The Four Factor Model of Justice:
An Application to Customer Complaint Handling
Dr. Ronald L. Hess, Jr., The College of William & Mary
Dr. Maureen Ambrose, University of Central Florida
“We waited a very long time for a waiter, and finally the person who seated us came and took our order.
She was obviously in a rush, and neglected to go over the evening’s specials or spend one second more with
us than she had to. Our drinks and order were delivered by a waitor that didn’t even bother to ask if we
needed anything else. After we could eat no more, we waited pateient;y for human life, and hopefully refills
for our drinks. After a very long time, we went to the hostess and told her about our lack of waiters and
growing thirst. It took three trips from her before we saw anyone or could get a refill.”
From a Disgruntled Traveler-- Epinions.com
“We had a third person staying in the hotel room and had requested a cot from the moment we checked in.
The people at the front desk assured us that it would be there when the third person arrived. Unfortunately,
when the third person came to stay sure enough there was no cot available. To our great annoyance, one
person had to sleep on the floor. Is this the kind of service you would expect from a four star hotel? I don’t
think so. “
From an Annoyed HotelG uest-- Epionions.com
Organizations spend millions annually trying to attract and retain customers; however, as
these example indicate, failures in service delivery can greatly threaten such efforts.
Given the significant costs of losing such customers when failures occur, a critical aspect
of customer retention is effectively handling complaints (Hart, Heskett, and Sasser 1990).
Research shows that the success of these strategies in restoring customer satisfaction and
repurchase intentions depends on customers’ perceptions that their complaint was
handled fairly (Clemmer 1993; Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997; Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran 1998; Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999).
The management and marketing disciplines have traditionally distinguished
among three types of fairness: distributive justice (fairness of outcome distributions),
procedural justice (fairness of the process by which decisions are made), and
interactional justice (fairness in the treatment one receives during the enactment of the
1
procedures) (Clemmer 1993; Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997; Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran 1998; Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999; Smith and Bolton 2002).
Recently, Greenberg (1993) argued that this traditional three factor model of justice is
better conceptualized as four different types of justice. He suggested that in addition to
distributive and procedural justice, interactional justice be split into two distinct types of
justice: interpersonal justice, defined as the fairness of interpersonal treatment provided
during the enactment of procedures and distributions of outcomes, and informational
justice, defined as the fairness of explanations and information.
Recently, empirical research in management has appeared that supports the four
factor model of justice (Colquitt 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng 2001)
and that interpersonal and informational justice have unique effects on managerial
outcomes (Colquit 2001). For example, Colquitt (2001) found that interpersonal justice
was related to helping behavior, whereas informational justice was related to collective
esteem. An application of the four factor model to a marketing context (specifically to
customer complaint handling) is lacking but definitely needed. One of the purposes of
this paper, therefore, is to explore the theoretical dimensionality of justice by explicitly
comparing the traditional three factor model and the four-factor model in the context of
customer complaint handling.
A second purpose of this article is to understand how these types of justice
differentially impact important customer outcomes following organizational complaint
handling (Clemmer 1993; Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997). Understanding which type of
justice impacts certain customer outcomes is essential if effective complaint handling
strategies are to be implemented. For example, if distributive justice has an impact on
2
satisfaction with complaint handling, whereas informational justice has an effect on
repatronage intentions, these findings have important implications for how organizations
should design organizational complaint handling procedures, train their employees, and
treat customers following service failures.
Within this study we will examine the dimensionality of justice by comparing
several different models of justice (one factor, two factor, three factor, and four factor
model of justice). We will also determine which type of justice is related to different
customer outcomes, such as repurchase intentions, trust with the organization, and
negative word-of-mouth behavior. We begin by defining organizational complaint
handling and justice. Then, we offer a set of hypotheses that address our proposed
research questions.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Despite their best efforts, organizations sometime fail to deliver products or
services that customers expect. When failures occurs, organizational complaint handling
becomes a critical part of customer retention and, if well executed, offers organizations an
opportunity to restore customer confidence, satisfaction, repatronage intentions, and
loyalty (Clemmer 1993; Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997; Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran
1998; Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999; Smith and Bolton 2002). Research on complaint
handling demonstrates that the perceived fairness of how the complaint is handled affects
several customer outcomes. Next, we review the types of justice that are central to
customers’ perceptions of complait handling.
