Global Leadership

191

Services Marketing Quarterly, 34:191–204, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1533-2969 print/1533-2977 online DOI: 10.1080/15332969.2013.798191

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure: A Cross-Cultural Study—United States,

China, and Korea

MUNSHIK SUH Department of Business Administration, School of Business,

Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

HENRY GREENE Marketing Department, School of Business, Central Connecticut

State University, New Britain, Connecticut

TAESEOK RHO and QIN QI Department of Business Administration, School of Business,

Pusan National University, Pusan, South Korea

A cross-cultural study (China-Korea-America) investigates cus- tomer response as a function of relationship type and long-term orientation (resulting from national culture) when experiencing service failure. An experiment is conducted with written scenar- ios describing service experience and subsequent service failure; 90 people representing three different nationalities are tested. The results demonstrate that both relationship type and long- term orientation impact consumer reaction towards service fail- ure. This is a significant result for service providers who function on the global market place. When creating service recovery, con- sideration should be given to relationship type and cultural orientation.

KEYWORDS prior relationship, service failure, cultural difference

Address correspondence to Taeseok Rho, Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Pusan National University, 603 Beon-gil 2, Busandaehag-ro, Geumjeong-gu, Busan 609-735, South Korea. E-mail: [email protected]

192 M. Suh et!al.

INTRODUCTION

Inevitably, companies that provide services to consumers will on occasion fail to meet customer expectations. Service failure occurs when a service or product fails to meet customer expectations because of fault in one of the links in the service delivery chain (Mueller, Palmer, Mack, & McMullan, 2003). Failure examples include: overcharges, damaged products, incorrect order fulfillment, and late arrival of service. The consequences of service failure include: losing customers, negative customer appraisals, and customers reg- istering complaints with consumer rights organizations.

Service recovery is described as the action undertaken to face the even- tualities of a service failure. Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996) sug- gested that negative consequences could be mitigated with a fast response by a senior executive, accompanied by a refund and additional compensa- tion. In this paper we use a high level of severity to maximize differences in the factors of interest.

Understanding service failure and recovery efforts is even more impor- tant in a global economy. Differences in cultural norms can cause more confusion, more failures and more difficulties between businesses and cus- tomers. This study examines the cross-cultural impact of service failure as a function of customer relationship. The concept of customer relationship in China is very different than in America and even Korea. Therefore, this study evaluates differences between these three countries to investigate potential differences in customer attitude and reaction to service failure.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Service Failure

A service failure is defined as service performance that falls below a cus- tomer’s expectations (Hoffman & Bateson, 1997). The presence of these fail- ures can significantly impact customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, which in turn will impact future sales. Service recovery is very important but its’ effectiveness is dependent on the type of failure, types of customer rela- tionship, and cultural values and norms.

Service recovery is a process to eliminate or reduce the effects of fail- ures. It is not only a tool to reduce harmful effects, but it can be used to improve customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty and it can also enhance the customer base (Ruyter, Birgelen, & Wetzels, 1998).

Customer Relationships

Clark and Mills (1993) described two types of relationships: communal and exchange. Communal relationships are exemplified by relationships with friends and family. Benefits are given to please another, or as a demonstration

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure 193

of concern. By contrast, people in an exchange relationship behave like polite strangers. There is no obligation to be concerned about the other’s welfare. Such relationships are “economic” and abide by the conventions of equity theory (Chadwick-Jones, 1976).

Typically service relationships are exchange relationships, but they may evolve and take on communal characteristics (e.g., Aggarwal, 2004; Goodwin & Gremler, 1996). Customers may perceive their encounters with service employees as a meeting among friends (Price & Arnould, 1999). Service encounters may provide social needs (Reynolds & Beatty, 1999) and some consumers may rely on market place relations as a source of human contact. The retailing encounter may have value as a surrogate social contact (Forman & Srivam, 1991).

Morgan and Hunt (1994) have shown that prior relationships can miti- gate the effects of service failure. In this article we examine two types of relationships—exchange and communal—to demonstrate the difference.

