Quality Assurance in Education

Consumer attitude towards service failure and recovery in higher education

Hardeep Chahal Pinkey Devi
Article information:
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Hardeep Chahal Pinkey Devi , (2015),"Consumer attitude towards service failure and recovery in
higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 67 - 85
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0029
Downloaded on: 30 September 2015, At: 00:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 383 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mazirah Yusoff, Fraser McLeay, Helen Woodruffe-Burton, (2015),"Dimensions driving business
student satisfaction in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 86-104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0035
Sami Kärnä, Päivi Julin, (2015),"A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with
university campus facilities", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 47-66 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0041
Aftab Dean, Paul Gibbs, (2015),"Student satisfaction or happiness?: A preliminary rethink of what is
important in the student experience", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 5-19 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0044

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

download.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Consumer attitude towards Service failure

and recovery
service failure and recovery in in higher
education
higher education
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

Hardeep Chahal and Pinkey Devi 67

Post Graduate Department of Commerce, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
Received 3 July 2013
Revised 28 May 2014
Accepted 3 June 2014
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore consumer attitude towards service failure and recovery in the
higher education in general and with respect to teaching, examination, library, computer lab,
administration and infrastructure in particular.
Design/methodology/approach – The data are collected from 120 students of three undergraduate
colleges of University of Jammu using purposive sampling.
Findings – The findings reveal that all recovery efforts pertaining to teaching, examination, library,
computer lab, administration and infrastructure are significant in overcoming the respective service
failures.
Research limitations/implications – The present study is limited to address service failure and
service recovery relationship with respect to teaching, examination, library, computer lab,
administration and infrastructure and limited to three undergraduate colleges operating in Jammu city
only. The sample of the study is small which needs to be considered before generalizing the results.
Originality/value – This study makes a maiden attempt to identify service failure issues with respect
to teaching, examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure using quantitative
methodology in higher education and role of service recovery strategies in monitoring and reducing
service failure.
Keywords Teaching, Higher education, Infrastructure, Examination, Service failure, Library,
Consumer attitude, Service recovery, Administration, Computer lab
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Researchers have empirically examined service failure and recovery within a wide array
of sectors such as banking, health care, retail, etc. However, higher education is one of
the areas which has been relatively neglected in service failure and recovery literature
and needed to be investigated (Swanson and Davis, 2000; Voss, 2009 and Voss et al.,
2010). Various researchers, such as Hoffman et al. (1995), Hocutt et al. (2006), Dalziel et al.
(2011) and Edvardson et al. (2011), also pointed out that there is a need to investigate
service failure and service recovery in the sectors where human interactions play an
important role, such as education. In addition, Voss et al. (2010) specifically advocated
the need to study service failure and service recovery in the education sector for building
service failure and recovery literature. Along with this, Hart and Coates (2011) remarked Quality Assurance in Education
that future research need to be undertaken using some qualitative methodology for Vol. 23 No. 1, 2015
pp. 67-85
deeper understanding of the attitude of students towards service failure, recovery and © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
complaining. Finally, Iyer and Muncy (2008) in their study underscored that future DOI 10.1108/QAE-07-2013-0029
 QAE research on service failure and recovery in education sector needs to be extended with
23,1 some different methodological approach.
In this competitive environment, where students have many options opened to them,
factors that enable institutions to attract and retain students are required to be seriously
studied (Hart and Coates, 2011), as the list of mistakes/errors (i.e. service failures)
possible in higher education is limitless and how an institution responds to them (i.e.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

68 service recovery) is very crucial (Iyer and Muncy, 2008). According to Swanson and
Davis (2000), Voss (2009) and Voss et al. (2010), there are broadly three types of service
failures that occur in the higher education sector that include professor’s response to
service delivery system failures; unfulfilled needs and requests of the students; and rude
or impolite behaviour of the teaching/non-teaching staff in the institutions.
To deal effectively with service failures in higher education, it is very important for
all the educational institutions, not only to analyse all types of service failures carefully
but also to check and monitor behavioural responses of the students from time to time.
These behavioural responses or complaints from dissatisfied students can give
institutions chance to learn and to minimise the occurrence of future service failures
(through effective implementations of service recovery strategies). To deal with
dissatisfied behavioural responses of the students, effective complaint handling is one of
the most important tools in the hands of service providers (Matos et al., 2009). It is well
known that complaints when handled properly can help in reducing damaging
word-of-mouth criticism, and improving consumer trust, commitment and retention
(Brown, 2000 and Voss, 2009) and improving teaching and learning experience in the
education sector (Hart and Coates, 2011).
Based on the significance of the service failure and recovery in education sector and
extant void in the service marketing literature, the present paper makes an endeavour to
analyse consumer attitude towards service failure and recovery in the higher education
in general and with respect to teaching, examination, library, computer lab,
administration and infrastructure in particular. The organisation of paper is as follows.
At the outset, the conceptual framework of service failure and recovery is discussed
followed by consumer attitude toward service failure and service recovery. The research
framework along with hypotheses is discussed in the next section. Afterwards, the
research methodology is presented. The next following sections relate with exploratory
factor analysis and hypotheses testing. The discussion followed by conclusion and
implications are presented next. The paper concludes with limitations and future
research.

Conceptual framework
Service failure and service recovery
Service failure is primarily defined as a mismatch between service performance and
consumers’ expectation. In other words, service failure occurs when consumers are
dissatisfied with service or when performance/quality of product falls below their
expectations (Lewis and Spyrakopoulas, 2001 and Gye-Soo, 2007). The success of any
educational institution primarily depends on the efforts of both students as consumers
and teachers/non-teaching staff of the concerned staff as service providers (Cooper,
2007). High involvement and continuous interaction between students, teachers and
non-teaching staff may result in a gap between service performance and consumer
expectation. Such service failure may relate to teaching, examination, library,
 laboratories, administration, infrastructure and miscellaneous such as canteen and Service failure
hostel facility in the education sector (Chahal and Devi, 2013). and recovery
Based on the studies such as those of Swanson and Davis (2000), Voss (2009), Voss
et al. (2010) and Chahal and Devi (2013), service failures in education sector are
in higher
categorised under three groups: Group I, Group II and Group III. Group I service failures education
are related to professor’s/faculty’s response to service delivery system failure. This
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