Distributive Justice
3
Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of outcome allocations, and is
typically evaluated with respect to the equity of those outcome distributions (Adams
1965; Deutsch 1985; Homans 1961). Researchers in marketing have shown that
complaint handling activities that involve tangible compensation in the form of
reimbursement, product/service replacement, credit, apology, repair, refund, correction,
and additional tangible compensation positively affect customer perceptions of
distributive justice (Goodwin and Ross 1992; Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998;
Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999). Moreover, this research demonstrates that the
perceived distributive justice of complaint handling positively affects customers’
reactions, including satisfaction with the encounter (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999;
Smith and Bolton 2002), outcome satisfaction (Clemmer 1993), satisfaction with
complaint handling (Goodwin and Ross 1992; Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998;
Maxham and Netemeyer 2002), repatronage intentions (Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997),
overall satisfaction/return intentions (Clemmer 1993; Maxham and Netemeyer 2002), and
perceptions of fairness (Goodwin and Ross 1992), and decreases negative word-of-mouth
(Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997).
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the process(es) by which
allocation decisions are made. Early work on procedural justice identified several
procedural rules that influence perceptions of fairness: consistency, accuracy,
representativeness (voice), bias suppression, correctability, and ethicality (Leventhal
1980; Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry 1980; Thibaut and Walker 1975). Research
demonstrated that when individuals believed procedures were fair, they were more
4
satisfied with the outcome they received, even when the outcome was unfavorable
(Thibaut and Walker 1975; Lind and Tyler 1988).
Researchers in marketing have shown that customer perceptions of procedural
justice are based on convenience, flexibility, timeliness (of response), opportunity to
voice, process control, process knowledge, helpfulness, efficiency, assumption of
responsibility, and follow-up (Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998; Clemmer 1993;
Conlon and Murray 1996; Goodwin and Ross 1992). Customers’ perceptions that
complaint handling processes are fair have a positive effect on many outcomes such as,
satisfaction with the encounter (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999; Smith and Bolton
2002), outcome satisfaction (Clemmer 1993), satisfaction with complaint handling (Tax,
Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998), overall satisfaction (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002),
repurchase intentions (Clemmer 1993; Maxham and Netemeyer 2002) and a negative
effect on negative word-of-mouth behaviors (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002).
Interpersonal Justice and Informational Justice
In the traditional model of justice, individuals are also sensitive to interactional
justice, the fairness of the treatment that one receives during the enactment of procedures
(Bies and Moag 1986; Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998; Blodgett, Hill, and Tax
1997; Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999). Researchers generally agree that there are two
dimensions of interactional justice: interpersonal sensitivity and explanations (Bies and
Shapiro 1988; Greenberg 1993). Research demonstrates that both interpersonal
sensitivity and explanations affect individuals’ perceptions of fairness (Brockner and
Greenberg 1990; Greenberg 1993b, 1994;). Interactional fairness perceptions, in turn,
5
have been shown to affect individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Cropanzano and
Greenberg 1997).
Researchers in marketing have shown that empathy, effort, politeness,
friendliness, sensitivity, apology, explanation, justification, lack of bias, and honesty are
important factors influencing customers’ perceptions of interactional justice (Goodwin
and Ross 1992; Clemmer 1993; Conlon and Murray 1996; Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran 1998; Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999). Research indicated that
interactional justice positively affects satisfaction with the encounter (Smith, Bolton, and
Wagner 1999; Smith and Bolton 2002), outcome satisfaction (Clemmer 1993),
satisfaction with complaint handling (Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998; Maxham
and Netemeyer 2002), repatronage intentions (Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997; Maxham and
Netemeyer 2002), overall satisfaction/return intentions (Clemmer 1993; Maxham and
Netemeyer 2002), and decreases negative word-of-mouth (Blodgett, Hill, and Tax 1997).
Most research on justice treats interactional justice as a third type of justice while
distinguishing between its two sub-dimensions: interpersonal sensitivity and explanations
(Bies 2001; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Rupp 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector
2001). However, as described previously, Greenberg (1993) suggested these two
dimensions of interactional justice are better conceptualized as two distinct forms of
justice: interpersonal justice, defined as the fairness of interpersonal treatment provided
during the enactment of procedures and distributions of outcomes, and informational
justice as the fairness of explanations and information. In management, Colquitt (2001)
has shown that the four factor model management provides superior fit to alternative
models of justice such as the one factor, two factor model, and three factor models of
6
justice. Thus, we propose that the dimensionality of justice will be best exemplified with
four factors compared to the traditional three factor conceptualization.
H1: The fit of the four factor model of justice will be superior to the alternative
models of justice (i.e., three, two, or one factor models).
Differential Effects of Justice on Customer Outcomes
Previous research in marketing has established relationships among distributive,
procedural, interactional (containing interpersonal justice and informational justice) and
satisfaction with complaint handling (Goodwin and Ross 1992; Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran 1998; Maxham and Netemeyer 2002). We also expect that distributive
and procedural justice will impact satisfaction with complaint handling. However, recall
that the four factor model divides interactional justice into two distinct parts-interpersonal justice and informational justice-- and we propose that these types of justice
will be related to very different customer outcomes. First, we expect that interpersonal
justice will affect satisfaction with complaint handling. This proposed relationship is
consistent with Greenberg (1993) who states that interpersonal justice, because it reflects
issues such as sensitivity, politeness, dignified behavior, and respect, can ease an
individual’s response to decision outcomes (i.e., complaint handling outcomes),
especially if these outcomes are unfavorable.
In contrast, we propose that informational justice will have a unique affect on
global or organizational centered outcomes such as repurchase intentions, trust in the
organization, and negative word-of-mouth. Greenberg (1993) states that informational
justice should affect long-term or organizational-centered outcomes because explanations
and open communications provide individuals with information necessary to assess the
7
systemic bases of existing procedures. Indeed, Colquitt et al. (2001, p. 427)) claims that
“informational justice acts primarily to alter reactions to procedures, in that explanations
provide the information needed to evaluate structural (i.e., organizational defined) aspects
of the process.” This perspective is also reflected by Tyler and Bies (1989) who suggests
that candid communication with group members may decrease perceptions of secrecy and
dishonesty of the group, enhancing perceptions that the overall group is trustworthy.
Thus, in the context of complaint handling, we expect that informational justice will be
related to global or organizational centered outcomes (e.g., repurchase intentions, trust
with the organization, and negative word-of-mouth).
H2: Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interpersonal justice will be
related to satisfaction with complaint handling.
H3: Informational justice will be related to repurchase intentions, trust with the
organization, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors .
Research Methodology
Design and Sample
We used a cross-sectional survey design to collect perceptions about product and
service complaint experiences. This protocol is similar to those used in much previous
research focusing on evaluations of failures, complaining behavior, and complaint
handling (Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998; Clemmer 1993). The sampling frame
used for this study was passengers waiting for flights at departure gates at a major
international airport. Permission was formally requested from several major airlines for
such a survey, and one granted permission. Respondents were approached by researchers
who introduced themselves, described the purpose of the study, and asked for their
8
participation by completing the survey. A cover letter reiterated the purpose of the study,
identified the two principal researchers and university affiliations, and guaranteed
anonymity of all responses. Three-hundred thirteen surveys were collected with 285
being usable. The sample was composed of 40% men, 60% women, with a mean age of
38 years. In terms of level of education completed, the sample included: 15.1% high
school, 24% some college, 29.3% undergraduate degree, 10.7% some graduate education,
and 20.9% graduate degrees. Overall, we believe that our sample is a well-represented
convenience sample.
Procedure
Respondents were asked to think about a service problem that they experienced
and complained about to someone in the organization within the previous six months.
The survey began with a series of open-ended questions requesting respondents to
describe in detail the problem that occurred, with whom within the organization they
discussed the incident, and what actions were taken to resolve the problem. These openended questions were used to elicit detailed information from memory and assist with the
retrieval of feelings and evaluations about the incident. Following these open-ended
questions, respondents were asked fixed response and evaluative questions concerning
their incident. Next, we asked for their evaluations about how the company responded to
their problem(s). These questions addressed their perceptions of distributive, procedural,
interpersonal, and informational justice. Then, we included items assessing their
satisfaction with complaint handling, repurchase intentions, trust with the organization,
and negative word-of-mouth behaviors. Finally, demographic information and measures
of control variables were requested. The respondents were then thanked and debriefed.
