Data Analysis and Discussion

374 With regard to Consumer Experiences, 46.0 respondents had 0-1 time flight experience in the past two years and 36.0 had 2-3 times, showing low frequency of taking flights. Averaging the items of Consumer Experiences as the variable, the experimental value appeared 1.80. Furthermore, the mean was applied to dividing highlow experience groups that 51 of them were in low experience group, while 60 were in high experience group. This study aimed to discuss the effects of Perceived Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction and the moderating effect of Consumer Experiences. The three factors were further proceeded analysis of variance, Table 1. The analysis showed that Distributive Justice has significantly positive effects on Service Recovery Satisfaction; F=46.818 and p=0.0000.05 supported H 1a that the higher perceived Distributive Justice, the higher Service Recovery Satisfaction M HD =3.833 v.s M LD =2.621. Moreover, Interactive Justice presented remarkably positive effects on Service Recovery Satisfaction; F=137.042 and p=0.0000.05 supported H 1b that the higher perceived Interactive Justice, the higher Service Recovery Satisfaction M HI =4.263 v.s M LI =2.191. When customer perceived low Interactive Justice, Service Recovery Satisfaction between highlow Distributive Justice would not be reduced, where D stood for the differences between highlow Distributive Justice and Service Recovery Satisfaction D LI-D =M LI-HD -M LI-LD =1.119 v.s D HI-D = M HI-HD -M HI- LD =1.304. In other words, when the compensation appeared high Distributive Justice, high Interactive Justice was perceived, but Service Recovery Satisfaction was not enhanced, showing that high Interactive Justice would not enhance the effects of Distributive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction. In other words, both Interactive Justice and Distributive Justice did not present remarkable interaction on Service Recovery Satisfaction. From Table 1, Consumer Experiences would significantly affect the relations between Distributive Justice and Service Recovery Satisfaction; F=3.433 and p=0.0670.10 supported H2a. In Fig. 1, when the compensation was low Distributive Justice, Service Recovery Satisfaction of low Consumer Experiences group would be higher than high Consumer Experiences group M LD-LE =2.889 v.s M LD-HE =2.354. However, when the compensation was 375 high Distributive Justice, Service Recovery Satisfaction of high Consumer Experiences group would be higher than low Consumer Experiences group M HD-HE =3.893 v.s M HD-LE =3.772. It revealed that Distributive Justice appeared larger effects on Service Recovery Satisfaction among high Consumer Experiences group, where D presented the differences in highlow Distributive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction D HE-D =M HE-HD -M HE-LD =1.539 v.s D LE-D = M LE-HD -M LE-LD =0.883. High Consumer Experiences group therefore showed high sensitivity on Distributive Justice. Moreover, Interactive Justice and Consumer Experiences presented remarkable interaction with Service Recovery Satisfaction; F=3.084 and p=0.0820.10 supported H2b. In Fig. 2, when no apology or explanations was provided low Interactive Justice, Service Recovery Satisfaction of high Consumer Experiences group would be higher M LI-HE =2.242 v.s M LI-LE =2.139. However, when apology and explanations were provided high Interactive Justice, low Consumer Experiences group appeared higher Service Recovery Satisfaction M HI-LE =4.522 v.s M HI- HE =4.004. It showed that the effects of Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction would be larger in low Consumer Experiences group, where D presented the differences in Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction D LE-I =M LE-HI -M LE-LI =2.383 v.s D HE-I =M HE- HI -M HE-LI =1.762. Low Consumer Experiences group therefore presented higher sensitivity on Interactive Justice. 376 In Table 2, Service Recovery Satisfaction significantly affect Negative Word-of-Mouth =- 0.839, meaning the higher Service Recovery Satisfaction, the lower Negative Word-of-Mouth. Contrarily, when Service Recovery Satisfaction was low, customers were likely to appear Negative Word-of-Mouth. Service Recovery Satisfaction would remarkably affect Repurchase Intention =0.813 that the higher Service Recovery Satisfaction, the higher Repurchase Intention. also showed that Service Recovery Satisfaction would largely affect Negative Word-of-Mouth and Repurchase Intention. In this case, both H3 and H4 were supported. 377

