TITLE OF THE RESEARCH: CULTURAL FACTORS AND COMMUNICATION IN SERVICE RECOVERY

COURSE NAME: BUSINESS RESEARCH METHOD (BUS485)

SECTION: 02

GROUP NUMBER: 08

GROUP MEMBERS’ NAME AND ID:

SUBHA KHAN 1610027

AHMAD TALHA 1531081

SAMAILA CHOWDHURY 1611178

ISHRAT RAHMAN 1611065

TASNUF AHMED 1630105

Submitted to
Mohammed Sohel Islam
Senior Lecturer
School of Business

DATE:31.03.2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Introduction

2. Statement of the Problem

3. Purpose of the Study

4. Review of Literature

5. Questions and Hypotheses

6. The Research Design – Methods and Procedures

7. Limitations

8. Significance of the Study

9. Reference

10. Appendix
 1. INTRODUCTION:

Hotel industry one of the fastest growing industry in the current scenario .The demand of hotel industry
has been increase in recent time and now day’s tourists want highly specialized as well as customized
services from hotel industry. In addition, competition in the field of hotel industry and tourism has always
been extremely on top and it is always difficult for newcomers to adopt the new trends and demand their
own market share. Therefore, Hotel industry professionals need to focus on offering better quality
services at affordable prices for the customers. The main goal of the industry is to obtain customer
satisfaction in terms of services and money and maintain stable relationship with customers in long term
basis.

Services recovery is the action that the services provider should adopt for the services failure
(Gronroos,1988,p.10-13) Researches indicated that the service recovery could enhance
customers’ perceptive value, satisfactory feeling, loyalty and credit, and the satisfactory service
recovery is propitious to reduce customers’ conversion intention and fluidity (Bitner, 1990,
Lewis, 2004, & Cong, 2007). McCollough’s “service recovery paradox” even pointed out that
customer’s satisfaction after service recovery would exceed customer’s satisfaction without
service failure, which more showed the importance of service recovery (Boshoff, 1999, P.236-
249).

However, satisfying a customer is a very difficult job for any industry especially when it comes
to services industry. Earlier studies have shown that consumers “level of satisfaction is generally
lower for the services than product (Andreasen & Best,1977). When it comes for hotel industry,
where customer want high level of services and personal interaction with many departments and
services failure is sometimes difficult to avoid by the industry. Services recovery is an important
marketing tool which provide an another chance for the hotel industry to satisfy the consumers
demands. The outcomes of services recovery will strongly influence the customer’s opinion of
the hotel industry.This essay focuses to identify and evaluate previous services recovery process
with the current process in the hotel industry. It is also show that services recovery in the hotel
industry has influence on the tourism and the images of a location. Furthermore, essay will show
how the services recovery experience affects consumer’s behavior for hotel industry.

The service industry is the most important pillar of the global economy (Lee et al., 2007). Understanding
and satisfying customer needs is crucial to the survival of any hotel, regardless of how small or large it is
or whether it is a private or public hotel. Unfortunately, service failure does occur occasionally. As
services involve customers, customer-contact employees, support staff, and suppliers, the chance that one
of these parties will fail to deliver100 percent is always present. Fisketal. (1993) recognized that it is
impossible to ensure 100 percent error-free service. When a service failure occurs, the hotel and its
employees must take remedial action to restore customer satisfaction. If not, the affected customer may
lose her or his confidence in the organization and switch to a competing firm (Ro, 2014; Smith et al.,
1999). Although service failure and service recovery have been extensively researched in the past two
decades (Davidow, 2003; Dong etal.,2008; Ro,2014; Smithetal.,1999; Taxetal.,1998; Xuetal.,2014),
researchers have not yet fully answered the questions such as why customers are willing to participate in
the co-creation of service recovery (CCSR), how important their roles in co-creation are, and what form
their co-creation takes are. Hence, a systematic investigation is needed to examine how the process of
customer involvement with service failure (CISF) can explain customer satisfaction with service recovery
(CSSR). CISF refers to the psychological attitude of a customer toward a service failure in terms of the
importance and personal relevance of the failure to her or him. Such information will be useful for
researchers in highlighting the salient role of customer CCSR, and will help service managers to find
appropriate ways of encouraging customers to co-create in service recovery.
It is well-known that services are intangible and created at the same time they are being consumed,
leaving the distinct possibility of something going wrong in the service delivery process resulting in
customer expectations not being met (Sparks and Fredline, 2007). It is widely accepted that when retail
banks interact with customer service failures often take place (Jones and Farquhar, 2007). In the instances
where service failures take place customers can react in various ways that include negative emotional
responses and dissatisfaction toward the service provider, such as complaints and customer defection
(Piha and Avlonitis, 2015; Sparks and Fredline, 2007; Tronvoll, 2011). Considering the service-dominant
logic that services hold the prospect for service providers to co-create value with customers by following
a systems orientation (Vargo and Lusch, 2008), customers who complain provide service providers (such
as banks) with an opportunity to put service recovery efforts in place in response to customer complaints
(Jones and Farquhar, 2007).

For hotels, it is hard to avoid service failure, but what they can do is make sure is to work on it
immediately. This will lead to better customer satisfaction and feedback. This will also help to maintain
the image of a good hotel and will hold strong goodwill.

2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

Ideal: The service industry is the most important pillar of the global economy. Service recovery is mainly
understanding and satisfying customer needs it also allows organizations to learn what form of action
customers are likely to take and how important their perception of justice of service recovery is, and their
satisfaction with service recovery. The ultimate goal of a statement of the problem is to transform a
generalized problem into a targeted, well defined problem; one that can be resolved through focused
researches careful decision making. Our findings are therefore relevant to managers of online
organizations who operate globally or cater to customers that belong to multicultural backgrounds. Their
main aim is take action in response of service failure. Service recovery efforts can take many forms and
range from explaining why things went wrong to reimbursing aggrieved customers. It must also be
remembered that customers have clear predilections regarding the way they want a service failure to be
recovered, and a service provider should provide the service recovery /effort customers prefer.

Reality: It is well-known that services are intangible and created at the same time they are being
consumed, leaving the distinct possibility of something going wrong in the service delivery process
resulting in customer expectations not being met. Customers can react in various ways that include
negative emotional responses and dissatisfaction toward the service provider, such as complaints and
customer defection. It is also widely recognized that consumers’ sense of justice based on the service
recovery efforts of a service provider once a complaint has been lodged, drives their behavior and
intentions. This study focuses in particular on the perceived justice construct where a service failure has
occurred followed by a complaint and an ensuing response by the service provider. Although retail
banking is known to experience many service failures, a study has not been uncovered in retail banking in
South Africa that focused on the interrelationships between perceived justice, SS and behavioral intention
(BI). However, studies have been undertaken in the South African context in this environment with
relation to service failures. Therefore, this study provides insight into the South African banking industry
– it examines perceived justice, the levels of SS and BI as well as the interrelationship between the
constructs in a post-complaint setting. Since service failures because both psychological and financial loss
and service failure have a negative effect on customer loyalty, offering an apology represents an
acknowledgment to the customer that there indeed is a problem and that the organization is serious about
solving it.

Consequences: In response to this problem, our study proposes to investigate several options for making
the customers; needs to be fulfilled properly. The test of service excellence comes when a bad experience
is swiftly and honestly addressed and turned around. However, providing services to the customer is
actually very difficult. Unfortunately, the services provided to the customer can never be perfect; the
failures can be due to unprompted employee action, failure to respond to specific customer needs or also
due to core service facilities. Therefore, the companies trying their best to reduce mistake and trying to
satisfy customer needs. In the competitive market place service recovery is key issue and a matter of great
concern for companies. It is an observed norm that customer who experience of service failure are
typically observe discussing incident with other persons. On the other hand, customers who do not face
failure only tend to tell other person about their positive experience. Effective service recovery therefore
holds great importance and is crucial maintaining customer and employee loyalty and satisfaction.

“To know how smartly and fast the hotel deals with service failure, and the complains and
suggestions of the customers regarding the service failure”-Problem Statement

3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:

There is much research aims at why customers switch service organizations but it also very
important to have more or considerable focus on why customers do not switch service
organizations specially Hotels. Because of globalization and huge competition in tourism market
hotel managers concern more on how to get and retain customers. The purpose of this research is
to uncover some influential factors that work as effective switching barriers which help the
hotels to retain customers and attract competitors’ customers by working on these factors. The
research also aims to identify few factors that affect the customers switching behavior in the
hotel industry. Bangladesh banking industry is very competitive. Almost all hotels offer same
kind of services. So it’s very important to retain customers for any hotel to get more revenue and
cost savings from those customers. This research tries to find out how offering alternatives,
apologizing and owning the responsibility, acknowledging the customer’s feelings, anticipating
the customer needs and making amends influence customers’ switching behavior in the
Bangladeshi hotel industry.

4. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
4.1: Customer involvement with service failure
Involvement is known to be a factor influencing consumer decisions reported that customer involvement
can be considered a motivational state of mind (arousal) that is goal directed. defined customer
involvement as a subjective psychological state that reflects the importance and personal relevance of a
product or service to a customer. Previous studies showed that consumer involvement affects product
selection, purchase decisions, and brand loyalty. In the case of a service failure, when a customer
perceives the service failure to be important and to have a close personal relevance to her/him, customer
involvement will influence whether s/he will give the organization a chance to rectify, amend, or restore
the losses and how s/he will facilitate such remedial action. Hence, we define “CISF” as the
psychological attitude of a custom customer toward a service failure in terms of the perceived degree of
its importance and severity.

Link between customer involvement with service failure with procedural J justice
CISF, customer involvement with service failure explains customer satisfaction with service recovery
(CSSR). CISF refers to the psychological attitude of a customer toward a service failure in terms of the
importance and personal relevance of the failure to her or him. Procedural J justice is the ideology of
receiving fairness of a due process. model. The alternative model included paths in which CISF was
linked to PJ, in a similar vein, the amount of time and effort that a customer spends on a service failure
may shape the procedures surrounding that failure. According to the self-interest model of PJ, input is
salient because it has instrumental value (Lind et al., 1990). Thus, a customer may perceive that providing
input will encourage the service organization or salesperson to enact decisions that are beneficial to the
interests of that customer. A customer who provides more input of time and efforts will have a higher
chance of ensuring that the enacted procedures are fair (e.g. accurate information is used), which will
enhance her or his perception of PJ. Providing input into resolving a service failure may enhance a
customer’s feeling of self-worth through recognition of one’s sound ideas. In this context, a customer who
provides input may feel that s/he is a valuable customer of the service organization.

This study suggests that consumer responses to service failures may be influenced by perceptions
of procedural and interactional fairness. Procedural fairness is operationalized as the consumer's
opportunity to present information and express feelings, or “voice.” Interactional fairness is
operationalized as an apology to the consumer. A 2 X 2 X 2 X 4 between-subjects experimental
design manipulated levels of complaint outcome, apology, voice, and type of service. Apology
and voice appeared to enhance fairness and satisfaction perceptions in the “favorable outcome”
condition, when consumers were offered a discount or gift after service failure. When no tangible
offering was made, apology and voice had lesser effect and in some instances were associated
with lower perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. Implications for practitioners and researchers
are discussed.

Link between customer involvement with service failure with distributive Justice
DJ describes customers’ perceptions of whether they have been treated fairly with respect to the final
outcome told by Maxham and Netemeyer. It refers to the assignment of tangible resources by the
organization to compensate customers for service failures, such as refunds described by
(McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003). Distributive Justice are closely associated with different amounts
and forms of overcompensation for severe service failures. CISF is positively related to DJ. If the
customer perceives that the degree of CISF is likely to provide him/her with fair compensation of
allocated resources for the invested time and effort, the customer’s perception of DJ on that failure should
be high. An example of a DJ item was, “in resolving the problem, I got what I deserved’’.

Distributive justice is a concept that addresses the ownership of goods in a society. It assumes
that there is a large amount of fairness in the distribution of goods. Equal work should provide
individuals with an equal outcome in terms of goods acquired or the ability to acquire goods. For
more service failure, the people part of the delivery system succeeded, but other aspects remain
unsatisfactory. Hospitality organizations should not admit liability for unfortunate, unavoidable
occurrences that are not it’s fault, but the hotels should do everything in their power to rectify
such situations. defined distributive justice as “the allocation of costs and benefits in achieving
equitable exchange relationships”. It is theassignment of tangible resources by the firm to rectify
and compensate for a service failure, it refers to the perceived fairness of the service failure
outcome (Holloway, Wang, & Beatty, 2009). Distributive justice focuses on the outcome
(Holloway, Wang, & Beatty, 2009). Distributive justice focuses on the outcome of the exchange
that includes monetary rewards such as refunds for failed service, discounts, and coupons.

Link between customer involvement with service failure with interactional Justice

IJ describes customers’ perceptions of whether they have been treated in a respectful, dignified, and
timely manner, and have been given adequate explanations during the process of service recovery.
Customer involvement with service failure is positively related with interactional Justice. In this context,
a customer who provides input may feel that s/he is a valuable customer of the service organization and
that the top management treats customers with respect and dignity. Hence, the customers may have higher
perceptions of IJ. Conversely, when a customer is highly involved with a service failure, the customer is
willing to communicate and exchange views with sales personnel regarding how to best fix the service
failure. In the highly uncertain environment of a service failure, communicating and exchanging views on
how to fix the failure reduces the level of uncertainty The solicited views of the customers involved may
explicitly or implicitly convey the reasons behind organizational decisions and enacted procedures;
therefore, such views will indicate whether customers are treated fairly in terms of receiving the amount
of empathetic concerns and updated information on service.