9
10
Measures of Constructs and Control Variables
The measures used in this study, source of the measures, and the coefficient
alphas for each measure are presented in Appendix A. Measures of distributive,
procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice were based on those developed
recently by Colquitt (2001). These measures, originally developed for use in a
management context, were adapted for use in a marketing context1. Only minor
modifications of the wording were necessary. The measurement of satisfaction with
complaint handling, trust, repurchase intentions, and negative word-of-mouth were based
on established measures from Oliver and Swan (1989) and Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran (1998). We also collected information about perceptions of the severity
of the failure, disconfirmation, importance of the product or service, and various
demographic information, such as gender, age, and level of education. These control
variables were chosen because previous research reported that these were influential in
complaint handling situations (Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999; Hess, Ganesan, and
Klein 2003).
Analysis and Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In order to test the first hypothesis, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis
with intercorrelated factors using LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1998). Four
different conceptual models of jstice were tested-- one factor, two factor, three factor, and
four factor models. These four factor structures were compared because each model has
appeared recently in the marketing and management literatures and considerable debate
exists in the management discipline about which model provides the best fit. Such a test
11
has never been conducted in the marketing discipline. For the one factor model, we
assigned all items shown in the Appendix to a single factor. Next, the two factor model
was tested with distributive justice as one factor and procedural justice encompassing the
items for procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. The three factor model
contained items designated for distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional
justice, with interactional justice subsuming the items for interpersonal and informational
justice. Finally, the four factor model included separate factors for distributive,
procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.
A comparison of fit statistics for these models is shown in Table 1. Overall, it
shows that the four factor model provides a superior fit compared to the other three
models. First, we assessed the chi-square statistic which provides a measure of absolute
fit of the implied covariances to the observed covariances. A chi-square closer to 0
signifies a better fit. The table indicates that the four factor model is superior to the three
alternative models. Many researchers are critical of the chi-square statistic because it is
sensitive to differences in sample size. Hence, we also compared the four models using a
ratio of chi-square and degrees of freedom. According to Arbuckle (1997), ratios closer
to 2 are indicative of superior fit. Given this criterion, our results reveal that the four
factor model, with a ratio of 2.55, is superior to the one, two, and three factor models.
We also examined the incremental fit index (IFI) and the comparative fit index
(CFI). These indices compare the fit of the proposed model to a baseline model. Indices
approaching 1.0 exemplify models with superior fit, with 0.90 representing the
established threshold for good fit (Bentler 1990). Consistent with previous results, the
four factor model provides superior fit (CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95) compared with the three
12
alternative models. The final criteria used was the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA) which designates how well the model compares to the
population covariance matrix (Brown and Cudeck 1993). These authors define good fit
as an RMSEA between 0.05 and 0.08. The four factor model exemplifies superior fit
(RMSEA = 0.07) compared to the three alternative models. Overall, the fit indices
summarized in Table 1 clearly demonstrates the superior fit of the four factor model
compared to the three alternative models and supports Hypothesis 1.
Analysis of the Structural Model
Given that the four factor model provided superior fit, we used this model to test
H2 which proposed that distributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice were related to
satisfaction with complaint handling, and H3 which proposed that informational justice
was related to global or organizational cenetered outcomes such as, repurchase intentions,
trust with the organization, and negative word-of-mouth. To test H2 and H3, we included
these hypothesized paths in a structural model using LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom
1998). The fit indices of our structural model are presented in Table 2 and show that the
proposed structural model provides good fit to the data, as each index approaches or
exceeds established criteria: IFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.061, and the SRMR =
0.048 (Browne and Cudeck 1993; Bentler and Bonett 1980). The percentage of variance
explained for each of our dependent variables is also quite high at 80% for satisfaction
with complaint handling, 47% for repurchase intentions, 63% for trust, and 64% for
negative word-of-mouth.
The structural model provides full support for H2, which hypothesized that
distributive justice (β = 0.50, p < 0.01), procedural justice (β = 0.29, p < 0.01), and
13
interpersonal justice (β = 0.23, p < 0.01) would be related to satisfaction with complaint
handling. It is also worth noting that informational justice is not significantly related to
satisfaction with complaint handling. Our results also provide support for H3 which
stated that informational justice would be related to repurchase intentions (β = 0.26, p <
0.01), trust with the organization (β = 0.27, p < 0.01), and negative word-of-mouth (β =
0.24, p < 0.01). A check of modification indices did not suggest adding paths from
distributive, procedural, or interpersonal justice to these outcomes. Thus, as proposed,
our results indicate that informational justice is the only type of justice that has a
significant impact on these important customer consequences. In the following section,
we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.