Consumer Reaction to Service Failure

Two fundamental responses to service failure are switching (choosing an alternative service provider) and complaining (registering a complaint to the provider, to a consumer advocate, to a public forum, etc.). Switching signi- fies the termination of the current relationship. A complaint is a negative response toward a quality of service (Resnik & Harmon, 1983); they occur for many reasons: seeking redress, emotional release, and assurance of non- recurrence of problems. If not handled appropriately, customer loyalty will be diminished (Oliver, 1987) and company reputation and brand value will be endangered (Ganesan, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). If complaints are managed well, they can provide valuable information to assist in service recovery (Kasouf, Celuch, & Strieter, 1995).

Switching behavior or customer defection results from weakened cus- tomer loyalty (Hirschman, 1970; Stewart, 1994). Grace and O’Cass (2003) concluded that the main factor for switching is core service failure. Another reason consumers switch is distrust (Bejou & Palmer, 1998). The situation is worse when a consumer takes both actions, switching, and complaining (Keaveney, 1995).

The degree of service failure and the severity of the failure are critical in subsequent negative behaviors (Leung, 1988). The more severe the inci- dent, the more negative will be the victim’s reactions (Schoenbach, 1990).

Minor service problems, resulting in mild inconvenience, are less likely to elicit dramatic, negative behavior, such as revenge (Folkes, 1984). However, service failures involving serious issues can result in severe loss and can cause vengeful behaviors (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003). When culpability is ambiguous, perception of severity influences the blame attribution. The greater the severity the more blame will be assessed to the firm (Laufer, Silvera, & Meyer, 2005).

194 M. Suh et!al.

The magnitude of severity influences the type of recovery necessary (e.g., apology or compensation) to mitigate the customer‘s dissatisfaction. Not all failures can be repaired adequately. Customers may remain upset, may engage in negative word-of-mouth, will lose trust and refrain from com- mitment toward the service provider (Weun, Beatty, & Jones, 2004).

Cultural Differences

Culture is defined as “the training or refining of one’s mind from social environ- ments in which one grew up” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 1991). Culture reflects language, education, and ecology along with social, economic, political, religious, and technological systems (McCort & Malhotra, 1993) and plays an important role in forming one’s attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and prefer- ences. When consumers purchase they interact with service providers. These interactions are social and cultural background is important (Patterson, 2006). Culture influences service encounters in terms of evaluation and expectations, customer relationships, and evaluations of service recovery (Patterson, 2006).

The Chinese has a word, guanxi, which refers to relationships between people, family, friends, schoolmates, or business associates. Many Chinese relationships include a complex set of obligations; failure to meet these obli- gations is considered shameful and dishonorable. Obligations tend to increase as length of time in relationship increases.

Hofstede et!al. (1991) identified five dimensions of culture and rated 53 countries on: power distance index (PDI), individualism (IDV), masculinity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), and long-term orientation (LTO). LTO reflects respect for traditional values, commitments and respect for long-term work and investment. Guanxi causes Chinese people to be more long-term oriented. The LTO for China, Korea, and the United States was calculated as 118, 75, and 29 respectively, making these three countries excellent for a cross-cultural study on service recovery in terms of!LTO.

RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

This article offers a framework to describe factors that impact service recov- ery, see Figure 1. The framework suggests that failure severity, relationship type, and cultural orientation all impact customer reactions and subsequently, the success of the recovery effort.

Service Failure Situation: Effect Relationship on Consumer Reactions

Morgan and Hunt (1994) showed that the type of relationship impacts con- sumer trust and commitment. When faced with a loss due to a service failure, consumers in communal relationships are more likely to believe that they will

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure 195

receive a fair outcome from the service provider and are less likely to switch providers. Strong prior communal relationships mitigate failure severity. A relationship, categorized as an exchange, is expected to produce a! more noticeable intention for switching. We propose the following hypothesis:

H1: In the event of service failure, a consumer’s switching intentions will be more pronounced under an exchange relationship than a com- munal relationship.

Under an exchange relationship, consumers may be less likely to complain and voice dissatisfaction and more likely to avoid direct confrontation. Even though they perceived the service failure as severe, they prefer switching rather than complaining, it may be less time consuming and less personal, and more effective when there is no perceived benefit to complaining, no expectation of compensation. However, when there is a communal relationship, consumers have more trust and a greater expectation that lodging a com- plaint would be effective. Thus, we posit:

H2: In the event of service failure, the effect of consumer’s complaint intentions will be more pronounced for a communal relationship than an exchange relationship.