category includes failures in the core services that student expect to receive. For 69
example, inability to respond to students’ queries, non-availability of faculty during
office hours, absent/late arrival in scheduled meetings with student/s, poor presentation
of the learning material, fast communication, poor writing skills, inability to speak in an
understandable manner, etc. Group II service failures are related to faculty’s response to
students’ needs and requests. For example, unwillingness to assist the student in
solving education-related problems, not responding to the requests of the students for an
extra attempt for missed exam or request for additional lecture, etc. Group III service
failures are related to unprompted and unsolicited actions like rudeness or impolite
behaviour of the teaching or non-teaching staff with the students in the institutions.
These may include inability to control temper, frequent screaming, rude behaviour, etc.
Berry and Parasuraman (1991), on the other hand, suggested that failures can also be
considered from positive perspective. According to them, service failures are not
necessarily problems but are opportunities that also pave way to enhance consumer
satisfaction and to prevent consumer defection. It is the service failure which provides
an opportunity to recover from the mistakes and gives second chance to service provider
(Berry and Parasuraman, 1991 and Miller et al., 2000) to monitor the extant function. In
this context, Miller et al. (2000) further remarked that an effective response to service
failure will affect the long-term success of an organisation which is important to sustain
in competitive environment.
Based on the nature/severity of service failures, the service provider can either try to
reinforce a strong consumer bond or may consider minor distraction as a major incident
(Hoffman et al., 1995, p. 49) which later can help in designing effective service recovery
strategies. Miller et al. (2000) defined service recovery as a process which identifies
service failures, makes classifications of root causes of failures and resolves them
consumers’ problems effectively, alters negative attitude of dissatisfied consumers and
ultimately helps in retention of consumers. Relevant literature, such as those of Weun
et al. (2004), Duffy et al. (2006), Mattila (2010), etc., highlighted two types of service
recovery dimensions, which include process and outcome. The process of service
recovery refers to the manner in which service providers handle a service failure during
the course of service recovery (i.e. how service is delivered), whereas the outcome of
service recovery is expressed in terms of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Bell and
Zemke (1987) and Edvardson et al. (2011) regarded service recovery from behavioural/
action perspective which refers to meeting expectations or grievances of consumers by
the concerned teachers/employees/principal to make the students satisfied. For
example, remaining calm even in case of heavy rush, be cooperative and showing
helpful nature towards all the students, etc. are a few effective behavioural strategies.

Consumer attitude towards service failure

In a service failure situation, how a consumer feels about a product or service, impacts
his satisfaction or dissatisfaction level. Kim et al. (2010) highlighted that generally when
 QAE a dissatisfied event occurs, consumer interacts with the event and evaluates his
23,1 capabilities to deal with the dissatisfying experience. Studies have reported that
dissatisfied consumer tells more people about his negative experiences in comparison to
the satisfied consumers (Matos et al., 2009 and Kim et al., 2010). According to Kim et al.
(2003), there are two categories of consumers’ that are: complainers and
non-complainers. The complainers are seen as aggressive both in language and conduct
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

70 while non-complainers are considered as shy and calm. Kim et al. (2010) and Zain (2011)
signified that the consumer attitude towards service failure is influenced by personality
traits, type of consumers (problem-focussed-, jay-, emotional- and avoidance-type
consumers), situational constraints (e.g. time pressure) and reputation of the service
provider (e.g. whether service provider is responsive to consumer needs), which affects
his attitude towards complaining (ATC). Matos et al. (2009) expressed that a consumer
with high ATC (problem-focussed and jay type) is more likely to complain regardless of
his satisfaction as compared to low ATC consumer (emotional type and avoidance type).
However, complaints that are registered by complainers (consumers) are meager in
comparison to failure experienced by them (Lovelock et al., 2008). Some of the reasons
for low registered number of complaints, include unawareness about where to complain,
shortage of time to complain, do not want to make efforts for making complaints, lack of
altruistic nature, negative experiences for being poorly handled and belief that
complaining is an exercise of futility because complaints will either be ignored or
patronised by the service provider.
Further, the literature portrays four distinct types of complaining behaviour: public,
private, third party and non-behavioural (Hart and Coates, 2011 and Petzer and Mostert,
2012). Public complaint is any visible action taken directly towards the institution
regarding the experienced service failure. For example, speaking directly to lecturer
about his dissatisfaction related to lessons taught in the class. Private complainers,
instead of complaining directly to the service provider, complain to their friends and
family, which reflect negative word of mouth (NWOM) for the service provider. For
example, minor dissatisfactory experiences will be shared with fellow students and with
the wider population through NWOMs instead of directly confronting the service
provider or institution. The third-party complainers prefer complaining to other
organisations such as consumer protection bureau or they may take some legal action.
For example, in more serious situations, students may wish to take their complaints to
a third party who can act as a mediator in the conflict resolution process. This may
include seeking advice from separate bodies that is students support staff, counselors,
students unions, etc. The last and fourth kind of complainers is non-behavioural
complainers, who do not take any action in response to their negative experience. For
instance, sometimes, a student facing service failure does not complain because of fear
or avoidance type of attitude, that is, they resist complain about the failure incidents.
Studies have also reported that dissatisfied consumers share their negative
experiences with more number of people as compared to satisfied consumers (Stefura,
2010 and Zain, 2011). Hence, it is important for the service providers to not only pay
attention to consumer complaints but also to make efforts to offer good service recovery
to overcome failures. Zain (2011) also remarked that it is always preferable for a firm to
actively encourage their consumers to “vent” their anger through making complaints.
These complaints or reactions from dissatisfied consumers give the service organisation
a chance to correct mistakes/errors and also to learn from mistakes, which later may
 eliminate the risk of service failure and consumer dissatisfaction (Berry and Service failure
Parasuraman, 1991). and recovery
in higher
Hypotheses development
Service failure and service recovery education
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

