Marketing Letters

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 465–483 | Cite as

Customer participation in service recovery: a meta-analysis

  • Yves Van VaerenberghEmail author
  • Simon Hazée
  • Annelies Costers


Research on customer participation in service recovery is surging, yet empirical examinations provide mixed results. A meta-analysis of 30 independent samples reported in 21 studies (N = 7872) shows that the effect sizes for the relationships between customer participation in service recovery and customer outcomes are rather weak. We also find that customer participation in service recovery has an indirect effect on satisfaction with service recovery via distributive justice and procedural justice, but not via interactional justice. Conversely, customer participation in service recovery has an indirect effect on overall satisfaction via distributive justice and interactional justice, but not via procedural justice. Finally, the effectiveness of customer participation in service recovery is stronger when customers participate in the outcome of the recovery and for customers with an Eastern cultural background, but weaker when additional compensation is offered and in online settings.


Service failure Service recovery Customer participation Co-creation Customer complaints 


Funding information

The first author (G0C5617N) and third author (SB/151556) are grateful for financial support from the Research Foundation—Flanders.


References marked with an asterisk are included in the meta-analysis

  1. *Armirotto, V. (2016). How can we best solve your problem? The impact of co-creation of service recovery on complaining customers’ perceptions. Master thesis: KU Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  2. Association of Business Schools (2015). Academic Journal Guide 2015. 54 pages.Google Scholar
  3. *Balaji, M. S., Jha, S., Sengupta, A. S., Krishnan, B. C. (2018) Are cynical customers satisfied differently? Role of negative inferred motive and customer participation in service recovery. Journal of Business Research, 86:109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett, J. J., & Dune, P. M. (1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 14, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, H., Wan, L. C., & Sin, L. Y. M. (2007). Hospitality service failures: Who will be more dissatisfied? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 531–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, C.-C., & Chin, Y.-C. (2011). Comparing consumer complaint responses to online and offline environment. Internet Research, 21, 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Cheung, F. Y. M., To, C. W. M. (2016). A customer-dominant logic on service recovery and customer satisfaction, Management Decision, 54:2524–2543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. *Collier, J. E., Breazeale, M., White, A. (2017). Giving back the “self” in self-service: Customer preferences in self-service failure recovery. Journal of Services Marketing, 31:604–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. *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, 36:123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. *Dong, B., Sivakumar, K., Evans, K. R., Zou, S. (2016). Recovering coproduced service failures: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators of locus of recovery. Journal of Service Research, 19: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dong, B., & Sivakumar, K. (2017). Customer participation in services: domain, scope, and boundaries. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 944–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R., & Sawyer, A. (1995). Empirical marketing generalization using meta-analysis. Marketing Science, 14, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field, A. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelbrich, K., & Roschk, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of organizational complaint handling and customer responses. Journal of Service Research, 14, 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *Gohary, A., Hamzelu, B., Alizadeh, H. (2016a) Please explain why it happened! How perceived justice and customer involvement affect post co-recovery evaluations: A study of Iranian online shoppers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31:127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *Gohary, A., Hamzelu, B., Pourazizi, L., Hanzaee, K. H. (2016b). Understanding effects of co-creation on cognitive, affective and behavioral evaluations in service recovery: An ethnocultural analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31:182–198.Google Scholar
  19. Grönroos, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service quality. Review of Business, 9, 10–13.Google Scholar
  20. *Guo, L., Lotz, S. L., Tang, C., Gruen, T. W. (2016). The role of perceived control in customer value cocreation and service recovery evaluation. Journal of Service Research, 19:39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. *Hazée, S., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Armirotto, V. (2017). Co-creating service recovery after service failure: The role of brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 75:101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., Falk, T. (2015) The dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43:279–296.Google Scholar
  23. Herzberg, F. (1971). Work and the nature of man. New York: World Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2014). Missing link in the service profit chain: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of service climate. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. *Huang, H-H. (2016) A study of customer co-recovery from self-oriented and other-oriented perspectives. J Hosp Leis Sport To, 6:1–28.Google Scholar
  27. *Huang, H-H., Wang, J. S., Kung, S. H. (2016) The influence of customer participation in service recovery on overall satisfaction and repurchase intention. Journal National Huwei University Science Technology, 33:1–11.Google Scholar
  28. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., Devezer, B., & Tripp, T. M. (2013). When do customers offer firms a “second chance” following a double deviation? The impact of inferred firm motives on customer revenge and reconciliation. Journal of Retailing, 89, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *Joosten, H., Bloemer, J., Hillebrand, B. (2017) Consumer control in service recovery: beyond decisional control. Journal of Service Management, 28:499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Karande, K., Magnini, V.P., Tam, L. (2007) Recovery voice and satisfaction after service failure: An experimental investigation of mediating and moderating factors. Journal of Service Research, 10:187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knox, G., & Van Oest, R. (2014). Customer complaints and recovery effectiveness: A customer base approach. Journal of Marketing, 78, 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. *Mattila, A. S. (2010) Do women like options more than men? An examination in the context of service recovery. Journal of Services Marketing, 24:499–508;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murtaugh, P. A. (2002). Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in meta-analysis. Ecology, 83, 1162–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orsingher, C., Valentini, S., & de Angelis, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of customer satisfaction with complaint handling in services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson, R. A., & Merunka, D. R. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1035–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pick, D., & Eisend, M. (2016). Customer responses to switching costs: A meta-analytic investigation of the moderating influence of culture. Journal of International Marketing, 24, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *Roggeveen, A. L., Tsiros, M., Grewal, D. (2012) Understanding the co-creation effect: when does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40:771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘file-drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rust, R., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rust, R., & Lemon, K. (2001). E-service and the consumer. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sengupta, S., Ray, D., Trendel, O., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2018). The effect of apologies in the global online retail. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 22, 419–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharma, P. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 787–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounter involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 356–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. *Talgø, T., Rødsjø, E. L. (2017) You break it, you fix it? Customer participation in service production and service recovery. Master thesis: BI Norwegian Business School, Norway.Google Scholar
  48. Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Orsingher, C. (2016). Service recovery: An integrative framework and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30, 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Orsingher, C., Vermeir, I., & Larivière, B. (2014). A meta-analysis of relationships linking service failure attributions to customer outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 17, 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. *Vazquez-Casielles, R., Iglesias, V., Varela-Neira, C. (2017) Co-creation and service recovery process communication: effects on satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and word of mouth. Service Business, 11:321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Völckner, F., & Hofmann, J. (2007). The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Marketing Letters, 18, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. *Xu, Y., Tronvoll, B., Edvardsson, B. (2014a) Recovering service failure through resource integration. Service Industries Journal, 34:1253–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. *Xu, Y., Marshall, R., Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. (2014b) Show you care: Initiation co-creation in service recovery. Journal of Service Management, 25:369–387.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves Van Vaerenbergh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simon Hazée
    • 2
  • Annelies Costers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MarketingKU LeuvenBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Marketing, HEC LiègeUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations