Scholarly Article

Journal of Service Research

2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–19
Service Provider to the Rescue: How Firm © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Recovery of Do-It-Yourself Service Failure sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10946705221111347
journals.sagepub.com/home/jsr
Turns Consumers from Competitors to
Satisfied Customers

Matthew J. Hall1  and Jamie D. Hyodo2 

Abstract
While consumers frequently attempt to resolve their own consumption problems (i.e., do-it-yourself (DIY)), they are often
unsuccessful and subsequently turn to a professional. In the present research, we consider DIY failure as a form of service failure
(SF) and demonstrate that experiencing DIY service failure (DIY SF) influences consumer evaluations of subsequent firm recovery.
This occurs because consumers who experience DIY SF gain greater understanding of the task (i.e., learning) through their failed
attempt. This learning promotes increased appreciation of the recovering service provider’s ability, ultimately resulting in greater
satisfaction with the recovery offering. We further identify mindset as a moderator of this effect, wherein those with a growth
mindset are more likely to learn from failure and appreciate the abilities of the recovering service provider. By highlighting DIY SF as
a novel form of SF, we demonstrate the importance of understanding customers’ prior experiences with the focal consumption
problem and its solution, and of training front-line employees to better manage these customers. We test our theory across four
studies using lab and field data, and close by discussing theoretical and managerial implications.

Keywords
do-it-yourself service failure, service failure and recovery, do-it-yourself, mindset, learning

Driven by increased access to information, tools, and other
resources, consumers are increasingly trying to resolve their
own consumption problems (Bosari 2012). Such instances are
broadly referred to as do-it-yourself (DIY). Do-it-yourself oc-
curs when amateur consumers aggregate various resources to
engage in creation, repair, reconstruction, or maintenance ac-
tivities (Kusnetsov and Paulos 2010; Williams 2004; Wolf and
McQuitty 2011) that would more typically be performed by a
professional and sourced from the marketplace (Bonvoisin,
Jahnavi, and Prendeville 2017; Murphy 2017; Nagel, Cronin,
and Utecht 2018). As such, DIY represents competition to firms
(Bitner et al. 1997). This is particularly relevant to service
providers, as DIY activities span domains including appliance
repair, plumbing and electrical, landscaping, home improve-
ment and repair, car maintenance, and more (Wolf and
McQuitty 2013).
Notably, DIY only represents competition for service pro-
viders to the extent it is successful, and many consumers fail
when attempting DIY. Further, following DIY failure, con-
sumers often turn to a professional service provider to complete
the unresolved production task (Wolf and McQuitty 2011).
Anecdotally, this is a substantial phenomenon. For example, in
the United Kingdom, consumers spend an estimated £34 billion
annually on professional home improvement services alone
after unsuccessfully attempting a DIY solution (Centrica 2017).
Because many DIY activities are service-oriented in nature,
we employ services theory to better understand service provider
offerings following consumers’ DIY failures. Specifically, we
apply a service failure (SF) lens to this subset of DIY activities
and refer to this phenomenon as DIY service failure (DIY SF).
Through this lens, a firm’s follow-up offering could be con-
sidered a form of service recovery. While extensive research has
considered the implications of SF and recovery for firms (e.g.,
Hess, Ganesan, and Klein 2003; McCollough, Berry, and Yadav
2000), this work generally assumes the customer has engaged in
an exchange relationship with a firm at the time of SF, and that
this relationship persists through firm recovery (i.e., as a static
consumer-firm dyad; Grégoire and Mattila 2021). With DIY SF,
1
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
2
Western University, London, ON, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Matthew J. Hall, Oregon State University, 2751 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis,
OR 97331, USA.
Email: matthew.hall@oregonstate.edu
2 Journal of Service Research 0(0)

however, the customer has not engaged in exchange with a firm
when failure occurs, meaning the recovering firm cannot be held
responsible for the failure, nor expected to atone for it through
recovery—two underlying premises of SF research. This
highlights a need for new theory to better understand DIY SF.
In the present research, we suggest experiencing DIY SF will
systematically influence consumer perceptions of a firm’s
subsequent (recovery) offering. We leverage theory on DIY, SF,
and learning to demonstrate that consumers who exert more
effort during a DIY SF experience (i.e., more DIY effort) are
more satisfied with firm recovery. Central to this effect is
consumer learning, as those who exert greater effort attempting
a DIY solution are more likely to increase their understanding of
the task and its requirements. This learning enhances consumer
appreciation for the service provider’s abilities, increasing
satisfaction with firm recovery. Consistent with theory on
learning and effort, we find consumer mindset moderates these
effects, with growth-minded consumers more likely to learn

Table 1. Review of Extant DIY Research.

DIY Contexts Studied or DIY Antecedents

Author(s) Definition/Conceptualization Identified as DIY

Wolf (2016) Activities in which amateur, untrained Home repair, cooking, decoration, Consumer ability to aggregate task-related
individuals learn how to do specialized crafting, clothing customization, information
tasks makeup, and IT/computers
Wolf and Activities in which individuals engage raw Remodeling, car repair, plumbing, Lack of marketplace product availability/
McQuitty materials/components to produce, woodworking, electrical, quality, economic benefits,
(2011; 2013) transform, or reconstruct material masonry, painting, and appliance customization, and identity
possessions, including those drawn from repair or installation enhancement
the natural environment
Williams (2004) Activities in which customers complete Painting, electric, carpentry, HVAC, Customization and identity factors among
tasks rather than outsourcing the labor construction, plumbing, and affluent consumers. More economic-
insulation based factors for less affluent
consumers
Watson and Activities in which consumers are actively Plumbing, crafting, painting, and Consumers must acquire skills and
Shove (2008) and creatively engaged in integrating and HVAC improve them through practice
transforming complex arrays of material
goods
Vannini and When consumers symbolize and exercise Home repair and improvement, Desire to express oneself and the
Taggart (2014) knowledge capital, lifestyle choices, and gardening convenient utilization of money-saving
autonomous control over possessions skills. DIY is also often a social activity
and their personalization (“doing it with others”; DIWO)
Nagel, Cronin, When consumers decide to self-produce a Baking, construction, painting, auto DIY (or the make/buy decision) is a
and Utecht solution rather than hiring a service repair, tax preparation, moving function of the resources (skills, money,
(2018) provider services, and flooring etc.) the customer is able to aggregate
Murphy (2017) The performance of a task by oneself Home repairs, moving, cooking, Consumers primarily engage in DIY to
instead of hiring an outside party to cleaning, and auto repair conserve resources
perform it
Moisio, Arnould, Activities involved in self-producing/ Home improvement White-collar men use DIY to feel blue-
and Gentry improving tangible elements of the home collar. Blue-collar men use DIY to save
(2013) money
Kuznetsov and Any creation, modification, or repair of Building custom computers and Driven by desire to share ideas, learn, and
Paulos (2010) objects without the aid of a paid software engage creativity, as well as economic
professional value
Khademi-Vidra Activities, services, and products Crafting, home renovation and Rational (economic), identity-related (self-
and Bujdosó implemented by one’s own hands rather decoration expression), and necessity-based
(2020) than under industrial circumstances (customization) motives
Gelber (1997) When non-professionals carry out tasks Home repair, plumbing, furniture DIY is a way for men to reclaim their
traditionally done by professionals repair, and general home masculinity in the home
maintenance
Bonvoisin, Galla, A method of building, modifying, or Product design/creation Consumers use home-based production
and Prendeville repairing things without the direct aid of to avoid makerspace-based or mass
(2017) experts or professionals production
Alhashem, When consumers take full responsibility for Construction, baking, carpentry, Motivated by enjoyment, fun, cost savings,
Moraes, and conception and production of their own and electrical self-sufficiency, identity, and learning.
Szmigin (2020) products and services Also by desire to engage with family and
friends
Hall and Hyodo
from failure, and thus more likely to report greater satisfaction
with the recovery offering.
By identifying the link between consumers’ DIY SF expe-
riences and their evaluations of firm recovery, we respond to
Grégoire and Mattila’s (2021) call to examine SF and recovery
beyond the static customer-firm dyad. By doing so, we highlight
a novel SF and recovery phenomenon and also explicate novel
implications of DIY activities for marketers. We next review
research on DIY and SF, highlighting its implications for DIY
SF. We then outline our hypotheses, which we test across four
studies.
Conceptual Background
Internal Exchange and DIY
Marketing research is largely tasked with understanding ex-
change (Bagozzi 1979). Such exchange can be broadly cate-
gorized as either external or internal. External exchange occurs
when consumers seek solutions to consumption problems via
marketplace offerings, while internal exchange occurs when
consumers satisfy needs on their own as an alternative to
marketplace options (Lusch, Brown, and Brunswick 1992). For
example, a consumer needing to paint their home or renovate a
bathroom could hire a professional painter or contractor (i.e.,
external exchange), or could attempt these tasks themselves
(i.e., internal exchange).
In recent years, internal exchange has become more popular,
largely due to increased consumer access to tools, information,
and resources (Bosari 2012). Such internal exchange activities
are often colloquially referred to as DIY. While marketers and
consumers alike use the term DIY to refer to a broad set of
consumer activities, many conceptualizations and definitions of
DIY exist in the literature (see Table 1). Despite these many
conceptualizations, the literature largely agrees on a few factors.
First, DIY involves amateur consumers aggregating resources
(e.g., equipment, skills, and materials) to engage in creation,
reconstruction, maintenance, or repair activities (Bonvoisin,
Jahnavi, and Prendeville 2017; Kusnetsov and Paulos 2010;
Nagel, Cronin, and Utecht 2018; Watson and Shove 2008; Wolf
and McQuitty 2011). Second, consumers who engage in DIY
eschew marketplace solutions—they are aware of professional
solutions but opt to engage in DIY as an alternative to mar-
ketplace exchange (Lusch, Brown, and Brunswick 1992;
Murphy 2017; Williams 2004). Third, relative to similar phe-
nomena like self-servicing (e.g., Meuter et al. 2000) or crafting
(Campbell 2005), DIY activities generally require greater effort,
involvement, and resources (Wolf and McQuitty 2011; 2013).
Relatedly, the literature highlights that the decision to engage in
DIY is complex and multifaceted, as consumers engage in DIY
to save time and money (Khademi-Vidra and Bujdosó 2020;
Williams 2004; Wolf and McQuitty 2011), test their skills
(Watson and Shove 2008), maintain or enhance identity
(Moisio, Arnould, and Gentry 2013; Wolf and McQuitty 2011),
or customize production when marketplace options do not meet
3
their needs (Khademi-Vidra and Bujdosó 2020; Williams 2004;
Wolf and McQuitty 2011).
While successful DIY represents competition for service
providers, not all DIY attempts succeed (Wolf and McQuitty
2011). These failed DIY attempts often lead consumers to seek
professional offerings to address their unresolved consumption
problems. To our knowledge, no research has explicitly con-
sidered the potential impact of DIY failure on firm outcomes—a
gap we address in the present research. We focus on service-
oriented DIY activities and propose DIY failure represents a
type of SF, wherein the consumer’s attempt to generate a DIY
service solution has fallen short of their expectations (Hoffman
and Bateson 1997). We further propose that when consumers
seek firm offerings to complete the unresolved task, such so-
lutions thus represent a type of service recovery. Collectively,
we refer to these as DIY service failure (DIY SF) and recovery.
We next draw on SF and recovery literature to highlight how this
prior work aligns with and diverges from DIY SF.
SF and Recovery
Failure is generally recognized as inevitable in the production of
services. As such, researchers have invested substantial efforts
investigating SF and recovery (e.g., De Matos, Henrique, and
Rossi 2007; Hess, Ganesan, and Klein 2003; Maxham and
Netemeyer 2002; McCollough, Berry, and Yadav 2000; Smith,
Bolton, and Wagner 1999). Research in this space generally
aligns with one of two models to understand consumer re-
sponses to SF. The first is a relationship-based trust and
commitment model (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994), which
considers how the firm’s violation of consumer trust (via failure)
leads consumers to believe the firm should atone for such vi-
olations. The second model focuses on causal attributions in
which consumers assign blame for failure in varying magni-
tudes depending on features of the SF experience (e.g., Hess,
Ganesan, and Klein 2003; Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2014). The
foremost of these attributions is the causal locus of failure (i.e.,
whether the customer or firm caused the failure; Choi and
Mattila 2008). To date, SF research has primarily focused on
cases in which the firm is held responsible for failure. In these
cases, SF shifts customer expectations for subsequent firm
interactions, thus informing evaluations of firm recovery (via an
expectation-disconfirmation process; Oliver 1980), as well as
evaluations of the overall SF and recovery experience (De
Matos, Henrique, and Rossi 2007).
While both traditional SF and DIY SF feature failure and
recovery experiences, traditional SF differs from DIY SF in
important ways. First, traditional SF research situates failure and
recovery within a static customer-firm dyad (Grégoire and
Mattila 2021), meaning failure and recovery are connected
through shared relationship structure (both failure and recovery
occur within external exchange), shared actors (the customer
and firm stay consistent from failure to recovery), and shared
context (failure and recovery center on the same consumption
problem). In the case of DIY SF, however, the connection
between the failure and recovery events is limited to the shared
 4

Table 2. Review of Research on Consumer-Attributed Production Failure.

Description of Outcome for

Form of Customer Involvement Exchange Exchange Outcome for Exchange New, Post-
Customer in Failed Production Examples and/or Relationship at Partner Customer-centric Partner at the Time of failure Exchange
Involvement Authors Activities Contexts of Study Time of Failure? Post- failure Outcomes Failure Partner

Co-production Bendapudi and Customer is involved in Assembling/designing Yes N/A N/A Participating (vs. not) in N/A
Leone (2003) good or service furniture/clothing failure does not
production increase
dissatisfaction
Sugathan and Customers applying Designing a computer Yes Same firm Attributing failure to Those attributing co- N/A
Ranjan resources (e.g., effort, table or bicycle effort (ability) production failure to
(2020) skill, and knowledge) increases (decreases) low effort are more
in the creation of likelihood to try task likely to coproduce in
products and services again the future
Pacheco, Customer participation Meal Yes Same firm If failure is attributed Internal attributions for N/A
Becker, and in service customization, internally, it leads to co-production failure
Brei (2017) specification and planning a workout regret/ increase
delivery disappointment dissatisfaction
Zolfagharian, Customer participation Designing a personal Yes Same firm N/A Higher customer N/A
Felix, and in the workout/diet plan, participation and low
Braun (2018) performance of serving oneself at a efficacy lead to more
various activities in restaurant/bar negative responses to
the production stage co-produced failure
of a service offering
Dong et al. Customer participation Internet setup, using Yes Same firm N/A High efficacy and N/A
(2015) in service production online rental portals internal attributions
and delivery for failure increase
recovery
expectations
Self-service Yi and Kim Firm provides Airport check-in Yes N/A Self-service failure leads N/A N/A
(2017) infrastructure; counters to helping behaviors
customers create the
service
Köcher and Degree to which Ticket kiosks, furniture Yes Same firm N/A Involvement in N/A
Paluch customers are assembly coproduction lessens
(2019) involved in the dissatisfaction
service delivery
process
Zhu et al. Customers obtain Car rental kiosks, ATM Yes Same firm N/A Internal attributions N/A
(2013) services without lead to higher
direct employee recovery
assistance expectations
Collier et al. None provided Self-checkout, sales Yes Same firm N/A Public self-service N/A
(2017) kiosks, and ATMs failure reduces
subsequent self-
service
Journal of Service Research 0(0)

(continued)
Table 2. (continued)

Description of Outcome for

Form of Customer Involvement Exchange Exchange Outcome for Exchange New, Post-
Hall and Hyodo

Customer in Failed Production Examples and/or Relationship at Partner Customer-centric Partner at the Time of failure Exchange
Involvement Authors Activities Contexts of Study Time of Failure? Post- failure Outcomes Failure Partner

