Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The nature of an apology: An experimental study on how to apologize after a service failure

  • 2271 Accesses

  • 50 Citations

Abstract

Extant service recovery research treats apology as a dichotomy, in that it is either present or absent, but how it is conveyed is neglected. Based upon social psychological research, this study argues that an apology comprises three different components: empathy, intensity, and timing, which make each apology unique. It is shown that how well an apology is delivered across failure types (outcome vs. process) drives service recovery satisfaction, not its mere presence. Empathy, intensity, and timing separately impact satisfaction. The more empathic and intense the apology is given, the more satisfied respondents are. A late apology decreases satisfaction ratings. Effect sizes indicate that empathy has the strongest impact on service recovery satisfaction followed by intensity and timing. The effect of empathy is stronger for process failures than for outcome failures. Interestingly, the apology’s overall effect size is comparable to that of compensation in case of a process failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In case of perfect manipulation, the value of the control group would be 0.00. However, few respondents haven’t marked this option, albeit their responses indicate that they received no apology. Obviously, they just have not recognized this option or accidentally marked the wrong answer.

  2. 2.

    Cohen’s d is calculated by \( d=\left( {{{\overline{x}}_{{_{{_1}}}}}-\left. {{{\overline{x}}_{{_{{_2}}}}}} \right)} \right./{\sigma_{{_{\mathrm{pooled}}}}} \), with \( {{\overline{x}}_{{_{{_1}}}}} \) denoting the mean value of the dependent variable in group 1, \( {{\overline{x}}_{{_2}}} \) denoting the mean value of the dependent variable in group 2, and σ pooled denoting the pooled standard deviation of the two groups.

  3. 3.

    A cautionary note for the effect size comparison between apology and compensation seems warranted. The overall effect of compensation is an assessment across failure types. Under the assumption that resource exchange principles hold true for compensation as well, it seems likely that the effect of compensation should be weaker for process failures (d < 1.02) and stronger for outcome failures (d > 1.02). Hence, an apology has possibly more impact for process failures. And for outcome failures the difference in effect sizes between an apology and compensation may be even larger in favor of compensation.

References

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

  2. Alexander, E. C. (2002). Consumer reactions to unethical service recovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 223–237.

  3. Baron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 235–245.

  4. 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 negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich: JAI Press.

  5. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.

  6. Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 185–210.

  7. Bolkan, S., & Daly, J. A. (2009). Organizational responses to consumer complaints: An examination of effective remediation tactics. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(1), 21–39.

  8. Bonifield, C., & Cole, C. A. (2008). Better him than me: Social comparison theory and service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 565–577.

  9. Bradley, G. L., & Sparks, B. A. (2009). Dealing with service failures: The use of explanations. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(2), 129–143.

  10. Bramel, D., Taub, B., & Blum, B. (1968). An observer’s reaction to the suffering of his enemy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 384–392.

  11. Brinberg, D., & Wood, R. (1983). A resource exchange theory analysis of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 330–338.

  12. Brogan, C. (2009). The power of apology. http://www.Chrisbrogan.com/the-Power-of-Apology/. Accessed 20 Aug 2011.

  13. Brown, T. A., Sautter, J. A., Littvay, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making in business. The Journal of Education for Business, 85(4), 203–208.

  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  15. Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62, 51–74.

  16. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

  17. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: McNally.

  18. Coulter, K. S. (2009). Enough is enough! Or is it? Factors that impact switching intentions in extended travel service transactions. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(2), 144–155.

  19. Craighead, C. W., Karwan, K. R., & Miller, J. L. (2004). The effects of severity of failure and customer loyalty on service recovery strategies. Production and Operations Management, 13(4), 307–321.

  20. Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 742–753.

  21. Davidow, M. (2000). The bottom line impact of organizational responses to customer complaints. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(4), 473–490.

  22. Davidow, M. (2003). Organizational responses to customer complaints: What works and what doesn’t. Journal of Service Research, 5(3), 225–250.

  23. Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.

