The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

When they experience service failures, customers look for causes. They seek to understand whether the service firm could have prevented the failure (controllability attribution) and whether the cause of the failure is temporary or constant over time (stability attribution). To understand such attributions, we perform a meta-analysis. We find that causal attributions are related to emotional and cognitive reactions in several ways. First, controllability attributions elicit stronger negative emotions than do stability attributions. Second, controllability attributions directly affect only transaction-specific satisfaction, whereas stability attributions directly affect customers’ transaction-specific and overall satisfaction. Third, both attributions affect loyalty and negative word of mouth through negative emotions, overall satisfaction, and transaction-specific satisfaction. Finally, contextual (i.e., cultural values), methodological (i.e., type of failure), and measurement factors (i.e., measurement scale) partly explain studywise variation in the effects of attributions on customer outcomes. We recommend that companies manage reactions to service failure thrice: before customers formulate attributional beliefs, using fast and accurate communication; when the attributional beliefs are formed, offering employee assistance and compensations; and well after the attributional beliefs are established, providing feedback on process improvements by the company.

No abstract

No abstract