Co-creation Heidenreich Joint value creation by Designing custom Yes Same firm Customer involvement Increased participation N/A
et al. (2015) the company and the shoes, online travel in recovery should in production
customer booking match that of the generates
failure dissatisfaction
Sugathan et al. Customers apply Designing clothing or Yes N/A Attributing failure to N/A N/A
(2017) resources (skills, furniture effort/ability leads to
effort, etc.) in the negative affect
creation of products/
services
Prosumption Xie, Bagozzi, Customer creation Preparing a meal Possible, but N/A Failure decreases N/A N/A
and Troye activities that result in not required intentions to try the
(2008) production of same task in the
products they future
consume
Customer Chen (2018) Customer involvement Taking a course, Yes Same firm N/A High efficacy increases N/A
participation in service delivery getting a haircut firm attributions of
failure
Yen, Gwinner, The actions and Actively participating Yes N/A N/A Increased co- N/A
and Su resources supplied by in a college course production
(2004) customers for service participation in
production/delivery increases firm
attributions for
failure
Do-it-yourself Wolf and Engaging components to Maintenance/repair, No N/A Failure leads to negative N/A N/A
(DIY) McQuitty produce or transform home improvement, affect and identity
(2011; 2013) possessions, including landscaping, etc threat; decreases
those drawn from the control and DIY
environment intentions
DIY service Present Failed service is Plumbing, computer No New firm Effort exerted in DIY SF N/A Effort exerted in
failure (DIY research produced by the repair/programming increases learning DIY SF
SF) customer, without increases
any involvement by satisfaction
the firm with firm
recovery
5
6 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
context. These distinctions have important implications re-
garding the extent to which SF theory can inform DIY SF
theory. Most prominently, due to the absence of shared actors,
the customer cannot attribute responsibility for failure to a firm,
meaning the recovering firm has not betrayed trust or acted
unfairly, and thus cannot be expected to atone for failure.
Consistent with this perspective, research considering the case
of a firm recovering another firm’s failure (i.e., external re-
covery) found the recovering firm was able to exceed customer
expectations which had been reduced due to SF experienced
with another firm (Allen et al. 2015). Like DIY SF, this is a SF
phenomenon in which the failure and recovery events lack
shared actors. While the failure and recovery events in the case
of DIY SF additionally lack shared relationship structure, it is
possible firms may similarly benefit when providing recovery
offerings after DIY SF.
Despite structural differences between traditional SF and DIY
SF, it remains likely that, as in the case of traditional SF, con-
sumers who experience DIY SF engage in an attributional pro-
cess, and that this process influences subsequent perceptions of
related offerings. In the absence of shared actors or relationship
structure, however, consumers are unable to assign SF respon-
sibility to the recovering firm. Rather, consumers are limited to
attributing failure to external factors like the nature of the failed
task, or to internal factors (which necessitates taking responsibility
for failure upon themselves; Sugathan and Ranjan 2020). While
consumers are generally averse to taking responsibility for neg-
ative outcomes (per the self-serving bias; Folkes 1988), research
on co-produced SFs suggests consumers sometimes attribute co-
produced SFs internally—attributions that generate feelings of
guilt (Heidenreich et al. 2015) and regret (Pacheco, Becker, and
Brei 2017). Some research finds internal failure attributions re-
duce disappointment and dissatisfaction with the firm (Bendapudi
and Leone 2003; Pacheco, Becker, and Brei 2017), while other
research has found the opposite (Heidenreich et al. 2015). Col-
lectively, this highlights the importance and nuance of consumer
responses to failure, and suggests the potential for these responses
to influence subsequent service provider evaluations.
Table 2 provides an overview of research relating to con-
sumer participation in failed production offerings. This research
primarily focuses on two phenomena. First, an emerging re-
search stream examines instances in which consumers attribute
some degree of responsibility for co-produced or co-created SFs
to themselves. Because such failures take place within an ex-
ternal exchange relationship between a customer and firm,
research on this topic has primarily considered firm-related
outcomes of these consumer-attributed failures (e.g., recovery
satisfaction, future co-production intentions). A second litera-
ture stream considers the case of DIY failure. Because DIY, by
definition, occurs in the context of internal exchange (i.e., in the
absence of exchange with a firm), research on the topic pri-
marily focuses on consumer-related outcomes of DIY failure
(e.g., negative affect, identity outcomes; Wolf and McQuitty
2011, 2013). Collectively then, research in this space has fo-
cused on identifying outcomes that align with the nature of the
exchange relationship—firm-centric outcomes following failure
within external exchange relationships, and consumer-centric
outcomes following failure in the context of internal exchange.
In the present research, we bridge these literature streams by
considering the implications of internal exchange failure for
firm-centric outcomes. Specifically, we examine how experi-
encing DIY SF influences consumer evaluations of firm
recovery.
Theoretical Development: Toward a Theory of DIY SF
and Recovery
Given DIY SF is defined by an absence of shared actors and
shared relationship structure across the failure and recovery
events, the only connection between these events is the context
(i.e., the focal task). Because of this, we propose DIY SF is most
likely to influence evaluations of firm recovery by altering
consumer perceptions of said context, specifically regarding the
task itself and consumers’ own inability to complete the task.
Therefore, we propose consumer responses to the DIY SF
experience will influence how they perceive the failed task, and
therefore the offering of the service provider who ultimately
completes it.
When individuals attempt a task and fail, it is often thought to
be a primarily negative experience. While failure is generally
aversive, it can have silver linings. One positive outcome that
can result from failure is increased learning about the failed task
(Kapur 2010). In general, learning is a pleasurable experience
(Goetz et al. 2006) that can take the form of either increased
general understanding of the principles related to a task (i.e.,
conceptual learning), or of increased ability to complete the task
in the future (i.e., procedural learning; Rittle-Johnson and
Alibali 1999). In the case of DIY SF, learning is especially likely
because the initial decision to engage in DIY is often predicated
on the belief that one has the skills needed to complete the
production activity (Watson and Shove 2008; Xie, Bagozzi, and
Troye 2008). Thus, when this assumption is violated by failure,
consumers are likely to reassess what they know about the task,
a practice that often results in conceptual learning (Steenhof
et al. 2019). Indeed, learning resulting from DIY SF should
predominantly take the form of conceptual learning given that
consumer abandonment of the task in favor of a professional
recovery offering suggests a lack of substantive increases in
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the effect of do-it-yourself service
failure on consumer responses to firm recovery.
Hall and Hyodo
one’s ability to complete the task. Thus, we propose consumers
who experience DIY SF and subsequently seek a firm recovery
offering are most likely to experience learning in the form of
increased general understanding of the task (Feather 1967;
Kapur 2010) and of one’s own limitations in ability or
knowledge that impeded success (DeCaro and Rittle-Johnson
2012; Kulhavy 1977). While minimal skill acquisition might
occur following DIY SF, we use the term learning to refer to a
general increase in understanding of the principles related to the
failed task.
To this point, we have largely discussed DIY SF in binary
terms (i.e., failure vs. non-failure). However, a consumer who
moves on from a task after a five-minute attempt is unlikely to
respond in the same manner as a consumer who spends an entire
day working prior to realizing failure. This suggests DIY SF
experiences exist on a continuum of the effort consumers exert
prior to experiencing failure and seeking firm recovery—we
refer to this as DIY effort. Do-it-yourself effort has direct im-
plications for learning from DIY SF. For example, higher DIY
effort may involve multiple attempts to complete the task, likely
resulting in the consumer testing various strategies (Kapur
2010). As consumers exert more DIY effort, they should be-
come more familiar with the components of the task itself, and
with the necessary skills required to complete it—skills the
consumer should now realize they do not possess (Bloom
1974). Alternatively, rapidly abandoning a task is unlikely to
generate learning because it entails minimal experience with the
task. Thus, when consumers experience DIY SF, we propose
those who exert greater DIY effort prior to failure will realize
greater learning.
Why might the learning consumers realize from their DIY SF
experiences matter to service providers? When one better un-
derstands a task and the abilities needed to complete it, this often
promotes recognition of the abilities of others who can complete
the task—particularly when one lacks said abilities (Feather and
Simon 1971). Thus, when consumers experience DIY SF, those
who realize greater learning about the failed task should better
appreciate the ability and knowledge of the service provider
who ultimately resolves the task (Tsiros, Mittal, and Ross 2004;
Specht, Fichtel, and Meyer 2007). Because consumers tend to
be more satisfied when interacting with more competent and
knowledgeable service providers (e.g., Price and Arnould
1999), we propose that when DIY SF occurs, consumers
who have exerted greater DIY effort, and thus better understand
the task and its requirements, will report greater satisfaction
with the firm’s recovery offering (Figure 1).
H1: When DIY SF occurs, consumers who exerted greater
DIY effort will be more satisfied with subsequent firm
recovery.
H2: This effect will be mediated by learning about the task
and the skills required to complete it.
Our theory proposes that learning from failure is central to
the effect of DIY effort on satisfaction with firm recovery. Even
beyond effort, however, consumers vary in their likelihood to
7
learn from failed tasks. One factor that largely determines these
outcomes is consumer mindset. Mindset is a continuous con-
struct pertaining to an individual’s lay theories regarding the
extent to which traits like ability and intelligence are malleable
versus fixed, and the extent to which these views influence self-
regulatory processes and outcomes (Burnette et al. 2013; Dweck
and Leggett 1988). On one end of this continuum are growth-
minded individuals, who believe traits like ability and intelli-
gence can be improved through experience and effort. On the
other end of this continuum are those with a fixed mindset, who
believe abilities and knowledge are more stable.1
Because mindset influences one’s views of improvement and
ability, growth- and fixed-minded individuals respond very
differently to failure. In general, growth-minded individuals are
highly motivated to enhance their knowledge and abilities,
meaning they view failure as an opportunity to better understand
the failed task, which facilitates improvement (Dweck and
Leggett 1988). Those with a growth mindset also view effort
as a necessary component of learning and improvement
(Burnette et al. 2013). As such, when growth-minded con-
