Customer Complaintsand Organizational Responses:

A Study of Hotel Guestsin Northern Cyprus

Ugur YavasOsman M. Karatepe

Emin BabakusTurgay Avci

ABSTRACT. This study investigates outcomes of organizational re-sponses to customer complaints by using a sample of hotel guests inNorthern Cyprus as its setting. Results suggest that organizational re-sponse options have varying degrees of influence on customer satisfactionand revisit intentions. Implications of the results for hotel managers andpublic policy makers are discussed. [Article copies available for a fee fromThe Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www. HaworthPress.com> ©2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Service recovery, hospitality industry, marketing strate-gies, Northern Cyprus, survey

Professor Ugur Yavas, PhD, is affiliated with East Tennessee State University,Johnson City, TN.

Professors Osman M. Karatepe, PhD, and Turgay Avci, PhD, are affiliated with East-ern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Professor Emin Babakus, PhD, is affiliated with The University of Memphis, Mem-phis, TN.

Address correspondence to: Emin Babakus, Department of Marketing & SupplyChain Management, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, The University ofMemphis, Memphis, TN 38152 (E-mail: ebabakus@memphis.edu).

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 11(2/3) 2004http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHLM

2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J150v11n02_04 31

INTRODUCTION

In an era of intense competitive pressures, service providers realizethat attaining customer satisfaction through delivery of quality servicesis a key to their survival. Having a loyal base of satisfied customers in-creases revenues, improves bottom lines and builds market shares. Yet,how hard they may try and how well-intentioned they may be, serviceproviders face challenges in delivering high quality service to their cus-tomers. Indeed, mistakes, failures and resultant customer complaints inservice industries are frequent occurrences (Bejou & Palmer, 1998;Bitner, Booms & Tetrault, 1990; Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994; Mattila,2001; Yasin & Yavas, 1999; Lewis & Spyrakopoulos, 2001; Shemwell &Yavas, 1999; Yavas & Yasin, 2001).

How an organization handles customer complaints emanatingfrom failures is very critical as customers are emotionally more in-volved in service recovery than routine service (Smith & Bolton,2002). Unless satisfactorily rectified, service failures can result insuch detrimental outcomes as decline in customer confidence, nega-tive word-of-mouth and loss of customers permanently. If effec-tively resolved, however, failures have positive impact on regainingcustomer confidence, post-recovery satisfaction and repurchase in-tentions (Kelley, Hoffman, & Davis, 1993; Fornell et al., 1996;Spreng, Harrell, & Mackoy, 1995). With this realization, service or-ganizations not only encourage aggrieved customers to voice theircomplaints (Spreng, Harrell, & Mackoy, 1995) but also seek solu-tions to service failures on several fronts. These responses to failurescollectively called service recovery strategies, among others, in-clude refunds, discounts, free gifts, reengineering company policiesand procedures, apology, manager/employee intervention and re-placement (Boshoff, 1997; Kelley, Hoffman, & Davis, 1993; Lewis& Spyrakopoulos, 2001; Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999; Tax, Brown,& Chandrashekaran, 1998).

Against this background, this study develops and tests a modelwhich investigates the effects of various service recovery responseson customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions and the interac-tions between satisfaction and repurchase intentions by using Turkishhotel guests staying in luxury hotels in Northern Cyprus as a case inpoint.

A study investigating these issues is relevant and useful for at least tworeasons. First, while the concept of service recovery has been widelyexamined in a number of service industries (Boshoff, 1999; Boshoff &

32 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

Leong, 1998; Brown, Cowles, & Tuten, 1996; Kelley, Hoffman, & Davis,1993; Lewis & Spyrakopoulos, 2001; Michel, 2001) including tourismand hospitality services (Boshoff, 1997; Boshoff & Leong, 1998;McCollough, 2000; Scanlon & McPhail, 2000; Sundaram, Jurowski, &Webster, 1997; Swanson & Kelley, 2001), little is known about the po-tential impacts of organizational responses to customer complaints oncustomer satisfaction and repurchase intentions in the tourism and hos-pitality industries (Conlan & Murray, 1996; Davidow, 2000). Hence,the study fills in this void.