5. Discussion

Both Distributive Justice and Interactive Justice presented significantly positive effects on Service Recovery Satisfaction that the higher Distributive Justice and Interactive Justice, the higher Service Recovery Satisfaction. Such a result corresponded to the past research e.g., Hocutt et al., 2006; Kau and Loh, 2006; McCollough et al., 2000. However, the interaction between Distributive and Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction was not outstanding. It was similar to the research of Hocutt et al. 2006, in which compensation Distributive Justice and mannerempathy Interactive Justice did not appear notable interaction with Service Recovery Satisfaction. The reason of inexistent interaction between Distributive and Interactive Justice might be the effect of response speed of recovery Procedural Justice. Wirtz and Mattila 2004 found that compensation appeared no remarkable effect on satisfaction when rapid response and apology were provided as well as slow response and no apology was offered. It showed that the effects of Distributive and Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction would be moderated by Procedural Justice. Summing up the above statements, appropriate recovery should be provided for reducing negative effects from errors; and, the recovery would be satisfactory when it achieved the perceived justice of customers. Consumer Experiences would moderate the effects of Distributive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction. In this case, high Consumer Experiences group would enhance the effects of Distributive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction as they understood better of the recovery measures and standard in the aviation industry. As a result, when the airlines provided better compensation, high Consumer Experiences group would be surprised and feel respected that the satisfaction would be high. However, when the compensation was lower than the general standard, high Consumer Experiences group would consider it being unfair that the satisfaction was low. In this case, when high Consumer Experiences group perceived high low Distributive Justice, they would appear higher lower Service Recovery Satisfaction. Consumer Experiences could moderate the effects of Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction that low Consumer Experiences group would enhance the effect of Interactive Justice on Service Recovery Satisfaction. When low Consumer Experiences group perceived high Interactive Justice, they would present higher Service Recovery Satisfaction, as they were not aware of the apology and explanation attitudes in the aviation industry. Consequently, when low Consumer Experiences group perceived high Interactive Justice, they appeared high satisfaction. Apparently, high Consumer Experiences group focused more on factual compensation that the higher compensation was perceived, the higher satisfaction would appear. On the contrary, low Consumer Experiences group paid more attention to Interactive Justice that the higher Interactive Justice was perceived, the higher satisfaction was presented. The experiment showed that Service Recovery Satisfaction would negatively affect Negative Word-of-Mouth and positively affect Repurchase Intention, meaning that the higher Service Recovery Satisfaction, the lower Negative Word-of-Mouth. Besides, when Service Recovery 378 Satisfaction was high, Repurchase Intention would be enhanced. The result corresponded to the past research e.g. Weun et al., 2004; Wirtz and Mattila, 2004. Accordingly, Perceived Justice would significantly affect Service Recovery Satisfaction, and the relationship was affected by Consumer Experiences. Moreover, Service Recovery Satisfaction would affect Negative Word-of-Mouth and Repurchase Intention. Consequently, businesses could manage errors according to Consumer Experiences, such as the recovery satisfying the perceived fairness of customers. In this case, customers would enhance the satisfaction, reduce Negative Word-of-Mouth, and promote Repurchase Intention. The recovery resources would be minimized, while the effects would be maximized. References Bitner, M. J. 1990. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses. Journal of Marketing , 54, 69-82. Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., Tax, S. S. 1997. The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactive Justice on Postcomplaint Behavior. Journal of Retailing , 73, 185-210. Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., Jenkins, R. L. 1987. Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research , 24, 305-314. Chang, H. S., Hsiao, H. L. 2008. Examining the casual relationship among service recovery, perceived justice, perceived risk, and customer value in the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal , 28, 513 –528. Chang, Y. W., Chang, Y. H. 2010. Does service recovery affect satisfaction and customer loyalty? An empirical study of airline services. Journal of Transport Management , 16, 340- 342. Colquitt, J. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86, 386-400. Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86, 425-445. Davidow, M. 2003. Organizational Responses to Customer Complaints: What Works and What Doesn’t. Journal of Service Research , 5, 225-250. Francken, D. A. 1993. Postpurchase Consumer Evaluation, Complaint Actions and Repurchase Behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology , 4, 273-290. Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., Tsiros, M. 2008. The Effect of Compensation on Repurchase Intentions in Service Recovery. Journal of Retailing , 84, 424 –434. Goodwin, C., Ross, I. 1992. Consumer Responses to Service Failures: Influence of Procedural and Interactive Fairness Perceptions. Journal of Business Research , 25, 149 –163. Grönroos, C. 3 rd Eds. 2006. Service Management and Marketing . England:John Wiley and Sons. Hart, C. W. L., Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E. Jr. 1990. The Profitable Art of Service Recovery. Harvard Business Review , July, 148-156. Hess, R. L. Jr., Ganesan S., Klein, N. M. 2003. Service Failure and Recovery: The Impact of Relationship Factors on Customer Satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 31, 127-143. Hocutt, M. A., Bowers, M. R., Donavan, D. T. 2006. The art of service recovery: fact or fiction? Journal of Services Marketing , 20, 199 –207.