sumers exert greater effort during a failed attempt, they are less
likely to fixate on negative outcomes associated with failure
(Senko and Harackiewicz 2005). Instead, they focus on un-
derstanding why this level of effort was insufficient, which
further increases learning (Dweck 2006). Beyond learning from
the attempt itself, when growth-minded individuals fail, they
also report increased interest in (and thereby reflection on) the
failed task (Burns and Gentry 1998). This increased interest,
combined with the desire to learn, means growth-minded in-
dividuals are more likely to pay attention to and acknowledge
the abilities of those who can complete the failed task (Smiley
et al. 2016). Ultimately, these factors suggest that when DIY SF
is followed by firm recovery, there will be a positive effect of
DIY effort on satisfaction among growth-minded consumers.
Conversely, fixed-minded individuals find failure highly
aversive because they believe failure signals low ability, which
cannot be easily improved (Burnette et al. 2013). Fixed-minded
individuals are thus motivated to distance themselves from
failed tasks by attributing failure to external sources (e.g., bad
luck or situational circumstances) to avoid undermining self-
efficacy (Dweck and Leggett 1988). While those with a fixed
mindset may acknowledge a gap between their own ability and
that required to complete a failed task, they are not motivated to
close this gap because they do not believe ability can be
substantially improved (Burns and Gentry 1998). As such,
failure often results in fixed-minded individuals losing interest
in the failed task, minimizing its perceived importance, and
often dissociating from the task entirely (Senko and
Harackiewicz 2005; Smiley et al. 2016). Thus, compared to
their growth-minded counterparts, fixed-minded consumers
should not only be less likely to learn from their DIY SF ex-
periences, but should also be less likely to acknowledge the
recovering provider’s skills or be interested in their recovery
offering. In sum, the effect of DIY effort on satisfaction with
firm recovery should be attenuated among fixed-minded con-
sumers (Figure 1).
8 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
H3: The effect of DIY effort on satisfaction with firm re-
covery will be moderated by mindset, such that the effect will
be stronger for growth-minded consumers than for fixed-
minded consumers.
Overview of Studies
We present four studies to test our hypotheses. Study 1 employs
a field study that measures DIY effort and mindset to test our
basic interaction model. Study 2 employs a novel paradigm to
test these effects in a lab experiment featuring a volitional DIY
activity, while also testing our proposed learning-based process.
Study 3 provides additional process-based evidence, while also
examining how learning and satisfaction with firm recovery
influence consumers’ downstream DIY and loyalty intentions.
Importantly, we also manipulate mindset in Study 3 to provide
additional causal evidence for our theoretical model. Lastly,
Study 4 concludes by leveraging our theoretical model to design
and test a service provider intervention that maximizes customer
satisfaction with firm recovery following DIY SF.
Study 1: Field Evidence
In Study 1, we partnered with a real service organization to
provide an initial test of our proposed theoretical framework.
Consistent with the suggestions of Van Heerde et al. (2021), this
study was thus designed to establish initial ecological validity
for our theory. Specifically, we partnered with the Computer
Help Center (CHC) at a large university to test the effect of DIY
effort and mindset on customer satisfaction with firm recovery
in the context of technology repair. The CHC offers a broad
range of technology services and repairs, both of which are
domains in which DIY activities are common (Kuznetsov and
Paulos 2010; Wolf 2016). Discussions with CHC technicians
confirmed customers often attempt DIY solutions prior to
seeking CHC services, with efforts ranging from simply re-
starting one’s computer or researching solutions online to
completely removing hardware components. Consistent with
our conceptualization of DIY, these initial consumer attempts
involve customers aggregating skills, knowledge, and other
resources to engage in creation, repair, or maintenance
activities—activities that occur in lieu of seeking a marketplace
offering. However, when their own solution fell short of ex-
pectations, they turned to the CHC to resolve their problem.
This collectively suggests many CHC customers have indeed
experienced DIY SF—experiences that involve a wide range of
DIY effort—and the CHC offering represents a recovery
offering.
Method
CHC customer feedback surveys were collected over a 2-month
period (n = 175). The standard CHC survey assessed customer
satisfaction with the quality of service provided, friendliness of
the technician, and timeliness of the service experience. Next, it
measured customer satisfaction with the overall service
experience (all items on a 5-point scale; 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 =
very satisfied). The survey was designed so the “overall service
experience” measure was a reflective measure of the other items.
Given our model predicts increased satisfaction as a function of
increased perceptions of the provider’s abilities (i.e., compe-
tence as opposed to warmth), we use the initial “quality of
service provided” measure as our dependent variable and
control for timeliness and friendliness.2
We were permitted to append two items to the CHC’s
standard survey. To assess DIY effort, participants completed
one item: “How much effort did you exert trying to resolve your
computer-related problem yourself prior to seeking CHC ser-
vices?” (0 = did not attempt, 1 = low effort, 5 = high effort; M =
3.26, SD = 1.43). Six participants indicated they did not attempt
a DIY solution. Because these individuals did not experience
DIY SF, they were excluded from our analyses, resulting in a
final sample of 169 participants. To assess mindset, participants
indicated their agreement with, “People have a certain amount
of ability and you can’t do much to change it” (from Chiu et al.
1997; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; reverse-coded to
reflect growth mindset; M = 3.53, SD = 1.22).3
Results
We conducted a regression of service quality as a function of
effort and mindset (both standardized), and their interaction,
with service timeliness and provider friendliness as covariates
(all reported coefficients are standardized). This model revealed
a significant main effect of DIY effort (β = .079, SE = .042,
t(163) = 2.17, p = .032), but no main effect of mindset (β = .044,
SE = .042, t(163) = 1.20, p = .232). Importantly, the hypoth-
esized interaction was observed (β = .075, SE = .038, t(163) =
2.09, p = .038). To probe this interaction, we tested the effect of
DIYeffort on service quality for those with more growth (+1SD)
versus fixed ( 1SD) mindsets. There was a positive effect of
DIY effort on perceived quality for more growth-minded par-
ticipants (β = .187, SE = .061, t(163) = 3.08, p = .003), but not
for more fixed-minded participants (β = .01, SE = .066, t(163)
=.15, p = .875). A Johnson-Neyman test revealed a significant
effect of DIY effort on perceived quality for those with a
mindset above 3.42 on the 5-point scale ( .09 SD; 51.5% of
participants). Do-it-yourself effort did not negatively predict
perceived quality at any level of mindset.
Discussion
This study provided initial support for our framework using
field data, thus establishing ecological validity. It confirmed
consumers not only exert varying levels of effort in their DIY SF
experiences, but also that they seek firm recovery after DIY SF.
Consistent with our model, consumers who experienced DIY
SF and subsequently sought a firm recovery offering were more
satisfied with the recovery offering when they had exerted more
effort in their failed DIY attempt (supporting H1). Also as
predicted, this effect was moderated by mindset, as it was
stronger for growth-minded consumers than for fixed-minded
Hall and Hyodo
consumers (supporting H3). Given the field setting of this study,
it is possible external factors (e.g., the varying nature of the
tasks) influenced these effects. Study 2 thus employs a lab
setting to better control for these potential externalities.
Study 2: Experimental Replication
The primary purpose of Study 2 was to establish internal
validity for our theoretical model. We thus employed a con-
trolled lab simulation of a DIY activity to standardize the DIY
task and recovery experiences. In this paradigm, participants
were asked to complete a task in Microsoft Excel. Consistent
with our conceptualization of DIY, participants initially at-
tempted the task on their own. In so doing, they aggregated
resources (knowledge, time, and information) to attempt the
task. They could also expend resources at any time to outsource
the task to a professional. Upon failing the task, participants
were required to pay the professional to complete the task (i.e.,
provide a recovery offering). An important benefit of this
paradigm was that it allowed for volitional exertion of varying
levels of DIY effort prior to seeking the professional’s services.
A second purpose of this study was to test our proposed
learning-based process (H2).
Method
Participants and design. Undergraduate participants (n = 152)
completed this study for extra course credit. Seventeen par-
ticipants successfully completed the assigned task. Because
they neither experienced DIY SF nor required the profes-
sional’s assistance, they were removed from the data set. This
left a final sample of 135 participants (Mage = 21.0 years;
54.8% female).
Procedure. At individual lab stations, participants read they
had 5 minutes to complete a Microsoft Excel task using the
VLOOKUP formula. Participants were provided with a pre-
populated spreadsheet and a countdown timer was displayed.
They received instructions about how to determine when the
task was complete, but were given few other details (see Web
Appendix A). Participants could not continue until the task
was completed. They were told that, as a bonus, they were
being given five raffle tickets toward an Amazon gift card.
Those who completed the task without assistance could
submit all five tickets to the raffle. Alternatively, they could
pay a teaching assistant (a hypothesis-blind confederate) four
tickets to help them complete the task at any time. Thus, akin
to real DIY tasks, participants were incentivized to self-
produce a solution to conserve resources. Participants had
access to the internet as a support resource during the study. If
participants could not complete the task in the allotted
5 minutes, they were instructed to seek help from the TA. Our
independent variable was the level of effort exerted before
disengaging from the task, operationalized as the time (in
seconds) participants spent working on the task prior to
seeking a TA solution (M = 497.66, SD = 202.96).4
9
Measures. After the TA completed the task, participants re-
ported satisfaction with the TA’s services (three 7-point bipolar
items; displeased/pleased, negative/positive, dissatisfied/satisfied;
α = .95) and completed a mindset scale (4 items; adapted from
Chiu et al. 1997): People have a certain amount of ability and
you can’t do much to change it (R); You can learn new things
but you can’t change your basic ability level (R); No matter
how much ability you have, you can always change it quite a
bit; You can always substantially change how much ability you
have (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; higher scores
indicate a growth mindset; M = 5.10, SD = 1.02; α = .87). To
assess general learning related to the task, participants com-
pleted two items: I learned something new; I learned some-
thing valuable (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; r =
.54). Last, participants reported Excel experience (little ex-
perience = 1; significant experience = 7; M = 4.17, SD = 1.30)
and demographics. Excel experience predicted DIY effort (r =
