Explaining Injustice: The Interactive Effect of Explanation and Outcome on Fairness Perceptions and Task Motivation

Abstract

Journal of Management 28 (2002) 591-610. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00157-5Received by publisher: 2001-05-11Harvest Date: 2016-01-04 12:21:17DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00157-5Page Range: 591-61

What Makes Customers Discontent with Service Providers? An Empirical Analysis of Complaint Handling in Information and Communication Technology Services

“…This suggests that WP provokes CJ and SJ. Put another way, if individuals cannot imagine how their wellbeing would have been better, there is no reason to think of could and should (Colquitt and Chertkoff, 2002). In the ICT service context, if the complainant is fully satisfied with the outcome, say the service was resumed or the dispute was settled, he or she will be less concerned with the feasible options or moral issue of the cause of the problem.…”

“…An unexpected unfavorable outcome creates the most negative affect, and makes would counterfactual thinking strongest and the impact of explanations on CJ and SJs most critical. Colquitt and Chertkoff (2002) argued that Fairness Theory provides theoretical support for an explanation provision 9 outcome favorability interaction. An explanation that provides could and should information is less necessary in a favorable outcome.…”

“…The argument that explanation provision of could and should information is less necessary in the case of a favorable outcome (Colquitt and Chertkoff, 2002) is only partially supported. The correlation between outcome favorability and SJ is almost half of that between outcome favorability and CJ (-0.34 vs.…”

“…This implies that even if the outcome is favorable, the impact on SJ is relatively small and explanations are still necessary. Colquitt and Chertkoff (2002) examined the effect of explanations on fairness in the selection of brain stormers by different groups. The results were run by the experimenter with and without explanations to test the moderating effect of outcome favorability.…”

“…In fact, accounts of justice cannot be complete without reference to morality (Cropanzano et al, 2003). More recently, Fairness Theory (Folger andCropanzano, 1998, 2001) has been found to provide useful insights in extending and explaining customer responses to complaint handling and service recovery, in particular regarding ethical judgment (Colquitt and Chertkoff, 2002;McColl-Kennedy and Sparks, 2003;Shaw et al, 2003). However, the relationship among the elements of Fairness Theory in the ICT service is unknown.…”