Service Failure Situation: Effect of Culture Difference on Consumer Reactions

Cultural norms and values influence service encounter evaluations, service quality expectations, customer relationships, and evaluations of service recovery. Customers from different cultures judge the severity of failure dif- ferently. In this paper, we focus on three cultures, rated independently as very different from each other in terms of LTO (towards relationships). China

FIGURE 1 Service failure model.

196 M. Suh et!al.

differs significantly from the United States in terms of relationships, a major factor being guanxi, a sense of obligation towards interpersonal relationships in a personal network. Korea, seemingly more similar to China, based on ethnicity and ancient cultural experiences, has also been heavily influenced by the United States for the past 70 years and as such, may have characteris- tics of both China and the United States. China has a high LTO, indicating respect for tradition and long-term rewards resulting from hard work. The United States ranks low on LTO, meaning business partners have little regard for tradition and expect immediate reward for their efforts. Short-term orien- tation business partners do not value the past, fulfilling social obligations, or preserving “face.”

Under an exchange relationship, American consumers are more likely to complain than Chinese and Korean consumers. In American culture, immediate gratification is more important than saving face. Service satisfac- tion is more important than damaging a relationship. In contrast, Chinese and Koreans are less likely to complain, avoiding unnecessary attention, and losing face. They should prefer to switch to another provider.

For consumers who have communal relationship with their service pro- viders, American consumers should show a higher switching intention and a higher complaint intention than Korean and Chinese consumers. Americans should not be as concerned about maintaining or improving current relation- ships. Korean and Chinese are more likely to respect their past relationships and to be more patient in judgment. We offer the following hypotheses:

H3: For high severity levels of service failure, consumers under exchange relationships or communal relationships, low LTO like the U.S. consumers, will show a higher complaint intention than high LTO consumers, like Korean and Chinese consumers.

H4: For high severity levels of service failure, consumers with communal relationships, consumers classified as LTO consumers, like U.S. consumers, will show a higher switching intention than high LTO consumers, like Korean and Chinese consumers.

Table 1 presents a more detailed explanation of the hypotheses. The Korean attitude measures were expected to fall between the American and Chinese consumers.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Pretest: Experimental Procedure

A pretest was conducted to test the manipulations used as stimulations in the main test. An experiment was conducted with university students at three universities in different countries: Korea, China, and the United States,

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure 197

30 students were selected from each (30 Chinese, 30 Koreans, and 30 Americans). Each participant was given a scenario describing their relation- ship with a specific restaurant and a subsequent service failure (Appendix A and B). The original scenario was written in English, a translation-retranslation method was used for the Korean and Chinese versions of the scenario to improve clarity and accuracy. Work by Clark and Mills (1993) supports the ability to simulate feelings and attitudes about long-term relationships and establish relationship norms in a laboratory setting. To remove noise or bias of familiar restaurant brands, we used a fictitious restaurant name for each scenario in the pretest.

After reading the scenario, participants were asked to answer a set of questions. Responses were used as manipulation checks. Seven measures for communal and exchange relationship (Aggarwal, 2004) and three measures for service failure severity (Weun et!al., 2004), were adopted. Each cons truct was measured with a 7-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 7 = strongly disagree).

RESULTS

All measures for relationship and service failure severity were evaluated for consistency using Cronbach’s !. Reliability tests show all measures (each seven items for prior relationship; three items for service severity) have high internal consistency (! = .834 for communal relationship, ! = .907 for!exchange relationship, ! = .745 for high severity, ! = .903 for low severity).

As a manipulation check, participants were asked questions about their relationship with their service provider and also the severity of the service failure for the given scenarios. The results of the manipulation checks are shown in Table 2. In all four cases, the validity of the manipulations were validated, p < .001.

We used scenarios that represent a high severity level of service failure. We evaluated respondents based on communal and exchange relationships.