Hoffman et al. (1995), Miller et al. (2000) and Robinson et al. (2011) pointed out that
mitigation of service failure depends upon the effectiveness of service recovery 71
strategies. Such service recovery strategies or efforts differ according to the degree of
service failure and the level of service recovery (Seawright et al., 2008). Correspondingly,
Weun et al. (2004) linked magnitude and type of service failure with satisfaction and
contemplated that higher degree of severity is considered to be unaffected by service
recovery strategies. McDougall and Levesque (1999) also studied the relationship
between service failure and service recovery and expressed that different service
recoveries are required for different service failures. Our previous study (Chahal and
Devi, 2013) have explored six types of service activities in the education sector, namely,
teaching, examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure in
which a total of 106 service failure incidents were collected with the help of critical
incident technique (CIT) as shown in Table I. These service failure incidents were then
categorised into three groups based on Bitner et al.’s (1990) classification. Across all the
six types of service categories considered in the study (Chahal and Devi, 2013), Group I
critical incidents are related to service delivery system failure, Group II critical incidents
are related to unfulfilled needs and requests and Group III critical incidents are related
to unprompted and unsolicited actions. Depending upon the types of service failure, the
service recovery strategies, as suggested by Miller et al. (2000) and Iyer and Muncy
(2008), can be behavioural/psychological and compensatory in nature. For example, in
education sector behavioural/psychological service recovery includes strategies like
expressing concerns for the students which comprise explanation, acknowledgement,
assistance, etc., whereas compensatory service recovery include effective service
recovery from a dissatisfied state. Service recovery strategies, particularly
psychological, plays significant role in resolving service failure issues. For instance, to
provide satisfaction to students, faculty needs to know what their students expect from
them. Researchers such as Swanson and Davis (2000), Voss (2009), Voss et al. (2010) and

Dissatisfied incidents
Topics Group I Group II Group III Total

Teaching 8 (38%) 7 (33%) 6 (29%) 21

Examination 14 (82%) 3 (18%) 0 17
Library 16 (100%) 0 0 16
Computer lab 15 (100%) 0 0 15
Administration 6 (35%) 5 (30%) 6 (35%) 17
Infrastructure 20 (100%) 0 0 20 Table I.
Total 79 (74.5) 15 (14.2) 12 (11.3) 106 Group-wise
percentage of
Notes: Group I – service delivery system failure; Group II – unfulfilled needs and requests; Group III – dissatisfied critical
unprompted and unsolicited actions incidents across six
Source: Chahal and Devi (2013) dimensions
 QAE Chahal and Devi (2013) remarked about the most important attributes of good service
23,1 recovery from professors’ perspective which relate to their characteristics such as
knowledgeable, empathetic, friendly, helpful, reliable, responsive and expressive nature
which subsequently pave way for effective service recovery. Based on this research, it is
hypothesised that:
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

H1. All types of service failure incidents significantly influence service recovery
72 efforts.

Teaching-related service failure and recovery

In our past study on service failure in higher education (Chahal and Devi, 2013), we have
identified dissatisfied critical incidents (38 per cent) under three groups of service
failure in teaching category. Group I service failure that is service delivery system
failure included incidents like non-availability of teachers during office hours, irregular,
inability to clear doubts of students, etc. This is followed by Group II service failure
(33 per cent) that is unmet needs and requests of the students which are made by them
to their respective teachers. Some of identified incidents included request for additional
lectures, request for additional attempts against missing an exam, etc. Finally, 29 per
cent students have reported for Group III service failures which are concerned with rude
behaviour adopted by teachers. To minimise these service failures, researchers such as
Swanson and Davis (2000), Voss (2009) and Voss et al. (2010) have suggested that
effective classroom teaching, solving subject related problems of the students
immediately, instant response to students’ queries, good assistance, adopting polite
behaviour, etc. are important reactive actions in resolving teaching-related failures.
Hence we hypothesised that:
H1a. Service recovery efforts significantly reduce the level of service failure in
teaching.

Examination-related service failure and recovery

Further, Chahal and Devi (2013) have also put light on examination-related service
failures in their qualitative study. In examination category, 82 per cent incidents were
reported for service delivery system failures which contained incidents like invigilator
gossiping in the examination hall, speaking loudly on the cell phone, noisy atmosphere
in the examination hall, etc. Only few incidents (18 per cent) were related to unprompted
and unsolicited actions. As suggested by the students during data collection, such kinds
of service failures can be reduced if proper recovery efforts like maintaining proper
discipline in and around the examination hall, maintaining silence in the examination
hall by avoiding gossiping among them and avoiding talking on the cell phone in the
examination hall, etc. are adopted by the college staff. Hence, we hypothesised that:
H1b. Examination- related service failures significantly influence nature of service
recovery efforts.

Library-related service failure and recovery

Chahal and Devi (2013) have identified library-related service failure incidents which
were reported for service delivery system failures. All the service failure critical
incidents were noted for limited number of new edition books, poor sitting
arrangements, noisy atmosphere, etc. The service recovery efforts like purchasing new
 edition books, increasing sitting capacity, subscribing variety of newspapers, Service failure
maintaining silence in the library, etc. were suggested for overcoming these failures by and recovery
the respondents during the data collection. Based on this we hypothesised that:
in higher
H1c. Level of service failure in library is influenced by service recovery efforts. education
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

Computer lab-related service failure and recovery

The computer lab-related incidents, as identified by Chahal and Devi (2013), were
73
related with service delivery system failures in the higher education. Among these,
majority of incidents reported were related to limited number of computer systems, poor
assistance, power cut-offs, etc. As suggested by the informants, such kinds of service
failures can be avoided by the concerned computer staff through proper recovery efforts
such as appropriate advise to the head of the institution for purchasing sufficient
number of computer systems, proper arrangements for regular maintenance of
computer systems, arrangement of electric generator facility in case of power cut-offs,
good assistance whenever asked by the students, etc. Hence, it is hypothesised that:
H1d. Service recovery efforts for computer lab significantly diminish computer
lab-related service failures.

Administration-related service failure and recovery

The qualitative study conducted by Chahal and Devi (2013) on undergraduate students,
reported about 30 per cent incidents across three groups in administration-related
critical incidents. In Group I (i.e. service delivery system failure), 35 per cent incidents
were related with failures such as delay in receiving the service, staff not available on
time, etc. In Group II (i.e. unfulfilled needs and requests), 30 per cent incidents were
reported which include failures relating to impartial treatment, favouritism, etc. and,
finally, 35 per cent incidents were collected under Group III (i.e. unprompted and
unsolicited employee actions) in which all incidents reflect rude behaviour of the
employees with the students. Based on the suggestions of students, service recovery
efforts such as giving proper attention towards genuine needs and requests of the
students, fair treatment with every student, providing relevant information to the
students at the right time, work actively during office hours, etc. are helpful in
minimizing these kinds of service failure. Based on this, we hypothesised that (Figure 1):
H1e. Level of service failure in administration is significantly influenced by service
recovery efforts.