Discussion
Our study examined the theoretical dimensionality of justice by comparing the fit of four
models of justice within the context of complaint handling. We also investigated whether
distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice were uniquesly related to
satisfaction with complaint handling, repurchase intentions, trust with the organization,
and negative word-of-mouth. Our findings showed that the four factor model which
proposed that justice is best conceptualized as containing four factors, distributive,
procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, provides the best fit to the data
compared with three popular alternative models of justice. This research is the first to use
and compare the four factor model within a complaint handling context.
We also examined the differential impact of the four types of justice on important
customer outcomes. Overall, we found support for the fact that customers’ judgments of
distributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice influence their evaluations of how the
14
complaint had been handled (i.e., satisfaction with complaint handling). Our results also
show that informational justice has no significant relationship with satsifaction with
complaint handling. Instead, informational justice influences global or organizational
centered outcomes such as repurchase intentions, trust with the organization, and negative
word-of-mouth. Taken together, these findings clearly demonstrate the unique impact
that informational justice has on how organizations handle customer complaints.
ENDNOTES
Within our survey, we also included justice measures that have been utilized in previous marketing research
(see Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998; Smith, Bolton, and Wagner 1999). However, the Colquitt
(2001) measures provided better overall convergent and discriminant validity. Thus, we used these
measures in our analyses.
15
TABLE 1
Comparison of Four Models of Justice
Models
Chi-Sq. (df)
1-Factor Model
2-Factor Model
3-Factor Model
4-Factor Model
1804.8 (152)
1119.08 (151)
702.64 (149)
372.75 (146)
Chi-Sq./df
Ratio
11.87
7.41
4.72
2.55
IFI
CFI
RMSEA
0.63
0.78
0.88
0.95
0.63
0.78
0.88
0.95
0.24
0.18
0.13
0.07
TABLE 2
Fit Indices for the Measurement and Structural Models
Models
Chi-Sq. (df)
IFI
CFI
RMSEA
SRMR
Measurement Model
Structural Model
808.72 (377)
829.89 (387)
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.063
0.061
0.046
0.048
16
References
Adams, Stacy J. (1965), “Inequity in Social Exchanges,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 2, Leonard Berkowitz ed. New York: Academic Press, 267-99.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997), Amos Users’ Guide (Version 3.6), Chicago: Small-Waters Corporation.
Bentler, P. M. and Douglas Bonett (1980), Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of
Covariance Structures,” Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588-606.
Bentler, P. M. (1990), “Comparative Fit Indices in Structural Models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bies, Robert J and Moag, Joseph S, (1986), “Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria for Fairness,”
in Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1), B. Sheppard ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,
43-55.
Bies, R. J. and D. L. Shapiro (1988), “Voice and Justification: Their Influence on Procedural Fairness
Judgments,” Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676-685.
Blodgett, Jeffrey G., Donna J. Hill, and Stephen S. Tax (1997), “The Effects of Distributive, Procedural,
and Interactional Justice on Post-Complaint Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (2), 185-210.
Browne, Michael W. and Robert Cudeck (1993), “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit,” in Testing
Structural Equation Models, Kenneth A. Bollen and J. Scott Long, eds. Newbury Park, California:
Sage Publications, Inc., 136-62.
Clemmer, Elizabeth C. (1993), “An Investigation into the Relationships of Justice and Customer
Satisfaction with Services,” in Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, R. Cropanzano, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 193-207.
Colquitt, Jason A. (2001), “On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a
Measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Colquitt, Jason A., Conlon, Donald E., Wesson, Michael. J., Porter, Christopher O. L. H., & Ng, K. Yee
(2001), Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice
Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Conlon, D. E., and N. M. Murray (1996), “Customer Perceptions of Corporate Responses to Product
Complaints: The Role of Explanations,” Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1040-1056.
Cropanzano, Russell., Byrne, Zinta S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, Deborah R. (2001), “Moral Virtues,
Fairness Heuristics, Social Entities, and Other Denizens of Organizational Justice. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
----, and Jerald Greenberg (1997), Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling Through the Maze,” in
International review of industrial and organizational psychology, L. T. Robertson and C. L.
Cooper eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 317-72.