.217, p = .012), but our results are insensitive to its inclusion as
a covariate (see Web Appendix D).
Results
Satisfaction. We estimated a regression of satisfaction as a
function of DIY effort and mindset (both standardized), and
their interaction (all reported coefficients are standardized).5
This model revealed a main effect of DIY effort (β = .267, SE =
.093; t(131) = 3.19, p = .002), no main effect of mindset (β =
.112, SE = .092; t(131) = 1.35, p = .178), and a significant
interaction (β = .418, SE = .081; t(131) = 5.21, p < .001).
Replicating findings from Study 1, a spotlight analysis indi-
cated a positive effect of DIY effort on satisfaction for more
growth-minded participants (+1SD; β = .718, SE = .135;
t(131) = 5.32, p < .001), while no effect was observed for more
fixed-minded participants ( 1SD; β = .127, SE = .110;
t(131) =1.15, p = .252). A Johnson-Neyman test revealed a
significant positive effect of effort on satisfaction for those
with a mindset above 4.78 on the 7-point scale ( .28 SD;
62.2% of participants). A negative effect of effort on satis-
faction was observed for those with a mindset below 3.78
( 1.28 SD; 12.6% of participants; Figure 2).
Learning. The same regression model with learning as the de-
pendent variable revealed main effects of both DIY effort (β =
.249, SE = .095; t(131) = 2.61, p = .010) and mindset (β = .194,
SE = .094; t(131) = 2.06, p = .041), qualified by the expected
interaction (β = .243, SE = .083; t(131) = 2.92, p = .004).
Consistent with our theory, a spotlight analysis revealed a
positive effect of DIY effort on learning for more growth-
minded participants (+1SD; β = .465, SE = .132; t(131) =
3.52, p < .001), but not for more fixed-minded participants
( 1SD; β = .011, SE = .117; t(131) =.09, p = .927). The
positive effect of DIY effort on learning was significant for those
with a mindset above 4.82 on the 7-point scale ( .27 SD; 67.7%
of participants). No significant negative effect of DIY effort on
learning was observed at any level of mindset.
10
Figure 2. Study 2 result: The effect of do-it-yourself effort and mindset on satisfaction and learning.
We next tested mediation (Hayes 2017, model 8, 10,000
bootstrapped samples) with DIY effort as the independent
variable, mindset the moderator, learning the mediator, and
satisfaction the dependent variable. This revealed an indirect
effect of the interaction on satisfaction, through learning (index
of moderated mediation = .107, SE = .054; CI95 = [.007, .217]).
For more growth-minded participants (+1SD), DIY effort
positively predicted learning, which in turn increased satis-
faction (indirect effect = .206, SE = .090; CI95 = [.042, .391]).
There was no indirect effect for more fixed-minded
participants ( 1SD; indirect effect = .005, SE = .040;
CI95 = [ .085, .077]; Figure 2).
Discussion
Study 2 employed greater design control while testing our
model in a paradigm that allowed for volitional DIY effort
and seeking professional recovery. Consistent with Study 1,
this study demonstrated that effort exerted in DIY SF pos-
itively predicted satisfaction with firm recovery (H1). This
effect was again stronger for more growth-minded con-
sumers (H3). Study 2 also provided initial mediation evi-
dence supporting learning as the process underlying our
identified effects (H2). We next focus on providing stronger
evidence of causality.
Study 3: Additional Process Evidence
Study 3 employs a controlled experiment manipulating DIY
effort and mindset to enhance causal interpretability. Further,
this study provides insights into downstream outcomes of DIY
SF and recovery, specifically with regard to consumers’ future
intentions to attempt related DIY tasks versus re-hire the re-
covering provider. Lastly, Study 3 builds on prior findings by
testing the effects of DIY SF and recovery in a more traditional
DIY context. Specifically, we test our framework in the context
of plumbing repair, which is a domain recognized as being
common for consumers to engage in DIY activities (Wolf and
McQuitty 2011, 2013).
Journal of Service Research 0(0)
Method
Participants and design. Participants from Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk (Mturk; n = 404) completed a 2 (DIY Effort: High vs.
Low) x 2 (Mindset: Growth vs. Fixed) experiment for financial
compensation. Twenty-one participants were removed prior to
analysis for failing an instructional manipulation check
(Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009), leaving a final
sample of 383 participants (Mage = 41.9 years; 59.9% female).
Procedure. Participants began by reading a news article about
the nature of ability, which served as our mindset manipulation
(adapted from Kray and Haselhuhn 2007). In the growth
mindset condition, participants read an article titled “Skills and
Ability are Changeable and Can Be Developed,” which con-
sisted of expert accounts supporting the malleability of an in-
dividual’s general level of skill and ability. Participants in the
fixed mindset condition read an article titled “Skills and Ability,
Like Plaster, Are Fairly Stable Over Time.” This article con-
sisted of expert accounts discussing general ability and skills as
not easily improved through effort or experience. See Web
Appendix A for complete stimuli.
After the mindset manipulation, participants were guided
through a visualization exercise in which they imagined their
kitchen drainpipe was leaking. Those in the high (low) DIY
effort condition read that they spent an hour (10 min) attempting
a DIY solution. However, this attempt was ultimately unsuc-
cessful, leading them to call a professional plumber. All par-
ticipants concluded by reading the plumber arrived the next day
and fixed the leak with no issues.
Measures. Participants first reported their satisfaction with the
plumber’s recovery offering (three 7-point bipolar items; an-
chors as Study 2; α = .96). Next, participants reported learning,
failure attributions, service provider warmth and competence,
and affect (order of these measures was randomized).6 Learning
was measured using four items. The first asked, “Assuming you
had this experience, how much would you have learned about
fixing a leaking drain pipe” (1 = very little; 7 = a great deal). The
other items asked the extent of agreement with the following
Hall and Hyodo
statements: I gained greater understanding of the requirements
to successfully complete this task; I learned skills required to
better attempt this task in the future; I gained knowledge re-
quired to better attempt this task in the future (1 = strongly
disagree; 7 = strongly agree; 4-item α = .96).
Participants also reported downstream behavioral intentions.
Specifically, they were asked to imagine encountering a similar
future problem with a different sink in their home, and to in-
dicate the likelihood (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely) they
would attempt to fix this new issue themselves, would call the
same plumber, or would call a different plumber. They also
reported their likelihood to engage in these behaviors in the case
of an unrelated and more difficult plumbing issue (i.e., if a pipe
burst in their ceiling).7 Lastly, participants completed manip-
ulation checks for DIY effort (In the scenario you read, how
much effort did you exert toward solving the problem; 1 = very
little to no effort; 7 = substantial effort) and mindset (4 items
from Study 2; α = .96), and provided demographics.
Results
Manipulation checks. An ANOVA of perceived effort as a
function of DIY effort, mindset, and their interaction revealed
only a main effect of the effort manipulation (F(1, 379) = 68.72,
p < .0001; other effect Fs < .4). The same ANOVA with the
mindset measure as the dependent variable revealed only a main
effect of the mindset manipulation (F(1, 379) = 77.88, p <
.0001; other effect Fs < 1.10). Both the mindset and effort
manipulations were thus supported.
Satisfaction. An ANOVA of satisfaction as a function of DIY
effort, mindset, and their interaction revealed a marginal main
effect of DIY effort (F(1, 379) = 2.99, p = .085; ηp2 = .008), a
main effect of mindset (F(1, 379) = 5.87, p = .016; ηp2 = .015),
and the expected interaction (F(1, 379) = 11.93, p < .001; ηp2 =
.031). Follow-up simple effects revealed a positive effect of
DIY effort on satisfaction for participants in the growth mindset
condition (MHigh = 6.44, SD = .73; MLow = 5.66, SD = 1.54; F(1,
379) = 14.03, p < .001; ηp2 = .036). There was no effect for
participants in the fixed mindset condition (MHigh = 5.56, SD =
1.78; MLow = 5.82, SD = 1.56; F(1, 379) = 1.43, p = .233; ηp2 =
.004).
Learning. An ANOVA of learning as a function of DIY effort,
mindset, and their interaction revealed a marginal main effect of
effort (F(1, 379) = 3.27, p = .072; ηp2 = .007), a main effect of
mindset (F(1, 379) = 13.52, p < .001; ηp2 = .033), and the
expected interaction (F(1, 379) = 4.04, p = .045; ηp2 = .011).
Follow-up simple effect contrasts revealed a significant positive
effect of DIY effort on learning in the growth mindset condition
(MHigh = 4.95, SD = 1.41; MLow = 4.26, SD = 1.86; F(1, 379) =
7.61, p = .006; ηp2 = .019), but no effect in the fixed condition
(MHigh = 3.93, SD = 1.81; MLow = 3.97, SD = 1.89; F(1, 379) =
.02, p = .888; ηp2 = .0001).
11
Mediation model 1—mediation of learning on satisfaction with
recovery. To test hypothesis 2, we conducted a moderated
mediation analysis (Hayes 2017, model 8, 10,000 bootstrapped
samples) with DIY effort as the independent variable, mindset
the moderator, learning the mediator, and satisfaction the de-
pendent variable. This resulted in a significant indirect effect of
the interaction on satisfaction, through learning (index of
moderated mediation = .098, SE = .056; CI95 = [.002, .221]).
Replicating findings from Study 2, DIY effort led to increased
learning and satisfaction within the growth mindset condition
(indirect effect = .089, SE = .040; CI95 = [.024, .175]). However,
no indirect effect was observed within the fixed mindset con-
dition (indirect effect = .008, SE = .037; CI95 = [ .089, .063]).
Mediation model 2—extension to downstream outcomes. We then
examined the effects of our model on downstream consumer
intentions. This consisted of testing four mediation models,
one for each of the four following downstream behavioral
intention measures: intent to attempt DIY for a similar future
plumbing problem, intent to attempt DIY for a different
future plumbing problem, intent to re-hire the same service
professional for a similar future plumbing problem, and
intent to re-hire the same service professional for a different
future plumbing problem. These models (Hayes 2017; model
83; 10,000 bootstrapped samples) each tested DIY effort as
the independent variable, mindset the moderator, learning
and satisfaction as serial mediators (in that order), and each of
the behavioral intention measures in their own model as the
dependent variable. There was no significant indirect effect of
the interaction on intentions to attempt a DIY solution for a
similar plumbing problem (index of moderated mediation =
.014, SE = .013; CI95 = [ .046, .002]; no indirect effect in
either mindset condition). However, there was a significant
negative indirect effect on intentions to try a DIY solution for
a different plumbing problem (indirect effect = .026, SE =
.018; CI95 = [ .070, .007]). This indirect effect was ob-
served for those in the growth mindset condition (indirect
effect = .024, SE = .014; CI95 = [ .057, .004]), but not in
the fixed mindset condition (indirect effect = .002, SE = .010;
CI95 = [ .017, .026]). We also observed a positive indirect
effect of the interaction on intentions to re-hire the same
provider to complete a similar future task (index of mod-
erated mediation = .044, SE = .027; CI95 = [.001, .106]), with
an indirect effect observed in the growth condition (indirect
effect = .040, SE = .019; CI95 = [.010, .083]), but not the fixed
condition (indirect effect = .004, SE = .017; CI95 = [ .041,
.028]). A positive indirect effect of the interaction was also