Main Test

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The experiment was conducted with another 90 participants, 30 Chinese (14 female), 30 Koreans (17 female), and 30 Americans (14 female)

TABLE 1 Explanation of Hypotheses 3 and 4

Prior relationship (H3) Complaint intention (H4) Switching intention

Exchange relationship United States > Korea > China China > Korea > United States Communal relationship United States > Korea > China United States > Korea > China

198 M. Suh et!al.

undergraduate student from the three countries mentioned previously. The experiment was a 2 " 3 factorial design with interaction effect, two relationship types (communal, exchange), three nationalities (Korean, Chinese, and American), and two dependent variables (complaint, switch- ing intention). Only a high level of service failure severity was used in the analysis. The experiment consisted of asking participants to read a ser- vice failure story regarding a service in a restaurant (see Appendix). After reading the service failure scenario, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire with questions about complaint intentions and switching intentions. Three items were used to measure complaint intentions, three more were used to measure switching intentions, as described in Singh (1989; see Appendix B).

Validity and Reliability

A Validity test was conducted with an exploratory factor analysis and reli- ability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The results shown in Table 3 con- firm the validity and reliability of each measure.

Hypothesis Test

Descriptive statistics are shown to assess the ratings of complaint and switch- ing intentions under different relationships for each nationality. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations.

A MANOVA was used for the experiment. The MANOVA consisted of two factors: relationship and nationality, interaction was included in the test. The two dependent variables were switching and complaining. The combi- nation of main effects and dependent variables provides four evaluations that correspond to the four hypotheses exhibited in Table 5.

In H1, consumers who have exchange relationships with their service providers will show a higher switching degree than those under communal

TABLE 2 Results of Manipulation Check

M t p

Communal relationship 5.6113 49.379 0.000 Exchange relationship 2.9848 20.451 0.000 High severity 6.3048 64.921 0.000 Low severity 2.9278 18.595 0.000

TABLE 3 Results of Validity and Reliability

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 ! Eigenvalue Cumulative

Switching 0.967 0.955 0.957 0.893 2.923 48.713 Complaint 0.920 0.894 0.906 0.958 2.330 87.539

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure 199

relationships. This hypothesis is supported by the experiment, F = 150.7, p < .01; M(exchange) = 5.293, M(communal) = 3.596. However, H2 was not supported in the experiment. Consumers under exchange relationships showed a higher complaint intention than those under communal relation- ships, F = 5.178, p < .05; M(exchange) = 5.052, M(communal) = 4.681.

The third hypothesis was confirmed. Low level of LTO consumers (Americans) showed a higher complaint intention degree than high level LTO, represented by Korean and Chinese consumers. Furthermore, Korean and Chinese were significantly different than each other, F = 7.556, p < .01; M(communal/Korean) = 4.889, M(communal/Chinese) = 3.578, M(communal/ American) = 5.578; M(exchange/Korean) = 4.933, M(exchange/Chinese) = 4.833,

TABLE 4 Descriptive Statistics Relationship and Nationality

Relationship Nationality M SD N

Complaint Communal Korean 4.8889 .79911 30 Chinese 3.5778 1.48281 30 American 5.5778 1.01684 30

Exchange Korean 4.9333 .89013 30 Chinese 4.8333 1.20265 30 American 5.3889 1.02117 30

Switching Communal Korean 2.4222 .76280 30 Chinese 5.3111 1.09661 30 American 3.0556 .98682 30

Exchange Korean 3.7667 .97929 30 Chinese 5.8778 .93253 30 American 6.2333 .75379 30

TABLE 5 MANOVA Table for Hypotheses Tests: Relationship and Nationality " Customer Reaction

Source Dependent

variable Type III SS df M2 F p

Corrected model Complaint 73.370 a 5 14.7 12.3 .000 Switching 374.504 b 5 74.9 87.2 .000

Intercept Complaint 4263.200 1 4263.2 3576.1 .000 Switching 3555.556 1 3555.6 4138.3 .000

Relationship Complaint 6.173 1 6.173 5.2 .024 Switching 129.484 1 129.5 150.7 .000

Nationality Complaint 49.159 2 24.6 20.6 .000 Switching 191.100 2 95.6 111.2 .000

