Mitigating the negative effects of service failure through customer identification

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of numerical customer identification (i.e., assigning numbers to identify customers) in the service context on the numbered customers' reaction to service failures. We manipulated numerical identification in different ways (room number, customer number, table number, and order number) and measured customers' tolerance of services across various settings (in a restaurant, a spa, and a café) in four studies. The results demonstrated that after being identified by a number, customers tend to exhibit a higher tolerance of service failures (Studies 1 and 2), and this effect is mediated by a sense of self‐dehumanization among the numerically identified customers (Study 3). Moreover, the investigated effect diminished when customers had heightened individuation (e.g., by disclosing personal information) to buffer against dehumanization (Study 4). Our findings contribute to the underexplored research area on customer identification, broaden the numerical research and dehumanization literature in marketing, and bring practical implications for firms to mitigate the negative effects of service failures and decrease customer dissatisfaction.

When frontline robots emerge: the double-edged-sword effect of anticipated trust on intention to switch brands after service failure

“…(1993), suggest that the severity of service failure affects changes in service failure tolerance, with more severe consequences of service failure resulting in lower consumer tolerance. Second, personal characteristics, such as those mentioned by Song et al. (2022), suggest that consumers who have experienced self-dehumanization have a higher tolerance for service failure.…”

Proof of ID: Building Access and Personhood in the Social Service Ecosystem Through Exchange

“…A few notable exceptions rely on correlational data (e.g., Kteily and Bruneau 2017) or ask undergraduate students to respond to hypothetical vignettes or recall instances where they were dehumanized (Bastian and Haslam 2011). In particular, the current work contributes to the scant literature on dehumanization in marketing (Song, Huang, and Jiang 2022), shedding light on how (de)humanization relates to well-being.…”

“…Mechanistic dehumanization sparks sadness and anger (Bastian and Haslam 2011). One marketplace impact of dehumanization could be self-dehumanization, resignation, and higher tolerance of service failures (Song, Huang, and Jiang 2022), whereas other forms of dehumanization may result in rejection of the marketplace and anticonsumption (Cherrier and Hill 2018).…”

Platform-centric vs. multi-party service failure: an examination of consumers’ negative word of mouth about sharing economy platforms

“…Service failure can generate negative consumer reactions such as anger, disappointment and embarrassment (Bougie et al , 2003; Gelbrich, 2010; Ozuem et al , 2021; Su et al , 2018; Wan, 2013). Companies use service recovery strategies to alleviate such responses (Gelbrich, 2010; Song et al , 2022). Besides financial compensation (Davidow, 2003; Gelbrich, 2010), explanations can attenuate consumers’ negative reactions (Gelbrich, 2010): offering a prompt, thorough explanation of service failure can help consumers understand why it occurred and be more understanding of the blame-worthy service provider (Gelbrich, 2010; Weiner, 2000).…”