observed when considering intentions to re-hire the plumber
for a different plumbing task (index of moderated mediation
= .039, SE = .024; CI95 = [.023, .093]), with a significant
indirect effect observed in the growth condition (indirect
effect = .035, SE = .017; CI95 = [.009, .076]), but not the fixed
condition (indirect effect = .003, SE = .015; CI95 = [ .034,
.025]).
12
Discussion
Study 3 built on our prior studies in multiple ways. First, by
manipulating DIY effort and mindset it added causal inter-
pretability to our prior findings. Second, it provided additional
support for our proposed learning-based process. Third, this
study tested downstream intentions related to both the task and
the recovering provider. These downstream tests suggested an
interesting story. While we did not observe an indirect effect of
DIY effort and mindset on consumer intentions to attempt a
similar DIY task in the future, we did see a negative indirect
effect of the same model on intentions to attempt a different (but
domain-consistent) DIY task. Further, we observed a positive
indirect effect on intentions to re-hire the same provider for both
similar and different future plumbing tasks. Collectively, these
suggest that strong firm recovery of DIY SF shifts consumers
away from future DIY efforts and instead engenders loyalty to
the service provider. While it may seem counterintuitive that a
consumer who has previously attempted DIY would shift away
from future DIY after learning more about the task, recall we
theorize the predominant form of learning derived from DIY SF
takes the form of gaining general understanding about the task,
and not necessarily skill acquisition. Thus, while consumers had
an increased general understanding about the task and the skills
needed to complete it, such learning did not directly encourage
future DIY attempts. Rather, this learning seemed to instead
result in loyalty to the provider. These results suggest DIY SF
has implications for customer-firm relationships beyond just
customer satisfaction with the immediate recovery interaction.
While not reported in the manuscript proper, we additionally
measured participants’ attributions for failure, affective re-
sponses, and perceptions of service provider warmth and
competence in this study. These exploratory measures provided
initial evidence suggesting that learning was heightened when
consumers attributed failure to a lack of ability (rather than to
external factors such as bad luck), and that the effect of learning
on satisfaction was a function of heightened perceptions of
service provider competence. Initial evidence also suggested
our focal findings cannot be explained by negative affect. Please
see Web Appendix C for further details.
Study 4: Firm-Provided Intervention
Studies 1–3 demonstrated that DIY effort positively predicts
satisfaction with firm recovery, and that this effect is
strongest among growth-minded consumers. While this
provides firms with a potential opportunity, it also means
those who exert less effort during their DIY SF experiences
may be less satisfied with firm recovery because they have not
learned as much via their DIY attempt. In Study 4, we test
whether a learning-based intervention during recovery en-
hances outcomes for these consumers. This study thus tests
mediation by moderation (Spencer, Zanna, and Fong 2005).
Of practical importance, we also consider the impact of this
proposed learning-based intervention on more fixed-minded
consumers.
Journal of Service Research 0(0)
Method
Participants and design. Prolific participants (n = 852) were
assigned to a 2 (DIY Effort: High vs. Low) x 2 (Mindset: Fixed
vs. Growth) x 2 (Intervention: Instruction vs. Control) between-
participants experiment. Sixty-seven participants failed an in-
structional manipulation check (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and
Davidenko 2009), resulting in a final sample of 785 (Mage =
41.0 years; 46.2% female).
Procedure and measures. Participants read the same mindset
manipulations and DIY scenarios as in Study 3. However, when
the plumber arrived, those in the instruction (control) condition
read the plumber explained what he was doing (chatted idly with
them) while he worked (see Web Appendix A). After the DIY
SF experience and recovery interaction, participants reported
satisfaction with the plumber’s offering (three items as Study 3;
α = .98). Participants then reported learning (four items; α =
.98), service provider warmth and competence, and mindset
using the same measures as Study 3.8 Lastly, participants re-
ported demographics.
Results
Satisfaction. We first conducted a 3-way ANOVA with satis-
faction as the dependent variable. This revealed a marginal main
effect of DIY effort (F(1, 778) = 3.76, p = .053; ηp2 = .005), and
significant main effects of mindset (F(1, 778) = 5.77, p = .017;
ηp2 = .007) and the intervention (F(1, 778) = 52.33, p < .001; ηp2
= .063). There was a significant 2-way interaction between
effort and the intervention (F(1, 778) = 6.49, p = .011; ηp2 =
.008), a marginal interaction between mindset and the inter-
vention (F(1, 778) = 3.79, p = .052; ηp2 = .005), and no in-
teraction between effort and mindset (F(1, 778) = .08, p = .781;
ηp2 = .0000). Importantly, all effects were qualified by a sig-
nificant 3-way interaction (F(1, 778) = 10.61, p = .001; ηp2 =
.013).9
To examine the effectiveness of the instruction intervention,
we conducted follow-up contrast analyses examining the 2-way
interaction between the effort and intervention conditions
within each mindset. Within the growth mindset condition, there
was a significant interaction (F(1, 778) = 16.98, p < .001; ηp2 =
.019). Replicating findings from Studies 1–3, growth-minded
participants in the control condition (without the intervention)
were more satisfied with firm recovery when they had exerted
greater DIY effort (MHigh = 6.43, SD = .85; MLow = 5.77, SD =
1.57; F(1, 778) = 13.90, p < .001; ηp2 = .016). However, when
instruction was provided, growth-minded participants were
more satisfied when they had exerted low DIY effort (MHigh =
6.39, SD = 1.24; MLow = 6.76, SD = .44; F(1, 778) = 4.37, p =
.037; ηp2 = .005). Looked at another way, growth-minded
participants who exerted low DIY effort were more satisfied
upon receiving instruction (MInstruction = 6.76, SD = .44; MControl
= 5.77, SD = 1.57; F(1, 778) = 31.64, p < .001; ηp2 = .036).
Alternatively, within the fixed mindset condition, there was no
Hall and Hyodo
Figure 3. Study 4 result: The effect of the 3-way interaction on satisfaction and learning.
interaction between DIY effort and the intervention on satis-
faction (F(1, 778) = .25, p = .617; ηp2 = .0002). For fixed-
minded participants, the instruction-based intervention equally
enhanced satisfaction for those who had exerted high DIY effort
(MInstruction = 6.66, SD = .54; MControl = 5.78, SD = 1.58; F(1,
778) = 24.04, p < .001; ηp2 = .028) and low DIY effort
(MInstruction = 6.40, SD = 1.12; MControl = 5.64, SD = 1.89; F(1,
778) = 17.94, p < .001; ηp2 = .021; Figure 3).
Learning. We next conducted a 3-way ANOVA with learning as
the dependent variable. This revealed main effects of all three
conditions (FEffort(1, 778) = 54.36, p < .001; ηp2 = .065;
FMindset(1, 778) = 30.85, p < .001; ηp2 = .038; FIntervention(1,
778) = 711.45, p < .001; ηp2 = .478). There were also 2-way
interactions between effort and the intervention (F(1, 778) =
36.22, p < .001; ηp2 = .044) and between mindset and the
intervention (F(1, 778) = 4.55, p = .033; ηp2 = .006), but not
between effort and mindset (F(1, 778) = .43, p = .512; ηp2 =
.001). Importantly, all effects were qualified by a significant 3-
way interaction (F(1, 778) = 9.76, p = .002; ηp2 = .012).
We then examined the 2-way interaction contrasts between
the DIY effort and intervention conditions within each mindset.
Within the growth mindset condition, there was a significant 2-
way interaction (F(1, 778) = 42.14, p < .001; ηp2 = .051).
Consistent with prior findings, growth-minded participants in
the control condition learned more when they had exerted
13
greater DIY effort (MHigh = 4.54, SD = 1.73; MLow = 2.79, SD =
1.83; F(1, 778) = 73.59, p < .001; ηp2 = .086). However, growth-
minded participants who received instruction reported equal
learning regardless of DIY effort (MHigh = 6.10, SD = 1.25;
MLow = 6.22, SD = .81; F(1, 778) = .32, p = .574; ηp2 = .0004).
Considered from a different perspective, among growth-minded
participants who exerted low DIY effort, those who received
instruction reported greater learning (MInstruction = 6.22, SD =
.81; MControl = 2.79, SD = 1.83; F(1, 778) = 291.89, p < .001; ηp2
= .273). There was also a significant interaction between DIY
effort and the intervention within the fixed mindset condition
(F(1, 778) = 4.15, p = .042; ηp2 = .001). However, among fixed-
minded participants, the intervention significantly increased
learning in both the high (MInstruction = 6.01, SD = .90; MControl =
3.37, SD = 1.58; F(1, 778) = 165.03, p < .001; ηp2 = .175) and
low (MInstruction = 5.62, SD = 1.38; MControl = 2.39, SD = 1.60;
F(1, 778) = 251.40, p < .001; ηp2 = .244) DIY effort conditions
(Figure 3).
Mediation analyses. To empirically test our learning-based
process, we conducted a moderated, moderated mediation
analysis (Hayes 2017; model 13, 10,000 bootstrapped samples)
with DIY effort as the independent variable, the mindset and
intervention conditions as moderators, learning the mediator,
and satisfaction the dependent variable. This revealed an in-
direct effect of the 3-way interaction on satisfaction through
14
learning (index of moderated, moderated mediation = .041,
SE = .015; CI95 = [ .071, .014]). This was driven by a
positive effect of effort on satisfaction, through learning, for
those in the growth mindset and control condition (indirect
effect = .223, SE = .044; CI95 = [.141, .313]). However, there
was no indirect effect in the growth/intervention condition
(indirect effect = .015, SE = .020; CI95 = [ .056, .021]),
indicating the intervention enhanced learning and satisfaction
regardless of prior effort.
Discussion
Study 4 demonstrated that, while DIY SF influenced evalua-
tions of firm recovery as a function of learning, consumers can
learn in ways beyond their DIY SF experiences. Specifically,
service providers can facilitate learning at the time of service
delivery, producing similar satisfaction as that associated with
effort-derived learning. This provides added evidence for our
theoretical model by directly manipulating learning. Impor-
tantly, we did not observe deleterious effects of the instruction
intervention among those who already learned through DIY
effort. Further, we observed positive effects of firm-provided
instruction for fixed-minded individuals regardless of DIY ef-
fort. This suggests that while these fixed-minded consumers do
not derive learning from DIY SF, they nonetheless value in-
struction provided during recovery.
General Discussion
Across four studies, we demonstrate that consumers’ DIY ex-
periences affect service provider outcomes. Specifically, when
consumers exert greater effort in a failed DIY attempt (DIY SF),
they realize greater learning about the task, which in turn
promotes increased satisfaction with firm recovery. We further
demonstrate this effect is moderated by mindset, wherein
growth-minded consumers are more likely to learn from the
DIY SF experience and to recognize the abilities of the re-
covering provider. These results are supported by both field and
lab data, and across multiple service-relevant DIY domains.
Theoretical Implications
This research makes multiple contributions to theory. We first
contribute to the SF literature by expanding the SF paradigm
beyond the “static customer-firm dyad” (Grégoire and Mattila
2021). Consistent with Grégoire and Mattila’s call to action,
prior research suggests firms can benefit when recovering from
other firms’ failures (i.e., external recovery; Allen et al. 2015).
We employ a similarly extended perspective of the customer
journey to demonstrate firms can also recover SFs that occur in
the absence of customer-firm exchange. In the case of DIY SF,
