of distributive, procedural, andinteractional justice on postcomplaint behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 2,pp. 185-210.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2003), “Angry customers don’t come back, they getback: the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 377-93.
Chung, B. and Hoffmann, K.D. (1998), “Critical incidents: service failures that matter most”,Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, June, pp. 66-71.
Colquitt, A.J. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of ameasure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, NY.
DeWitt, T., Nguyen, D.T. and Marshall, R. (2008), “Exploring customer loyalty following servicerecovery: the mediating effects of trust and emotions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 10,pp. 269-81.
Edvardsson, B. (1992), “Service breakdowns: a study of critical incidents in an airline”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 17-29.
Fornell, C. and Werneldt, B. (1987), “Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaintmanagement: a theoretical analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 337-46.
Goodman, J. (2006), “Manage complaints to enhance loyalty”, Quality Progress, Vol. 39 No. 2,pp. 28-34.
MSQ20,1
42
Goodwin, C. and Ross, I. (1989), “Salient dimensions of perceived fairness in resolution of servicecomplaints”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,Vol. 2, pp. 87-92.
Goodwin, C. and Ross, I. (1992), “Consumer responses to service failure: influence of proceduraland interactional fairness perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 149-63.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Looking fair versus being fair: managing impressions of organizationaljustice”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 111-57.
Gronroos, C. (1988), “New competition in the service economy: the five rules of service”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 9-19.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate DataAnalysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Heung, V.C.S. and Lam, T. (2003), “Customer complaint behavior towards hotell restaurantservices”, International Journal of Contempory Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 5,pp. 283-9.
Iyer, R. and Muncy, J.A. (2008), “Service recovery in marketing education: it’s what we do thatcounts”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Johnston, R. and Clark, G. (2001), Service Operation Management, Prentice-Hall, London.
Kelley, S.W., Hoffman, K.D. and Davis, M.A. (1993), “A typology of retail failures and recoveries”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 429-52.
Kim, Y.K. and Smith, A.K. (2005), “Crime and punishment: examining customers’ responses toservice organizations’ penalties”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-80.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press,New York, NY.
Lovelock, C.H. and Wirtz, J. (2007), Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy,Pearson/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McCole, P. (2004), “Dealing with complaints in services”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 345-54.
Mccoll-Kennedy, J.R. and Sparks, B.A. (2003), “Application of fairness theory to service failuresand service recovery”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 251-66.
McCollough, M.A., Berry, L.L. and Yadav, M.S. (2000), “An empirical investigation of customersatisfaction after service failure and recovery”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3,pp. 121-37.
Mattila, A.S. and Patterson, P.G. (2004), “Service recovery and fairness perceptions in collectivistand individualist contexts”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6, pp. 336-46.
Maxham, J.G. III and Netemeyer, R.G. (2003), “Firms reap what they sow: the effects of sharedvalues and perceived organizational justice on customers’ evaluations of complainthandling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Oliver, R.L. (1996), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.
Schoefer, K. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), “The role of emotions in translating perceptions of(in)justice into postcomplaint behavioral responses”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11,pp. 91-103.
Schoefer, K. and Ennew, C. (2005), “The impact of perceived justice on consumers’ emotionalresponses to service complaint experiences”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5,pp. 261-70.
DIP-construct ofperceived justice
43
Shapiro, T. and Nieman-Gonder, J. (2006), “Effect of communication mode in justice-based servicerecovery”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 124-44.
Sindhav, B., Holland, J., Rodie, A.R., Addidam, P.T. and Pol, L.G. (2006), “The impact of perceivedfairness on satisfaction: are airport security measures fair? Does it matter?”, Journal ofMarketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 323-35.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of customer satisfaction with serviceencounters involving failure and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3,pp. 356-72.
Stauss, B. and Seidel, W. (1998), “Prozessuale Zufriedenheitsermittlung undZufriedenheitsdynamik bei Dienstleistungen”, in Simon, H. and Homburg, C. (Eds),Kundenzufriedenheit, Konzepte – Methoden – Erfahrungen, 3rd ed., Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Stauss, B. and Seidel, W. (2004), Complaint Management: The Heart of CRM, ThomsonSouth-Western, Mason, OH.
Stephens, N. and Gwinner, K.P. (1998), “Why don’t some people complain? A cognitive-emotiveprocess model of consumer complaint behavior”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 172-89.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), “Customer evaluations of servicecomplaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 60-76.
Tronvoll, B. (2009), “The effect of negative emotions on customer complaint behaviour”,International Journal of Service Industry Management (in press).
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Voorhees, C.M. and Brady, M.K. (2005), “A service perspective on the drivers of complaintintentions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8, pp. 192-204.
Further reading
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surrounding on customer andemployees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 57-71.
Parasuraman, A.Z., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, pp. 12-40.
Roman, M.D. (1968), “Empathy, key to salesmanship”, Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 33No. 2, pp. 27-31.
About the authorsSander Svari works as an Assistant Professor and the Head of Department at Oslo School ofManagement. He writes a PhD in Service Marketing at Karlstad University, and has his mainfield of research within service, consumer behavior, and tourism. His work has been published injournals such as Managing Service Quality, Journal of Hospitality Management, and InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management. He is a frequent contributor at international conferences.Sander Svari is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Goran Svensson is a Professor at Oslo School of Management, Norway. He is also a Professorat Halmstad University, Sweden and a Honorary Professor at Deakin University, Australia. He isregular Guest Professor at National Chung Hsing University in Tai Chung, Taiwan. He holds aPhD from the School of Economics and Commercial Law, Goteborg University, Sweden.
MSQ20,1
44
Furthermore, he is a committed member of the international research community as journaleditor, numerous editorial boards, and scholarly/research networks and associations. He is afrequent author of international journal articles, international conference contributions andengaged as a book author. His research agenda consist of various research subjects and haspublished in areas such as: business ethics, leadership, logistics, marketing, sustainability,public sector management, quality management, academic journals, and publishing. Moredetails about him may be found at: www.nordinavia.se
Terje Slatten is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Tourism at LillehammerUniversity College, Norway. His research interests include service quality, service management,complaint handling, and loyalty. He is currently doing research on the role of emotions in serviceorganizations both from an employee and customer perspective. His work has been published inseveral journals such as Marketing Intelligence & Planning, International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, Managing Service Quality, Australasian Marketing Journal, andEuropean Business Review.
Bo Edvardsson is a Professor and the Director of CTF-Service Research Center University ofKarlstad, Sweden and an Editor of Journal of Service Management. He is the (co)-author of17 books, for instance Values-based Service for Sustainable Business: Lessons from IKEA,Routledge, 2009. He has published 80 articles in scholarly journals. His research interest are newservice development, service innovation, customer experiences, service infusion inmanufacturing, and dynamics in customer relationships. He is a Fellow of Hanken BusinessSchool Finland, Center for Service Leadership at Arizona State University, USA and NationalTsing Hua University, Taiwan. His awards include 2008 Commendation for LifetimeAchievement to scholarship from The European Association for Service Research and in 2004Career Contributions to the Services Discipline Award from American Marketing Association.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
