Figure 1 Proposed model More about this image found in Proposed model

Figure 2 A simple plot for the moderating effect of psychological distress on the relationship between learned helplessness and work engagement More about this image found in A simple plot for the moderating effect of psychological distress on the re...

Figure 1 Conceptual model A conceptual path diagram linking AI chatbot recovery strategies to customer outcomes with mediation and moderation effects. The conceptual path diagram shows a left-to-right structure with grouped variables, arrows of different line styles, and a legend at the bottom... More about this image found in Conceptual model A conceptual path diagram linking AI chatbot recovery s...

Figure 2 Customer recovery outcomes in Study 1 A vertical bar chart shows customer recovery outcomes for economic and symbolic strategies across C F, R I, and C S. The vertical bar chart is drawn on a coordinate plane. The chart title reads “Simple Bar Mean of C F, Mean of R I, Mean of C S”. T... More about this image found in Customer recovery outcomes in Study 1 A vertical bar chart shows custome...

Figure 1 Proposed research model and summary of results. Notes: Unstandardized coefficients were provided. For model parsimony, the results for the control variables (e.g. gender, age, job tenure, positive affectivity, and negative affectivity) were omitted. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. ^†p < 0.10, ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. Source: Authors’ own work A structural model shows links among safety climate, health climate, work engagement, turnover intention, and covariates. The structural model shows four oval nodes arranged across the diagram. On the left, an oval labeled “Perceived Organizational Health Climate (T 1)” is positioned. A horizontal rightward arrow labeled “0.12 single asterisk” extends from this oval to “Work Engagement (T 1)” with “R-squared equals 44.8 percent”. On the right, an oval labeled “Turnover Intention (T 2)” is positioned with “R-squared equals 19.9 percent”. A horizontal rightward arrow labeled “negative 0.35 double asterisk” extends from “Work Engagement (T 1)” to “Turnover Intention (T 2)”. A horizontal line extends from “Perceived Health Safety Climate (T 1)” toward “Turnover Intention (T 2)” with coefficients labeled “negative 0.12 dagger” placed along the path. At the top center, an oval labeled “Perceived Organizational Safety Climate (T 1)” is positioned. A vertical downward arrow labeled “0.07 single asterisk” extends from this oval to the path between “Perceived Organizational Health Climate (T 1)” and “Work Engagement (T 1)” . At the bottom right, an oval labeled “Covariates” is positioned, with upward arrows extending toward both “Work Engagement (T 1)” and “Turnover Intention (T 2)”. More about this image found in Proposed research model and summary of results. Notes: Unstandardized coe...

Figure 2 Interaction effect of POHC and POSC on work engagement. Note:  b = unstandardized coefficient. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. POHC = perceived organizational health climate. POSC = perceived organizational safety climate. Source: Authors’ own work A vertical line graph shows Work Engagement across P O H C levels for High, Mean, and Low P O S C with increasing trends. The vertical axis is labeled “Work Engagement” and ranges from 1.0 to 1.6 in increments of 0.2. The horizontal axis is labeled “P O H C” and displays categories: “Low”, “Mean”, and “High”. At the top center, the legend includes “P O S C”, “High” represented by a solid line with square markers, “Mean” represented by a dashed line with triangular markers, and “Low” represented by a dotted line with circular markers. The “High” series starts at (Low, 1.24), increases to (Mean, 1.41), and reaches (High, 1.58), ending with the annotation “b equals 0.18 double asterisk”. The “Mean” series starts at (Low, 1.22), rises to (Mean, 1.33), and reaches (High, 1.44), ending with the annotation “b equals 0.12 asterisk”. The “Low” series starts at (Low, 1.20), increases slightly to (Mean, 1.25), and reaches (High, 1.30), ending with the annotation “b equals 0.05”. All three series show an increasing trend from “Low” to “High”, with the steepest increase observed in the “High” series and the smallest increase in the “Low” series. Note: All numerical data values are approximated. More about this image found in Interaction effect of POHC and POSC on work engagement. Note:  b...

Figure 1 The research model. Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual model linking apology versus gratitude, empathy, forgiveness, and trust. The diagram presents a conceptual model composed of several rounded rectangular boxes connected by directional arrows arranged from left to right. On the... More about this image found in The research model. Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual model linking...

Figure 2 The interaction effect of recovery strategies and individual trait empathy on empathy (Study 1). Source: Authors’ own work A grouped bar chart comparing empathy scores for gratitude and apology groups. The chart is titled “Empathy”. The horizontal axis shows two categories labeled “gr... More about this image found in The interaction effect of recovery strategies and individual trait empathy ...

Figure 3 The interaction effect of recovery strategies and error history on empathy (Study 2). Source: Authors’ own work A line graph comparing empathy scores for gratitude and apology across error history conditions. The chart is titled “Empathy”. The horizontal axis shows two categories labe... More about this image found in The interaction effect of recovery strategies and error history on empathy ...

Figure 4 The interaction effect of recovery strategies and error attribution on empathy (Study 3). Source: Authors own work A line graph comparing empathy scores for gratitude and apology across human error and system error conditions. The chart is titled “Empathy”. The horizontal axis shows t... More about this image found in The interaction effect of recovery strategies and error attribution on empa...

Figure 5 The interaction effect of recovery strategies and error severity on empathy (Study 4). Source: Authors’ own work A line graph comparing empathy scores for gratitude and apology across low and high severity conditions. The chart is titled “Empathy”. The horizontal axis shows two catego... More about this image found in The interaction effect of recovery strategies and error severity on empathy...

Figure 6 The interaction effect of recovery strategy, error attribution, and error severity on empathy (Study 5). Source: Authors’ own work Two line graphs compare empathy scores for gratitude and apology across human and system error at low and high severity. The illustration contains two lin... More about this image found in The interaction effect of recovery strategy, error attribution, and error s...

Figure 1 Meta-analytic framework. Source: Authors’ own work Conceptual research model showing the relationship between independent variables and purchase intention, grounded in Parasocial Relationship Theory, Source Credibility Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The diagram is arrang... More about this image found in Meta-analytic framework. Source: Authors’ own work Conceptual research m...

Figure 2 Study inclusion/exclusion using PRISMA flow diagram. Source: Authors’ own work A flowchart shows database screening and article selection with exclusions at each stage. The framework shows a vertical flow diagram enclosed within a rectangular border. At the top, a large horizontal rec... More about this image found in Study inclusion/exclusion using PRISMA flow diagram. Source: Authors’ own w...