Interactional justice: Tax et al. (1998, p. 62) defined interactional justice as “the per- ceiled
fairness of interpersonal treatment that people receive during the enactment of procedures”. In
service recovery context, interactional justice means the evaluation of the degree to which the
customers have experienced justice in human interactions of the degree to which the customers
have experienced justice in human interactions from the employees of service firms during the
recovery process (Sparks & McColl- Kennedy, 2001). Interactional justice focuses on the
interpersonal aspect of these processes. The notion of interact- tonal justice was introduced by
Bies and Moag (1986), who began to questionwhether the construct of procedural justice was
potentially confounded. They argued that the fairness of procedures should be analyzed
separately from the fairness of inter- personal communication during organizational processes.
They called this perceived airness of interpersonal treatment as “interactional justice’.

4.2: Customer co-creation of service recovery

Encouraging the customers in the CCSR and by enhancing their justice perception of the recovery
process. To encourage customers to co-, create, service practitioners can provide extrinsic benefits, such
as cash coupons, patronage, and vouchers, to compensate customers for the time and possibly travel costs
of co-creating the service recover. To facilitate the effectiveness of customer co-creation, service
marketers may provide effective communication platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, and mobile apps
for customers to share their service knowledge and co-creation experiences. For example, AXA created
People Protectors (www.facebook.com/axapeopleprotectors/) on Facebook in 2011. It is an online
community focused on protecting. people through projects carried out around the world. AXA
complements this Facebook page with its episodes about my health, my family and home, my business,
my trips and travels, and my planet to engage people to share knowledge and experiences. In doing so,
AXA encourages customers to co-create new products and services on “protection.” Improving and
encouraging IS between organizations and customers are central to excellent service and service recovery.
It is
because only when customers’ experiences and feelings are thoroughly known, service.

Link between customer co-creation service recovery with procedural Justice

Procedural justice refers to the methods the firm uses to deal with the problems arising during
service delivery in aspects such as accessibility, timing/speed, process control, delay and
flexibility to adapt to the consumer's recovery needs. Several studies show thatprocedure
Pal justice has a positive effect on the consumer's satisfaction with complaint handling
(Homburg and First, 2005; Karatepe, 2006; Tax et al., 1998), but its relationship with SSR is not
clear. On the one hand, in a study of banking and new home construction services, Maxham and
Netemeyer (2002) find that procedural justice does not have a significant effect on SSR. But, on
the other hand, in a study of the online purchase of electronic equipment, these same authors
(Maxham and Netemeyer, 2003) determine that procedural justice significantly influences the
consumer's SSR.With regard to the effects of procedural justice on emotions, empirical evidence
suggests that low levels of perceived procedural justice elicit negative emotions (Schoefer and
Ennew, 2005; Weisset al.,1999). More specifically, Chebat and Slusarczyk (2005) establish that
quick SR does not generate positive emotions, while slow Generates negative feelings. In this
respect, procedural justice is basic requirement, since customers expect providers to correct
failures in the service delivery quickly.

CCSR, and PJSR are the key inputs in determining marketing exchanges that ensure contented customers.
Unlike previous research that overwhelmingly emphasizes the role of perceived justice in customer
satisfaction, we have little understanding on what predicts for customers’
PJSR. Given the full mediating role of PJSR, CISR is not directly linked to CSSR. This result contributes
to literature on service recovery that customers who consider service failure to be important and severe
will be contented with the service recovery only when they perceive fairness on the amount and process
of how they are interpersonally treated and compensated for service failures. PJSR is also served as a
partial mediator on the link between CCSR and CSSR. This result extends the study of Ellyawati land
Vázquez-Casielles et al. that exchange of information and co-participating in the service recovery not
only promote PJSR, but also enhance customers’ self-esteem and justify their co-created efforts by
having a higher level of CSSR.
Link between customer co-creation service recovery with distributive Justice

Distributive justice (DJ) involves a sense that the outcome from the interaction following the negative
service encounter and subsequent complaint was fair described by Voorhees and Brady. Distributive
Justice has link with customer co creation service recovery. It has critical factors which is influencing
customer satisfaction after a service recovery. We know that customer satisfaction is an important
determinant of key outcome variables such as trust, commitment, and negative word of mouth. The study
found that interactional and distributive justice (DJ) experienced in response to the service recovery
efforts of a hotel significantly and positively influence SS, and that SS in turn significantly and positively
influences the BI of these customers.

Distributive justice positively affects the customer's SSR. A large number of empirical works
study this component of justice, and considerable evidence exists to indicate that distributive
justice is positively related to satisfaction with complaint handling (Homburg and First, 2005;
Karatepe, 2006; Tax et al.,1998). Researchers also find that distributive justice raises SSR
(Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002, 2003; Smith et al., 1999). Studies analyzing the effects of
recovery-related justice one motions using experimental designs show that low levels of
perceived justice correorrespond to high levels of negative emotions (angry, furious, enraged,
annoyed, sad) and low levels of positive emotions (happy, pleased, joyful). In this research line,
Schoefer andEnnew's (2005)work stands out for it consideration of the threedimensions of
justice (distributive, procedural and interactional), while earlier studies (Weiss et al., 1999;
William, 1999) only analyzethe impact of distributive and/or procedural justice.

Link between customer co-creation service recovery with interactional Justice.

Customers may have higher perceptions of IJ when a customer is highly involved with a service failure,
the customer is willing to communicate and exchange views with sales personnel regarding how to best
fix the service failure. Usually the interactional J has no effect on satisfaction with service recovery. To
promote co-creation, service managers are advised to facilitate customers to assess the information on
how and what customers can co-create including new products, services, and service recovery, and share
their information, opinions, and experiences on the organizations’ websites. IJ describes customers’
perceptions of whether they have been treated in a respectful, dignified, and timely manner, and have
been given adequate explanations during the process of service recovery.

This component of justice includes customers' perceptions aboutemployees' empathy, courtesy,

sensitivity, treatment and the effortthey expend to solve the problem. Empirical studies show that
fairinterpersonal treatment contributes to satisfaction with complainthandling (Davidow, 2003;
Homburg and Fürst, 2005; Karatepe, 2006; Tax et al., 1998), and SSR encounter According
toWeiss et al. (1999), studies of perceived justiceassume that emotions play a key role in
transferring perceptions ofinjustice to subsequent attitudes and behaviors. But researchers in
theSR context barely examine this question, perhaps because, asmentioned earlier, evidence of
the effects of justice on emotions isonly recent. The most notable study on this question is
byChebat andSlusarczyk (2005), whofind that emotions triggered by SR mediatethe effects of
the three justice dimensions on loyalty.Schoefer andEnnew (2005), combining justice theory and
cognitive appraisaltheory, also suggest that perceived justice h s both a direct andindirect effect
(via emotions) on consumers' satisfaction. In otherwords, they consider that emotions triggered
by SR mediate therelation between perceived justice and satisfaction. However, they donot
empirically analyze this possible mediating role of emotions, sincetheir research centers on
analyzing the link between the dimensionsof perceived justice and emotional responses.

4.3: Offline vs Online Public channel; Private vs Public apology

Virtually all sources on service recovery stress the importance of offering an apology to
complaining customers. To date, however, our understanding of who should offer the apology
and how to offer the apology is still limited. Taking a cross-cultural perspective. Eastern
customers attach more value to a manager (vis-à-vis a frontline employee) offering an apology
than Western customers in an offline retailing context, but not in an online retailing context. In
an online setting the status of service personnel matter for Eastern customers, but only if the
apology is provided publicly on social media and not if the apology is provided online privately.
Global e-commerce managers can benefit from these findings when developing their service
recovery strategies. By demonstrating that recovery strategies that are proposed and tested in
offline settings are non-transferrable to online settings, this article provides a clearer
understanding of service recovery across online and offline channels. Based on face theory, this
research highlights the public versus private nature of an apology in a global online retailing
context, thus contributing to the emerging research in online service recovery. Every day,
customers across the globe complain to firms about online service failures. For example, 46
percent of British customers complained about their online purchases over a 2-year period
(2012−2014); similar figures have been reported in other countries. Due to increased
globalization, firms face the challenge of responding to complaints of customers with varying
cultural backgrounds. Given the increasing number of complaints coming from diverse group of
customers, managers need an understanding of how they can respond optimally to customer
complaints, and to what extent their responses need to be adapted to cultural influences. One of
the clearest recommendations in service recovery literature is that organizations should apologize
for service failures. Offering an apology generally increases perceived justice and, hence,
customer outcomes. Researchers have also outlined cross-cultural differences in customer
evaluations of an apology. Yet existing literature relating to cross-cultural service recovery
almost exclusively concerns offline contexts and not online and low contact contexts across the
globe.

Link between Offline Vs Online Public channel; Private vs Public apology and informational Justice
There may come a time when the separation between the online and offline worlds is indistinct, and that
may indeed be what some technology/social networking companies desire: a harmonious connection
between the physical and virtual world. Service failure refers to a service performance that falls below a
customer's expectations (Hoffman and Bateson, 1997). Psychology literature indicates that based on
innate predispositions and experience, people tend to weigh negative memories more than good ones (i.e.
negativity bias, Rozin and Royzman, 2001). At its essence, any service failure is a negative experience
from a customer's perspective at the moment it occurs, and therefore contains a potential to damage the
firm's long‐term profitability if not properly managed ( Bitner et al., 1990; Tax et al., 1998). Service
recovery refers to the actions a service provider takes in response to service failures (Gronroos, 1988),
pursuing to return a dissatisfied customer to a state of satisfaction (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991).
Successful recovery efforts alleviate a customer's negative attitude from the initial service failures and
further, even reverse the situation and make customers delighted, called service recovery paradox
(McCollough et al., 2000). However, a company's recovery efforts often do fail as well, reinforcing
customers' negative attitudes towards the organization (Hart et al., 1990). Double deviation refers to a
situation where a customer perceives a company's inappropriate and/or inadequate response to initial
failures in a service delivery system (Bitner et al., 1990). Double deviation generates “the magnification
of negative effects” (Bitner et al., 1990, p. 80), that is, a company's failed recovery effort exacerbates
customers' already low attitudes toward the seller, leading to a state of extreme dissatisfaction. After
recovery failures, regaining a customer's high‐level satisfaction and good emotion might not be possible,
even if a company provides extensive recovery efforts (Johnston and Fern, 1999). As such, double
deviations damage a company's reputation and profitability in a critical manner (Bitner et al.,
1990; Hart et al., 1990; Johnston and Fern, 1999). The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of
informational justice on post-recovery satisfaction, and the effect of post-recovery satisfaction on the
behavioral purpose of the whole business. Moreover, also including further investigation of the mediate
effect of service failure severity. Companies may have tried as much as they can, to prevent service
failure and to serve well, but service failure can still be there. 100% service quality cannot be mentioned,
especially if it done by the customers. Furthermore, customer satisfaction is strongly influenced by the
processes of service recovery, rather than mere compensation. Informational justice relates to the
adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness. It needs to be
considered as an essential factor in the service recovery process. The information required for this hotel
business must be delivered on time, open, honest and accurate. In the context of the different hotels that
we are working with, the concept of informational justice is apparently related to employee job
satisfaction. As moving forward, it is known that informational justice is positively interconnected to
post-recovery satisfaction, making informational justice as a vital factor in the online business,
specifically in the service recovery process.

4.4: National Culture: Eastern vs Western

This article offers two main contributions to the literature. First, contrary to Patterson, Cowley, and
Prasongsukarn’s findings in an offline face-to-face hospitality services context, we show that, in an
online context, the status of the contact personnel does not matter for Eastern and Western customers.
This is because unlike offline encounters between customers and service providers that are mostly public
in nature, online encounters are often private (e.g., when using e-mail). Therefore “face” is activated in
offline and not in online environments. Second, this article shows that, counterintuitively service firms
can still activate face in online, low contact encounters under certain conditions such as offering a public
online apology on social media. More specifically, for Eastern customers, the status of the contact
personnel matters if the apology is provided online publicly (e.g., using Twitter), but not if the apology is
provided privately (e.g., using e-mail). As such, this article shows that the public versus private nature of
an online apology offered by high status contact personnel drives customer reactions after service failure.
Overall, this article enhances the understanding of service recovery in an increasingly global and online
market. Understanding how organizations can customize their service offerings in a global market was
listed recently as a service research priority. Our findings are therefore relevant to managers of online
organizations who operate globally or cater to customers that belong to multicultural backgrounds.
Link between National culture and Offline vs online channel
Throughout human history new technological advancement have had a significant effect on culture. The
internet works in a way through which broad social and cultural anxieties are communicated. This is why
having so many criticisms around its impression on offline culture comes out in such a way that it cannot
be ignored. Time to time the people are proved that the internet is changing human life into a more
developed and productive existence. Moreover, it is also claimed that as more days are passing this social
media will have even greater influence on the national culture. The social media imparts a medium
through which this kind of organizations can achieve greater transparency, meaning and publication.
Furthermore, it also takes into account the way of interacting innovative ideas, rituals and identities.
Mainly, the culture of everyday life has become advanced with the internet. Over the years as public have
become more technologically intelligent it seems that the right to talk freely and let everyone else know
what they are up to is a definite way to be connected with the whole world. It has invented a particular
platform for individuals to share knowledge about issues that concerns them. Easy access to any kind of
information necessary for any kind of purpose. Understanding how tourists acquire knowledge is crucial
to developing effective marketing communication strategies. With the advent of the Internet, tourist
information search strategies have changed drastically. However, few studies have analyzed their new
search patterns in depth. This article analyses preferred information sources including both personal and
impersonal sources. The trade-off between online and offline sources is also examined. Results indicate
that travelers seek more information online when the source is impersonal. For personal sources and for
long, expensive and foreign trips, offline sources still remain crucial.

