- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Using a mixed-methods approach, the current research examines online incivility in relation to service recovery on social media. First, findings from a netnographic investigation suggest consumer-to-consumer (C2C) incivility results in some consumers holding the firm accountable to address uncivil exchanges on a firm-managed communication channel. Based on the netnographic findings, fairness theory, and justice theory, a follow-up experimental study assesses how online incivility negatively affects service recovery outcomes (firm–consumer justice) when a firm chooses (not) to respond to the incivility. Through these two studies, the current paper proposes a new form of justice (C2C interactional justice) and posits that online service recovery extends beyond direct victims of the incivility (first-party justice) to also include observers (third-party justice). This more nuanced view of justice associated with a service recovery is especially significant when considering the traditional relationships of justice with satisfaction, loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, and other desirable firm outcomes. For practitioners, this research suggests that firms must manage C2C interactional justice on corporate social media channels for both complainants and observers to avoid reputational damage and a loss of customers.
General Discussion and Implications
The purpose of the current research is to explore how service recovery on corporate social media channels is impacted by C2C online incivility. Our results suggest that some consumers direct online incivility toward complainants during these virtual service encounters, which impacts the targets and observers of such incivility. This finding puts companies on notice that these uncivil interactions are negatively impacting service recovery evaluations through perceptions of justice. A qualitative study and subsequent quantitative inquiry suggest that consumers are assessing the fairness of C2C and consumer-to-firm exchanges, with a company's mishandling of online incivility viewed unjustly by complainants and observers of the exchange. However, a firm choosing to address incivility offsets the negative impact. Below we outline implications and various avenues for future research. The current research expands justice theory with new perspectives of justice. To show this contribution, Fig. 3 illustrates the relationships of the studied interactions between a firm, customer, uncivil consumer, and third-party consumer observer. As seen in the left of Fig. 3, extant service recovery research has traditionally maintained a narrow focus on complainant–firm perceived justice. Our findings support the existence of three other relevant relationships. Specifically, and as illustrated in the bottom of Fig. 3, this research identifies C2C interactional justice as an alternative form of fairness during a service recovery.