Infrastructure-related service failure and recovery

Further, all the incidents in the study by Chahal and Devi (2013) were reported for
service delivery system failure (Group I) under infrastructure category in their
qualitative study on higher education. Some of these failures included absence of
ventilation facility, non-availability of cold water in summers, poor canteen facility, etc.
It has been stated that such service failures can be avoided if the service delivery staff
adopts recovery efforts like arrangement for continuous supply of cold water in
summers, increasing the sitting capacity in the classrooms, good provision for canteen
and hostel facility, providing sports equipment, improvement in the ventilation facility
in the classrooms, etc. Based on this, we hypothesised that:
 QAE SERVICE FAILURE H1 SERVICE RECOVERY
23,1
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

H1(a)
1. SFT 1. SRT
74 2. SFE H1(b)
2. SRE
H1(c)
3. SFL 3. SRL
H1(d)
4. SFCL 4. SRCL
5. SFA H1(e) 5. SRA
6. SFI H1(f) 6. SRI

Notes: Service failure in – Teaching (SFT), Examination (SFE), Library (SFL),

Figure 1. Computer lab (SFCL), Administration (SFA) and Infrastructure (SFI); Service
Research model for recovery in – Teaching (SRT), Examination (SRE), Library (SRL), Computer lab
hypotheses (SRCL), Administration (SRA) and Infrastructure (SRI) while H1, and H1a – H1f
development are hypotheses

H1f. Service recovery efforts significantly decrease infrastructure-related service

failure.

Research design and methodology

Generation of scale items
Items for service failure and recovery were generated through three sources. First, based
on our previous study (Chahal and Devi, 2013), the present study has selected and
identified service failure encounters across six activities, namely, teaching,
examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure. This was
followed by adding extracted items from extant literature on service failure and service
recovery (Table II). Third and finally, some scale items were self-generated based upon
the relevancy of the items in the service failure and service recovery under teaching,
examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure.

Sample
For the purpose of this study, the sample of 120 final-year students enrolled in
undergraduate programmes of three government degree colleges functioning in Jammu
city were contacted with the response rate of 93.34 per cent. Purposive sampling method
was used to select different types of students falling in different levels like weak,
average and intelligent type of students were contacted. Purposive sampling technique
is also called judgement sampling. In this method of sampling, a researcher selects the
sample based on his/friends’/others knowledge about population, its elements and the
nature of his research aims (Teddlie, 2007). This method contributes to efficiency and
also ensures reliability and competence of the informant (Tashakkori and Teddlie,
2008).
 Constructs Supporting literature No. of scale items
Service failure
and recovery
Service failure Swanson and Davis (2000); Voss (2009); Teaching ⫽ 28 in higher
Voss et al. (2010); Hart and Coates Examination ⫽ 1 1
(2011); Iyer and Muncy (2008); Chahal Library ⫽ 10 education
and Devi (2013) Computer lab ⫽ 6
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

Administration ⫽ 20
Infrastructure ⫽ 22
75
Total scale items ⫽ 97
Service recovery Spreng et al. (1995); Brown et al. (1996); Teaching ⫽ 23
Swanson and Davis (2000); Lewis and Examination ⫽ 6
Spyrakopoulas (2001); Maxham and Library ⫽ 5
Netemeyer (2002); Weun et al. (2004); Computer lab ⫽ 5
Voss (2009); Voss et al. (2010); Administration ⫽ 8
Holloway et al. (2009); Iyer and Muncy Infrastructure ⫽ 7 Table II.
(2011); Smith and Karwan (2011); Supporting literature
Chahal and Devi (2013) on generation of
Total scale items ⫽ 54 scale items

Sample characteristics
Of the 112 respondents, 64 (53 per cent) were male and 48 (47 per cent) were female. Most
of the participants were under 25 years. Out of 112 respondents, 67 students (60 per cent)
were complainants and 45 students (40 per cent) were non-complainants. Table III
presents the type of complaints made by these 67 students. Out of 67, 33 respondents
(49 per cent) affirmed that they individually made these complaints, while the rest said
that they made complaints in groups. The maximum number of complaints is made for
service failure in library followed by teaching, computer lab, infrastructure,
examination and administration. The types of complaints made by the students are
given in Table III.

Data analysis
The scale items are analysed in the following manner:
(1) Before proceeding for analysis, negative responses assigned to some items are
reversed. This is followed by outliers detection which resulted in eight outliers
for deletion. Further, the normality of data is investigated, and the items falling
in the range of ⫺3 to ⫹3 for skewness and ⫺8 to ⫹8 for kurtosis are retained in
different dimensions of service failure and service recovery (Kline, 1998). The
details of descriptive statistics are given in Table IV.
(2) In the next stage, reliability of the scale items is determined by computing
coefficient alpha of various constructs in service failure and service recovery
categories. Majority of the alpha values in service failure and service recovery
categories were above the threshold criterion of 0.7 except examination, library
and computer lab (Table IV).

