Abstract
This research develops a general model to explain customer satisfaction evaluations and service quality attitudes after service failure and recovery. Hypotheses embedded within the model are also empirically evaluated. Specifically, this research addresses post-recovery satisfaction by considering the specific question of under what circumstances (if any), would customers who have experienced a service problem rate their satisfaction as high or higher than they would rate a consumption experience involving no service failure. This situation was termed the recovery paradox by McCollough and Bharadwaj (1992), where recovery refers to the efforts of the service provider to turn customer dissatisfaction into satisfaction by addressing the customer's service problem. Marketing researchers have argued that such an outcome is possible, but as yet no empirical research has established its veracity. Indeed, such a result would not necessarily be predicted by most consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction models. Pursuant to answering this question, a general model of customer satisfaction after service failure and recovery is developed and hypotheses embedded within this model are empirically evaluated. The model is based on the disconfirmation paradigm, justice literature, attribution, and service quality literature. Hypotheses embedded within the general model of recovery were empirically evaluated via three separate experiments. The results of the experiments provide some support for the general model of recovery. Customer satisfaction is found to be related to the recovery performance, customers failure expectations, perceived procedural and distributive justice, and the harm caused by the failure. In general, recovery efforts can only partially mitigate the dissatisfaction arising from service failure. Evidence of a recovery paradox effect was found only when the failure caused low harm, and the service provider delivered superior recovery efforts. Findings from the research offer insights into the general nature of recovery, for which little empirical research exists. Specifically, the research furthers academic understanding of how customers evaluate recovery as well as provides managers with guidelines for developing successful service recovery strategies. In addition, the research provides a framework for evaluating the seriousness of service failure and thereby guides development of service strategies to maximize customer satisfaction and service quality attitudes.