nach oben

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Erschienen in:

01.11.2012 | Original Empirical Research

Understanding the co-creation effect: when does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery?

verfasst von: Anne L. Roggeveen, Michael Tsiros, Dhruv Grewal

Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science | Ausgabe 6/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Because co-creation allows customers to help shape or personalize the content of their experience, it can affect customer satisfaction with recovery efforts, as well as offer a more cost-effective alternative to compensation. This article identifies specific situations in which co-creation is and is not useful. Study 1 tests the impact of co-creation in comparison with compensation for enhancing satisfaction with the recovery process and demonstrates that co-creation offers a cost-efficient strategy for companies when customers must deal with severe delays. Study 2 extends these results by showing that the impact extends to repurchase intentions. Study 3 details conditions in which co-creation harms evaluations. Finally, Study 4 explores whether it is necessary for the company to meet the customer’s requests when co-creating a recovery, as well as what happens when the company exceeds a customer’s requests. The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, and research directions that emerge from the studies.

Vorheriger Artikel The effect of shipping fee structure on consumers’ online evaluations and choice

Nächster Artikel How consumer shopping orientation influences perceived crowding, excitement, and stress at the mall

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Although the sample size is relatively small, recent evidence shows that the convergence and accuracy of confirmatory factor analysis solutions are affected by the quality of the latent variable indicators rather than by the sample size or observations per free parameter (Guadagnoli and Velicer 1988; Marsh et al. 1998).

Recent evidence (Chen et al. 2008) suggests using multiple indicators of model fit and claims that the arbitrary cut-off point of .05 for RMSEA rejects too many valid models with small sample sizes (n = 100); it performs better with larger samples (but accepts too many when n > 800).

Post-hoc power analysis for interaction justice indicates low power (.35). Thus, the non-significant results are more likely due to the test being underpowered for a small effect at the .10 level (Cohen 1992).

Mediation tests for the individual justice measures are available via web appendix. We find full mediation for all justice measures.

Here, ab represents the indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable through the mediator, c represents the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, and c’ represents the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

Post-hoc power analysis for interaction justice indicates low power (.45). Thus, the non-significant results are more likely due to the test being underpowered for a small effect at the .10 level (Cohen 1992).

Mediation tests for the individual justice measures are available via web appendix. We find full mediation for all justice measures.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-stop approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–25.CrossRef

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.CrossRef

Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67, 14–28.CrossRef

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations, Vol. 1 (pp. 43–55). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218.CrossRef

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69–82.CrossRef

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71–84.CrossRef

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., Tetreault, M. S., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L. (2000). Technology infusion in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 138–149.CrossRef

Blair, S. L., & Johnson, M. P. (1992). Wives’ perceptions of fairness of the division of household labor: the intersection of housework and ideology. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 570–81.CrossRef

Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462–494.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRef

Crosby, L. A., & Stephens, N. (1987). Effects of relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention, and prices in the life insurance industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 404–411.CrossRef

Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123–137.CrossRef

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

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. L. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 39–50.CrossRef

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.CrossRef

Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., & Tsiros, M. (2008). The effect of compensation on repurchase intentions in service recovery. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 424–434.CrossRef

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265–275.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hoffman, K. D., Kelley, S. W., & Chung, B. C. (2003). A CIT investigation of servicescape failures and associated recovery strategies. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), 322–40.CrossRef

Hu, L-t, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef

Kelley, S. W., Hoffman, K. D., & Davis, M. A. (1993). A typology of retail failures and recoveries. Journal of Retailing, 69(4), 429–52.CrossRef

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.CrossRef

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic as a foundation for building a general theory. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 406–20). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5–18.CrossRef

Magnini, V., Ford, J. B., Markowski, E. P., & Honeycutt, E. D., Jr. (2007). The service recovery paradox: justifiable theory or smoldering myth? Journal of Services Marketing, 21(3), 213–225.CrossRef

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220.CrossRef

Mattila, A. S., & Cranage, D. (2005). The impact of choice on fairness in the context of service recovery. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(5), 271–79.CrossRef

Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). A longitudinal study of complaining customers’ evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 57–71.CrossRef

Mills, P. K., & Morris, J. J. (1986). Clients as ‘partial’ employees of service organizations: role development in client participation. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 726–35.

Mills, P. K., Chase, R. B., & Margulies, N. (1983). Motivating the client/employee system as a service production strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 301–10.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–69.CrossRef

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R. L., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 495–507.CrossRef

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.CrossRef

Roehm, M. L., & Brady, M. K. (2007). Consumer responses to performance failures by high-equity brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 537–545.CrossRef

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 356–372.CrossRef

Tax, S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62, 60–76.CrossRef

Thibault, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.CrossRef

Wilkie, J. R., Ferre, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1998). Gender and fairness: marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 577–594.CrossRef

Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1–12.CrossRef

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

Zhao, X., Lynch, J., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.CrossRef

Titel: Understanding the co-creation effect: when does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery?
verfasst von: Anne L. Roggeveen
Michael Tsiros
Dhruv Grewal
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2012
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science / Ausgabe 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0092-0703
Elektronische ISSN: 1552-7824
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0274-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2012

The effect of shipping fee structure on consumers’ online evaluations and choice

Achieving brand loyalty through sponsorship: the role of fit and self-congruity

Incentivizing CEOs to build customer- and employee-firm relations for higher customer satisfaction and firm value

How consumer shopping orientation influences perceived crowding, excitement, and stress at the mall

Bottom-up learning in marketing frontlines: conceptualization, processes, and consequences