  24. De Cremer, D., Pillutla, M. M., & Folmer, C. R. (2011). How important is an apology to you? Forecasting errors in evaluating the value of apologies. Psychological Science, 22(1), 45–48.

  25. de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2000). Customer equity considerations in service recovery: A cross-industry perspective. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(1), 91–108.

  26. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.

  27. Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 37–50.

  28. Fleming, J. H. (2002). Sorry seems to be the hardest word. http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/760/Sorry-Seems-Hardest-Word.aspx. Accessed 27 Nov 2012.

  29. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.

  30. Frantz, C. M., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 201–207.

  31. Gelbrich, K., & Roschk, H. (2011a). Do complainants appreciate overcompensation? A meta-analysis on the effect of simple compensation vs. overcompensation on post-complaint satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 22(1), 31–47.

  32. Gelbrich, K., & Roschk, H. (2011b). A meta-analysis of organizational complaint handling and customer responses. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 24–43.

  33. Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992). Consumer responses to service failures: Influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 25(2), 149–163.

  34. 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, 127–145.

  35. Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The managed heart—commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  36. Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 864–897). Hoboken: Wiley.

  37. Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 475–489.

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

  39. Mattila, A. S., Cho, W., & Ro, H. (2009). The joint effects of service failure mode, recovery effort, and gender on customers’ post-recovery satisfaction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(2), 120–128.

  40. Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). Modeling customer perceptions of complaint handling over time: The effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent. Journal of Retailing, 78(4), 239–252.

  41. Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they sow: The effects of shared values and perceived organizational justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 46–62.

  42. McCullough, M. E., Sandage, S. J., Brown, S. W., Rachal, K. C., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603.

  43. McDougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. J. (1999). Waiting for service: The effectiveness of recovery strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(1), 6–15.

  44. Mitchell, C. E. (1989). Effects of apology on marital and family relationships. Family Therapy: The Journal of the California Graduate School of Family Psychology, 16(3), 283–287.

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

  46. Olsen, L. L., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). Service equity, satisfaction, and loyalty: From transaction-specific to cumulative evaluations. Journal of Service Research, 5(3), 184–195.

  47. Pany, K., & Reckers, P. M. J. (1987). Within- vs. between-subjects experimental designs: A study of demand effects. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 7(1), 39–53.

  48. Patterson, P. G., Cowley, E., & Prasongsukarn, K. (2006). Service failure recovery: The moderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 263–277.

  49. Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 317–326.

  50. Ringberg, T., & Christensen, G. (2003). The influence of socio-cultural frameworks on consumers’ service recovery experiences. Advances in Consumer Research, 30(1), 385–386.

  51. Ringberg, T., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Christensen, G. L. (2007). A cultural models approach to service recovery. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 194–214.

  52. Santelli, A. G., Struthers, C. W., & Eaton, J. (2009). Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 381–394.

  53. Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(3), 271–278.

  54. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Förster, N., & Montada, L. (2004). Effects of objective and subjective account components on forgiving. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5), 465–485.

  55. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts backfire: The exacerbating effects of a polite message or an apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 322–341.

  56. Smith, A. K., & Bolton, R. N. (2002). The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 5–23.

  57. 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(3), 356–372.

  58. Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.

  59. Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  60. Teichman, M., & Foa, U. G. (1975). Effect of resources similarity on satisfaction with exchange. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 3(2), 213–224.

  61. Thoits, P. A. (1989). The sociology of emotion. In W. R. Scott & J. Blake (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (pp. 317–342). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

  62. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.

  63. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.

  64. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, T. A. (2003). Affective forecasting. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 35 (pp. 346–411). San Diego: Academic Press.

  65. Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2004). Consumer responses to compensation, speed of recovery and apology after a service failure. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(2), 150–166.

  66. Wong, N. Y. (2004). The role of culture in the perception of service recovery. Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 957–963.

  67. Zhu, Z., Sivakumar, K., & Parasuraman, A. (2004). A mathematical model of service failure and recovery strategies. Decision Sciences, 35(3), 493–525.