Interaction Relationship " Nationality

Complaint 18.038 2 9.02 7.6 .001

Switching 53.920 2 27.00 31.4 .000 Error Complaint 207.430 174 1.2

Switching 149.496 174 .869 Total Complaint 4544.000 180

Switching 4079.556 180 Corrected total Complaint 280.800 179

Switching 524.000 179

200 M. Suh et!al.

M(exchange/American) = 5.389. In both cases, the Korean attitudes fell between the Chinese and Americans. In the case of H4, there was mixed success, the high LTO consumers (Chinese) under communal relationships showed a higher degree of switching intention as we predicted, however, for the exchange relation, the low LTO consumers showed a higher intention of switching than the high LTO which is opposite to what we predicted. In both the switching intention scenarios, Koreans were the least likely to switch and did not score between the Chinese and Americans, F = 31.379, p < .01; for communal: M(communal/Korean) = 2.422, M(communal/Chinese) = 5.311, M(communal/American) = 3.056. Chinese are more likely to switch under the exchange relationship condition; M(exchange/Korean) = 3.767, M(exchange /Chinese) = 5.878, M(exchange American) = 6.233. This result indicates that American customers under exchange relationships will have both higher complaint intentions and higher switching intentions. Perhaps Americans and Chinese consider the exchange relationship differently, Americans feel absolutely no obligation and the Chinese still feel somewhat obligated to patiently wait and not rush to judgment.

DISCUSSION

Summary

The purpose of this study is to investigate customers’ switching and complaint intentions against high service failure as a function of relationship type and relationship orientation. Two types of prior relationships: communal relation- ship and exchange relationship were evaluated and three different cultures representing three different countries were examined. Our results show that customers are more likely to take negative action (switch or complain) when they only have an exchange relationship rather than a communal relationship. From a cross-cultural perspective we show that LTO cultures (American) are more likely to complain than high LTO cultures (Korea and China). As for inten- tion to switch, high LTO (Chinese) customers were more likely to switch than low LTO (Americans), but the results change when the relationship is only exchange. In that case the high LTO (Americans) are more likely to switch.

This research demonstrates that both relationship type and relationship orientation are significant factors in consumer reaction to service failure. When service failure is severe, firms can react more effectively if they under- stand the nature of the relationship with the customer. For global companies, the results of this study demonstrate the importance of understanding foreign cultures, specifically in terms of service failure intentions.

Implications

The main contribution of this research is to demonstrate the effects of prior relationships on customer reactions during service failure. In terms of

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure 201

practical application, this research has shown that customer reaction to a service failure can be differentiated by the type of prior relationship and culture orientation.

This study demonstrates how firms can anticipate customer response to service failures and create appropriate service recovery strategies. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates the value of understanding global consumers from different cultures.

Limitations

This study was based on an artificial setting using written scenarios. Participants in the study read a script and their thoughts were surveyed rather than recording or observing their reactions to real restaurant service failure. This could obviously weaken external validity. However, scenario- based experiments have been used extensively in service marketing studies and there is general belief that they capture reality. Also, the sample sizes are relatively small. One would feel more confident in the results if the sample sizes were larger. The study is also limited to one industry, which also decreases generalizability. Future studies should develop instruments that can be used to assess major constructs in varied and broad industries.

REFERENCES

Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.

Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 440–453.

Bejou, D., & Palmer, A. (1998). Service failures and loyalty: An exploratory empirical study of airline customers. Journal of Service Marketing, 12, 7–22.

Chadwick-Jones, J. K. (1976). Social exchange theory: Its structure and influence in social psychology. London, England: Acad Press.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684–691.

Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 398–409.

Forman, A. M., & Srivam, V. (1991). The depersonalization of retailing: Its impact on the “lonely” consumer. Journal of Retailing, 67(2), 226–243.

Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relation- ships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1–19.

Goodwin, C., & Gremler, D. D. (1996). Friendship over the counter: How social aspects of service encounters influence consumer service loyalty. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 5(3), 247–282.

Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2001). Attributions of service switching: A study of consum- ers’ and providers’ perceptions of child-care service delivery. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(4), 300–321.

202 M. Suh et!al.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organiza- tions, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hoffman, K. D., & Bateson, J. (1997). Essentials of services marketing. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and organizations. London, England: McGraw-Hill.

Kasouf, C. J., Celuch, K. G., & Strieter, J. C. (1995). Consumer complaints as market intelligence: Orienting context and conceptual framework. Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 8, 59–68.

Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behaviour in the service industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71–82.

Laufer, D., Silvera, D. H., & Meyer, T. (2005). Exploring differences between older and younger consumers in attributions of blame for product harm crises. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 7, 1–24.

Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 19, 125–136.