4.5: Status of service personnel: High vs Low

Status is party established by social position--e.g. boss and employee--but mainly by the way you interact.
If you interact in a way that says you are not to be trifled with, the other person must adjust to you, then
you are establishing high status. If you interact in a way that says you are willing to go along, you don't
want responsibility, that's low status. A boss can play low status or high status. An employee can play low
status or high status.

Status is established in every line and gesture, and changes continuously. Status is something that one
character plays to another at a particular moment. If you convey that the other person must not cross you
on what you're saying now, then you are playing high status to that person in that line. Your very next line
might come out low status, as you suggest willingness to defer about something else.

LINK BETWEEN STATUS OF SERVICE PERSONNEL HIGH VS LOW AND INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE -

Cultural values influence how customers evaluate their service encounters and form fairness
perceptions about recovery. These studies typically investigated the impact of two specific
cultural orientations: power distance (i.e., the extent to which the less powerful members of a
society accept that power is distributed unequally among them) and individualism-collectivism
(i.e., the degree of interdependence a society maintains within its members). For instance,
Patterson, Cowley, and Prasongsukarn showed that power distance influences customers’
 interaction with the service provider based on the status of the service personnel performing the
recovery.
Research showed that customers high in power distance (e.g., Thais) value an apology delivered
by high-status personnel more than an apology delivered by low-status personnel, whereas
customers low in power distance (e.g., Australians) appear to be indifferent to the personnel’s
status . In an online context, the issue of who should apologize for a service failure seems to be
ignored. Our research studies the role of service personnel status (e.g., manager vs. agent) on
justice perception in online versus offline contexts, and examines how this relationship depends
on the cultural background of customers. We argue that, due to the mediating role of technology.
What About Status in the Workplace?.
 

Problem exists in work teams. Stuart Bunderson at Washington University has studied how
groups determine who has what kind of expertise. Groups tend to perform better when people
identify the location of different kinds of expertise accurately. 
 
Studies show that people are not always good at identifying the most expert members in a
particular area, often assuming incorrectly that the most dominant and assertive members are
most expert. In other words, status perceptions impact the expectations that people have of
themselves and others.

Stuart Bunderson performed his research with a large number of production teams in a large IT
company. He looked at a number of factors including
 
 The types of status cues that correlate to people’s ideas of expertise, either specific
cues directly related to the task at hand, such as prior experience, or diffuse cues, general
information about the person such as race and gender (and, I imagine, the tendency to speak
assertively and who has the corner office). These two kinds of cues are identified in Status
Characteristics Theory.
 
 Whether the team had been together for a short or long time.
 
 Whether decision-making in the team was centralized or decentralized. In the centralized
case, decision-making is performed by one person (at most a small number of people) often
because decision-makers hoard power. In the decentralized case, team members have roughly
equivalent influence on the decisions that are made.
In brief, he found that teams that were short-term and centralized tended to rely more on diffuse
status cues, while long-term and decentralized teams relied more on specific status cues. Time
clearly gives people a chance to learn more clearly where expertise lies, and people in
decentralized teams put more effort into locating expertise because they have more say in how it
will be used.

Understanding High-Status and Low-Status Work in Your Organization

The problem here is not that a distinction between high-status work and low-status work exists,
but rather that so many organizations do not take the necessary steps to understand and manage it.
Are the tasks considered “high-status” by your team actually impactful? Are people seeking out
high-status work because they feel uniquely qualified to do that work, or because the work itself
feels like a prize or a reward? Are “low-status” tasks receiving the attention they deserve? And
how much attention do they deserve, anyhow?

Answering these questions is not easy, and requires having some frank and uncomfortable
conversations. At most companies, everybody instinctively knows what work is high-status and
what work is low-status. And yet, any outward acknowledgement of this distinction seems
somehow gauche, classist, against the supposedly egalitarian principles of the modern “flat”
organization. One-on-one meetings are often a great time to initiate these conversations, and to
get a better picture of how the distinction between high-status work and low-status work is
implicitly understood by your team at large. Here is one exercise I’ve run in one-on-one meetings
to help people understand and navigate high-status and low-status work for themselves and their
organizations:

1. Write out a list of everything you do on a given day.

2. Map it out on a two-by-two grid of high-impact vs. low-impact, and high-status vs. low-
status.
3. A quick exercise to map the relative status and impact of day-to-day tasks

This exercise is both a good means of gathering information and a clear way to signal that high-
status work and high-impact work are not always the same thing. Sometimes, this exercise
reveals that some kind of critically important work (often something adjacent to customer service
and support) is considered extremely low-status. Other times, it reveals that some kind of
extremely high-status work (often technical in nature) is not having nearly the impact it should.
Usually, it reveals some combination both.

Here’s a more informal diagnostic I’ve used to get a quick feel for how an organization
approaches high-status and low-status work: offer to pick up coffee for somebody in a
leadership position. Do they offer to pay for it, or do they assume that you will pay for it? Do
they express gratitude, or do they imply that you are too important for that task and offer to have
somebody else do it for you? When you see them next, do they assume that you are always going
to be the person who brings them coffee?

Managing High-Status and Low-Status Work

Acknowledging and understanding the distinction between high-status and low-status work is an
important first step — but once this distinction has been brought into the light, it is critical that
leaders take decisive actions to manage how high-status and low-status work is understood and
delegated. Here are some concrete steps individuals and organizations can take to achieve a more
transparent and harmonious balance:

Distribute low-status, low-impact work more equitably

When low-status and low-impact work (such as doing the dishes) is not managed carefully, even
the most trivial-seeming tasks can take on outsized significance as markers of status. Try
randomly and specifically assigning a different employee to do any unwashed dishes on different
days of the week, and see how quickly this dynamic changes (and how quickly “do your own
dishes” changes from a passive-aggressive suggestion to a strictly enforced rule).

Acknowledge the impact of low-status, high-impact work — not just the work itself

Rather than simply acknowledging low-status work for its own sake — which can come off as
dismissive and condescending — acknowledge the impact it had on an overall project. For
example, rather than saying “… and thanks to our office manager for bringing us tasty treats,” you
could say “our office manager provided critical support that enabled us to ship this feature on-
time.”

Enforce a culture of respect

Too often, I’ve seen employees who do high-status work employees who do low-status work
badly. This should not be acceptable. If you see an higher personal rolling their eyes at a sales
person who is struggling to meet a client need, have a conversation with them about it.

Avoid further devaluing low-status work by framing it as “paying your dues” on the way to
high-status work
Finally, avoid dangling “high-status work” as a proverbial carrot for people tasked with doing
high-impact, low-status work. This further reinforces the idea that the work they are currently
doing is not important or valuable. If you are hiring somebody specifically to do work that your
organization considers low-status, hire somebody who is passionate and knowledgeable about that
work. Acknowledge their expertise early and often, and work with your team to make sure that
they do the same.

In a context, Eastern customers perceived higher levels of informational justice and recovery
satisfaction when offered apology from high-status service personnel as compared to low-status
service personnel in public, but not in private. Western customers were indifferent to the apology
status of service personnel in public or private mode. These findings provide more insights into
the mechanisms associated with apology status, showing that the positive effects of having a
high-status employee responding to an online complaint only occur if this response is visible to
other in-group
4.6: Distributive Justice (DJ):

Distributive justice seeks to specify what is meant by a just distribution of goods among members of
society. All wide-ranging theories may be seen as expressions of laissez-faire with compensations for
factors that they consider to be righteous arbitrary. More specifically, such theories may be interpreted as
specifying that the outcome of individuals acting independently, without the intervention of any central
authority, is just, provided that those who receive compensation from those who fare well.

In Hotel management, DJ describes customers’ perceptions of whether they have been treated fairly with
respect to the final outcome. (Fung Yi MIllissa Cheung, March 2016)

Distributive justice (DJ) involves a sense that the outcome from the interaction following the negative
hotel service encounter and subsequent complaint was fair. Distributional justice influences service
satisfaction of hotel’s customers. The findings emphasize the prominence of distributive justice in the
context of this study. The hotel must make sure that customers experience the outcome of the recovery
efforts as fair. Customers must also sense that they were well treated by the hotel and that the outcome of
the interaction resulted in a positive outcome. (Daniel J. Petzer and Christine F. De Meyer-Heydenrych,
April 2016)

DJ is mainly deals with inequalities, and in this scenario the hotel deals with the customers by making
sure they have no complains, and if they do, an immediate action will be taken to make sure the customer
is satisfied, or whether in solving a matter they got what they deserve.

Link between Distributive Justice and Service Recovery:

Distributive justice focuses on the allocation of benefit and costs during the service recovery process.
According to Daniel J Petzer, customers expect to be apologized and explained for their loss after service
failure. Furthermore, distributive justice has been identified to impact customer satisfaction in hotel
service across some research methods. In addition, researchers suggested that DJ is a salient driver of
service recovery. More specifically, when a customer believes that s/he is fairly treated by the hotel on
making the type and amount of compensation, such as a cash voucher or a full refund on the grievances.
By then, customer may be satisfied if the hotel intends to do something by compensating for not losing
that valued customer. For example, customer perceptions of DJ are closely associated with the different
amounts and forms of overcompensation for severe service failures. It refers to the assignment of tangible
resources by the hotel to compensate customers for service failures, such as refunds.
Distributive justice primarily concerns firms offering tangible resources to rectify and compensate for
service failure, such as compensation in the form of discounts, coupons, refunds, free gifts,
replacements, apologies (Blodgett et al., 1997; del Río-Lanza, Vázquez-Casielles, & Díaz-Martín, 2009;
Goodwin & Ross, 1992; Hoffman & Kelly, 2000; Tax & Brown, 1998).

4.7: Procedural Justice (PJ):

Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. One
aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings.
PJ describes the perceived fairness of the policies, procedures, and criteria used by customer-contact
employees to reach the final outcomes. According to the self-interest model of PJ, input is salient because
it has instrumental value. Thus, a customer may perceive that providing input will encourage the service
organization or salesperson to enact decisions that are beneficial to the interests of that customer. A
customer who provides more input of time and efforts will have a higher chance of ensuring that the
enacted procedures are fair (e.g. accurate information is used), which will enhance her or his perception
of PJ. PJ is efficient recovery procedure. (Fung Yi MIllissa Cheung, March 2016)

Procedural justice refers to the methods the firm uses to deal with the problems arising during service
delivery in aspects such as accessibility, timing/speed, process control, delay and flexibility to adapt to
the consumer's recovery needs. Procedural justice also includes policies, procedures, and tools that
companies use to support communication with customers and specifically, the time taken to process
complaints and to arrive at a decision. In service recovery context, procedural justice means the
customer’s perception of justice for the several stages of procedures and processes needed to recover the
failed service. Procedural justice focuses on the way that the outcome is reached.

Procedural justice focuses on the process that is undertaken to arrive at the final outcome [19]. [20] refer
to procedural justice as the perceived fairness of policies, procedures and criteria used by decision makers
in arriving at the outcomes of a dispute or negotiation. [18] described five elements of procedural justice
including processcontrol, decision control, accessibility, timing/speed, and flexibility. Fair procedures are
consistent, unbiased and impartial representative of all parties’ interest and are based on accurate
information and ethical standards. Prompt strategies were much more likely to be associated withhigher
satisfaction and customer retention rate than their delayed counterpart. It has also been found that
procedural justice is important in service recovery as consumers who might be satisfied with the type of
recovery strategy offered but still could be unhappy if the process endured to seek redress were
unsatisfactory [18]. However, [20] found that in a retailing setting, procedural justice (timeliness) did
nothave a significant effect on customers’ patronage intentions nor their negative word-of-mouth
intentions.
Perceived justice usually represents a cognitive appraisal concept, whereas its effects `have been shown
to be both emotional and behavioral following service recovery experiences (Chebat & Slusarczyk, 2005;
Schoefer & Ennew, 2005). The integration of emotions within the perceived justice of service recovery
seems a necessary step to better understand what drives customers’ evaluative judgments in a recovery
situation. In other hand, justice theory framework appears to gain popularity in explaining how
customers evaluate service providers’ reactions to service failure/recovery. Perceived justice is a
multidimensional concept comprising three dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice. The application of the justice framework facilitates a deepening theoretical understanding of the
service provider and the customer relationship dynamics (Collie, Sparks, & Bradley, 2000).
Notwithstanding the recent advances concerning the effects of perceived justice on post-recovery
behavior, there is still room to learn how a service provider’s recovery efforts affect subsequent
customer relationships with the company (Dewitt et al., 2008).

Link between Procedural Justice and Service recovery

In procedural justice, the hotel keeps tract of customer’s feedback on how the service failure is being
taken care of or not, whether the customer is getting a better feedback from the hotel’s staff or not. It also
deals with punctuality of the service failure, whether the work was done on time or not. As these put on a
great effect on the reputation of the hotel and might just ruin the goodwill they have so far. PJ has to keep
in account whether the appropriate courtesy was provided or not.

With significant yearly developments in the tourism industry and at a constant rate, hotel operators should
reconsider their business strategies to achieve customer loyalty and sustain their businesses. In view of
that, the findings of this study not only benchmarks better hotel services but also provides an improved
understanding of service recovery that will effectively aid hotel operators in handling service failures;
otherwise, customer dissatisfaction may occur if poor service recovery strategies are implemented.