  68. Zilzer, S. J., & Frantz, C. M. (2002). The influence of timing on apology effectiveness: Exploring the phenomenon of a “too late” apology. Poster Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, New Orleans, LA

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Holger Roschk.

Appendix. Text of videos

Appendix. Text of videos

[Introduction]
It is evening. Some ambient music is playing, guests are chatting, and the couple enters the restaurant. The couple has a reservation and the waitress shows them to their table. She hands the couple the menus and asks if they already want something to drink, but the guests prefer to have a look at the menu first. She recommends the steak and leaves the table. The couple takes a look at the menu and decides about their meals and drinks. Both agree that the various steaks sound tasty and that they will have some red wine and water.
The couple is chatting while the waitress approaches. She asks for their orders. The woman takes the steak in red wine sauce, whereupon the waitress asks if she wants her steak well done, bloody, or medium. The woman orders hers medium. The man opts for the steak in pepper sauce cooked medium and orders two glasses of red wine. The woman reminds him about the water, which he then adds. The waitress repeats their order, thanks them, and leaves the table.
[Failure occurrence—process failure] [Failure occurrence—outcome failure]
The couple talks about their upcoming meeting with their friends after dinner. Both are looking forward to see Maria and Michael again after a long while. They are happy that their friends are coming to visit their city, so they can show them around. The waitress serves the drinks. The couple is talking. They look forward to their steaks, are already hungry and realize that it has been a long time since they had their last steak. Hence, it would be a good idea to cook steaks at home from time to time. The waitress serves the drinks.
Approximately 40 min later: Approximately 20 min later:
The couple is surprised by how late it has become. They realize that they will have difficulties making it on time to their meeting. They decide to call the waitress and ask if there is a problem. She promises to check where the meals are. The waitress serves the steaks. Both start eating and the woman suddenly realizes that her steak is overcooked. He points out that she may have just bitten into a thin edge-piece, but she discovers that the whole steak is overcooked and also is too salty for her taste. When the man tastes his steak he experiences the same. The steak is overcooked and not juicy.
Approximately 15 min later: Both are disappointed since they were really looking forward to their meal. They agree upon that the steaks are almost inedible and decide to complain. They call the waitress, who comes at once.
The couple is still waiting for their meals. Both are not happy about the situation since they have an appointment with their friends who have come to town. They decide to write a text to Michael pointing out that they are waiting for their meals and that they will be late for approximately 30 min. The couple point out that the steaks are not the way they had ordered them and that they are also too salty. The waitress says: “Thank you for your comments. I will pass them on immediately” and leaves the table.
5 to 10 min later:
The waitress serves the steaks. The couple complains that they waited too long and also had to postpone their date. The waitress says: “Thank you for your comments. I will pass them on immediately” and leaves the table.
[Timing condition 1]
Shortly afterwards:
The waitress returns to the table and says “I forwarded your complaint,” optionally she apologizes according to Table 1 and continues with “Is everything else to your satisfaction, do you have a wish?” The couple does not desire anything else and she leaves the table.
[While eating—process failure] [While eating—outcome failure]
The couple is eating and both agree that the steaks taste very good. They are exactly the way they ordered. Once again the waitress asks if she can bring something else, which is not the case. The couple is eating and both agree that the steaks do not taste good. Once again the waitress asks if she can bring something else, which is not the case.
When the couple finished their meals they ask for the check and the waitress takes away the empty plates. When the couple finished their meals they ask for the check and the waitress takes away the half-empty plates.
[Timing condition 2]
The waitress approaches the table and while putting the booklet with the check on the table she says: “Your check,” optionally apologizes according to Table 1 and continues with “Have a nice evening, Goodbye.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roschk, H., Kaiser, S. The nature of an apology: An experimental study on how to apologize after a service failure. Mark Lett 24, 293–309 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9218-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Service recovery
  • Apology
  • Failure type
  • Consumer complaints
  • Consumer satisfaction
  • Complaint management
  • Compensation