Exploratory factor analysis

Principal component analysis with a varimax rotation is applied individually to all the
dimensions of service failure and recovery data. To determine the number of factors,
 QAE No. of
23,1 Complaints category students Types of complaints

Teaching 21 Non-availability of teachers during office hours

Unmet needs and requests made by students
Rude behaviour adopted by teachers
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

76 Examination 3 Invigilators gossiping in the examination hall

Invigilators speaking loudly in the examination hall
Library 25 Limited number of new edition books
Poor sitting arrangements
Noisy atmosphere
Computer lab 9 Limited number of computer systems
Power cuts
Administration 3 Casual attitude of the staff
Table III. Not providing relevant information on an appropriate time
Service categories Infrastructure 6 Ventilation facility
with number of Non availability of cool water
complaints Total 67

eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1 criterion is considered. Further, communality

greater than 0.50 and minimum factor loading of 0.40 criteria are used to retain items in
the scale (Hair et al., 2008). Besides, Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) value greater than or
equal to 0.50 is used to evaluate the adequacy of sample to run exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) (Hair et al., 2008). After each iteration item - analysis is also carried out
to further delete unreliable items of respective dimensions of service failure and
recovery based on Cronbach’s alpha value. These steps are repeatedly carried out until
clean factor solution is achieved in all the dimensions of service failure and service
recovery. The results of EFA for service failure and service recovery are discussed as
under:
EFA in service failure. The EFA results in teaching-related service failures, identified
three factors after four iterations (i.e. 17 items out of total 28 items) which are related to
presentation skills and regularity (ten items); proficiency in teaching (five items) and
casual attitude towards students (three items). In examination-related service failures,
the EFA results reduced 11 items of examination into 5 items under one factor after two
iterations. In library-related service failures, two factors (i.e. four items out of total ten
items) emerged after four iterations which are connected to library environment (two
items) and additional reading facility (two items). In computer lab-related service
failures, the EFA results recognised two factors (i.e. five items out of total six items) after
four iterations which are associated to improper assistance (two items) and operational
facility (three items). Similarly, in administration-related service failures, three factors
after five iterations (i.e. 15 items out of total 20 items) were identified which are allied to
functioning of the administrative staff (nine items), availability of the administrative
staff (five items) and conduct of the administrative staff (two items). Finally, in
infrastructure, three factors after five iterations (i.e. 21 items out of total 22 items) were
identified which are physical facility (eight items), miscellaneous services (seven items)
and tangible services (six items). The EFA results are presented in Table V.
EFA in service recovery. The EFA results in teaching-related service recovery,
identified four factors after one iteration (i.e. 22 items out of total 23 items) which include
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Reliability

Constructs Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Alpha (␣) No. of items

Service failure
Teaching 2.14 3.52 0.868 1.293 ⫺0.805 0.838 ⫺1.167 0.424 0.780 28
Examination 1.86 3.23 0.815 1.264 ⫺0.366 0.920 ⫺1.166 0.742 0.458 11
Library 2.38 3.69 1.063 1.237 ⫺0.839 0.770 ⫺1.132 0.081 0.525 10
Computer lab 2.65 3.58 0.965 1.200 ⫺0.834 0.318 ⫺0.726 0.278 0.410 6
Administration 2.50 3.29 0.954 1.143 ⫺0.452 0.699 ⫺0.923 ⫺0.242 0.770 20
Infrastructure 2.59 3.39 0.928 1.306 ⫺0.433 0.576 ⫺1.219 ⫺0.362 0.736 22
Service recovery
Teaching 3.24 3.58 0.849 1.003 ⫺0.945 0.031 ⫺1.112 0.021 0.910 23
Examination 3.09 3.54 1.039 1.242 ⫺0.821 0.000 ⫺1.151 0.040 0.788 6
Library 3.17 3.73 0.890 1.050 ⫺1.08 ⫺0.096 ⫺0.850 ⫺0.850 0.788 5
Computer lab 3.17 3.46 1.039 1.081 ⫺0.623 ⫺0.128 ⫺0.979 ⫺0.041 0.835 5
Administration 3.14 3.48 0.903 1.055 ⫺0.518 0.09 ⫺0.926 ⫺0.410 0.896 8
Infrastructure 3.21 3.60 0.934 1.157 ⫺0.798 ⫺0.288 ⫺0.735 0.197 0.846 7

Table IV.
77
education
in higher

and reliability
and recovery
Service failure

Descriptive statistics
 QAE Dimensions Factors KMO Mean 〈 No. of items
23,1
Service failure
Teaching F1: Presentation skills and regularity 0.701 2.52 0.776 17
F2: Proficiency
F3: Casual attitude
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

78 Examination F1: SF in Examination 0.676 2.35 0.577 5

Library F1: Library environment 0.649 2.51 657 4
F2: Additional reading facility
Computer lab F1: Improper assistance 0.691 3.06 0.670 5
F2: Operational facility
Administration F1: Functioning 0.701 2.91 0.787 15
F2: Availability
F3: Conduct
Infrastructure F1: Physical facility 0.690 3.04 0.729 21
F2: Miscellaneous services
F3: Tangible services
Overall SF 0.687 2.83 0.866 67
Service recovery
Teaching F1: Knowledge-related SR 0.790 3.44 0.906 22
F2: Communication-related SR
F3: Behavioural-related SR
F4: Regularity-related SR
Examination 0.809 3.36 0.810 6
Library 0.729 3.50 0.788 5
Computer lab 0.779 3.30 0.835 5
Administration 0.909 3.32 0.896 8
Infrastructure 0.810 3.44 0.846 7
Table V. Overall 0.791 3.41 0.866 52
Final EFA and
reliability analysis Notes: SF ⫽ Service failure; SR ⫽ Service recovery

knowledge-related service recovery (seven items), communication-related service

recovery (five items), behavioural-related service recovery (six items) and
regularity-related service recovery (five items). In rest of the service recovery categories
that are examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure, the EFA
results identified only one factor after one iteration in each category without any
reduction in the items.

Reliability of service failure and service recovery constructs

Reliability is checked on the service failure and service recovery items which are
retained after EFA by computing the coefficient alpha value for the respective six
groups. All the alpha values in service failure and service recovery categories were
above threshold criterion of 0.7 or close to 0.7 except examination-related service
failures. The values confirm internal consistency of the constructs (Table V).