Procedural justice refers to five elements that organizations deal with when problems arise during
service delivery, namely process control, decision control, accessibility, timing/speed and flexibility (del
Río-Lanza et al., 2009; Tax & Brown, 1998). Procedural justice also includes policies, procedures, and
tools that companies use to support communication with customers and more specifically, the time
taken to process complaints and to arrive at a decision (Davidow, 2003).

Service encounters between customers and suppliers can fail for many reasons such as the unavailability
of the service, slowness or provision errors, among others. According to expectations disconfirmation
theory, failure to comply with promises or meet customer expectations damages customer satisfaction
(Sánchez-García and Currás-Pérez, 2011). Several theories exist regarding the formation of satisfaction
perceptions, but justice theory, affect cognitive appraisal theory seem particularly relevant in a service
recovery context because consumers generally perceive some inequity in response to service failures
(Río-Lanza et al., 2009). Thus, Konovsky (2000) argues that the concept of perceived justice is critical for
studying a person's reactions in a conflict situation. Service failure is a typical example of a conflict
situation, so perceived justice is relevant for explaining consumers' behavior in response to service
recovery (Blodgett et al., 1997). Although some studies do not distinguish between the different
dimensions of perceived justice or do not analyze all three components (Oliver and Swan, 1989), other
researchers (Smith et al., 1999; Río-Lanza et al., 2009) recommend including all components of
perceived justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) in research on service recovery.

4.8: Interactional Justice (IJ):

Interactional justice, a subcomponent of organizational justice, has come to be seen as consisting of two
specific types of interpersonal treatment. The first labeled interpersonal justice, reflects the degree to
which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities or third parties involved in
executing procedures or determining outcomes. The second, labeled informational justice, focuses on the
explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain
way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion.

Interactional Justice (IJ) describes customers’ perceptions of whether they have been treated in a
respectful, dignified, and timely manner, and have been given adequate explanations during the process of
service recovery. Choi et al revealed from their study that perceived justice may motivate customers to
feel affective commitment toward the organization, which motivates customer organizational citizenship
behavior in helping service recovery. (Fung Yi MIllissa Cheung, March 2016)

This component of justice includes customers' perceptions about employees' empathy, courtesy,
sensitivity, treatment and the effort they expend to solve the problem (Río-Lanza et al., 2009). Tax et al.
(1998) conceptualized Interactional justice as ‘‘the perceived fairness of interpersonal treatment that
people receive during the enactment of procedures.’’ The specific methods suggested for Interactional
justice in service recovery are ‘‘courtesy,’’ ‘‘respect,’’ ‘‘interest,’’ ‘‘careful listening,’’ ‘‘effort,’’ ‘‘trust,’’
‘‘explanation,’’ ‘‘empathy,’’ ‘‘apology,’ and ‘‘communication’’ (Blodgett et al., 1997; Mattila, 2001; Smith
et al., 1999; Wirtz & Mattila, 2004, kim et al., 2009).

Link between IJ and Service recovery

Interactional justice focuses on interpersonal interactions during the process of service delivery. It means
the evaluation of the degree to which the customers have experienced justice in human interactions from
the employees of service organization during the recovery process. In service recovery context,
interactional justice means the evaluation of the degree to which the customers have experienced justice
in human interactions from the employees of service firms during the recovery process. Previous
literature states that there are six sub-dimensions for Interactional justice. These sub-dimensions are:
courtesy, honesty, offering explanations, empathy, endeavor, and offering apologies.

IJ refers to the sense that the interaction from the service provider during the post- complaint interaction
following the negative service encounter and subsequent complaint was fair. McCollough et al further
more identified these two dimensions as the only significant predictors of customer satisfaction in post-
complaint scenarios. This particular study focuses on the two-dimensional approach to perceived justice,
namely, the interactional and distributive dimensions of perceived justice as one of its objectives is to
reveal the link between perceived justice and SS. IJ influences service recovery of Hotel’s customers.
(Daniel J. Petzer and Christine F. De Meyer-Heydenrych, April 2017)

Interactional justice focuses on interpersonal interactions during the process of service delivery. It is
further identified as having five elements: explanation/causal account, honesty, politeness, effort and
empathy. In a service recovery situation, interactional justice would refer to the manner in which the
recovery process is operationalized and recovery outcomes are presented.

Interactional justice focuses on interpersonal interactions during the process of service delivery (Nikbin,
Ismail, Marimuthu, & Jalalkamali, 2010). It is further identified as having five elements:
explanation/causal account, honesty, politeness, effort and empathy. In a service recovery situation,
interactional justice would refer to the manner in which the recovery process is operationalized and
recovery outcomes are presented.

4.9: Informational Justice:

Informational justice -adequacy and truthfulness of information provided for the failure. Because of the
absence of face-to-face interpersonal interaction in online settings. our study specifically focuses on
informational justice. Indeed, compared to face-to-face communication, computer-mediated
communication profoundly changes the way of interacting and this changes how much and effects a lot of
customers in hotels. In such a challenging and competitive hotel market, the managers of Hotels attempt
to offer high quality service to customers. However, it is difficult to avoid occasional service failures such
as insufficient product/service information, and poor customer service support in real business settings.
Service failure can occur anytime and anywhere if service delivery falls below customer expectations.
Service failure can result in dissatisfied customers and negative word of mouth (NWOM). The more
dissatisfied customers become, the more likely they are to spread negative word of mouth regarding their
service experiences. Thus, recovery efforts are critically needed in service failure situations.

LINK BETWEEN INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE AND SERVICE RECOVERY -

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of failure attributions (stability and
controllability) and service recovery (i.e. informational justice) to recovery satisfaction and the
moderating relationship of service recovery justice on the link between failure attributions and
recovery satisfaction in the context of Hotels. Data were gathered by means of a survey from
Hotel customers who experienced a service failure and subsequently a service recovery within
the past year. The findings of this study suggest that stability and controllability have a negative
relationship with recovery satisfaction. The results also indicate that informational justices have
a positive relationship with recovery satisfaction. Additionally, the results found that among
service recovery justice dimensions, only distributive and procedural justice moderate the
relationship between stability and recovery satisfaction. Moreover, only procedural satisfaction
moderates the relationship between controllability and recovery satisfaction.

During the service recovery process, customers usually expect fairness in making up
for the loss that occurred during the service failure. Previous studies suggested that some
elements are essential for successful service recovery such as apology, urgent reinstatement,
empathy, atonement, and follow up. Researchers further indicated that service recovery efforts
are evaluated by the perceived fairness of recovery attempt, which is the foundation of the justice
theory.

In today’s hyper ‐competitive business environment, repeat customers are vital for success.
Service failures, however, have the potential to destroy customer loyalty. In this study, we
wanted to examine how two situational factors, the service type and magnitude of failure,
moderate customer responses to service failures. Results from our experimental study
indicate that the cost to mollify customers might vary tremendously for different types of
services and for different magnitudes of failure. Effective service recovery (e.g. apology
combined with a tangible compensation) had a strong positive influence on recovery
satisfaction and loyalty for hotels. Consistent with previous research, subjects who
perceived the failure to be highly serious had lower perceptions of fairness or justice
associated with service recovery than their counterparts who considered the failure to be
less severe. In sum, our findings support the notion of context ‐specificity of service
recovery.

Customer satisfaction has been described as both the ultimate goal of the hotel economy)
and the key outcome of the marketing process while reliability is regarded as the core of
service quality. Yet, mistakes are an unavoidable feature of all human endeavor and thus
also of service delivery. Although poor service delivery may initially appear to be a disaster,
opportunities abound for service companies to resolve problems, go beyond the call of duty
and win a customer for life. In other words, effective customer complaint handling, or
service recovery, can turn angry and frustrated customers into loyal ones.

Customer loyalty has definite financial benefits since the cost to attract a new customer is
significantly higher than retaining an existing one. Responses from a sample of hotel
customers suggested that, of the ten most important dimensions listed, five related to service
recovery: the hotel is responsible for failures.

The dominant influence of service failure ‐related dimensions can be attributed to the fact
that services, because of their largely intangible nature, are perceived as riskier to buy than,
for instance, physical products Much of this risk can be attributed to “how the service will
perform”, that is, a reliability failure risk or quality risk. Effective service recovery can go a
long way towards projecting a “our service is guaranteed” image, providing a safety net and,
in this way, reduce perceived risk.

Service recovery is of particular importance if one considers that in many (according to

some studies, the majority of) instances dissatisfied customers simply do not complain to
the seller or service provider. The few who do complain provide valuable information in
terms of what can be done to improve customer satisfaction. The unwillingness to air
complaints results in ignorance among service firm decision makers and has a number of
serious consequences including a declining market share, more expensive defensive
marketing. The inability to correct faulty systems and the undermining of the validity of
customer complaint data as input to decision making (Bearden and Teel, 1983, p. 22). To
avoid these negative outcomes customers ought to be encouraged to complain while
employees should be willing and able to respond (Cornell and Wernerfelt, 1987, p. 338). In
other words, effective service recovery is dependent on both customer and employee inputs

PEOPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICE THEY ARE GIVEN. IN SOME HOTELS
THEY MIGHT FIND NOT FIND THE EXACT SERVICE THEY ARE PROMISED .SO SERVICE FAILURE
MIGHT OCCUR . As a result, providing high-quality service and managing service failures have become
major concerns for hotel operators. In the hospitality industry, service failures do inevitably occur. While
face-to-face interactions greatly rely on spoken language and visible social cues such as nonverbal
gestures, communication in computer-mediated contexts often depends on such features as written text
messages. Because of the lack of interpersonal cues in online contexts, past research has shown that
consumers tend to fill in the blanks with regard to missing information, which renders informational
justice particularly important.

4.10: Service recovery:

Service recovery is a company's resolution of a problem from a dissatisfied customer, converting them
into a loyal customer. It is the action a service provider takes in response to service failure. By including
also customer satisfaction into the definition, service recovery is a thought-out, planned, process of
returning aggrieved/dissatisfied customers to a state of satisfaction with a company/service. Service
recovery differs from complaint management in its focus on service failures and the company’s
immediate reaction to it. Complaint management is based on customer complaints, which, in turn, may be
triggered by service failures. However, since most dissatisfied customers are reluctant to complain,
service recovery attempts to solve problems at the service encounter before customers complain or before
they leave the service encounter dissatisfied. Both complaint management and service recovery are
considered as customer retention strategies

Service recovery efforts can take many forms and range from explaining why things went wrong to
reimbursing aggrieved customers. It must also be remembered that customers have clear predilections
regarding the way they want a service failure to be recovered, and a service provider should provide the
service recovery effort customers prefer. Based on the service recovery efforts undertaken by the hotel
management when responding to a customer complaint, a sense of justice is experienced by the customer
that relates to his or her perception of the success of the exertions to recover from the service failure
undertaken by the service provider, known as perceived justice. The sense of perceived justice the
customer experiences depends on what the customer considers a fair or suitable service provider response
in an effort to recover from the service failure. In financial services in particular, the sense of perceived
justice or fairness perceived by customer’s aids in circumventing the “high credence qualities” associated
with hotel services.

Service recovery is the process of dealing with a situation, whereby a customer has experienced service
failure from a service organization. It is also defined as the proactive and reactive actions of a service
provider in response to customer complaints, or a specific set of actions to resolve customer problems,
alter negative attitudes of dissatisfies customers, and ultimately restore customer loyalty. According to
Daniel J. Petzer and Christine F. De Meyer-Heydenrych, service failure severity is related to the level of
customer dissatisfaction. To solve problems, service providers generally employ revitalization strategies
to reduce customer dissatisfaction as well as switching rate. Proper service recovery actions from service
providers may resolve customer complaints and restore customer satisfaction. Service recovery strategies
include problem acknowledgment, explanations about the service failure, apologizing, employee
empowerment to solve problems and compensation (e.g., full or half refunds, discounts, coupons, free
service upgrades, free gifts, etc.), and being respectful, polite and courteous during the service recovery
process. While evidence for the “recovery paradox” is sparse and varied, it is generally agreed that
effective service recovery can redirect dissatisfied customers to a state of satisfaction and it go a long way
towards limiting the harmful impact of service failure. Consequently, past studies have applied the Justice
Theory to evaluate service recovery efforts following service failure and included distributive justice,
interactional justice, and procedural justice.

Link between Service recovery and Behavioral Intention

It is also widely recognized that consumers’ sense of justice based on the service recovery efforts of a
hotel’s management once a complaint has been lodged, drives their behavior and intentions. This study
focuses in particular on the perceived justice construct where a service failure has occurred followed by a
complaint and an ensuing response by the service provider. When perceived justice is experienced in
response to the service provider’s recovery efforts, the potential exists that customers’ service satisfaction
(SS) levels can be increased leading in turn to positive customer behavior. (Daniel J. Petzer and Christine
F. De Meyer-Heydenrych, April 2017)

The level of service quality can be measured by two dimensions; 1) the outcome or “what” the customer
actually receives as part of the hotel’s effort to recover and 2) the process of recovery and “how” the
recovery is accomplished. The outcome of SR is the customer’s main concern while the dimension of SR
process is more internal and customer usually does not care about them. Consequently, in order to provide
appropriate response to unhappy customer, service recovery requires high level of interaction between the
hotel and its customer.
service failure is a situation
when a service provider
delivers the service
performance far below the
adequate
service expectations of the
consumer; and service
recovery
is a subsequent act of
service provider to improve
upon?
the failure. Service
management literature
extensively
discusses service failures
and its effects and
reactions
from the consumer as well
as the service employee.
The
literature also extensively
discusses service recovery
mechanisms for effective
handling of complain
In particular, perceived fairness and organizational responses to service failures are highly popular topics
in the literature. Yet the vast majority of customers fail to voice their dissatisfaction to the firm.
Consequently, it is important to understand how consumers process service failures regardless of the
recovery outcome. This study examines the impact of perceived controllability over service failures and
service quality expectations on customer reactions to those failures. Findings indicate that customers react
quite negatively when they believe the service firm could have easily prevented the failure. Conversely,
when customers feel partly responsible for the failure or are ambiguous about its cause, the negative
effects of poor performance are somewhat mitigated. Finally, high service quality expectations also buffer
the firm from the negativity effect.

