Online service failure, consumer attributions and expectations

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences in consumers' attributions of blame for service failures and its affect on their expectations for recovery in both online and offline settings. Design/methodology/approach -A sample of non-student adults participated in a 2 (service type) by 2 (shopping medium) experimental design testing the affects of on-and offline shopping on consumers' attributions of blame for a service failure. Specifically, regression is employed to test the effects of on/offline medium on blame and expected service failure recovery in both the airline and banking industries. Findings -Empirical support is found for the hypotheses that online subjects blame themselves more for service failures, and, in turn, expect less of a recovery than offline consumers. The on/offline medium is shown to have a mediated effect on expected service failure recovery through blame in the airline data. In the bank data, on/offline medium has a significant affect on blame, and blame has a significant affect on expected service failure recovery, though on/offline medium does not show a mediated affect on expected service failure recovery. Practical implications -Because online customers tend to blame themselves more for service failures, managers may be able to offer less of service failure recovery online than offline. Furthermore, online customers may be more willing to recover for themselves, thereby saving the firm money and placing customers more in control of their service experience. Originality/value -This study allows for the possibility of consumers' blaming themselves for service failures and, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine how attribution for service failure affects expected service failure recovery in both on-and offline settings. Managers should find our results useful in developing service failure recovery strategies.

Recovery Strategies in On-Line Service Failure

“…These arguments are consistent with findings concerning the drawbacks of repeated service failures and ineffective recovery strategies (Bickle, 2010;Harris, et al, 2006). For example, Bickle (2010) found out that whenever a customer is dissatisfied with an item of clothing, it is assumed that they either blame themselves for choosing the wrong size; or blame the company for having a different size system.…”

“…From these findings, it was noted that consumers felt frustrated and anxious amongst other negative emotions when clothing they ordered online had not arrived. Harris, et al (2006) support the notion that consumers expect compensation after being inconvenienced by a service provider. By communicating how and when consumers may expect their products on a regular basis allows them to feel that the company is respectful of their time and purchase.…”

The role of self-service technologies in restoring justice

“…Following an on-line service failure, an on-line service recovery (i.e., tangible compensation and apology offered via e-mail) led to higher perceptions of distributive justice than off-line recovery (i.e., a phone conversation with a company representative). This finding is consistent with prior research suggesting that consumers might be less demanding with on-line recovery efforts (Harris et al, 2006b). Yet, it is important to note that the tangible compensation was not sufficient to restore consumers' distributive fairness in Study 2 (mean ratings uniformly below the neutral point of four).…”

Atypical Shifts Post-failure: Influence of Co-creation on Attribution and Future Motivation to Co-create

“…Such attributions are a self-serving attempt for customers to protect their self-esteem (Harvey et al 2014;Miller and Ross 1975). However, it has been found that customers attribute failure to themselves in situations where they have utilized self-service technology (SST) or technology-enabled services (Harris, Mohr, and Bernhardt 2006;Heidenreich et al 2015;Zhu et al 2013). In these studies, failure was studied in the form of technical glitches, which are routine or expected (e.g.…”

“…Heidenreich et al (2015) use a technology-based service for rail/flight ticket booking which considers booking interruption (again, a technical glitch) as failure. Harris, Mohr, and Bernhardt (2006) use a situation in which respondents face failure when they perform an online bank transfer. Although such technologyenabled services are "highly interactive," they cover only limited elements of co-creation (Bolton and Saxena-Iyer 2009).…”