McCort, D. J., & Malhotra, N. K. (1993). Culture and consumer behavior: Toward and understanding of cross-cultural consumer behavior in international marketing. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 91–127.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Mueller, R. D., Palmer, A., Mack, R., & McMullan, R. (2003). Service in the restaurant industry: An American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(4), 395–418.

Oliver, R. L. (1987). An investigation of the interrelationship between consumer dis- satisfaction and complaint reports. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 218–222.

Patterson, C. J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241–244.

Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: Service Provider-client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63, 38–56.

Rensik, A. J., & Harmon, R. R. (1983). Consumer complaints and managerial response. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 86–97.

Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). Customer benefits and company conse- quences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 11–32.

Ruyter, K., Birgelen, M., & Wetzels, M. (1998). Consumer ethnocentrism in interna- tional services marketing. International Business Review, 7, 185–202.

Schoenbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management of escalation of onflict. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Singh, J. (1989). Determinants of consumers’ decisions to seek third party redress: An empirical study of dissatisfied patients. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 23, 329–363.

Stewart, K. (1994). Customer exit: Loyalty issues in retail banking. Irish Marketing Review, 7, 45–53.

Weun, S., Beatty, S. E., & Jones, M. (2004). The impact of service failure severity on service recovery evaluations and post-recovery relationships. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(2), 133–146.

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.

The Role of Relationships in Service Failure 203

APPENDIX A SCENARIOS FOR EXPERIMENTS

Communal Relationship Scenario Description

You have been going to Restaurant A for the last 5 years. You enjoy dinner quite extensively and have been very happy with the quality of their food and services. Over the past few years, whenever you have visited the restaurant you have had a very pleasant and warm interaction. You had your birthday dinner at this restaurant every year. The restaurant has always treated you well. Every time you go to this restaurant, the waiters would lead you to your favorite table and play your favorite music if possible. You are quite acquainted with the manager of this restaurant. Every time you go to this restaurant he will come out of his office and have a little chat with you. You have already seen him as your friend. You are always satisfied with their food and services. The manager seems to be treating you like a friend. Over the past 5 years, you always recommend this restaurant to your relatives and friends.

Exchange Relationship Scenario Description

The first time you went to Restaurant A was 5 years ago. Restaurant A peri- odically makes some promotions to you that appear to be of great value. The food and service is good in this restaurant.

After showing the relationship scenario description, the participants were presented with the request for service failure scenario. They were assigned to two service failure conditions with different severity.

Service Failure Scenario Description (High Severity)

It is 15 minutes before a waiter approaches your table to take your order at which time you both order a main meal and drinks. The waiter returns shortly with your drinks and you continue to wait patiently for your food. The waiter never returns to refill your glasses. Approximately 30 minutes later your meal arrives, and you are advised that your friend’s meal will be delivered shortly. You decide to wait to eat until your friend receives her meal that arrives some 10 minutes later. By this time your meal is cold. Your friend comments that her meal appears over-cooked. You decide to finish your meals with a dessert, and you both choose a different dessert from the menu. The waiter advises you that the restaurant is out of the dessert that you have chosen.

Service Failure Scenario Description (Low Severity)

When the waiter arrives some five minutes later, you both order a main meal and drinks. Both meals arrive within 15 minutes; however, your meal is slightly overcooked.

204 M. Suh et!al.

APPENDIX B ITEMS FOR MEASUREMENT

Communal/Exchange Relationship (Aggarwal, 2004)

• They have warm feelings • They help in times of need • You’d miss them if you moved away • They treat you special • They care you • They like you • You care for them

Service Failure Severity (Weun et!al., 2004)

• The above-mentioned service failure caused by Restaurant A that happened to me was severe.

• The above-mentioned service failure caused by Restaurant A that hap- pened to me made me feel angry.

• The above-mentioned service failure caused by Restaurant A that hap- pened to me was unpleasant.

Complaint Intention (Singh, 1989)

• I will complain to the employee or manager right after experiencing dissatisfaction.

• I will make the retailer take proper action right after experiencing the dissatisfaction.

• I feel that making a complaint is my right as a consumer.

Switching Intention (Singh, 1989)

• I will rather try another restaurant next time. • I am not strongly committed to having dinner in this restaurant again. • I will not recommend this restaurant to my friends next time we have

dinner.

Copyright of Services Marketing Quarterly is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.