4.11: Behavioral Intention:

The assertion is made that a successful service encounter in reaction to a customer complaint of a
negative service encounter can restore customer satisfaction. More specifically, a customer who
experiences a sense of perceived justice will exhibit a stronger sense of satisfaction. The opposite is also
true, as Mattila et al. found that an unsuccessful service recovery effort will lead to unfavorable
perceptions of fairness and lower levels of satisfaction. Behavioral intention (BI) is defined as a person's
perceived likelihood or "subjective probability that he or she will engage in a given behavior"

It is furthermore contended that satisfaction will lead to desired customer behavioral responses including
positive word-of-mouth and continued support for the hotel.

In South Africa where the hotel service is competitive service failures often occur. It is therefore
important to become aware of service failures through customer complaints and to respond to these
complaints to restore customers’ satisfaction levels and influence their future behavioral intention toward
the hotel. (Daniel J. Petzer and Christine F. De Meyer-Heydenrych, April 2017)

Behavioral intention represents the repurchase intentions, word of mouth, loyalty complaining behavior,
and price sensitivity. Previous research has not captured the full range of potential behaviors likely to be
triggered by service quality. In many studies, positive word of mouth, willingness to recommend and
repurchase intentions are used to measure behavioral intentions. Daniel J. Petzer compiled a list of
specific favorable behavioral intentions, including loyalty, switching intentions, willingness to pay more,
external response, and internal response. It was revealed that customers experience is related to
behavioral intentions. The more positive the customer’s experience, the more likely he or she is willing to
reuse the service

The behavioral intentions on which the significantly different perceptions turned up included “loyalty,”
“pay more,” and “external response.” Differences in the behavioral intention variables of “switch” and
“internal response,” were not significant across cultures. Then, the relationship between service quality
and behavioral intention among three cultural groups was tested by LISREL. The results indicated that
tourists from English heritage cultures perceived better service quality than either the Asian and European
groups in the dimensions of tangibles, reliability, and empathy, but only perceived better than the Asian
group in the dimensions of responsiveness and assurance. Managerial implications of these findings, and
recommendations for practitioners and marketers, could be used to allocate managerial resources and
develop marketing strategies for dealing with culturally diverse clientele populations.

5. QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS

Q1. Is there any relation between customer involvement with service failure and distributive justice?
Q2. Is there any relation between customer involvement with service failure and procedural justice?
Q3. Is any relation between customer involvement with service failure and interactional justice?
Q4. Is there any relation between customer co-creation with distributive justice?
Q5. Is there any relation between customer co-creation with procedural justice?
Q6. Is there any relation between customer co-creation with interactional justice?
Q7. Is there any relation between offline vs. online complaint channel with informational justice?
Q8. Is there any relation between National culture with offline vs. online complaint channel?
Q9. Is there any link between status of service personnel with informational justice?
Q10. Is there any relation between informational justice with service recovery?
Q11. Is there any relation between interactional justice with service recovery?
Q12. Is there any relation between service recovery with behavioral intention?

Hypothesis:
Ho1: There is no relation between customer involvement with service failure and distributive justice.
Ha1: There is a relation between customer involvement with service failure and distributive justice.

Ho2: There is no relation between customer involvement with service failure and procedural justice.
Ha2: There is a relation between customer involvement with service failure and procedural justice.

Ho3: There is no relation between customer involvement with service failure and interactional justice.
Ha3: There is a relation between customer involvement with service failure and interactional justice.

Ho4: There is no relation between customer co-creation with distributive justice.

Ha4: There is a relation between customer co-creation with distributive justice.

Ho5: There is no relation between customer co-creation with procedural justice.

Ha5: There is a relation between customer co-creation with procedural justice.

Ho6: There is no relation between customer co-creation with interactional justice.

Ha6: There is a relation between customer co-creation with interactional justice.

Ho7: There is no relation between offline vs. online complaint channel with informational justice.
Ha7: There is a relation between offline vs. online complaint channel with informational justice.
Ho8: There is no relation between National culture with offline vs. online complaint channel.
Ha8: There is a relation between National culture with offline vs. online complaint channel.

Ho9: There is no relation between status of service personnel with informational justice.
Ha9: There is a relation between status of service personnel with informational justice.

Ho10: There is no relation between informational justice with service recovery.

Ha10: There is a relation between informational justice with service recovery.

Ho11: There is no relation between interactional justice with service recovery.

Ha11: There is a relation between interactional justice with service recovery.

Ho12: There is no relation between service recovery with behavioral intention.

Ha12: There is a relation between service recovery with behavioral intention.

6. The Research Design – Methods and Procedures

 Customer involvement with Distributive Justice
service failure
Procedural Justice
Customer co-creation with service
recovery Interactional Justice
Service Recovery Behavioral
Intention
Offline vs. Online complaint
channel

National Culture Informational Justice

Eastern vs. Western

Status of service personnel

High vs. Low

 Sampling:

Unit:

This research’s main objective is to explain the service recovery of hotels Westin, Regency, Radisson.
Although in the survey questionnaire the age limit started from 20-29 this research. The respondents were
instructed how the questionnaires should be completed. Both male and female tourist participated in the
survey. The respondents were asked through those survey questionnaires how service recovery is efficient
and how much it was helpful in solving their problems. Respondents voluntarily participated in that
survey. They were asked how the hotel hewed flexibility in dealing with their problems, should
individuals sacrifice self-interest for the group. The respondents were assured that their identity would not
be disclosed in the questionnaire so that they could answer the questions willingly along with motivation.

Size:
The sample size for the survey is 100. The number of tourist for the survey was 100 including both male
and female. The questionnaires were filled up by 100 people who at least once visited Westin, Regency,
and Radisson.
Procedure
The procedure for selecting the sample is a sampling of convenience that falls within the probabilistic
sampling category. The reason for choosing this procedure is that it was convenient for the researcher to
do the survey. This is why we picked from different hotel customers.
  Instrument Design

We have conducted our research with a total of eleven variables. There are 7 independent variables and 4
dependent variables. Under these variables, we have arranged our research questions. In our survey for
this research, we came up with 47 valid questions which helped us to collect our required data for a
successful research.
1. Demographic Question: In our questionnaire, there are three demographic questions which are:
gender, age and income per month.
1. Male Female
2. Age 3. Income per Month

20 -29 10000-19000

30-39 20000-29000

40-49 30000-39999

50- above 40000-above

2. Scales & Variables: We also collect specific data based on gender, age and income which were our
demographic questions. Then, we had compiled our survey data for proper investigation. To collect
primary research data, we conduct surveys because it is the most commonly used instrument, as it is
flexible and relatively inexpensive, and for secondary data, we have compiled our information through
electronic journals, related articles and books.

2.1 Independent Variable

Customer involvement with service failure
Customer co-creation of service recovery
Offline vs online complaint channel & Public vs private apology
National culture Eastern vs western
Status of service personnel High vs low
Service recovery
Behavioral intention
2.2 Dependent Variable
Distributive Justice
Procedural justice
Interactional justice
Informational Justice

Customer involvement with service failure

There are seven-point Likert scale5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1)Not at (2)Slightly (3) Important (4)Fairly (5)Very
all important important Important
important

Customer co-creation of service recovery

There are seven-point Likert scale 7 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1) Very. (2)strongly (3)Disagree (4)Neither (5) Agree (6) (7) Very
Strongly disagree agree nor Strongly strongly
disagree disagree Agree Agree

Offline vs online complaint channel & Public vs private apology

There are seven-point Likert scale 5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1) Totally not (2) Not Satisfied (3)Neither (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
satisfied satisfied nor not satisfied
satisfied

National culture Eastern vs western

There are seven-point Likert scale 5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1) Totally not (2) Not Satisfied (3)Neither (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
 satisfied satisfied nor not satisfied
satisfied

Status of service personnel High vs low

There are seven-point Likert scale 5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1) Totally not (2) Not Satisfied (3)Neither (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
satisfied satisfied nor not satisfied
satisfied

Service recovery
There are seven-point Likert scale 5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1) Totally not (2) Not Satisfied (3)Neither (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
satisfied satisfied nor not satisfied
satisfied

Behavioral intention
There are seven-point Likert scale 5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below

(1) Totally not (2) Not Satisfied (3)Neither (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
satisfied satisfied nor not satisfied
satisfied

Dependent Variables
Distributive Justice
There are seven-point Likert scale 7 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below
 (1) Very strongly (2)strongly (3)Disagree (4)Neither (5) Agree (6) (7) Very
disagree disagree agree nor Strongly strongly
disagree Agree Agree

Procedural justice
There are seven-point Likert scale 7 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below

(1)Very strongly (2)strongly (3)Disagree (4)Neither (5) Agree (6) (7) Very
disagree disagree agree nor Strongly strongly
disagree Agree Agree

Interactional justice
There are seven-point Likert scale 7 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below

(1)Very strongly (2)strongly (3)Disagree (4)Neither (5) Agree (6) (7) Very
disagree disagree agree nor Strongly strongly
disagree Agree Agree

Informational Justice
There are seven-point Likert scale 5 levels of measurement which includes: Strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The detailed table is given below:
(1) Totally not (2) Not Satisfied (3)Neither (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
satisfied satisfied nor not satisfied
satisfied

 Data Collection
We collected both primary and secondary data in a systematic way –
Secondary data: For our research purpose, we collected our information for variables scales and diagram
from our journals that we selected for our research. Some information was also collected from internet
(EPSCO and EMERALD) and from our textbook (Business research method) which is assigned for BUS-
485 course.
Primary data: For primary data, we did a survey and provided the questionnaire among the employees to
collect necessary data for our research.
In our research, we have used the following systematic five steps –
1. Questionnaire forming
2. Doing survey
3. Data collection
4. Data analysis
5. Submission of the final report.
We did our survey on different hotels and who purchased anything from online where we had collected
the data from them through asking questions.

8. Data Analysis:

After data collection through survey, we entered the data the data into SPSS data view sheet for analysis.
We have gone through the following analyses –
 Descriptive Analysis (Frequency and Cross tabulation)
 Reliability Analysis (Cronbach Alpha)
 Hypothesis testing. (Spearman’s correlation, Pearson correlation)

8.1 Descriptive Analysis (Detailed calculations are given in the appendix)

Descriptive analysis shows the frequency and the cross tabulation among the biographical information of
the samples. Personal and demographic information such as gender, age, income is in the following
tables.

According to table (1) there are 77 males and 23 females among 100 participants which represent that
77.0% percent are male and 23.0% are female.

In the age section, 45.0 percent of the samples were 25-29 years old, 32.0 percent were 30-39 years old,
12.0 percent were between 40-49 years old and11.0 percent were aged 50 and above.
In terms of income there are 26.0 percent people whose income is between 10000-19999, 16.0 percent
people whose income is between 20000-29999, 25.0 percent of the people have income in the 30000-
39999 range and 33.0 percent of the people have income of 40000 and above.
Gender and Income cross tabulation
From the table 05, we can see that from male, 24 of them earn 10000-19999, 8 of them earn 20000-
29999, 18 earns within 30000-39999 and 27 of them earn income of 40000 and above when total number
of male is 77. From female 2 of them earn 10000-19999, 8 of them earn 20000-29999, 7 of them earns in
the 30000-39999 range and 6 of them earn income of 40000 and above when total number of female is
23.

Gender and Age cross tabulation

From the table 04, we can see that 37 male and 8 female are in the 20-29 age group, 22 male and 10
female are between 30-39 years old, 8 male and 4 female in the 40-49 age range and 10 male and 1
female are aged 50 and above.

Age Income cross tabulation

From this table 06, we can see 25 people aged 20-29 is earning 10000-19999, 1 person aged 30-39 is
earning 10000-19999, no (0) individual aged 36-45 is earning 10000-19999and no (0) person aged 45 and
above is earning 10000-19999.

8 people aged 20-29 is earning 20000-29999, 7 people aged 30-39 is earning 20000-29999, no (0) single
person aged 40-49 is earning 20000-29999 and 1 person aged 50 and above is earning 20000-29999.

6 people aged 20-29 is earning 30000-39999, 14 people aged 30-39 is earning 30000-39999, 5 people
aged 36-45 is earning 30000-39999and no (0) single person aged 45 and above earns 30000-39999

6 people aged 20-29 is earning 40000 and above, 10 people aged 30-39 is earning 40000 and above, 7
people aged 40-49 is earning 40000 and above and 10 people aged 50 and above are earning 40000 and
above.

8.2 Reliability Analysis

The Most highly recommended measure of internal consistency is provided by co efficient alpha or
Cronbach's Alpha. For the early stages of any research (Nunnally, 1978) suggest that the reliability of
Cronbach's Alpha value should be .50-.60 which is sufficient; although 0.7 or above is desirable (Hair,
1998).
On the other hand, according to George and Mallery (Cronbach's alpha, n.d.) the following table is
followed to interpret the reliability analysis:
CUSTOMER CO-CREATION OF SERVICE RECOVERY
According to customer co-creation of service recovery reliability table, 4 questions regarding this
variable’s Cronbach Alpha is 0.611 which is Questionable.