Second, besides contributing to the body of knowledge, the findingsof the study may carry important practical implications for micro andmacro reasons. Tourism industry is the lifeblood of the fledglingNorthern Cyprus economy, accounting for more than 19% of theGross National Product (Economic and Social Indicators, 2000). Yet,there has been a decline in the number of Turkish tourists (which ac-count for an overwhelming proportion of tourism revenues) visitingthe island. According to the official tourism statistics, in 2001, thenumber of Turkish tourists visiting Northern Cyprus were put at277,739. This is a significant drop from the 1997 total of 326,324. Thedecline is of concern not only to the public officials but also to the op-erators of luxury hotels which face stiffening competition from theircounterparts dotting the coast of Turkish Riviera on the mainland.

The rest of the paper is organized around four sections. The next sec-tion presents the conceptual model and hypotheses. This is followed bydiscussions of the method and results of the empirical study. The paperconcludes with implications of the results.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

The conceptual model, which guides the current study, is presentedin Figure 1. The purpose of the model is to explain the underlying pro-cesses through which organizational responses influence satisfactionand repurchase intentions and how satisfaction impacts repurchase in-tentions. As can be seen from Figure 1, the organizational responseswhich can potentially influence the two outcome variables of satisfac-tion and repurchase intentions are promptness, apology, redress, ex-planation, and attentiveness. The hypothesized relationships amongthe study variables are discussed next.

Yavas et al. 33

Organizational Responses

Promptness. Speedy response is a key to successful resolution of cus-tomer complaints (Andreassen, 2000; Swanson & Kelly, 2001; Davidow,2000; Boshoff, 1997). Boshoff (1999) points out that the prompter theservice recovery takes place, the more satisfied customers are likely tobe. Evidence also shows that speedy responses to customer complaintsenhances the complaining customers’ loyalty to a firm (Conlon &Murray, 1996). On the other hand, delays or long waits in responding tocomplaints increase the anger felt by the customers (Mount & Mattila,2000; Taylor, 1994), lead to overall customer dissatisfaction and de-crease customers’ intentions to use the service in the future (Taylor,1994). Thus:

H1: The faster the organizational response to a complaint due to a ser-vice failure, the higher will be the customer’s satisfaction.

34 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

Promptness

Apology

Redress

Explanation

Attentiveness

H1

H2 H3

Satisfaction

H4

H5

H6 H11

H7

H8

H9

H10

RepurchaseIntentions

FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model

H2: The faster the organizational response to a complaint due to a ser-vice failure, the higher will be the customer’s intention to revisitthe same hotel.

Apology. An apology offered by the service provider to the customeris important as it acknowledges the firm’s recognition that the customerhas been inconvenienced (Boshoff & Leong, 1998). Apologies person-ally made are appreciated by the customers (Boshoff, 1999) and can re-duce their anxiety and anger (Sarel & Marmorstein, 1998; Boshoff &Leong, 1998). Although research is not monotonic in support (De Ruyter& Wetzels, 2000; Goodwin & Ross, 1992; Andreassen, 2000), the weightof the evidence suggests that a sincere apology makes customers less an-gry about a service failure and can lead to customer satisfaction and re-purchase intentions. Hence:

H3: The more sincere the apology, the higher will be the customer’ssatisfaction.

H4: The more sincere the apology, the higher will be the customer’sintention to revisit the same hotel.

Redress. When confronted with a service failure customers expectsome form of compensation (redress) and evaluate it as the differencebetween the actual outcome (what they get) and the expected outcomerelative to the problems occurred (Davidow, 2000). Although frustratedcustomers have the tendency to display switching behaviors, a satisfac-tory redress is likely to turn them into loyal ones (Hart, Heskett, &Sasser 1990). Receiving fair compensation and being brought to thesame condition as before the occurrence of failure results in customersatisfaction and repurchase intentions (Edvardsson, 1992; Boshoff,1997; Conlon & Murray, 1996). It is thus posited that:

H5: The higher the perceived level of redress, the higher will be thecustomer’s satisfaction.

H6: The higher the perceived level of redress, the higher will be thecustomer’s intention to revisit the same hotel.

Explanation. Constructive recovery strategies can lower a cus-tomer’s perception of the seriousness of a failure and remedy dissatis-faction (Liu et al., 2001). In this context, Andreassen (2000), Davidow(2000), Boshoff (1999) and Sarel and Marmorstein (1998) argue thatprovision of a good explanation to customers as to why a failure has oc-

Yavas et al. 35

curred is very important. A detailed explanation ensures that the serviceorganization is aware of the problem and is doing its best to solve it.Empirical evidence indicates that business firms often use explanationsin order to keep their customers loyal despite the dissatisfaction(Conlon & Murray, 1996). Findings from previous research also showthat many consumers may switch service providers if failures go unex-plained and unredressed (Keaveney, 1995). On the contrary, explana-tion of failures exerts a positive impact on both satisfaction andrepurchase intentions (Conlon & Murray, 1996). Therefore, the follow-ing hypotheses are advanced:

H7: The higher the perceived level of explanation, the higher will bethe customer’s satisfaction.

H8: The higher the perceived level of explanation, the higher will bethe customer’s intention to revisit the same hotel.

Attentiveness. Attentiveness defined as “respect and courtesy for thecomplainant, empathy for the complainant’s situation, a willingness tolisten” (Davidow, 2000, p. 478), is an effective complaint handlingmechanism. Zemke and Bell (1990) suggest that when dissatisfied dueto a service failure, customers expect individualized attention encom-passing empathic and courteous behaviors from service personnel. Andwhen customers receive such attentive service in response to a failure,they become satisfied (Davidow, 2000; Goodwin & Ross, 1989; Lam &Zhang, 1999). Furthermore, attentive service leads to genuine customerrelationships, positive word-of-mouth communication, and repurchaseintentions (Bowen & Lawler, 1992). Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H9:The higher the perceived level of attentiveness, the higher will bethe customer’s satisfaction.

H10: The higher the perceived level of attentiveness, the higher will bethe customer’s intention to revisit the same hotel.

Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions

Previous studies suggest a positive relationship between customer satis-faction and repurchase intentions (Conlon & Murray, 1996; Cronin & Tay-lor, 1992; McAlexander, Kaldenberg, & Koenig, 1994; Yavas, 1998), anddemonstrate that customer satisfaction resulting from appropriate servicerecovery positively influences repurchase intentions (Smith & Bolton,

36 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

1998). Schlesinger and Heskett (1991) and Swanson and Kelley (2001)argue that customer dissatisfaction results in discontinuity in serviceprovider-customer relationship and loss of repeat business. On the con-trary, Heskett et al. (1994) and Davidow (2000) assert that customer sat-isfaction drives repurchase intentions. Therefore, the followinghypothesis is proposed:

H11: The higher the level of customer satisfaction, the higher will bethe propensity to revisit the same hotel.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

Usable responses obtained from a total of 376 guests who stayed inthree five-star and three four-star hotels in Northern Cyprus duringSpring 2002 serve as the database of the study. Members of the field staffscreened the respondents for eligibility to participate in the study. Onlythose guests who had experienced a service failure were given a question-naire. Respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire in a self-ad-ministered manner and to return them to the members of the field force.

Almost fifty-eight percent of the respondents were male. About 39%had college degrees and approximately 68% of the respondents werebetween the ages of 18 and 47. Almost three-fourths of the respondents’purpose of stay was pleasure/vacation.

Measures

Multiple indicators adapted from Davidow (2000), Lee, Lee, andYoo (2000), Boshoff (1999), Boshoff and Leong (1998), Boshoff(1997), Goodwin and Ross (1992) were employed to operationalize theconstructs depicted in Figure 1. Specifically, promptness, redress, ex-planation, attentiveness, satisfaction and repurchase intentions eachconsisted of three items and apology was comprised of two items. Re-sponses to each item were elicited on seven-point scales ranging from“7 = strongly agree” to “1 = strongly disagree.” The list of items com-prising each construct is presented in the Appendix.

The survey was originally prepared in English and then translatedinto Turkish by using the back-translation method (McGorry, 2000).The cross-linguistic comparability of the questionnaire was further

Yavas et al. 37

tested with the faculty members of a Turkish university who were fluentin both languages. This was deemed necessary since the concern wasnot so much with a literal translation but with generating meaning,which was as similar as possible to the original English version. Thesurvey instrument was finalized based on feedback from a pilot sampleof twenty guests who stayed in the hotels.

The measures were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to ad-dress the issues of dimensionality, convergent and discriminant validity(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The results ofthe confirmatory factor analysis indicated a reasonable fit of theseven-factor measurement model to the data on the basis of a number offit statistics (Chi-square = 399.6, df = 149, GFI = .90, AGFI = .87, NFI =0.92, NNFI = .93, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .067, and SRMR = .037).

The magnitudes of the standardized loading estimates ranged be-tween .57 to .89, and all loadings were significant (i.e., all t-valueswere larger than 2.00). Fifteen out of 20 loadings were above .70. Inaddition, average variance extracted for each construct was larger than.50, except for promptness (.49) and explanation (.47) which wereslightly below .50. Model fit statistics and the magnitudes of the load-ings, as well as the average variance extracted provided support forconvergent validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Fornell & Larcker,1981). The correlations among the composite scores representing thestudy variables ranged from .40 (between promptness and attentiveness,and promptness and apology) to .77 (attentiveness and satisfaction).None of the correlation coefficients were equal to and/or higher than .90(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), providing evidence for discriminantvalidity.

Items representing a particular construct were averaged to createoverall composite scores for each respondent. As reported in the Ap-pendix, internal consistency reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) foreach measure exceeded the .70 benchmark recommended by Nunnally(1978). Correlations, means and standard deviations of the compositemeasures of the study variables are presented in Table 1. The correla-tions in Table 1 are consistent with the confirmatory results.

RESULTS

The relationships hypothesized in Figure 1 were tested usingLISREL 8.30 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) through path analysis. An ex-

38 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

amination of the estimated model parameters in Table 2 shows thatpromptness (PROM) has a significant impact on both satisfaction (SAT)and repurchase intentions (REP). Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 are supportedby the data. Apology (APO), on the other hand, does not demonstrate anysignificant relationship with satisfaction and repurchase intentions.Therefore, hypotheses 3 and 4 cannot be supported. Redress (RED) has asignificant effect on satisfaction (SAT), but not on repurchase intentions(REP). Hence, while the data lend support to hypothesis 5, no support ex-ists for hypothesis 6. Explanation (EXP) and attentiveness (ATT) havesignificant impacts both on satisfaction (SAT) and repurchase intentions(REP). Thus, hypotheses 7, 8, 9, and 10 receive support. Finally, the ef-fect of satisfaction (SAT) on repurchase intentions (REP) is significant.Hence, there is empirical support for hypothesis 11.

A closer scrutiny of the results in Table 2 reveals that the influenceof explanation (EXP) on repurchase intentions (REP) is stronger thanits effect on satisfaction (SAT). Attentiveness (ATT), on the otherhand, has a stronger effect on satisfaction compared to its influence onrepurchase intentions. The influence of promptness (PROM) on satis-faction is slightly stronger than its influence on repurchase intentions.The organizational response variables jointly explain 72% of the vari-ance in customer satisfaction. Satisfaction and organizational re-sponse variables jointly explain 55% of the variance in repurchaseintentions.

Yavas et al. 39

TABLE 1. Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations of Composite Scoresof Study Variables

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Promptness(PROM) 1.00Apology (APO) 0.40 1.00Redress (RED) 0.44 0.72 1.00Explanation (EXP) 0.61 0.52 0.56 1.00Attentiveness (ATT) 0.40 0.67 0.65 0.53 1.00Satisfaction (SAT) 0.51 0.67 0.73 0.63 0.77 1.00Repurchase Intentions(REP) 0.54 0.46 0.46 0.70 0.53 0.58 1.00

Mean 4.72 5.03 4.79 4.87 4.90 4.91 4.77S.D. 1.62 1.85 1.74 1.62 1.62 1.71 1.87

Note: Composite scores for each measure were obtained by averaging scores across items representingthat measure. The scores range from 1 to 7. A higher score indicates a more favorable response.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study tested a model to investigate the effects of various organiza-tional responses to service failures on customer satisfaction and repurchaseintentions and the relationship between satisfaction and repurchase inten-tions. The empirical findings of the study reveal that promptness, redress, ex-planation, and attentiveness depict significant relationships with customersatisfaction. Customer satisfaction, promptness, explanation, and attentive-ness have direct significant impacts on repurchase intentions. Apology doesnot have any bearing either on satisfaction or on repurchase intentions.Promptness, explanation and attentiveness exert significant direct as well asindirect effects on repurchase intentions. Interestingly, the influence of re-dress on repurchase intentions is completely mediated by customer satisfac-tion. It appears that redress is an important driver of satisfaction, andthrough satisfaction, it does exert a significant indirect influence on repur-chase intentions.

Similar to the findings reported by Goodwin and Ross (1992) and DeRuyter and Wetzels (2000), the results of the present study suggest thatapologies made by hotels were not adequate to improve customer satis-

40 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

TABLE 2. Path Analysis Results

StandardizedParameterEstimates (ML) T-Value

I. Impact on Customer SatisfactionPROM→SAT 0.10 2.74∗APO→SAT 0.06 1.40RED→SAT 0.27 6.32∗EXP→SAT 0.16 4.15∗ATT→SAT 0.43 10.67*

Overall R2 = 0.72

II. Impact on Repurchase IntentionsPROM→REP 0.14 2.99∗APO→REP 0.00 0.01RED→REP �0.08 �1.44EXP→REP 0.48 9.49∗ATT→REP 0.18 3.03∗SAT→REP 0.13 2.03∗

Overall R2 = 0.55

Note: (*) indicates the hypothesized relationship is significant at the .05 level of significance

faction and repurchase intentions. Apology is actually the first step foracknowledging the complaint or failure (Boshoff, 1999; Conlon &Murray, 1996), and, it appears that unless accompanied by other actions(a tangible token of atonement, compensation, etc.) apologies by them-selves are insufficient in addressing complaints (Hoffman & Bateson,1997).

At a time when the hotel industry in Northern Cyprus moves into avery competitive milieu and faces decline in visitors, effective servicerecovery will be even more important in competing against hotels on themainland Turkey and neighboring countries with longer traditions andmore experience in the hospitality business. The empirical results of thepresent study have a number of implications for hotel managers andpublic policy makers. At the micro level, hotel managers should encour-age customer complaints and establish complaint mechanisms to enablecustomers to voice their complaints (Yavas, Bilgin, & Shemwell,1997). Because service providers cannot address problems unless theyknow about them, management of hotels in Northern Cyprus shouldtake decisive steps to create effective complaint-handling processes. Itis important to remember that customer complaints are valuable feed-backs and, when their complaints are handled appropriately, customersas demonstrated in this study become actually happier.

Given that it is more difficult and cost ineffective to find new custom-ers, maintaining satisfaction among existing customers becomes veryimportant. Study results suggest that promptness, explanation, atten-tiveness, and redress are significant drivers of customer satisfaction.Therefore, when failures occur, efforts should be undertaken to provideprompt and attentive service and these should be combined with courte-ous explanation and redress. In this context, several actions are in order.

First, hotels should invest in the training of frontline employees asthey can make or break any business. Employees who are trained notonly in basic service skills but also in listening skills can better under-stand customer needs and can align service with customer expectations.And when failures occur, they can take quick actions to remedy or alle-viate the grievance. Such actions can pay dividends in improving cus-tomer satisfaction, reducing complaints and generating repeat business.Second, while the emphasis to be placed on employee empowermentvaries across service situations, empowered employees ensure predict-ability and personalization of the service encounter. Hotels in NorthernCyprus should allow their frontline employees to go beyond an apologyin case of a service failure without interference from management.Third, tying financial rewards and recognition to increased customer

Yavas et al. 41

satisfaction resulting from effective service recovery can further en-hance the effectiveness of complaint resolution. Hotels can track cus-tomer satisfaction on a periodic basis and when improvements arerecorded, employees can be rewarded. On a broader front, such specificactions can be complemented by effective recruitment. Recruitment offrontline employees should be guided by serious selection criteria en-compassing interpersonal skills and service orientation.

It should be emphasized that any holistic approach to improving servicerecovery performance necessitates top management commitment. Only astrong, highly visible, coordinated effort from the top can make service re-covery efforts successful. To ensure that a customer and relationship-ori-ented culture permeates throughout the organization, hotels can considerestablishing a permanent ‘customer relations council’ to act as a culturalchange agent within the organization. The members should be top execu-tives with line functions since service quality improvement (and service re-covery performance) is line-driven. The responsibility of the councilshould be to provide strategic direction, coordination, and impetus ratherthan to formalize systems of service delivery. The council should bringhigh visibility to customer relations and service quality issues and shouldplace a customer and relationship orientation in the sinews and fibers of thebody corporate. Acting as a point of light in the organization, the councilshould let the rank and file employees know that building relationshipswith customers is what the hotel business is all about. Also, the ‘customerrelations council’ should be responsible for removing any bureaucratic bar-riers that may impede delivery of excellent service.

At the macro level, public officials can motivate the industry to pro-vide better service by initiating state-funded education and training pro-grams. State sponsored service quality awards may be extended to thehotels with the best training programs. In an economy where almost one-fifth of the GNP is dependent on the tourism sector, creating anindustrywide service culture and promoting the sector as a whole re-quires heavy involvement on the part of public policy makers and stateagencies. In addition, encouraging and attracting foreign investment inthis sector should be a top priority. Northern Cyprus provides a highlyattractive natural environment and easy access for vacationers from Eu-rope and the Middle East. With appropriate promotion and incentivesforeign direct investment can be attracted. And such investment willbring western management talent with a sophisticated customer serviceculture. This will increase the competitive pressures on existing hotelsto provide better service and ultimately benefit the entire sector.

42 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

It should be noted that the results reported in the present study pro-vide only an initial glimpse into the efficacy of the proposed model.Therefore, until further studies are conducted to cross-validate the find-ings, the study findings and the strategies based on them should remaintentative. Replication studies with larger samples among other hotelguests in Northern Cyprus, as well as elsewhere, would be fruitful.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (May),411-423.

Andreassen, T. W. (2000). Antecedents to satisfaction with service recovery. Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, 34 (1/2), 156-175.

Bejou, D. & Palmer, A. (1998). Service failure and loyalty: an exploratory empiricalstudy of airline customers. Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (1), 7-22.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: the em-ployee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 95-106.

______, Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: diagnosingfavorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 71-84.

Boshoff, C. (1999). RECOVSAT: An instrument to measure satisfaction with transac-tion-specific service recovery. Journal of Service Research, 1 (3): 236-249.

______ & Leong, J. (1998). Empowerment, attribution and apologising as dimensionsof service recovery: an experimental study. International Journal of Service Indus-try Management, 9 (1), 24-47.

______. (1997). An experimental study of service recovery options. InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, 8 (2), 110-130.

Bowen, D. E. & Lawler, E. E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: what,why, how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33 (Spring), 31- 39.

Brown, S. W., Cowles, D. L., & Tuten, T. L. (1996). Service recovery: its value andlimitations as a retail strategy. International Journal of Service Industry Manage-ment, 7 (5), 32-46.

Conlon, D. E. & Murray, N. M. (1996). Customer perceptions of corporate responses toproduct complaints: the role of explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1040-1056.

Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination andextension. Journal of Marketing, 56(July), 55-68.

Davidow, M. (2000). The bottom line impact of organizational responses to customercomplaints. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24 (4), 473-490.

De Ruyter, K. & Wetzels, M. (2000). Customer equity considerations in service recov-ery: a cross-industry perspective. International Journal of Service Industry Man-agement, 11 (1), 91-108.

Yavas et al. 43

Economic and Social Indicators (2000), Prime Ministry, State Planning Organization,Lefkosa, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, p. 3.

Edvardsson, B. (1992). Service breakdowns: a study of critical incidents in an airline.International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4 (4), 17-29.

Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D. Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). TheAmerican customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal ofMarketing, 60 (October), 7-18.

______ & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39-50.

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

______ & ______ (1989). Salient dimensions of perceived fairness in resolution of ser-vice complaints. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complain-ing Behavior, 2, 87-92.

Hart, C. W. L., Heskett, J. L., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). The profitable art of servicerecovery. Harvard Business Review, 68 (July-August), 148-156.

Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., Jr., & Schlesinger, L. A.(1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(March-April), 164-174.

Hoffman, K. D. & Bateson, J. E. G. (1997). Essentials of services marketing. TheDryden Press Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth.

Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Scientific Soft-ware International, Inc., Chicago.

Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: an explor-atory study. Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 71-82.

Kelley, S. W., Hoffman, K. D., & Davis, M. A. (1993). A typology of retail failures andrecoveries. Journal of Retailing, 69 (4), 429-452.

Lam, T. & Zhang, H. Q. (1999). Service quality of travel agents: the case of travelagents in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20 (3), 341-349.

Lee, H., Lee, Y., & Yoo, D. (2000). The determinants of perceived service quality andits relationship with satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (3), 217-231.

Lewis, B. R. & Spryrakopoulos, S. (2001). Service failures and recovery in retail banking:the customers’ perspective. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 19 (1), 37-47.

Liu, T-S., Warden, C. A., Lee, C-H., & Huang, C-T. (2001). Fatal service failuresacross cultures. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 8 (1/2), 93-111.

Mattila, A.S. (2001). The effectiveness of service recovery in a multi-industry setting.Journal of Services Marketing, 15 (7), 583-596.

McAlexander, J. H., Kaldenberg, D. O., & Koenig, H. F. (1994). Service quality mea-surement: examination of dental practices sheds more light on the relationships be-tween service quality, satisfaction, and purchase intentions in a health care setting.Journal of Health Care Marketing, 14 (3), 34-40.

McCollough, M. A. (2000). The effect of perceived justice and attributions regardingservice failure and recovery on post-recovery customer satisfaction and servicequality attitudes. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24 (4), 423-447.

44 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey transla-tion issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3 (2), 74-81.

Michel, S. (2001). Analyzing service failures and recoveries: a process approach. In-ternational Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (1), 20-33.

Mount, D. J. & Mattila, A. (2000). The final opportunity: the effectiveness of a cus-tomer relations call center in recovering hotel guests. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research, 24 (4), 514-525.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.Sarel, D. & Marmorstein, H. (1998). Managing the delayed service encounter: the role

of employee action and customer prior experience. The Journal of Services Market-ing, 12 (3), 195-208.

Scanlon, L. & McPhail, J. (2000). Forming service relationships with hotel businesstravelers: the critical attributes to improve retention. Journal of Hospitality & Tour-ism Research, 24 (4), 491-513.

Schlesinger, L. A. & Heskett, J. L. (1991). Breaking the cycle of failure in services.Sloan Management Review, 32 (Spring), 17-28.

Shemwell, D. J. & Yavas, U. (1999). Bringing banks out of darkness: eliminating rem-nants of the cultural malaise of yesteryear. Journal of Financial Services Market-ing, 3 (4), 334-343.

Smith, A. K. & Bolton, R. N. (2002). The effect of customers’ emotional responses toservice failures on their recovery evaluations and satisfaction judgments. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (1), 5-23.

______, ______, & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with serviceencounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (Au-gust), 356-372.

______ & _____ (1998). An experimental investigation of customer reactions to ser-vice failure and recovery encounters: paradox or peril?. Journal of Service Re-search, 1 (1), 65-81.

Spreng, R. A., Harrell, G. D., & Mackoy, R. D. (1995). Service recovery: impact on sat-isfaction and intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 9 (1), 15-23.

Swanson, S. R. & Kelley, S. W. (2001). Service recovery attributions andword-of-mouth intentions. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (1/2), 194-211.

Sundaram, D. S., Jurowski, C., & Webster, C. (1997). Service failure recovery effortsin restaurant dining: the role of criticality of service consumption. Hospitality Re-search Journal, 20 (3), 137-149.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. 3rd. ed.,HarperCollins, New York.

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of ser-vice complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal ofMarketing, 62 (April), 60-76.

Taylor, S. (1994). Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and evaluationsof service. Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 56-69.

Yasin, M. M. & Yavas, U. (1999). Enhancing customer orientation of service deliverysystems: an integrative framework. Managing Service Quality, 9 (3), 198-203.

Yavas, U. & Yasin, M. M. (2001). Enhancing organizational performance in banks: asystematic approach. Journal of Services Marketing, 15 (6), 444-453.

Yavas et al. 45

Yavas, U., Bilgin, Z., & Shemwell, D. J. (1997). Service quality in the banking sectorin an emerging economy: a consumer survey. International Journal of Bank Mar-keting, 15 (6), 217-223.

Yavas, U. (1998). Service quality sentiments as correlates of behavioral intentions andsatisfaction: a study of Turkish consumers. Journal of Customer Service in Market-ing and Management, 4 (1), 31-45.

Zemke, R. & Bell, C. R. (1990). Service recovery: doing it right the second time. Train-ing, 27 (6), 42-48.

APPENDIXQuestionnaire Items

Promptness (PROM) (� = 0.74)It took longer than necessary to react to my complaint (R).They were very slow in responding to the problem (R).The complaint was not taken care of as quickly as it could have been. (R)

Apology (APO) (� =0.82)I received a sincere “I’m sorry” from the hotel.The hotel gave a genuine apology.

Redress (RED) (� = 0.88)After the hotel response, I am in the same shape or better than I was before thecomplaint.The hotel response left me in a similar or improved position compared to whereI was before the problem.The outcome that I received from the hotel returned me to a situation equal toor better than before the complaint.

Explanation (EXP) (� = 0.73)The hotel did not give me any explanation at all (R).I did not believe the hotel’s explanation of why the problem occurred (R).The hotel’s explanation of the problem was not very convincing (R).

Attentiveness (ATT) (� = 0.75)The representative of the hotel treated me with respect.The representative of the hotel paid attention to my concerns.The representative of the hotel was quite pleasant to deal with.

Satisfaction (SAT) (� = 0.88)My satisfaction with the hotel has increased.My impression of this hotel has improved.I now have a more positive attitude toward this hotel.

Repurchase Intentions (REP) (� = 0.83)I will probably not stay in this hotel again (R).I will stay in this hotel less frquently in the future (R).I will probably switch to another hotel in the future (R).

(R) reverse-coded

46 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING