Contribution table of the empirical research on inter-failures
| Study | Inter-failures | Prior customer-company relationship | Webcare type | Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Betts et al. (2011) | Single inter-failure | Not considered | General: company control of the service failure | Post-recovery satisfaction and negative word-of-mouth do not differ between a service failure without a prior failure and with a prior failure. High company control leads to lower post-recovery satisfaction and higher negative word-of-mouth than low company control. However, these effects are not moderated by prior failure |
| Chuang et al. (2012) | Indirect: prior negative experience with the service | Not considered | Specific: psychological; tangible | In case of a negative prior experience, a current outcome failure leads to higher satisfaction with tangible recovery as compared to psychological recovery, while the opposite is true for a current process failure. In case of a positive prior experience, satisfaction with recovery is independent of type of failure and type of recovery |
| Magnini et al. (2007) | Single inter-failure | Not considered | General: recovery excellence | Given excellent webcare, there is a greater chance that a customer's post-failure satisfaction exceeds pre-failure satisfaction, if it is the company's first – as compared to second – service failure with the customer |
| Maxham and Netemeyer (2002) | Single inter-failure | Not considered | General: recovery satisfaction | Customers reporting two service failures have higher failure severity, higher blame attribution towards the company and higher recovery expectations for the second failure than for the first failure. Customers reporting two service failures and perceiving either two satisfactory or two unsatisfactory service recoveries, have lower overall satisfaction with the firm, repurchase intent, and favorable WOM after the recovery of the second failure than after the second failure |
| Tax et al. (1998) | Indirect: prior negative experience with the company | Not considered | General: recovery satisfaction | The positive effect satisfaction with current service failure handling has on customers' commitment towards the company is reduced the more negative the prior experience with the company is |
| Watson (2012) | Single inter-failure | Not considered | Specific: assistance; compensation; assistance and compensation | One – as compared to no – prior service failure leads to lower customer satisfaction, lower customer loyalty and higher complaint behavior when confronted with a current service failure. However, these associations are not moderated by webcare type |
| Weitzl et al. (2018) | Few inter-failures vs Multiple inter-failures | Not considered | Specific: no; defensive; accommodative | Complainants that experienced multiple – as compared to few – prior service failures with the company involved in the current service failure, perceive higher attributions of controllability, stability and locus when they receive an accommodative recovery |
| Wu and Lo (2012) | Single inter-failure | Not considered | Specific: defensive | After the second service failure, customers have comparably high expectations towards the company than after the first service failure. After the second service failure, customers have lower negative emotions than after the first service failure |
| This research | No inter-failures vs Few inter-failures vs Multiple inter-failures | Relationship strength (commitment) | Specific: no; defensive; accommodative | Depending on inter-failures, relationship strength has a macro effect on revenge level and accommodative webcare has a micro effect on revenge intensity (see Table 6) |
| Study | Inter-failures | Prior customer-company relationship | Webcare type | Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single inter-failure | Not considered | General: company control of the service failure | Post-recovery satisfaction and negative word-of-mouth do not differ between a service failure without a prior failure and with a prior failure. High company control leads to lower post-recovery satisfaction and higher negative word-of-mouth than low company control. However, these effects are not moderated by prior failure | |
| Indirect: prior negative experience with the service | Not considered | Specific: psychological; tangible | In case of a negative prior experience, a current outcome failure leads to higher satisfaction with tangible recovery as compared to psychological recovery, while the opposite is true for a current process failure. In case of a positive prior experience, satisfaction with recovery is independent of type of failure and type of recovery | |
| Single inter-failure | Not considered | General: recovery excellence | Given excellent webcare, there is a greater chance that a customer's post-failure satisfaction exceeds pre-failure satisfaction, if it is the company's first – as compared to second – service failure with the customer | |
| Single inter-failure | Not considered | General: recovery satisfaction | Customers reporting two service failures have higher failure severity, higher blame attribution towards the company and higher recovery expectations for the second failure than for the first failure. Customers reporting two service failures and perceiving either two satisfactory or two unsatisfactory service recoveries, have lower overall satisfaction with the firm, repurchase intent, and favorable WOM after the recovery of the second failure than after the second failure | |
| Indirect: prior negative experience with the company | Not considered | General: recovery satisfaction | The positive effect satisfaction with current service failure handling has on customers' commitment towards the company is reduced the more negative the prior experience with the company is | |
| Single inter-failure | Not considered | Specific: assistance; compensation; assistance and compensation | One – as compared to no – prior service failure leads to lower customer satisfaction, lower customer loyalty and higher complaint behavior when confronted with a current service failure. However, these associations are not moderated by webcare type | |
| Few inter-failures vs Multiple inter-failures | Not considered | Specific: no; defensive; accommodative | Complainants that experienced multiple – as compared to few – prior service failures with the company involved in the current service failure, perceive higher attributions of controllability, stability and locus when they receive an accommodative recovery | |
| Single inter-failure | Not considered | Specific: defensive | After the second service failure, customers have comparably high expectations towards the company than after the first service failure. After the second service failure, customers have lower negative emotions than after the first service failure | |
Note(s): We only included studies that have empirically examined inter-failures in Table 1. Therefore, studies that focused on firm failures (e.g. firm bankruptcy) (e.g. Jenkins et al., 2014), which examined one prior service failure – but no current service failure (e.g. Allen et al., 2015), which included inter-failures as covariate – but did not report any respective results (e.g. Smith et al., 1999) or which have been declared as inter-failure studies – but are in fact intra-failure studies (e.g. Bunker and Bradley, 2007) – were not included in Table 1
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.