given the recovering firm did not play a role in the failure
experience, neither models of fairness and justice (e.g., Tax,
Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998), nor models where re-
covery expectations are a function of failure attributions (e.g.,
Hess, Ganesan, and Klein 2003) are appropriate. We thus
Journal of Service Research 0(0)
contribute to this space by demonstrating the value of a
learning-based model. Prior service research demonstrates that
consumers value learning during recovery as a means of better
understanding their role in service interactions (Dong, Evans,
and Zou 2008). Our findings extend this work by demonstrating
that consumers also value learning about the focal consumption
problem and the skills needed to complete it. By highlighting
their shared context, a learning-based model allows for appli-
cation of SF and recovery theory to inform the otherwise
discrete consumer experiences of DIY SF and firm-based re-
covery offerings. We suggest future research would benefit from
employing a consumer learning lens to better understand how
and when instruction is an effective recovery strategy.
Our findings also contribute to extant DIY literature. By
highlighting that failed DIY attempts often precede consumer
interactions with the marketplace, we identify novel conse-
quences of DIY failure. Prior research on DIY failure has
primarily focused on consumer-centric outcomes (i.e., negative
affect and reduced DIY intentions; Wolf and McQuitty 2013;
Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye 2008). We build on this work by
highlighting how DIY failure can additionally increase con-
sumer understanding of the task (i.e., learning), and extend it by
identifying firm-related consequences of DIY failure (i.e.,
satisfaction with firm recovery). We further identify and elab-
orate on a boundary condition (i.e., mindset) and process (i.e.,
learning) that collectively determine consumer responses to
DIY failure. Lastly, we draw on the varying theories of DIY in
the literature to put forth an integrated conceptualization of DIY.
In particular, we adopt prior perspectives regarding the con-
sumer activities involved in DIY, while also highlight the im-
portance of conceptualizing DIY as a phenomenon rooted in
internal exchange (Lusch, Brown, and Brunswick 1992). Thus,
we provide a broad framework for future DIY research to assist
scholars focused on understanding DIY as a market-
independent phenomenon.
Managerial Implications
Today’s consumers are increasingly turning to DIY solutions
given increased access to DIY tools, resources, and information
(Bosari 2012). As this trend continues, service providers in
many industries should recognize many of their customers
employ firm services after having unsuccessfully attempted a
DIY solution. This is critical given our findings that firm of-
ferings following DIY SF take on the role of service recovery,
which substantially increases the stakes of successful im-
plementation. Our findings suggest successful recovery after
DIY SF can result in enhanced customer satisfaction with the
service offering by virtue of greater appreciation of the skills
required to provide the service. This is somewhat analogous to
the service recovery paradox (De Matos, Henrique, and Rossi
2007), in that more positive post-failure outcomes are realized
than might have been anticipated. This suggests firms should
seek to understand their customers’ prior experiences with the
task prior to the service interaction. For example, service
providers might look for evidence that the customer attempted
Hall and Hyodo
and failed a DIY solution, or might ask the customer directly
whether such an attempt was made. Learning a customer ex-
perienced DIY SF will enable providers to focus on validating
the customer’s attempt and highlighting positive outcomes that
can be realized through such efforts (e.g., learning and
improvement).
Second, our work has implications for how service providers
interact with customers. In the context of a firm recovering
another firm’s failures, Allen et al. (2015) recommend training
front-line employees to listen to customers and make gestures of
goodwill. Our work similarly suggests value in training front-
line employees, but highlights the importance of training them
to support customer learning during service provision. Thus, our
findings support Dong et al. (2008), who highlight how service
providers can benefit from providing instruction during the
service offering. While Dong et al. suggest instruction should
primarily take the form of enhancing customers’ role clarity, our
findings suggest such instruction should also help customers
understand the complexity of the focal task and the high level of
skill required to complete it. Importantly, we identify little risk
of this type of intervention for customers who had experienced
DIY SF, regardless of DIY effort or mindset. This suggests firms
operating in industries in which customers might attempt DIY
can benefit from training employees to provide information at a
level that enables customers to learn broadly about the task.
Doing so presents an opportunity for service providers to en-
hance their value proposition. While providers may harbor
concerns that educating customers could negatively affect future
sales by increasing future DIY engagement, our results suggest
this may not be the case. In Study 3, those who reported in-
creased satisfaction with firm recovery after DIY SF indicated
they were more likely to seek future services from the same
provider if faced with a similar problem. We acknowledge the
preliminary nature of this particular finding, however, and
suggest firms carefully consider what type of instruction to
provide. For example, firms might consider enhancing cus-
tomers’ general understanding of the focal task as opposed to
providing skill-enhancing instruction. Alternatively, firms
might benefit from teaching customers how to complete lower-
margin jobs themselves, which could in turn promote loyalty for
higher-margin jobs in the future.
Lastly, because mindset moderates our focal effect, service
providers may worry about identifying this implicit customer
trait. However, we offer encouragement to firms in this regard.
Mindset is broadly predicted by culture—for example, the
majority of Americans lean toward a growth mindset (Dweck
2006)—meaning service providers might determine the pre-
vailing mindset of their target markets. Further, it may be
possible for front-line employees to identify a customer’s
mindset during service interactions. In anecdotal support of this
point, CHC employees from Study 1 reported commonly
hearing customers say things like, “I’m just not a computer
person” or “I always struggle with technology”—phrases
suggestive of a fixed mindset. Other customers were reported as
asking questions related to the task, showing keen interest in the
solution, or asking for advice related to future problems—
15
behaviors indicative of a growth mindset. With appropriate
training, service providers might detect cues indicating an in-
dividual’s mindset, which could allow them to better tailor their
offering to individual customer needs.
Limitations and Future Directions
While the present research has significant implications for
theory and practice, it is not without limitations. First, due to
limitations imposed by our partner organization, our field study
findings employed a measure of our dependent variable that
differed from those in our controlled experimental studies.
Future research to more extensively test our theory in field
settings would thus be valuable. Second, the present research
does not account for how varying motivations for DIY en-
gagement might influence consumers’ responses to DIY SF and
recovery. The decision to engage in DIY is a complex function
of situational and individual factors (Williams 2004; Wolf and
McQuitty 2011), meaning it is possible certain DIY antecedents
may affect the likelihood that consumers will learn from DIY
SF. Similarly, certain tasks may be inherently less interesting or
consumers may be less likely to derive value from learning
about them. For example, consumers may derive less value from
learning about a task they do not anticipate encountering in the
future (vs. one they are more likely to encounter again). Future
research is needed to better understand the relationship between
DIY motivations, DIY SF, and service provider outcomes.
Third, the present research assumes the firm successfully im-
plements the recovery offering. Better understanding con-
sumers’ responses to a failed recovery offering following DIY
SF also warrants exploration, as this might represent new type of
double deviation. Double deviations occur when a firm’s re-
covery offering fails to meet customer expectations after SF
(Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990), evoking strongly negative
consumer responses.
Additional opportunities for future research also emerge
when considering our findings in relation to prior research on
DIY outcomes. For example, at first glance, our findings may
appear to run counter to the seminal work on DIY by Wolf and
McQuitty (W&M; 2011). Specifically, while our focal finding is
that consumers respond positively to firm offerings following
DIY SF, W&M alternatively suggest consumers realize pri-
marily negative outcomes following failed DIY attempts (e.g.,
they experience disappointment and frustration). Notably, our
supplemental analyses support the notion that consumers expe-
rience negative affect following DIY SF (see Web Appendix C).
However, we extend this finding by demonstrating that it is
stronger among fixed-minded consumers. W&M further suggest
negative affect stemming from DIY failure can carry over to in-
fluence consumers’ perceptions of service provider offerings (p.
165). While our findings suggest negative carryover may indeed
emerge among fixed-minded consumers (see Web Appendix C),
we also highlight how the learning consumers realize from DIY SF
can outweigh negative affective responses to failure. Thus, it is
possible W&M’s respondent, whose quotation supported this
point, had more fixed-minded views, thereby preventing them
16
from realizing the learning opportunity their failure could have
afforded. Alternatively, this respondent may have had high in-
volvement in the DIY domain, which further exacerbates negative
affective responses to failure (Schunk 1995). Future research might
consider how identity- and involvement-related factors affect
consumer responses to DIY SF and recovery.
Lastly, we believe our findings in Study 3 regarding down-
stream consumer intentions provide intriguing opportunities for
future research. When considering future DIY and re-hiring in-
tentions for the same versus dissimilar (but domain-consistent)
tasks, three of these measures indicated consumers had reduced
DIY intentions and increased loyalty intentions as a function of
DIY effort, mindset, learning, and satisfaction. Interestingly, this
runs somewhat counter to previous mindset research, which
suggests learning from failure should increase the likelihood that
growth-minded consumers will attempt the failed task in the
future (Smiley et al. 2016). In light of this inconsistency, we
conducted supplemental analyses (reported in Web Appendix C).
Notably, when satisfaction was removed from the mediation
model in Study 3 (i.e., learning was the only mediator consid-
ered), we indeed observe a positive effect of learning on future
DIY intentions, and an attenuation of the effect of learning on
loyalty intentions. This suggests that satisfaction with the re-
covery offering after DIY SF is a critical component that not only
dissuades consumers from attempting DIY in the future, but also
fosters loyalty to the recovering provider. We suggest service
providers’ successful recovery offerings leave an outsized im-
pression on consumers following DIY SF, as these service
providers are rescuing consumers from an otherwise unsolvable
task—metaphorical knights in shining armor sweeping them