Hypotheses testing
Paired t-test is used to test the hypotheses framed for service failure and service
recovery relating to teaching, examination, library, computer lab, administration and
 infrastructure. This test is used when two samples are involved and values for each Service failure
construct from the same individuals were taken. In paired samples, each individual and recovery
gives two values, one for each two groups. Paired t-test is the most appropriate statistics
to examine the significance of the difference between population means for a pair of
in higher
random samples whose differences are approximately normally distributed (Gaur and education
Gaur, 2006). In our study, this test is used because service failures in various categories
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

are identified initially and later respective service recovery efforts are identified for the 79
selected different categories by the same set of individuals. The paired t-test is applied
on the respective average score of the three factors of teaching and overall average
values of examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure for both
service failure and service recovery. Table VI presents the results of paired t-test. On the
basis of these tests, all the study hypotheses are accepted.
In H1a, it was hypothesised that service recovery efforts significantly reduce level of
service failure in teaching. For testing this hypothesis, we made four pairs in paired
t-test on the basis of factors identified in EFA. In pair 1, service failure for presentation
skills in teaching (MeanTF1) is compared with service recovery efforts made for
improvement in communication quality (MeanSRC). In pair 2, service failure in teaching
with respect to proficiency (MeanTF2) is compared with knowledge-related service
recovery efforts (MeanSRK). In pair 3, service failure in teaching with respect to casual
attitude towards students (MeanTF3) is compared to behavioural-related service
recovery efforts (MeanSRB). In pair 4, overall service failure in teaching (MeanSFT) is
compared with overall service recovery for teaching (MeanSRT). In all these pairs,
calculated significant value is less than 0.05 (95 per cent) which depicts acceptance of
hypothesis. On the basis of paired t-test results, it is concluded that recovery efforts for
teaching are undertaken by the concerned staff/officials/institution and they are
significant in overcoming the teaching-related service failure.
In H1b it was hypothesised that examination related service failure significantly
influence nature of service recovery efforts. Using paired t-test, service failure in
examination (MeanSFE) is compared to examination related service recovery efforts

Hypotheses Pairs no. Particulars t df Significance

H1a Pair 1 MeanTF1 – MeanSRC ⫺9.481 111 0.000

Pair 2 MeanTF2 – MeanSRK ⫺10.237 111 0.000
Pair3 MeanTF3 – MeanSRB ⫺5.939 111 0.000
Pair 4 MeanSFT – MeanSRT ⫺10.16 111 0.000
H1b Pair 5 MeanSFE – MeanSRE ⫺9.25 111 0.000
H1c Pair 6 MeanSFL – MeanSRL ⫺8.25 111 0.000
H1d Pair 7 MeanSFCL – MeanSRCL ⫺2.04 111 0.043
H1e Pair 8 MeanSFA – MeanSRA ⫺4.04 111 0.000
H1f Pair 9 MeanSFI – MeanSRI ⫺4.44 111 0.000
H1 Pair 10 MeanSF – MeanSR ⫺8.20 111 0.000

Notes: Service failure in teaching related to Presentation skills (TF1); Proficiency (TF2); Casual
attitude towards students (TF3); Service failure related to Teaching(SFT); Examination (SFE); Library
(SFL); Computer lab (SFCL); Administration (SFA); and Infrastructure (SFI); Service recovery efforts for
communication (SRC); Knowledge (SRK); Behaviour(SRB); Teaching (SFT); Examination (SRE); Table VI.
Library (SRL); Computer lab (SRCL); Administration (SRA); and Infrastructure (SRI) Paired t-test results
 QAE (MeanSRE) in pair 5. Table VI shows the acceptance of this hypothesis (p ⱕ 0.05). Hence,
23,1 it is concluded that service recovery efforts for examination are significant in
overcoming the examination-related service failure.
Similarly, rest all hypotheses [H1c–H1f] are also tested. For testing these hypotheses,
service failure in library (MeanSFL), computer lab (MeanSFCL), administration
(MeanSFA) and infrastructure (MeanSFI) are compared with service recovery efforts for
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

80 library (MeanSRL), computer lab (MeanSRCL), administration (MeanSRA) and

infrastructure (MeanSRI) in pairs 6, 7, 8 and 9. All these hypotheses are accepted
(p ⱕ 0.05), so we can conclude that all the recovery efforts adopted in the colleges are
helpful in overcoming the service failures.
In H1, it was hypothesised that all types of service failures related to teaching,
examination, library, computer lab, administration and infrastructure significantly
influence service recovery efforts. For testing this hypothesis, under pair 10, overall
service failures (SF) including all types of service failures are compared to overall
service recovery efforts consisting all categories of recovery efforts (SR). The results of
paired t-test again show acceptance of H1. Hence it is concluded that all recovery efforts
undertaken by the concerned staff/officials/institution are significant in overcoming the
service failures and are very much useful in reducing service failures in higher education
sector.

Discussion
The study provides valuable insights into the concept of service failure and recovery in
higher education. The results of the study identified different types of service failures
and recovery efforts to monitor service failures. The major service failures in teaching
include non-availability of concerned staff during office hours, inability to clear doubts
by the concerned teachers when asked by the students, unmet needs and requests of the
students, rude behaviour adopted by teachers, etc. These failures can be minimised if
proper behavioural/psychological and tangible service recovery strategies are adopted.
Most of the behavioural/psychological recovery strategies such as apology, explanation
of the reason for the fault, impartial treatment, proper assistance in any
education-related problem, concern about students’ needs and requests, improving
communication skills, speaking in an audible voice and interacting in a polite manner
can be given focus by the faculty. Similarly, tangible recovery strategies that include
effective classroom teaching, immediately solving subject-related problems of the
students, immediate response to students’ queries, making the lecture more interactive
with suitable examples, taking classes regularly and so on can be given importance to
reduce service failure. Even scholars like Swanson and Davis (2000), Voss (2009) and
Voss et al. (2010) remarked that professors should possess most important attributes of
good service recovery that are knowledgeable, empathetic, friendly, helpful, reliable,
responsive and expressive to provide effective service recovery for the students.
In examination category, service failures generally occur because of noisy
atmosphere in the examination hall, poor ventilation facility, improper sitting
arrangements, disturbances created by invigilators, inability of invigilators to control
large number of students in the examination hall, etc. As per the suggestions given by
students during the interactions and also based on our past study (Chahal and Devi,
2013), these failures can be rectified if proper examination-related service recovery
efforts are adopted. For example, making examination hall noise-free through proper
 discipline in and around the examination hall, maintaining silence in the examination Service failure
hall by avoiding gossiping by the invigilators, avoiding talking on the cell phone in and and recovery
around the examination, making arrangements for electric generator facility in case of
power cuts, etc.
in higher
Limited numbers of new edition books, improper sitting arrangements, noisy education
atmosphere, unable to get required book in time, inconducive environment for
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

self-study, etc. are the major reasons behind service failures under library category. 81
Based on the suggestions of the students, service recovery efforts like purchasing new
edition books for the library, increasing sitting capacity by putting extra chairs and
tables for them, subscribing variety of newspapers in the library, maintaining silence in
the library, polite behaviour of librarian, etc. can be helpful in minimising such kinds of
service failures.
In computer lab, problems like limited number of computer systems, power cuts,
improper functioning of computers, improper assistance by the computer staff, etc. are
the major reasons for dissatisfaction. These service failures can be resolved only when
computer staff makes efforts in minimising these failures by means of regular
maintenance of computer systems, providing sufficient practicing hours to all students,
providing good assistance whenever asked by the students, etc. In addition, purchase of
additional computer systems and arrangement of generator facility during power cuts
are also suggested for overcoming service failure, but these suggestions have financial
implications which can be considered in the long run.
In administration category, service failures generally occur because of improper
functioning of the administrative staff, partial treatment by the staff, delay in receiving
the service, inadequate number of administrative staff, etc. As suggested by the
students and based on our own experience and observations, such kinds of service
failures can be reduced using service recovery efforts like giving proper attention
towards students’ needs and requests, treating every students with fairness, satisfying
genuine needs of every student, providing relevant information to the students at the
right time, work actively during office hours, etc.
Finally, inadequate sitting capacity in the classrooms, non-availability of cool water
in summers, poor ventilation facility, poor canteen facilities, inadequate number of
sports equipment, etc. are major infrastructural-related service failures. For removing
these service failures, service delivery staff can initially adopt various short-term
corrective measures like increasing sitting capacity in the classroom, providing good
provision of canteen and hostel facility, improving ventilation facility in each
classrooms by creating ventilators/windows, taking efforts for making each classrooms
neat and clean, etc. However suggestions, such as increase in number of classrooms, are
a strategic decision which can be considered by the management in the long term.

Conclusion and implications

Service failure in education sector may refers to extant gap in the expectations and
performance of service delivery (i.e. expectations are greater than performance). In
education sector, the types of service failure may relate to teaching, examination,
library, laboratories, administration, infrastructure and miscellaneous such as canteen
or hostel facility (Chahal and Devi, 2013). Studies expressed that depending on the types
of service failure, the service recovery may be behavioural/psychological and
compensatory in nature (Miller et al., 2000 and Iyer and Muncy, 2008). Iyer and Muncy
 QAE (2008), by analysing the role of service recovery in marketing education, expressed that
23,1 effectiveness of service recovery is most important to students than fault and magnitude
because students gets compensation after experiencing any kind of service failures in
the form of rectification of the errors from the concerned staff.
The present study has also put attention towards the three types of service failures
based on Bitner et al.’s (1990) classification in the education sector. To minimise service
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

82 delivery system failures across various categories of service failures, the service
delivery staffs, primarily the teaching staff, need to be proficient, that is, the concerned
staff should be knowledgeable, empathetic, friendly, helpful, reliable, responsive and
expressive. For minimising failures associated with unfulfilled needs and requests of the
students, the teachers/concerned staff need to provide proper assistance to the students
and care about their needs and give attention towards what students request for.
Finally, for behavioural-related service failures that include employees, unprompted
and unsolicited actions can be minimised if college staffs try to pay sincere attention to
students, interact and behave in a polite manner and within the context of expected
norms such as equality, honesty, fairness, etc. All these findings are also supported by
researchers such as Swanson and Davis (2000), Voss (2009) and Voss et al. (2010).
The effective implementation of the service recovery strategies suggested in the
previous sections with respect to teaching, examination, library, computer lab,
administration and infrastructure can overcome service failure to the satisfaction of
students. However, despite all service recovery efforts, there are still some service
failures which are uncontrollable and their rectification is impossible in the short run, for
example, investment-related issues and additional manpower requirements, etc. Such
service failures and their recovery in the long run should be communicated to the
consumers and the concerned members of the institution. In addition, efforts should also
be made to see that impact of such service failures do not lower down their confidence or
demotivate them.
The study paves way for enhancing student satisfaction through identification of the
causes of service failure relating to service delivery system failure, unfulfilled needs and
requests of the students and misbehaviour by the faculty or any other person of the
institution. This study also helps in deciding appropriate service recovery strategies for
different kinds of service failure. Further, the study guides the management authorities
for enhancing the service quality characteristics which require improvement to avoid
service failure relating to teaching, library, etc.

Limitations and future researches

The study has certain unavoidable limitations. First, the scope of the study is limited to
respondents studying in three undergraduate colleges operating in Jammu city only.
Second, the sample of the study is small which needs to be considered before
generalising the results. But, at the same time, all efforts are undertaken to include
perception of all types of students – intelligent, moderate and weak – to arrive out at
more meaningful results. Third, the present study is limited to understand and address
service failure and service recovery constructs and their relationship in higher education
sector. Various researchers such as Hoffman et al. (1995), Swanson and Davis (2000),
Nikbin et al. (2010), Strizhakova and Tsarenko (2010), Edvardson et al. (2011) and Hart
and Coates (2011) have suggested to understand the role of other variables such as
emotional intelligence, professional competence, perceived justice and attitude towards
 complaining in understanding service failure and recovery more comprehensively. Service failure
Hence, future researches need to incorporate these variables to address service failure and recovery
and recovery issues. Fourth, the future researchers may also look into other additional
variables related with nature of students, e.g. jay consumers or avoidance type
in higher
consumers which are significant to understand the perception of types of students in education
service failure and service recovery in higher education sector.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

