Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The benefits of customer co-creation of value in the service context are well recognized. However, little is known about service failures in a co-creation context and the consequent roles of both firms and customers in the advent of service recovery. In conceptualizing a new construct, “customer participation in service recovery,” this study proposes a theoretical framework that delineates the consequences of the construct and empirically tests the proposed framework using role-playing experiments. The results indicate that, when customers participate in the service recovery process in self-service technology contexts, they are more likely to report higher levels of role clarity, perceived value of future co-creation, satisfaction with the service recovery, and intention to co-create value in the future. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(30), 459–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94 (Spring).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G., Ellen, P. S., & Pilling, B. K. (1997). Developing typologies of consumer motives for use of technologically based banking services. Journal of Business Research, 38(2), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, J. E. G. (1985). Self-service consumer: An exploratory study. Journal of Retailing, 61(3), 49–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Multivariate Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, K. (1995). Consumer participation in service production: A conceptual model and empirical study. Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

  • Claycomb, C., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Inks, L. W. (2001). The customer as a productive resource: A pilot study and strategic implications. Journal of Business Strategies, 18(1), 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabholkar, P. A. (1990). How to improve perceived service quality by improving customer participation. In B. J. Dunlap (Ed.), Developments in marketing science (pp. 483–487). NC: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellande, S., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Gaining compliance and losing weight: The role of the service provider in health care services. Journal of Marketing, 68, 78–91 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W., & Bitner, M. J. (1993). Tracking the evolution of the services marketing literature. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 61–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service. Review of Business, 9(3), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in service production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66(33), 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, S. W., Hoffman, D., & Davis, M. A. (1993). A typology of retail failures and recoveries. Journal of Retailing, 69, 429–452 (Winter).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lastovicaka, J. L., & Thamodaran, K. (1991). Common factor score estimates in multiple regression problems. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006a). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006b). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). A longitudinal study of complaining customers' evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meuter, M. L., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Self-service technologies: Extending service frameworks and identifying issues for research. In American Marketing Association (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 12–19). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

  • Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Roundtree, R. I., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Self-service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64, 50–64 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, P. K., & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as ‘‘partial’’ employees of service organizations: Role development in client participation. Academy of Management Review, 11, 726–735 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy and Leadership, 32(3), 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, L. F. (1983). Influencing the ‘‘shape’’ of resistance: An experimental exploration of paradoxical directives and psychological reactance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 47–71 (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 356–372 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated approach. Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, S. R., & Kelley, S. W. (2001). Attributions and outcomes of the service recovery process. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 50–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62, 60–76 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–27 (January).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004b). The four service marketing myths: Remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 324–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of Missouri—Columbia, 417 Cornell Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Beibei Dong

  2. Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, 307 W. Brooks, Room 207, Norman, OK, 73019, USA

    Kenneth R. Evans

  3. College of Business, University of Missouri—Columbia, 335 Cornell Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Shaoming Zou

Authors
  1. Beibei Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth R. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaoming Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beibei Dong.

Additional information

Authors are listed alphabetically.

Appendices

Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 1
figure 1

Theoretical framework of customer participation in service recovery.

Full size image

Table 1

Table 1 Measurement Model
Full size table

Table 2

Table 2 Results of path analysis
Full size table

Scenario description

A: Online course enrollment

The university was introducing a new online course registration system. This was the first time you had used this new system on your own. You were very interested in a business course, which was very popular among undergraduates, and you knew the course could be full very soon. However, you didn’t know exactly how to register with the new system and made mistakes with some of the function buttons . The system kept displaying that you had input “incorrect information.” You were at a loss as to what to do next.

A1. Firm recovery

The system indicated that a staff member would contact you in the next 2–3 days to solve the problem for you. You were contacted in a couple of days and collected the information necessary for registration. Later on, an email was sent to you, indicating that a successful registration had been done for you. You didn’t observe how the registration was actually completed. The information regarding which courses to register depended on you, which was not a part of solving the problem. You didn’t make any effort to fix the problem. The staff person actually solved the problem.

A2. Joint recovery

You called the registration office for help. A staff person answered your call and guided you step-by-step through the enrollment procedures, telling you which function buttons to use. You were successfully enrolled, thanks to your and the employee’s effort.

A3. Customer recovery

You didn’t give up. After numerous attempts, you eventually worked it out and successfully registered online yourself. Now you fully understand how to register courses online with this new system.

B: Internet setup

You had a big term paper due next week after the break. Since the library was closed over break, you had just signed up for a new Internet service at home so you could work at home over the break. This was the first time you had ever set up an Internet service. You followed the instructions step-by-step until you made a wrong selection among several options and got an error message. The setup couldn’t be completed successfully.

B1. Firm recovery

The system suggested that you contact the cable company for help. A technician came to your place to inspect the problem. The technician made an extensive effort to identify your mistake in your setup, and successfully set up the Internet for you. But you didn’t see how he/she actually completed the setup. You didn’t make any effort to fix the problem. The technician actually solved the problem.

B2. Joint recovery

You contacted the cable company for help. A technician answered your call. You were guided through the whole installation procedure step-by-step, found your previous mistake, and successfully set up the Internet by cooperating with the employee.

B3. Customer recovery

You didn’t give up. After several trials, you found your mistake and set up the Internet correctly on your own. Now you fully understand how to set up the Internet service.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dong, B., Evans, K.R. & Zou, S. The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 123–137 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation