IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/servic/v44y2024i3-4p288-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How potential customers perceive companies’ reply to negative reviews?

Author

Listed:
  • Wee-Kheng Tan
  • Wei-Hung Chen

Abstract

Companies are increasingly using humorous replies as a service recovery method to respond and apologize to complainants. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the effectiveness and appropriateness of humorous replies. Drawing on information processing theory, this study assesses how consumers as onlookers view former customers’ negative word-of-mouth relating to service failures (vindictive and nonvindictive reviews) and humorous and standard replies provided by service operators in the context of hostels, and effects on booking intentions. To compare consumers’ responses to various combinations of reviews and replies, this study administered survey questionnaires to 377 respondents. A series of independent-sample t test analyses and partial least squares (PLS) path analyses revealed that standard replies are effective for responding to both review types. Humorous replies have better performance when responding to nonvindictive reviews than vindictive reviews. This study contributes to the scarce research on humorous replies in the service recovery context.

Suggested Citation

  • Wee-Kheng Tan & Wei-Hung Chen, 2024. "How potential customers perceive companies’ reply to negative reviews?," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3-4), pages 288-316, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:servic:v:44:y:2024:i:3-4:p:288-316
    DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2022.2030718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02642069.2022.2030718
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02642069.2022.2030718?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:servic:v:44:y:2024:i:3-4:p:288-316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FSIJ20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.