Perceptions of justice after recovery efforts in internet purchasing: the impact on consumer trust and loyalty toward retailing sites and online shopping in general.
| Autor | dos Santos, Cristiane Pizzutti |
| Cargo | Report |
Introduction
The prominent growth of electronic retailing has been accompanied by the diagnosis of recurrent failures, some of which are new (when compared to the offline context) (Forbes, Kelley, & Hoffman, 2005). One source reports that for every four purchases made through the Internet, at least one results in some kind of dissatisfaction (Zemke & Connellan, 2001). Exacerbating this situation, electronic retailing seems to be an almost perfect market, as the information is instantaneous and consumers can compare offers from all over the world. Therefore, with the competition just one mouse click away, the exodus of customers becomes much easier (Shankar, Smith, & Rangaswamy, 2003). Within this context, recovery efforts become essential for retaining customers and consequently for the survival of the firm in the business context.
A consistent theoretical framework sustained by empirical evidence suggests that satisfactory complaint handling contributes to customer retention, loyalty and commitment (Smith & Bolton, 1998; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998; Weun, Beauty, & Jones, 2004). On the other hand, failure to address customer dissatisfaction represents a double failure and could lead to reduced trust, loss of customers and negative word-of-mouth, which has a stronger impact than positive word-of-mouth (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991). However, most research carried out on this topic has centered on the more traditional 'bricks and mortar' offline retail environment.
It is generally accepted that the Internet does not change the fundamental principles of marketing (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Holloway & Beatty, 2003), and accordingly, the understanding we have achieved from offline service recovery studies is highly relevant online. However, there is a number of issues that might be considered unique to the Internet environment.
Firstly, the interaction, mainly face-to-face, that is so central in failures and recovery processes in traditional retailing, in the online environment, is largely substituted by technology. Another factor that appears to differentiate recovery online is the fact that, while in an offline business transaction a consumer interacts with the seller, and sellers can detect failures and quickly take measures for recovery. In an online transaction, a consumer interacts with a mediating environment that may not detect failures. For this reason, consumers should be given a means of voicing their concerns easily (Ahmad, 2002). Third, when a consumer considers purchasing online he/she may have different levels of trust concerning individual perceptions of the online environment as a whole--what McKnight, Choudhury and Kacmar (2002) called institution based trust--, and his/her perceptions of a specific web-vendor--called trusting beliefs by McKnight et al. (2002). These two dimensions of trust are not present in the offline context, and few empirical studies have simultaneously explored both system-based and company specific trust and the impact of both on repurchase intentions, not to mention the interaction of these two factors within the e-commerce arena.
A small number of studies contribute to knowledge about recovery perceptions in electronic purchasing. Descriptive studies have sought to identify and classify failures that occur in electronic retailing, the recovery strategies most commonly used and the consequences of such strategies (Ahmad, 2002; Forbes et al., 2005; Holloway & Beatty, 2003; Nasir, 2004). Coming closer to what has been developed in the offline environment, Holloway, Wang and Parish (2005) sought to empirically investigate the moderating influence of the cumulative online purchasing experience by testing a traditional complaint handling framework within the context of online retailing, using distributive justice, experience, satisfaction with complaint handling, repurchase intention and word-of-mouth communication. On the other hand, other important variables have been neglected (e.g., other dimensions of justice, perceived value and familiarity), some of them unique to the Internet context, such as trust in the Internet and trust in the site and familiarity.
Based on this scenario, the present study aims to extend the traditional theoretical model of service failure and recovery to the online purchasing environment, investigating the impact of perceptions of justice after recovery efforts towards an online purchasing on customer trust and loyalty. In order to do this, a theoretical model will be constructed and tested, in which inter-relations among the specific aspects of the complaint handling evaluations will be analyzed together with the aforementioned constructs perceived value, prior experience, familiarity, trust and loyalty. Moreover, we explore these impacts in two different contexts: the Internet as a whole and retailing sites. We believe they may influence each other, e.g., an inadequate failure resolution from a web vendor can influence not only the consumer's trust in this virtual vendor in particular but also on online retailing in general and vice-versa.
This article consists of three main parts. The first deals with the theoretical foundation underpinning the study, and the framework. The second discusses the aspects related to the research method, and the third presents the results.
Theoretical Foundation and Research Hypotheses
Justice perceptions and satisfaction with complaint handling
A complaint handling process begins with a complaint made by a customer which, typically, produces (a) interaction between the claimant and representatives of the company and (b) outcomes (Tax et al., 1998). Contemporary studies on complaint management have offered substantial evidence on the suitability of the concept of fairness and its three dimensions--procedural, distributive and interactional--as a base for understanding the process of complaining and its outcomes (Blodgett, Hill, & Tax, 1997; Goodwin & Ross, 1992; Santos & Rossi, 2002; Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999; Tax et al., 1998).
Distributive Justice refers to the allocation of benefits and costs between the parties to a transaction. Within the context of the complaint, distributions are seen as a tangible outcome offered to the claimant by the firm (e.g., exchanging the product or reimbursing the money). The second dimension, Procedural Justice, concerns policies and procedures used by firms, and has six subdimensions: flexibility, accessibility, process control, decision control, speed of response and acceptance of responsibility (Tax et al., 1998; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interactional Justice is the third dimension and involves the manner in which the employees treat and communicate with the customer during the complaint. Six sub-dimensions have been studied: courtesy, honesty, empathy, effort, explanations and apologizing (Clemmer, 1988; Tax et al., 1998).
It is important to highlight that the latter--interactional justice--may appear of little significance in the case of online purchasing, due to the lack of physical interactions. However, though almost irrelevant at the time of purchase, this dimension of justice appears to become an important element for an efficient recovery, due to the consumer's need, either through e-mail or over the telephone, to feel well treated by the company. Hence, even though there is no face-to-face contact between the customer and the company representative, personal treatment during the recovery will help to create a general assessment of the degree to which the company was fair.
Post-purchase satisfaction has been considered a central mediator that links prior beliefs to post-purchase cognitive structures, communication and repurchase behavior (Westbrook, 1987). Similarly, satisfaction with the handling of a complaint can be considered a central element mediating the relationship between assessments made regarding these management and post-complaint attitudes and behavior. According to the literature on social justice, satisfaction is linked to assessments of fairness in various conflict situations (Messick & Cook, 1983). Extending this logic to complaint handling, it is widely recognized that consumer satisfaction with the complaint episode results from the assessment of aspects regarding the final outcome (distributive justice), the process that led to the outcome (procedural justice) and the manner in which the consumer was treated and informed during the episode (interactional justice), that is, how fair these aspects were (Blodgett et al., 1997; Goodwin & Ross, 1992; Liao, 2007; Mattila & Patterson, 2004; Smith et al., 1999; Tax et al., 1998). Therefore, this study presents the following group of hypotheses:
H1: Perceptions of procedural justice will have a positive impact on satisfaction with complaint handling in online purchasing.
H2: Perceptions of interactional justice will have a positive impact on satisfaction with complaint handling in online purchasing.
H3: Perceptions of distributive justice will have a positive impact on satisfaction with complaint handling in online purchasing.
Satisfaction with complaint handling in online purchasing and consumer trust
The construct of trust has been widely studied in the literature on electronic commerce. It has been seen as fundamental in explaining consumer repurchase behavior on the Internet (Pavlou, 2003; Sultan, Urban, Shankar, & Bart, 2002), as well as outside it (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997). Trust is a concept studied in several disciplines, and, as a result, there are different definitions. In this study, consumer trust in an online retailer is defined as "the willingness of the consumer to be vulnerable to actions of the electronic retailer during an Internet transaction based on the expectation that the retailer will behave in a suitable manner, independently of the ability of the consumer to monitor or control that electronic...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