Deutsch, Morten (1985), Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Goodwin, Cathy and I. Ross (1990), “Consumer Responses to Service Failures: Influence of Procedural and
Interactional Fairness Perceptions,” Journal of Business Research, 25, 149-163.
17
Greenberg, Jerald (1993), “The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of
Organizational Justice,” in Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource
Management, Russell Cropanzano, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 79-103.
Greenberg, Jerald (1994), “Using Socially Fair Treatment to Promote Acceptance of a Work Site Smoking
Ban,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288-297.
Hart, Christopher W. L., James L. Heskett, and W. Earl Sasser, Jr. (1990), “The Profitable Art of Service
Recovery,” Harvard Business Review, July-August, 148-156.
Hess, Ronald L. Jr., Shankar Ganesan and Noreen M. Klein (2003), “Service Failure and Recovery: The
Impact of Relationship Factors on Customer Satisfaction,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31 (Spring), 127-145.
Homans, George Casper (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Joreskog, Karl and Dag Sorbom (1998), LISREL 8.2: Structural Equation Modeling with the Simplis
Command Language, Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Leventhal, G. S., J. Karuza, and W. R. Fry (1980), “Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences.
In G. Mikula (ed.), Jutice and Social Interaction (pp. 167-218), New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lind, E. Allen and Tyler, Tom R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York:
Plenum.
Maxham, James G., and Richard Netemeyer (2002), “Modeling Customer Perceptions of Complaint
Handling Over Time: The Effects of Perceived Justice on Satisfaction and Intent,” Journal of
Retailing, 78, 239-252.
Smith, Amy K., Ruth N. Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999), “A Model of Customer Satisfaction with
Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (August),
356-72.
---- and ---- (2002), “The Effects 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.
Tax, Stephen S., Stephen W. Brown, and Murali Chandrashekaran. (1998), “Customer Evaluations of
Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 62
(April), 60-76.
18
Measures of Contructs
Interpersonal Justice (Adapted from Colquitt in press) (Alpha = .91)
During the process of resolving your complaint, to what extent: (5-point scale)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Did they treat you in a polite manner?
Did they treat you with dignity?
Did they treat you with respect?
Did they refrain from improper remarks or comments?
Informational Justice (Adapted from Colquitt 2001) (Alpha = .87 )
During the process of resolving your complaint, to what extent: (5-point scale)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Were they candid in communications with you?
Did they explain thoroughly the procedures used to make decisions about your complaint?
Were their explanations regarding the procedures used to make decisions about your
complaint reasonable?
Did they communicate details in a timely manner?
Did they seem to tailor (his/her/their) communications to your specific needs?
Procedural Justice (Adapted from Colquitt 2001) (Alpha = .88)
During the process of resolving your complaint, to what extent: (5-point scale)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Were you able to express your views and feelings during those procedures?
Did you have influence over the outcomes arrived at by those procedures?
Were those procedures applied consistently?
Were those procedures free of bias?
Were those procedures based on accurate information?
Were you able to appeal the outcomes arrived at by those procedures?
Did those procedures uphold ethical and moral standards?
Distributive Justice (Adapted from Colquitt 2001) (Alpha = .97)
To what extent: (5-point scale)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Did your outcomes reflect what you deserved?
Were your outcomes appropriate given the experience you had?
Did your outcomes reflect a fair resolution?
Were your outcomes justified, given your problem?
Satisfaction with Complaint Handling (Adapted from Oliver and Swan 1989) (Alpha = .85)
Satisfaction with the Organization (Alpha = .85)
(7-point scale) (Strongly Agree --- Strongly Disagree)
1.
2.
3.
I am unhappy with how the organization handled my complaint. ( R )
I am satisfied with how the organization handled my complaint.
I am pleased with the manner in which the complaint was dealt with.
1.
2.
3.
I am unhappy with the organization. ( R )
I am satisfied with the organization.
I am pleased with the organization.
19
"The Four Factor Model of Justice:
An Application to Customer Complaint Handling "
Dr. Ronald L. Hess, Jr.
Assistant Professor of Marketing
School of Business Administration
The College of William & Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
(757) 221-2676
(757) 221-2937 (fax)
ron.hess@business.wm.edu
Dr. Maureen Ambrose
Professor of Management
University of Central Florida
Management Department
P.O. Box 161400
Orlando, FL 32816-1400
(407) 823-5684
(407) 823-3725 (fax)
maureen.ambrose@bus.ucf.edu
20