OFFLINE VS ONLINE; EASTERN VS WESTERN

According to offline vs online; eastern vs western reliability table, 3 questions regarding this variable’s
Cronbach Alpha is 0.670 which is Questionable.

NATINAL CULTURE: EASTERN VS WESTERN

According to Return Policy reliability table, 5 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach Alpha is
0.720 which is Acceptable.

STATUS OF SERVICE PERSONNEL: HIGH VS LOW

According to status of service personnel: high vs low reliability table, 5 questions regarding this
variable’s Cronbach Alpha is 0.674 which is Questionable.

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
According to distributive justice reliability table, 5 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach Alpha is
0.818 which is Good.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
According to procedural justice reliability table, 5 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach Alpha is
0.605 which is Questionable.
INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE
According to interactional justice reliability table, 4 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach Alpha is
0.830 which is Good.

INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE
According to informational justice reliability table, 4 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach Alpha
is 0.758 which is Acceptable.

SERVICE RECOVERY SATISFACTION

According to service recovery satisfaction reliability table, 7 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach
Alpha is 0.908 which is Excellent.

BEHAVIORAL INTENTION
According to Service & Infrastructural reliability table, 3 questions regarding this variable’s Cronbach
Alpha is 0.934 which is Excellent.
8.3 Hypothesis testing ( Correlation testing)
8.3.1 Spearman correlation

Hypotheses Testing:

Spearman Correlation Analysis

The Pearson correlation coefficient just examined can be used for interval or ratio level
scales. When a variable is measured at no more than the ordinal level, the researcher
must decide whether to treat the ordinal scale as if it has an interval level scale or to use
a correlation coefficient designed for an ordinal level scale (Association Between
Variables, n.d., p. 819).

Spearman’s rho is given the symbol r s, with r used to denote that it is a correlation
coefficient, and the subscript s to denote that it is named after the statistician Spearman.
The true Spearman correlation coefficient is called rho sub s, that is, ρ s. The Greek letter
ρ is used to denote that ρ s is the parameter, with the statistic r sbeing calculated from the
data (Association Between Variables, n.d., p. 820).
In statistics, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or Spearman's rho, named after
Charles Spearman and often denoted by the Greek letter \rho (rho) or as r s, is a
nonparametric measure of statistical dependence between two variables. It assesses how
well the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic
function. If there are no repeated data values, a perfect Spearman correlation of +1 or
−1 occurs when each of the variables is a perfect monotone function of the other
(Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, 2014)
Jahangir (2003) says “Correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationships between
variables” (p. 133). Rowntree (1981) suggested the guidelines for interpreting the strength of
relationships between variables. His classification of the correlation coefficient (r) is as follows
(as cited in Jahangir, 2003)

0.0 to 0.2 Very Weak, negligible

0.2 to 0.4 Weak, low
0.4 to 0.7 Moderate
0.7 to 0.9 Strong, high, marked
0.9 to 1.0 Very strong, very high
Table: 44

Jahangir (2003) explains “The bivariate correlation procedure was subject to a two tailed test of
statistical significance at two different levels highly significant (p<.001) and significant (p<.05)
or (p<.01)” (p. 133).
If the value of “ Sig.” reported is equal to or less than .05 (at the 95% level of confidence) or .01
(at the 99% level of confidence), the correlation is statistically significant and the null hypothesis
is rejected. If the value of “Sig.” reported is greater than .05 (at the 95% level of confidence) or .
01 (at the 99% level of confidence), the correlation is not statistically significant and the null
hypothesis must be accepted. (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.)

Correlation between Customer involvement with service failure and distributive justice

From Table 17
Here r = 0.309 and α = 0.002 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Weak. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between customer involvements
with service failure and distributive justice is Weak and the correlation direction is positively significant.
So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a1 “There is
relation between customer involvement and distributive justice” is supported. Customer involvement
cannot influence significantly distributive justice.

Correlation between Customer involvement with service failure and procedural justice

From Table 18
Here r = 0.245 and α = 0.014 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Weak. The value “Sig” is less than 0.05 indicating 95% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between customer involvements
with service failure and procedural justice is Weak and the correlation direction is positively significant.
So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a2 “There is
relation between customer involvement and procedural justice” is supported. Customer involvement
cannot influence significantly procedural justice.

Correlation between Customer involvement and interactional justice

From Table 19
Table 19 is showing the r value is = 0.135 and α = 0.180 indicating there is weak relationship
between customer involvement with service failure and interactional justice but not at significant
level. So reject the alternative hypothesis Ha3 “There is relation between customer involvement
with service failure and interactional justice”
Correlation between Customer co-creation of service recovery and distributive justice

From Table 20
Here r = 0.285 and α = 0.004 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Weak. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between customer co-creation of
service recovery and distributive justice is Weak and the correlation direction is positively significant. So
comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a4 “There is
relation between customer co-creation of service recovery and distributive justice” is supported. customer
co-creation of service recovery cannot influence significantly distributive justice.

Correlation between Customer co-creation of service recovery and procedural justice

From Table 21

Here r = 0.264 and α = 0.008 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Weak. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between customer co-creation of
service recovery and procedural justice is weak and the correlation direction is positively significant. So
comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a5 “There is
relation between customer co-creation of service recovery and procedural justice” is supported. Customer
co-creation of service recovery cannot influence significantly procedural justice.

Correlation between Customer co-creation of service recovery and interactional justice

From Table 22

Here r = 0.223 and α = 0.026 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Weak. The value “Sig” is less than 0.05 indicating 95% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between customer co-creation of
service recovery and interactional justice is weak and the correlation direction is positively significant. So
comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a6 “There is
relation between customer co-creation of service recovery and interactional justice” is supported.
Customer co-creation of service recovery cannot influence significantly interactional justice.
Correlation between national culture: eastern vs western and offline vs online: eastern vs
western

From Table 23

Here r = 0.230 and α = 0.021 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is weak. The value “Sig” is less than 0.05 indicating 95% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between national culture: eastern
vs western and offline vs online: eastern vs western is weak and the correlation direction is positively
significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis
Ha7 “There is relation between customer co-creation of service recovery and procedural justice” is
supported. Customer co-creation of service recovery cannot influence significantly procedural justice.

Correlation between status of service personnel: high vs low and national culture: eastern
vs western

From Table 24
Table 19 is showing the r value is = 0.08 and α = 0.936 indicating there is weak relationship
between customer involvement with service failure and interactional justice but not at significant
level. So reject the alternative hypothesis Ha8 “There is relation between customer involvement
with service failure and interactional justice”

Correlation between distributive justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 25

Here r = 0.624 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Moderate. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of
confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between distributive
justice and service recovery satisfaction is moderate and the correlation direction is positively significant.
So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a8 “There is
relation between distributive justice and service recovery satisfaction” is supported. distributive justice
can influence significantly and service recovery satisfaction.
Correlation between procedural justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 26

Here r = 0.716 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Strong. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between procedural justice and
service recovery satisfaction is strong and the correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing
to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a9 “There is relation
between procedural justice and service recovery satisfaction” is supported procedural justice can
influence significantly and service recovery satisfaction.

Correlation between interactional justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 27

Here r = 0.659 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Moderate. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of
confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between interactional
justice and service recovery satisfaction is moderate and the correlation direction is positively significant.
So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a10 “There is
relation between interactional justice and service recovery satisfaction” is supported. interactional justice
can influence significantly and service recovery satisfaction.

Correlation between informational justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 28

Here r = 0.709 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Strong. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of confidence
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between informational justice and
service recovery satisfaction is strong and the correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing
to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a11 “There is relation
between iformational justice and service recovery satisfaction” is supported. Informational justice can
influence significantly and service recovery satisfaction.
Correlation between behavioral intention and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 29

Here r = 0.691 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to Rowntree (1981) r value is Moderate. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating 99% level of
confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between behavioral
intention and service recovery satisfaction is moderate and the correlation direction is positively
significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis
Ha12 “There is relation between behavioral intention and service recovery satisfaction” is supported.
Behavioral intention can influence significantly and service recovery satisfaction.

Pearson correlation Analysis

Pearson’s correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the strength of a linear relationship between
paired data. In a sample it is denoted by r and is by design constrained as follows
Furthermore:
 Positive values denote positive linear correlation;
 Negative values denote negative linear correlation;
 A value of 0 denotes no linear correlation;
 The closer the value is to 1 or –1, the stronger the linear correlation. (Pearson’s correlation, n.d.)
Pearson correlation measures the existence (given by a p-value) and strength (given by the
coefficient r between -1 and +1) of a linear relationship between two variables. It should only be
used when its underlying assumptions are satisfied. If the outcome is significant we conclude that
a correlation exists. According to Cohen (1988) an absolute value of r of 0.1 is classified as small,
an absolute value of 0.3 is classified as medium and of 0.5 is classified as large. (Gilchrist and
Samuels, n.d.)
Pearson’s r summarizes the relationship between two variables that have a straight line or linear
relationship with each other. If the two variables have a straight line relationship in the positive
direction, then r will be positive and considerably above 0. If the linear relationship is in the
negative direction, so that increases in one variable, are associated with decreases in the other,
then r < 0. The possible values of r range from -1 to +1, with values close to 0 signifying little
relationship between the two variables (Association Between Variables, n.d., p. 800)
In (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) it is said that
If r = +.70 or higher Very strong positive relationship 
+.40 to +.69 Strong positive relationship 
+.30 to +.39 Moderate positive relationship 
+.20 to +.29 weak positive relationship 
+.01 to +.19 No or negligible relationship 
-.01 to -.19 No or negligible relationship 
-.20 to -.29 weak negative relationship 
-.30 to -.39 Moderate negative relationship 
-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship 
-.70 or higher Very strong negative relationship
When the correlation coefficient is above 0, then this provides evidence of a positive relationship between
X and Y. That is, if r > 0, larger values of X are associated with larger values of Y. If r is close to 1, this
indicates a large positive relationship between the two variables (Association Between Variables, n.d., p.
805)
If the value of “ Sig.” reported is equal to or less than .05 (at the 95% level of confidence) or .01 (at the
99% level of confidence), the correlation is statistically significant and the null hypothesis is rejected. If
the value of “Sig.” reported is greater than .05 (at the 95% level of confidence) or .01 (at the 99% level of
confidence), the correlation is not statistically significant and the null hypothesis must be accepted
(Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.).

Correlation between Customer involvement with service failure and distributive justice

From Table 30
Here r = 0.259 and α = 0.009 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is weakly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating
99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between
customer involvements with service failure and distributive justice is weakly positive and the correlation
direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and
“Sig” the hypothesis Ha1 “There is relation between customer involvement and distributive justice” is
supported. Customer involvement can influence significantly distributive justice.

Correlation between Customer involvement with service failure and procedural justice

From Table 31
Here r = 0.213 and α = 0.033 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is weakly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.05 indicating
95% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between
customer involvements with service failure and procedural justice is weakly positive and the correlation
direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and
“Sig” the hypothesis Ha2 “There is relation between customer involvement and procedural justice” is
supported. Customer involvement canno influence significantly procedural justice.
Correlation between Customer involvement and interactional justice

From Table 32
Table 32 is showing the r value is = 0.070 and α = 0.490 indicating there is no relationship
between customer involvement with service failure and interactional justice but not at significant
level. So reject the alternative hypothesis Ha3 “There is relation between customer involvement
with service failure and interactional justice”

Correlation between Customer co-creation of service recovery and distributive justice

From Table 33
Here r = 0.316 and α = 0.001 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is Moderately positive . The value “Sig” is less than 0.01
indicating 99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the
relationship between customer co-creation of service recovery and distributive justice is moderately
positive and the correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of
correlation coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a4 “There is relation between customer co-creation of
service recovery and distributive justice” is supported. customer co-creation of service recovery can
influence significantly distributive justice.

Correlation between Customer co-creation of service recovery and procedural justice

From Table 34

Here r = 0.273 and α = 0.006 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is weakly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating
99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between
customer co-creation of service recovery and procedural justice is weakly positive and the correlation
direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and
“Sig” the hypothesis Ha5 “There is relation between customer co-creation of service recovery and
procedural justice” is supported. Customer co-creation of service recovery cannot influence significantly
procedural justice.
Correlation between Customer co-creation of service recovery and interactional justice

From Table 35

Here r = 0.204 and α = 0.042 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is weakly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.05 indicating
95% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between
customer co-creation of service recovery and interactional justice is weakly positive and the correlation
direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and
“Sig” the hypothesis Ha6 “There is relation between customer co-creation of service recovery and
interactional justice” is supported. Customer co-creation of service recovery cannot influence
significantly interactional justice.

Correlation between offline vs online: eastern vs western and status of service personnel:
high vs low

From Table 36

Table 36 is showing the r value is = 0.143 and α = 0.156 indicating there is no relationship between
offline vs online: eastern vs western and status of service personnel: high vs low but not at significant
level. So reject the alternative hypothesis Ha7 “There is relation between c offline vs online: eastern vs
western and status of service personnel: high vs customer involvement with service failure and
interactional justice

Correlation between national culture: eastern vs western and offline vs online: eastern vs
western

From Table 37
Table 37 is showing the r value is = 0.195 and α = 0.052 indicating there is no relationship
between national culture: eastern vs western and offline vs online: eastern vs western but not at
significant level. So reject the alternative hypothesis Ha8 “There is relation between national
culture: eastern vs western and offline vs online: eastern vs western
Correlation between informational justice and status of service personnel: high and low

From Table 38
Table 38 is showing the r value is = 0.052 and α = 0.604 indicating there is no relationship
between informational justice and service personnel: high vs low but not at significant level. So
reject the alternative hypothesis Ha9 “There is relation between informational justice and service
personnel: high vs low

Correlation between distributive justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 39

Here r = 0.707 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is very strong positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01
indicating 99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the
relationship between distributive justice and service recovery satisfaction is very strong positive and the
correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation
coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis Ha8 “There is relation between distributive justice and service
recovery satisfaction” is supported. distributive justice can influence significantly and service recovery
satisfaction.

