Literature and Hypotheses 1 Perceived Justice and Service Recovery Satisfaction
371 Interactive Justice can be classified into interpersonal relationship and information equity.
Apology covers the communication between interpersonal relationship quality and Service Recovery that the lack of politeness in the service recovery process would result in the reduction
of satisfaction and Negative Word-of-Mouth of customers with unpleasant experiences Hocutt et al., 2006. Information equity refers to the adequacy and the truth of error factors Colquitt,
2001, and explanations would positively affect customer perception that adequate and specific explanations would enhance perceived information equity Mattila, 2006. A lot of research
showed the remarkable effects of Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction e.g., Kau Loh, 2006; McCollough et al., 2000; Mattila and Cranage, 2005; Weun et al., 2004.
Bitner 1990 and Hart et al. 1990 suggested that apology was an essential strategy in errors. Hocutt et al. 2006 regarded empathymanner as the requirement for promoting Service
Recovery Satisfaction and reducing Negative Word-of-Mouth. When businesses were lack of mannerempathy, customer satisfaction would be lowered and Negative Word-of-Mouth would
not simply be reduced with compensation free meals. As a result, the following hypotheses were proposed.
H
1a
: Distributive Justice would positively affect Service Recovery Satisfaction. H
1b
: Interactive Justice would positively affect Service Recovery Satisfaction.
2.2 The Moderating Effects of Consumer Experiences Previous experiences are likely to change individual expectation of products or service quality
which therefore would be regarded as the key factors in individual expectation of productservice quality Cadotte, Woodruff and Jenkins, 1987; Grönroos, 2006. Customers are likely to depend
on individual experiences to evaluate values when short of relative service information Chang and Hsiao, 2008. Therefore, the perceived fairness of compensation was affected by the
previous purchase or service experiences of customers Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995.
Holloway et al. 2005 indicated that customers would appear less negative reactions e.g. lower satisfaction on similar unpleasant experiences when the online purchase experiences had taught
them the common situation of service errorsrecovery. The research outcomes showed that low Consumer Experiences group presented higher satisfaction on fair recovery than high Consumer
Experiences one did. Since high Consumer Experiences group had more consumer experiences and correct expectation of recovery, they would show lower Service Recovery Satisfaction on
the fair recovery offered by businesses. However, high Consumer Experiences group would present higher Service Recovery Satisfaction when the recovery was higher than standard
compensation high Distributive Justice. Consequently, low consumer experiences group with less previous experiences cannot generate
correct expectation that they are likely to be satisfied with apology high Interactive Justice. On the contrary, apology is considered as the commonly expected situation for high consumer
experiences group that it does not appear high service recovery satisfaction. In this case, the following hypotheses were proposed.
H
2a
: Consumer Experiences would moderate the effects of Distributive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction.
372 H
2b
: Consumer Experiences would moderate the effects of Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction.
2.3 Service Recovery Satisfaction and Consumer Post-Purchase Behaviors It has been proved that Service Recovery Satisfaction is the key element of word-of-mouth and
Repurchase Intention Wirtz and Mattila, 2004, i.e. Service Recovery Satisfaction would affect Word-of-Mouth and Repurchase Intention. Stauss 2002 also emphasized Service Recovery
Satisfaction as the intervening variable in Service Recovery and Recovery Intention Word-of- Mouth and Repurchase Intention. Maxham 2001 indicated that Word-of-Mouth provided
customers with important message of the business for the purchase, and considered that favorable Service Recovery could reduce Negative Word-of-Mouth from service errors. In
general, customers are likely to spread Negative Word-of-Mouth which would appear larger influence on the attitudes and the repurchase intention of word-of-mouth receivers Holloway et
al., 2005. For this reason, the effects of Service Recovery Satisfaction on Negative Word-of- Mouth were discussed in this study. The following hypothesis was further proposed.
H
3
: Service Recovery Satisfaction would negatively affect Negative Word-of-Mouth. The repurchase behaviors of consumers and the services provided by businesses present causal
relationship that dissatisfactory purchase experiences would reduce the repurchase intention of customers Oliver and Swan, 1989. Service providers therefore would precede Service
Recovery to redeem customers and remain the repurchase intention Goodwin and Ross, 1992. On the other hand, when businesses provide satisfactory service or product quality, the
customers are likely to appear repurchase intention and repurchase behaviors. Francken 1993 also proposed that customers would present repurchase intention when the product or the service
was satisfactory. Several research outcomes showed the positive correlations between Service Recovery Satisfaction and Repurchase Intention. Stauss 2002 further pointed out Service
Recovery Satisfaction being the intervening variable of Service Recovery and Repurchase Intention Word-of-Mouth and Repurchase Intention. In this case the following hypothesis was
proposed in this study. H
4
: Service Recovery Satisfaction would positively affect Repurchase Intention.