83
References
Bell, C.R. and Zemke, R.E. (1987), “Service breakdown: the road to recovery”, Management Review,
Vol. 76 No. 10, pp. 32-35.
Berry, C.R. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable
and unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Brown, S.W. (2000), “Practicing best-in-class service recovery”, Marketing Management Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 8-9.
Brown, S.W., Cowles, D.L. and Tuten, T.L. (1996), “Service recovery: its value and limitations as a
retail strategy”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 32-46.
Chahal, H. and Devi, P. (2013), “Identifying satisfied/dissatisfied service encounters in higher
education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 211-222.
Cooper, P. (2007), “Knowing your ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty in UK higher education”, Quality in
Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Dalziel, N., Harris, F. and Laing, A. (2011), “A multidimensional typology of customer
relationships: from faltering to affective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 398-432.
Duffy, J.A.M., Miller, J.M. and Bexley, J.B. (2006), “Banking customers’ varied reactions to service
recovery strategies”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 112-132.
Edvardson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Hoykinpuro, R. (2011), “Complex service recovery processes: how
to avoid triple deviation”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 331-349.
Gaur, A.S. and Gaur, S.S. (2006), Statistical Methods for Practice and Research, Sage Publications
India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
Gye-Soo, K. (2007), “The service recovery strategies, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty”, The
Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 76-86.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2008), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Prentice Hall, Uppersaddle River, NJ.
Hart, D. and Coates, N. (2011), “International student complaint behaviour: understanding how
East-Asian business and management students respond to dissatisfaction during their
university experience”, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 57-66.
Hocutt, M.A., Bowers, M.R. and Donavan, D.T. (2006), “The art of service recovery: fact or
fiction?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 199-207.
Hoffman, K.D., Kelley, S.W. and Rotalsky, H.M. (1995), “Tracking service failure and employee
recovery efforts”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 49-61.
Holloway, B.B., Wang, S. and Beatty, S.E. (2009), “Betrayal? Relationship quality implications in
service recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 385-396.
 QAE Iyer, R. and Muncy, J.A. (2008), “Service recovery in marketing education: it’s what we do that
counts”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
23,1
Kim, C., Kim, S., Im, S. and Shin, C. (2003), “The effect of attitude and perception on consumer
complaint intentions”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, 352-371.
Kim, M.G., Wang, C. and Mattila, A.S. (2010), “The relationship between consumer complaining
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

behavior and service recovery”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

84 Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 975-991.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford, New York,
NY.
Lewis, B.R. and Spyrakopoulas, S. (2001), “Service failures and recovery in retail banking: the
customer’s perspective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Lovelock, C., Wirtz, J. and Chatterjee, J. (2008), Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy,
Pearson Education, New Delhi, pp. 359-379.
McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T.J. (1999), “Waiting for service: the effectiveness of recovery
strategies”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 6-15.
Matos, C.A., Ross, C.A.V., Veiga, R.T. and Viera, V.A. (2009), “Consumer reaction to service failure
and recovery: the moderating role of attitude toward complaining”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 975-991.
Mattila, A.S. (2010), “Do women like options more than men? An examination in the context of
service recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 499-508.
Maxham, J.G. III and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “Modeling customer perceptions of complaint
handling overtime: the effect of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 239-252.
Miller, J.L., Craighead, C.W. and Karwan, K.R. (2000), “Service recovery: a framework and
empirical investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 387-400.
Nikbin, D., Ismail, I., Marmuthu, M. and Jalalkamali, M. (2010), “Perceived justice in service
recovery and recovery satisfaction: the moderating role of corporate image”, International
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 47-56.
Petzer, D.J. and Mostert, P.G. (2012), “Banking customers’ attitudes toward complaining: their
likelihood of voicing a complaint and service recovery they consider appropriate”, African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 12, pp. 4462-4471.
Robinson, F.L.R., Nelley, S.E. and Williamson, K. (2011), “Implementing service recovery through
customer relationship management: identifying the antecedents”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Seawright, K.K., DeTienne, K.B., Bernhisel, M.P. and Larson, C.L.H. (2008), “An empirical
examination of service recovery design”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 253-274.
Smith, J.S. and Karwan, K.R. (2011), “Empirical profiles of service recovery systems: the maturity
perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 111-125.
Spreng, R.A., Harrell, G.D. and Mackoy, R.D. (1995), “Service recovery: impact on satisfaction and
intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Stefura, G. (2010), “Customer complaining behaviour- its effects on companies’ evolution”, Studies
and Scientific Researches, Economics Edition, No. 15, e-ISSN: 2344-1321, available at: http://
sceco.ub.ro/index.php/SCECO/article/view/162
 Strizhakova, Y. and Tsarenko, Y. (2010), “Consumer response to service failures: the role of Service failure
emotional intelligence and coping”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 37, pp. 304-311.
and recovery
Swanson, S.R. and Davis, J.C. (2000), “A view from the aisle: classroom successes and failures and
recovery strategies”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 17-25. in higher
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2008), “Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: calling education
for an integrated framework”, in Manfred, M.B. (Ed.), Advances in Mixed Methods
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:36 30 September 2015 (PT)

Research: Theories and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 101-119. 85
Teddlie, C. (2007), “Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples”, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77-100.
Voss, R. (2009), “Studying critical classroom encounters”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 156-173.
Voss, R., Gruber, T. and Reppel, A. (2010), “Which classroom service encounters make students
happy or unhappy?”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 7,
pp. 615-636.
Weun, S., Beatty, S.E. and Fones, M.A. (2004), “The impact of service failure severity on service
recovery evaluations and post-recovery relationships”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 133-146.
Zain, O.M. (2011), “Inquisitions into the complain and the non-complain customers: the Malaysian
customers’ Insight”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 15,
pp. 88-98.

Further reading
Gremler, D.D. (2004), “The critical incident technique in service research”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 65-89.

About the authors

Hardeep Chahal is a Professor in the Department of Commerce, University of Jammu, India. Her
research interests focus on services marketing with emphasis on consumer satisfaction and
loyalty, service quality, brand equity and market orientation. Her research work has been
acknowledged in international refereed journals like Managing Service Quality, Journal of Health
Management, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Management Research Review, Total Quality
Management and Excellence, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, International
Journal of Indian Culture, Business and Management and national journals of international repute
such as Metamorphosis, Decisions, Vikalpa, Journal of Social Work, Vision, Journal of Services
Research and Journal of Rural Development. She has also co-edited books on Research
Methodology in Commerce and Management and Strategic Service Marketing. She currently
serves on the editorial boards of the International Journal of Health Quality and Assurance
(Emerald) and Journal of Services Research (IIMT, India). She was also offered the Award of
Excellence for Best Reviewer for the year 2011 by the International Journal of Health Quality and
Assurance (Emerald). Hardeep Chahal is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
chahalhardeep@rediffmail.com
Pinkey Devi is a research scholar pursuing a doctoral programme on “Service Failure and
Recovery Efforts in Higher Education” in PG Department of Commerce, University of Jammu,
India. She has attended and presented papers at national and international conferences organised
in India.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com