Correlation between procedural justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 40

Here r = 0.697 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is strongly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01 indicating
99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the relationship between
procedural justice and service recovery satisfaction is strongly positive and the correlation direction is
positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation coefficient and “Sig” the
hypothesis Ha9 “There is relation between procedural justice and service recovery satisfaction” is
supported procedural justice can influence significantly and service recovery satisfaction.
Correlation between interactional justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 41

Here r = 0.659 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is very strongly positive The value “Sig” is less than 0.01
indicating 99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the
relationship between interactional justice and service recovery satisfaction is very strongly positive and
the correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation
coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a10 “There is relation between interactional justice and service
recovery satisfaction” is supported. interactional justice can influence significantly and service recovery
satisfaction.

Correlation between informational justice and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 42

Here r = 0.769 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is very strongly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01
indicating 99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the
relationship between informational justice and service recovery satisfaction is very strongly positive and
the correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation
coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis Ha11 “There is relation between informational justice and service
recovery satisfaction” is supported. Informational justice can influence significantly and service recovery
satisfaction.

Correlation between behavioral intention and service recovery satisfaction

From Table 43

Here r = 0.773 and α = 0.000 which is <0.05 and the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. According
to (Pearson’s r Correlation, n.d.) r value is very strongly positive. The value “Sig” is less than 0.01
indicating 99% level of confidence (Correlation Analysis in SPSS, n.d.). So the strength of the
relationship between behavioral intention and service recovery satisfaction is very strongly positive and
the correlation direction is positively significant. So comparing to referred standard value of correlation
coefficient and “Sig” the hypothesis H a12 “There is relation between behavioral intention and service
recovery satisfaction” is supported. Behavioral intention can influence significantly and service recovery
satisfaction.
7. LIMITATIONS:

Respondents may not feel encouraged to provide accurate, honest answers

Respondents may not be fully aware of their reasons for any given answer because of lack of memory on
the subject, or even boredom.
Data errors due to question non-responses may exist. The number of respondents who choose to respond
to a survey question may be different from those who chose not to respond, thus creating bias.
Customized surveys can run the risk of containing certain types of errors
Sample size was too small so it was difficult to find significant relationships from the data.
The scope of our study was narrow and within a limit.
Sometimes sample denied responding.
Time limitations problem that we faced during our research.
Last but not the least, this study is done by a group of students, using the systematic research process and
instruments for the first time and not experts in research field.

8. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In our study we examined some factors that affect service recovery, then using hypothesis we came to
some conclusions on how these variables affect the intention of recovering from service failure. We
mainly focused on hotels, andmiddle aged to senior aged consumers who have enough income to stay in 5
star hotels. We tried understanding their approach towards service recovery and the drawbacks of it.

We can see security and privacy along with service infrastructure play a huge role in the minds of the
consumers. People like to be safe and hundred percent sure of their actions choosing a hotel. Hence we
can suggest hotels to provide security along with good service to the consumers.

Nowadays everyone is spending their free times on going to hotels for vacation. However, with
technology advancement the rate of cybercrimes is increasing along with theft, it is a major issue to be
looked at by the authority and handled with. Or else consumers will not be encouraged to book hotels
without any fear.
9. REFERENCE:
1. Daniel J. Petzer and Christine F. De Meyer-Heydenrych, perceived justice, service satisfaction
and behavior intentions following service recovery efforts in a South African retail banking
context.
2. Sanchayan Sengupta, Daniel Ray, Olivier Trendel, and Yves Van Vaerenbergh, The Effects
of Apologies for Service Failures in the Global Online Retail.
3. Fung Yi Millissa Cheung, A customer-dominant logic on service recovery and customer
satisfaction.
4. Hair. (1998). 60 hair et al 1998 suggest that reliability estimates. Retrieved from Course Hero:
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p4t1hv1/60-Hair-et-al-1998-suggest-that-reliability-estimates-
between-06-and-07

5.Hubbert, A.R. (1995), “Customer co-creation of service outcomes: effects of locus of causality
attributions”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

6.Kuo, Y. F., Wu, C. M., & Deng, W. J. (2009). The relationships among service quality,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added
services. Computers in human behavior, 25(4), pp. 887-896.

7.Yoon C. Cho, Juyeon Song (2012), The effects of customer’s dissatisfaction on switching
behavior in the service sector, Journal of business and economic research, Vol. 10.

8. Press, I.Ganey, R.F, and Hall, M. F. (1997), “What’s most important to customer
satisfaction?”. ABA Banking Journal, Vol. 89 No. 9, pp. 73-4.
9. Zheng Fang, Xueming Luo and Minghua Jiang, Quantifying the Dynamic Effects of Service
Recovery on Customer Satisfaction, Journal of Service Research, 16, 3, (341), (2013).
10. Theodorakopoulos, N., Ram, M. and Kakabadse, N. (2014). Procedural Justice in
Procurement Management and Inclusive Interorganizational Relations: An Institutional
Perspective. British Journal of Management, 26(2), pp.237-254.
11.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.
12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97) 90003-8 Boshoff, C. (1997). An experimental
study of service recovery options. International Journal of service industry management, 8(2),
110-130.
 13. Boshoff, C., & Leong, J. (1998). Empowerment, attribution and apologising as dimensions
of service recovery: An experimental study. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 9(1), 24-47.
14. Anon,(2019).
[online]Availableat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276030713_The_effects_of_Justic
e_Oriented_Service_Recovery_on_Customer_Satisfaction_and_Loyalty_in_Retail_Banks_in_Et
hiopia [Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
15. Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D. J. and Tax, S. S. (1997), “The effects of distributive justice,
procedural and international justice on post complaint behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.
73 No. 2, pp. 185-210.
Executive summary of “Emotional antecedents and outcomes of service recovery: an exploratory
study in the luxury hotel industry”. (2014). Journal of Services Marketing, 28(3).
16. Mohr, L.A. and Bitner, M. J. (1995), “The role of employee effort in satisfaction with
service transactions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-52.
17. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. London:
McGraw-Hill. Potulari, R.and Mangnale, V. (2011)“Critical factors of customer satisfaction
in Ethiopian service sector” Journal of Business Management, Vol. 1 No 1, pp. 1-7.
18. Executive summary of “Emotional antecedents and outcomes of service recovery: an
exploratory study in the luxury hotel industry”. (2014). Journal of Services Marketing, 28(3).
Ccsenet.org.(2019).
[online]Availableat:http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/39811/22093
[Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
19.Ccsenet.org.(2019).
[online]Availableat:http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/39811/22093
[Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
20. Collie, T. A., Sparks, B. and Bradley, G. (2000). Investing in interactional justice: a study of
the fair process effect within a hospitality failure context. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 24(4), 448–472.
21. Sánchez-García, I. and Currás-Pérez, R. (2011). Effects of dissatisfaction in tourist services:
The role of anger and regret. Tourism Management, 32, 1397-1406.
22. Schoefer, K. (2008). The role of cognition and affect in the formation of customer
satisfaction judgments concerning service recovery encounters. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
7(3), 210–221.
23. Schoefer, K. and Ennew, C. (2005). The impact of perceived justice on consumer emotional
responses to service complaints experiences. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(5), 261-270.
24. Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J. and Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 185–210.
25.Patterson, P. G., Cowley, E. and Prasongsukarn, K. (2006). Service failure recovery: The
moderating impact to of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 263–277.
26. Weber, H., Mund, M., Leidermann, F. and Zink, K. (2004). Barrierefreiheit im WWW (Web
Accessibility). i-com, 3(3-2004), pp.9-14.
27. Tsaur, S., Lin, C. and Wu, C. (2005). Cultural Differences of Service Quality and Behavioral
Intention in Tourist Hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13(1), pp.41-63.
28. Emeraldinsight.com. (2019). Service failures in online double deviation scenarios: justice
theory approach | Managing Service Quality: An International Journal | Vol 20, No 1. [online]
Available at: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09604521011011621 [Accessed
1 Apr. 2019].
29. Jones, B. (2016). The Online/Offline Cognitive Divide: Implications for Law. SCRIPTed,
13(1), pp.83-94.
30. López, M. and Sicilia, M. (2011). Use of online versus offline information sources by
tourists. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 3(2), pp.273-288.
31. Fung Yi Millissa Cheung, Wai Ming To ,21 March 2016 CISF , A customer-dominant
logicon service recovery and customer satisfaction
32. . Bar‐Ilan, J. (2007). Manipulating search engine algorithms: the case of Google. Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 5(2/3), pp.155-166.
33.  Johnston, T. and Hewa, M. (1997). Fixing service failures. Industrial Marketing
Management, 26(5), pp.467-473.
35. lodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J., & Tax, S.S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural, and
interactionaljustice on post-complaint behavior. Journal of Retailing,73(2), 185–210.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90003-8

36.Rosen, D.E., &Surprenant, C. (1998). Evaluating relationships: Are satisfaction and quality
enough?International Journal of Service Industry Management,9(2), 103–125. doi:10.1108/
0956423981021045

37. Hurst, E. (2002). Online access available for all via ScienceDirect. Composites Science and
Technology, 62(16), pp.2085-2086.

38. Nikbin, D., Ismail, I., Marimuthu, M., & Salarzehi, H. (2012). The Relationship of Service
Failure Attributions, Service Recovery Justice and Recovery Satisfaction in the Context of
Airlines. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,12(3), 232-254.
doi:10.1080/15022250.2012.724923
39. Pai, F., Yeh, T., & Lin, L. (2017). Relationship Level and Customer Response to Service
Recovery. Social Indicators Research,140(3), 1301-1319. doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1820-

Appendix

Frequencies
Statistics

GENDER

N Valid 100

Missing 0

GENDER

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid MALE 77 77.0 77.0 77.0

FEMALE 23 23.0 23.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

(Table 1)
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=AGE /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies

Statistics

AGE

N Valid 100

Missing 0

AGE

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 20-29 45 45.0 45.0 45.0

30-39 32 32.0 32.0 77.0

40-49 12 12.0 12.0 89.0

50 AND ABOVE 11 11.0 11.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

(Table 2)

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=INCOME /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Statistics

INCOME PER MONTH

N Valid 100

Missing 0

INCOME PER MONTH

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid 10000-19999 26 26.0 26.0 26.0

20000-29999 16 16.0 16.0 42.0

30000-39999 25 25.0 25.0 67.0

40000 AND ABOVE 33 33.0 33.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

(Table 3)
GET FILE='C:\Users\Ahmad Taha\Desktop\Final Spss.sav'. CROSSTABS
/TABLES=GENDER BY AGE /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT /COUNT ROUND
CELL /BARCHART.

Crosstabs

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Ahmad Taha\Desktop\Final Spss.sav

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

GENDER * AGE 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%

GENDER * AGE Crosstabulation

Count

AGE

20-29 30-39 40-49 50 AND ABOVE Total

GENDER MALE 37 22 8 10 77

FEMALE 8 10 4 1 23

Total 45 32 12 11 100
(Table 4)
(Figure-1)

CROSSTABS /TABLES=GENDER BY INCOME /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES

/CELLS=COUNT /COUNT ROUND CELL /BARCHART.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

GENDER * INCOME PER 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%

MONTH
 GENDER * INCOME PER MONTH Crosstabulation

Count

INCOME PER MONTH

40000 AND
10000-19999 20000-29999 30000-39999 ABOVE Total

GENDER MALE 24 8 18 27 77

FEMALE 2 8 7 6 23

Total 26 16 25 33 100
(Table 5)

(Figure-2)
CROSSTABS /TABLES=AGE BY INCOME /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL /BARCHART.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

AGE * INCOME PER MONTH 100 100.0% 0 .0% 100 100.0%

AGE * INCOME PER MONTH Crosstabulation

Count

INCOME PER MONTH Total

40000 AND
10000-19999 20000-29999 30000-39999 ABOVE

AGE 20-29 25 8 6 6 45

30-39 1 7 14 10 32

40-49 0 0 5 7 12

50 AND ABOVE 0 1 0 10 11

Total 26 16 25 33 100
(Table 6)
(Figure-3)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=CCOSR2 CCOSR3 CCOSR4 CCOSR5 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')

ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.611 4
(Table 7)
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=OVOPVP6 OVOPVP7 OVOPVP8 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.670 3
(Table 8)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=NC9 NC10 NC11 NC12 NC13 NC14 /SCALE('ALL

VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.
 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.720 6
(Table 9)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=SOSP15 SOSP16 SOSP17 SOSP18 SOSP19 /SCALE('ALL

VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.674 5
(Table 10)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=DJ20 DJ21 DJ22 DJ23 DJ24 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')

ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
 Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.818 5
(Table 11)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=PJ25 PJ26 PJ27 PJ28 PJ29 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')

ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.605 5
(Table 12)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=INTJ30 INTJ31 INTJ32 INTJ33 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')

ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.830 4
(Table 13)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=INFJ34 INFJ35 INFJ36 INFJ37 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')

ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.758 4
(Table 14)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=SRS38 SRS39 SRS40 SRS41 SRS42 SRS43 SRS44

/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.908 7
(Table 15)

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=BI45 BI46 BI47 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 100 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 100 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.
 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items

.934 3
(Table 16)

Spearson
NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERINVOLVE DISTRIBUTIVEJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN
TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

CUTOMER
INVOLVEMENT
WITH SERVICE DISTRIBUTIVE
FAILURE TO BE JUSTICE

Spearman's rho CUTOMER INVOLVEMENT Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .309**

WITH SERVICE FAILURE TO
Sig. (2-tailed) . .002
BE
N 100 100

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .309** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 17)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERINVOLVE PROCEDURALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations

Correlations

CUTOMER
INVOLVEMENT
WITH SERVICE PROCEDURAL
FAILURE TO BE JUSTICE

Spearman's rho CUTOMER INVOLVEMENT Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .245*

WITH SERVICE FAILURE TO
Sig. (2-tailed) . .014
BE
N 100 100

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .245* 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .

N 100 100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(Table 18)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERINVOLVE INTERACTIONALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

CUTOMER
INVOLVEMENT
WITH SERVICE INTERACTIONAL
FAILURE TO BE JUSTICE

Spearman's rho CUTOMER INVOLVEMENT Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .135

WITH SERVICE FAILURE TO
Sig. (2-tailed) . .180
BE
N 100 100

INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .135 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .180 .

N 100 100
(Table 19)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERCO DISTRIBUTIVEJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

CUSTOMER CO-
CREATION OF
SERVICE DISTRIBUTIVE
RECOVERY JUSTICE

Spearman's rho CUSTOMER CO-CREATION OF Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .285**

SERVICE RECOVERY
Sig. (2-tailed) . .004

N 100 100

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .285** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 20)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERCO PROCEDURALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

CUSTOMER CO-
CREATION OF
SERVICE PROCEDURAL
RECOVERY JUSTICE

Spearman's rho CUSTOMER CO-CREATION OF Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .264**

SERVICE RECOVERY
Sig. (2-tailed) . .008

N 100 100

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .264** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 21)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERCO INTERACTIONALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

CUSTOMER CO-
CREATION OF
SERVICE INTERACTIONAL
RECOVERY JUSTICE

Spearman's rho CUSTOMER CO-CREATION OF Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .223*

SERVICE RECOVERY
Sig. (2-tailed) . .026

N 100 100

INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .223* 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .

N 100 100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(Table 22)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=NATIONALCULTURE OFFLINEVSONLINE /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations

Correlations

NATIONAL OFFLINE VS
CULTURE: ONLINE;
EASTERN VS EASTERN VS
WESTERN WESTERN

Spearman's rho NATIONAL CULTURE: Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .230*

EASTERN VS WESTERN
Sig. (2-tailed) . .021

N 100 100

OFFLINE VS ONLINE; Correlation Coefficient .230* 1.000

EASTERN VS WESTERN
Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .

N 100 100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(Table 23)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=STATUSOFSERVICE NATIONALCULTURE /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

STATUS OF NATIONAL
SERVICE CULTURE:
PERSONNEL: EASTERN VS
HIGH VS LOW WESTERN

Spearman's rho STATUS OF SERVICE Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .008

PERSONNEL: HIGH VS LOW
Sig. (2-tailed) . .936

N 100 100

NATIONAL CULTURE: Correlation Coefficient .008 1.000

EASTERN VS WESTERN
Sig. (2-tailed) .936 .

N 100 100
(Table 24)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV DISTRIBUTIVEJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY DISTRIBUTIVE
SATISFACTION JUSTICE

Spearman's rho SERVICE RECOVERY Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .624**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 100 100

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .624** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 25)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV PROCEDURALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY PROCEDURAL
SATISFACTION JUSTICE

Spearman's rho SERVICE RECOVERY Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .716**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 100 100

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .716** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 26)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV INTERACTIONALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY INTERACTIONAL
SATISFACTION JUSTICE

Spearman's rho SERVICE RECOVERY Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .659**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 100 100

INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .659** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 27)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV INFORMATIONALJUST /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY INFORMATIONAL
SATISFACTION JUSTICE

Spearman's rho SERVICE RECOVERY Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .709**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 100 100

INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE Correlation Coefficient .709** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 28)

NONPAR CORR /VARIABLES=BEHAVIORALINTEN SERVICERECOV /PRINT=SPEARMAN

TWOTAIL NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Nonparametric Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
BEHAVIORAL RECOVERY
INTENTION SATISFACTION

Spearman's rho BEHAVIORAL INTENTION Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .691**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 100 100

SERVICE RECOVERY Correlation Coefficient .691** 1.000

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 29)
Pearson
CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERINVOLVE DISTRIBUTIVEJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL
NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

CUTOMER
INVOLVEMENT
WITH SERVICE DISTRIBUTIVE
FAILURE TO BE JUSTICE

CUTOMER INVOLVEMENT Pearson Correlation 1 .259**

WITH SERVICE FAILURE
Sig. (2-tailed) .009
TO BE
N 100 100

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .259** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .009

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 30)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERINVOLVE PROCEDURALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

CUTOMER
INVOLVEMENT
WITH SERVICE PROCEDURAL
FAILURE TO BE JUSTICE

CUTOMER INVOLVEMENT Pearson Correlation 1 .213*

WITH SERVICE FAILURE
Sig. (2-tailed) .033
TO BE
N 100 100

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .213* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .033

N 100 100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(Table 31)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERINVOLVE INTERACTIONALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

CUTOMER
INVOLVEMENT
WITH SERVICE INTERACTIONA
FAILURE TO BE L JUSTICE

CUTOMER INVOLVEMENT Pearson Correlation 1 .070

WITH SERVICE FAILURE
Sig. (2-tailed) .490
TO BE
N 100 100

INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .070 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .490

N 100 100
(Table 32)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERCO DISTRIBUTIVEJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG

/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

CUSTOMER
CO-CREATION
OF SERVICE DISTRIBUTIVE
RECOVERY JUSTICE

CUSTOMER CO-CREATION Pearson Correlation 1 .316**

OF SERVICE RECOVERY
Sig. (2-tailed) .001

N 100 100

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .316** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 33)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERCO PROCEDURALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

CUSTOMER
CO-CREATION
OF SERVICE PROCEDURAL
RECOVERY JUSTICE

CUSTOMER CO-CREATION Pearson Correlation 1 .273**

OF SERVICE RECOVERY
Sig. (2-tailed) .006

N 100 100

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .273** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .006

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 34)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=CUSTOMERCO INTERACTIONALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG

/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

CUSTOMER
CO-CREATION
OF SERVICE INTERACTIONA
RECOVERY L JUSTICE

CUSTOMER CO-CREATION Pearson Correlation 1 .204*

OF SERVICE RECOVERY
Sig. (2-tailed) .042

N 100 100

INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .204* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .042

N 100 100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(Table 35)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=OFFLINEVSONLINE STATUSOFSERVICE /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations
Correlations

OFFLINE VS STATUS OF
ONLINE; SERVICE
EASTERN VS PERSONNEL:
WESTERN HIGH VS LOW

OFFLINE VS ONLINE; Pearson Correlation 1 .143

EASTERN VS WESTERN
Sig. (2-tailed) .156

N 100 100

STATUS OF SERVICE Pearson Correlation .143 1

PERSONNEL: HIGH VS
Sig. (2-tailed) .156
LOW
N 100 100
(Table 36)
CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=NATIONALCULTURE OFFLINEVSONLINE /PRINT=TWOTAIL
NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations
Correlations

NATIONAL OFFLINE VS
CULTURE: ONLINE;
EASTERN VS EASTERN VS
WESTERN WESTERN

NATIONAL CULTURE: Pearson Correlation 1 .195

EASTERN VS WESTERN
Sig. (2-tailed) .052

N 100 100

OFFLINE VS ONLINE; Pearson Correlation .195 1

EASTERN VS WESTERN
Sig. (2-tailed) .052

N 100 100
(Table 37)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=INFORMATIONALJUST STATUSOFSERVICE /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations
Correlations

STATUS OF
SERVICE
INFORMATIONA PERSONNEL:
L JUSTICE HIGH VS LOW

INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation 1 .052

Sig. (2-tailed) .604

N 100 100

STATUS OF SERVICE Pearson Correlation .052 1

PERSONNEL: HIGH VS
Sig. (2-tailed) .604
LOW
N 100 100
(Table 38)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV DISTRIBUTIVEJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG

/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY DISTRIBUTIVE
SATISFACTION JUSTICE

SERVICE RECOVERY Pearson Correlation 1 .707**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .707** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 39)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV PROCEDURALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG

/MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY PROCEDURAL
SATISFACTION JUSTICE

SERVICE RECOVERY Pearson Correlation 1 .697**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .697** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 40)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV INTERACTIONALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY INTERACTIONA
SATISFACTION L JUSTICE

SERVICE RECOVERY Pearson Correlation 1 .726**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .726** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 41)

CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=SERVICERECOV INFORMATIONALJUST /PRINT=TWOTAIL

NOSIG /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
RECOVERY INFORMATIONA
SATISFACTION L JUSTICE

SERVICE RECOVERY Pearson Correlation 1 .769**

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

INFORMATIONAL JUSTICE Pearson Correlation .769** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 42)
CORRELATIONS /VARIABLES=BEHAVIORALINTEN SERVICERECOV /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.

Correlations
Correlations

SERVICE
BEHAVIORAL RECOVERY
INTENTION SATISFACTION

BEHAVIORAL INTENTION Pearson Correlation 1 .773**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

SERVICE RECOVERY Pearson Correlation .773** 1

SATISFACTION
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

(Table 43)
Questionnaire on Service Recovery

Personal information
GENDER: Male AGE: 20-29 INCOME: 10,000-19,999
Female 30-39 20,000-29,999
40-49 30,000-39,999
50 AND ABOVE 40,000 AND ABOVE

# Customer involvement with service failure

(1) Not at all important (2) Slightly important (3) Important (4) Fairly important
(5) Very Important

1. I consider the hotel service failure to be 1 2 3 4 5

(1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5)
Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree

# Customer co-creation of service recovery

2. I discuss transaction problem with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

customer-contact employees.

3. I discuss my needs with the hotel's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

managers and employees.

4. I am willing to put a great deal of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

effort to help the hotel make a service recovery.

5. I help the hotel's employees when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

they seem uncertain during service recovery.

(1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5)
Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree

# Offline vs. Online; Public vs. Private

6. I think this hotel has good policies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and practices for dealing with problems
7. This hotel showed flexibility in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dealing with my problem.
8. I was satisfied with the hotel

# National Culture: Eastern vs. Western

9. Individuals should sacrifice self-interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for the group.
10. Individuals should stick with their group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
even through difficulties.

11. Group welfare is more important than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

individual.

12. Group success is more important than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

individual success.

13. Individuals should only pursue their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

personal goals after considering group goals.

14. Group loyalty should be encouraged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 even if individual goals suffer.

# Status of service personnel: High vs. Low

15. People in higher positions should make 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
most decisions without consulting people in lower position.

16. People in higher positions should not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ask the opinion of people in lower positions too

frequently.

17. People in higher positions should avoid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

social contact with people in lower positions.

18. People in lower positions should not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

disagree with people in higher positions.

19. People in higher positions should not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

delegate important tasks.

# Distributive Justice
20. In resolving the problem, I got what 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

i deserved.

21. In resolving the problem, the eventual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

outcome was the right one.

22. In resolving the problem, the outcome i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

received was fair.

23. The hotel treated me well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. The hotel's efforts resulted in positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

outcome for me.

 (1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Agree
(6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree

(1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Agree
(6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree

# Procedural Justice
25. The hotel showed adequate flexibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

in dealing with my problem.

26. The hotel was quick to deal with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

my problem.

27. The length of time taken to solve my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

problem was appropriate.

28. The company employee's communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

with me was appropriate.

29. The company employee gave me the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

courtesy I deserved.

# Interactional justice
30. The employees put the right amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

of effort into resolving my problem.

31. The employees were appropriately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

concerned about my problem.

32. The Employees' communications with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

me were appropriate.

33. The employees gave me the courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

i was due.

(1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Agree
(6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree

# Informational justice
34. The explanations regarding the procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

were reasonable.

35. The customer care team explained the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

procedures thoroughly.

36. The customer care team communicated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

details in timely manner.

37. The customer care team was truthful in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

their communications with me.

(1) Totally not satisfied (2) Not Satisfied (3) Neither satisfied nor not satisfied (4) Satisfied (5) Totally
satisfied

# Service Recovery satisfaction

38. How satisfied would you be with this 1 2 3 4 5

hotel’s handling of the problem?

39. Overall how satisfied would you be with your hotel 1 2 3 4 5

experience on this particular occasion?

(1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Agree
(6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree
40. I am pleased with the service I experienced. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41. I felt the service response I received was good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. My feelings about the hotel is very positive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43. I feel good about doing business with this hotel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(1) Very strongly disagree (2) strongly disagree (3) Disagree (4) Neither agree nor disagree (5) Agree
(6) Strongly Agree (7) Very strongly Agree

44. I feel satisfied that the result from doing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

business with this hotel is the best that can be achieved

# Behavioral Intention
45. If I had to choose a hotel all over again, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would choose my current hotel.

46. I would highly recommend my hotel to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

other people.

47. I intend to continue using my hotel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7