away from future DIY and into a loyal relationship.10 This
suggests future research might benefit from examining how
factors like perceived consumer helplessness, perhaps driven by
the timeliness or magnitude of service recovery, might further
foster loyalty following DIY SF and recovery.
In sum, the present research highlights the importance of firm
recovery offerings in response to consumers’ DIY SF experi-
ences. We encourage future research to consider the intersection
of various DIY tasks, consumer responses to failure in these
domains, and service provider recovery strategies to better
understand various consumer- and firm-related outcomes in this
domain.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thomas Dotzel, Martin Mende, Lisa
Bolton, and Karen Page Winterich for their helpful feedback on this
manuscript. The marketing faculty at the Ivey College of Business at
Western University, the Smeal College of Business at Penn State, and
the College of Business at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln were
also helpful in developing this research. Lastly, the authors would like
to thank the staff of the Computer Help Center at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln for their participation and assistance with collecting
field data.
Journal of Service Research 0(0)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Matthew J. Hall  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0769-6795
Jamie D. Hyodo  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5441-5410
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
1. Mindset is theorized as a continuous construct, meaning con-
sumers are more accurately described as being more growth- or
fixed-minded. However, for parsimony and consistency with
extant literature, we use binary terminology to describe mindset
(i.e., we refer to consumers simply as growth- or fixed-minded).
2. Please see Web Appendix C for additional analyses, including
results excluding covariates.
3. Growth-minded participants reported exerting marginally more DIY
effort (r = .131, p = .084). We standardized both mindset and effort to
reduce nonessential collinearity (Dalal and Zickar 2012). All effects
are still observed when tested in a model using orthogonal predictors
(Wurm and Fisicaro 2014; see Web Appendix C).
4. Mean time was greater than 5 minutes because it reflects time spent
on the task page prior to advancing. Thus, it includes time spent
reading instructions, working on the task, and waiting for the TA to
complete the task. Further, despite being instructed to seek TA help
after 5 minutes, many students continued working beyond this
point.
5. DIY effort and mindset were correlated (r = .296, p < .001), as
those with a fixed mindset exerted more effort. We standardized
predictors to reduce nonessential collinearity (Dalal and Zickar
2012). All effects are observed in a model using orthogonal
predictors (Wurm and Fisicaro 2014; see Web Appendix C).
6. Attributions, affective responses, and service provider competence
and warmth were collected for exploratory purposes. Measures and
results for these constructs can be found in Web Appendix B and C,
respectively. These analyses support and provide additional insight
into our learning-centric mediation model.
7. No differences were observed in likelihood to call a different
plumber. Thus, our analyses focus on intentions to re-attempt DIY
and to re-hire the same plumber. We report additional behavioral
intention results in Web Appendix C.
8. Perceived service provider competence and warmth were again
measured for exploratory purposes. These measures and results,
which are respectively discussed in Web Appendix B and C, again
Hall and Hyodo
suggest learning increases satisfaction with recovery by increasing
perceptions of service provider competence.
9. Contrast analyses examining the two-way interaction between
effort and mindset on satisfaction and learning within the control
condition revealed the same pattern of results as Studies 1–3 (see
Web Appendix C).
10. The authors would like to thank the editor for suggesting this
metaphor.
References
Allen, Alexis M., Michael K. Brady, Stacey G. Robinson, and Clay M.
Voorhees (2015), “One Firm’s Loss is Another’s Gain: Capital-
izing on Other Firms’ Service Failures,” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 43 (5), 648-662.
Alhashem, Mohammed, Caroline Moraes, and Isabelle Szmigin
(2020), “Use and Social Value in Peer-to-peer Prosumption
Communities,” European Journal of Marketing, 55 (1),
193-218.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1979), “Toward a Formal Theory of Marketing
Exchanges,” In Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in
Marketing, O.C. Ferrell, eds. Chicago: American Marketing,
431-447.
Bendapudi, Neeli and Robert P. Leone (2003), “Psychological Im-
plications of Customer Participation in Co-Production,” Journal
of Marketing, 67 (1), 14-28.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990),
“The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable
Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 71-84.
Bitner, Mary Jo, William T. Faranda, Amy R. Hubbert, and Valarie A.
Zeithaml (1997), “Customer Contributions and Roles in Service
Delivery,” International Journal of Service Industry Manage-
ment, 8 (3), 193-205.
Bloom, Benjamin S. (1974), “Time and Learning,” American Psy-
chologist, 29 (9), 682-688.
Bonvoisin, Jérémy, Jahnavi Galla, and Sharon Prendeville (2017),
“Design Principles for Do-it-yourself Production,” Sustainable
Design and Manufacturing, 7, 77-86.
Bosari, Jessica (2012), “Growth of the Home Décor Market Shows No
Signs of Slowing Down,” Forbes (October 2012). https://www.forbes.
com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/10/24/growth-of-the-home-decor-
market-shows-no-signs-of-slowing-down/19a775d919a7
Burnette, Jeni, Ernest O’Boyle, Eric M. VanEpps, Jeffrey M Pollack,
and Eli J Finkel (2013), “Mind-Sets Matter: A Meta-Analytic
Review of Implicit Theories and Self-Regulation,” Psychological
Bulletin, 139 (3), 655-701.
Burns, Alvin C. and James W. Gentry (1998), “Motivating Students to
Engage in Experiential Learning: A Tension-to-Learn Theory,”
Simulation & Gaming, 29 (2), 133-151.
Campbell, Colin (2005), “The Craft Consumer: Culture, Craft and
Consumption in a Postmodern Society,” Journal of Consumer
Culture, 5 (1), 23-42.
Centrica (2017), “Brits Spend Billions on Professional Help to Fix
Their DIY Disasters,” Centrica.com, November 29. https://www.
centrica.com/news/brits-spend-billions-professional-help-fix-
their-diy-disasters
17
Chen, Chia-Yi (2018), “How Customer Participation Influences Ser-
vice Failure Attribution: The Moderating Effect of Self-efficacy,”
Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 28 (3), 298-314.
Chiu, Chi-yue, Carol Dweck, Jennifer Tong, and Jeanne Fu (1997),
“Implicit Theories and Conceptions of Morality,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (5), 923-940.
Choi, Sunmee and Anna S. Mattila (2008), “Perceived Controllability and
Service Expectations: Influences on Customer Reactions Following
Service Failure,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (1), 24-30.
Collier, Joel, Michael Breazeale, and Allyn White (2017), “Giving
Back the “Self” in Self Service: Customer Preferences in Self-
Service Recovery,” Journal of Services Marketing, 31, 604-617.
Dalal, Dev and Michael Zickar (2012), “Some Common Myths about
Centering Predictor Variables in Moderated Multiple Regression
and Polynomial Regression,” Organizational Research Methods,
15 (3), 339-362.
DeCaro, Marci and Bethany Rittle-Johnson (2012), “Exploring
Mathematics Problems Prepares Children to Learn,” Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 113 (4), 552-568.
De Matos, Celso, Jorge Luiz Henrique, and Carlos Alberto Vargas
Rossi (2007), “Service Recovery Paradox: A Meta-Analysis,”
Journal of Service Research, 10 (1), 60-77.
Dong, Beibei, Kenneth R. Evans, and Shaoming Zou (2008), “The
Effects of Customer Participation in Co-Created Service Re-
covery,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1),
123-137.
Dong, Beibei, K. Sivakumar, Kenneth R. Evans, and Shaoming Zou
(2015), “Effect of Customer Participation on Service Outcomes:
The Moderating Role of Participation Readiness,” Journal of
Service Research, 18 (2), 160-176.
Dweck, Carol (2006), Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New
York, NY: Random House.
Dweck, Carol and Ellen Leggett (1988), “A Social-Cognitive Ap-
proach to Motivation and Personality,” Psychological Review, 95
(2), 256-273.
Feather, Norman T. (1967), “Valence of Outcome and Expectation of
Success in Relation to Task Difficulty and Perceived Locus of
Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (4),
372-386.
Feather, Norman T. and Jerrold G. Simon (1971), “Attribution of
Responsibility and Valence of Outcome in Relation to Initial
Confidence and Success and Failure of Self and Other,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18 (2), 173-188.
Folkes, Valerie S. (1988), “Recent Attribution Research in Consumer
Behavior: A Review and New Directions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (4), 548-565.
Gelber, Steven M. (1997), “Do-it-Yourself: Constructing, Repairing
and Maintaining Domestic Masculinity,” American Quarterly, 49
(1), 66-112.
Goetz, Thomas, Nathan C. Hall, Anne C. Frenzel, and Reinhard Pekrun
(2006), “A Hierarchical Conceptualization of Enjoyment in
Students,” Learning and Instruction, 16 (4), 323-338.
Grégoire, Yany and Anna S. Mattila (2021), “Service Failure and
Recovery at the Crossroads: Recommendations to Revitalize the
Field and its Influence,” Journal of Service Research, 24 (3),
323-328.
18
Hayes, Andrew (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.
Guilford Publications.
Heidenreich, Sven, Kristina Wittkowski, Matthias Handrich, and
Tomas Falk (2015), “The Dark Side of Customer Co-Creation:
Exploring the Consequences of Failed Co-Created Services,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (3), 279-296.
Hess, Ronald, Shankar Ganesan, and Noreen Klein (2003), “Service
Failure and Recovery: The Impact of Relationship Factors on
Customer Satisfaction,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31 (2), 127-145.
Hoffman, Douglas and John Bateson (1997), Essentials of Services
Marketing. Dryden Press.
Kapur, Manu (2010), “Productive Failure in Mathematical Problem
Solving,” Instructional Science, 38 (6), 523-550.
Khademi-Vidra, Anikó and Zoltán Bujdosó (2020), “Motivations and
Attitudes: An Empirical Study on Do-It-Yourself Consumers in
Hungary,” Sustainability, 12 (2), 517.
Köcher, Sören and Stefanie Paluch (2019), “‘My Bad’: Investigating
Service Failure Effects in Self-Service and Full-Service Settings,”
Journal of Services Marketing, 33 (2), 181-191.
Kray, Laura and Michael Haselhuhn (2007), “Implicit Negotiation
Beliefs and Performance: Experimental and Longitudinal Evi-
dence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (1),
49-64.
Kulhavy, Raymond W. (1977), “Feedback in Written Instruction,”
Review of Educational Research, 47 (2), 211-232.
Kuznetsov, Stacey and Eric Paulos (2010), “Rise of the Expert Am-
ateur: DIY Projects, Communities, and Cultures,” Proceedings of
the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,
295-304.
Lusch, Robert, Stephen Brown, and Gary Brunswick (1992), “A
General Framework for Explaining Internal vs. External Ex-
change,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (2),
119-134.
Maxham, James and Richard Netemeyer (2002), “A Longitudinal
Study of Complaining Customers’ Evaluations of Service Failures
and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 57-71.
McCollough, Michale A., Leonard L. Berry, and Manjit S. Yadav
(2000), “An Empirical Investigation of Customer Satisfaction
after Service Failure and Recovery,” Journal of Service Research,
3 (2), 121-137.
Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, and
Mary Jo Bitner. (2000), “Self-service Technologies: Under-
standing Customer Satisfaction with Technology-based Service
Encounters,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 50-64.
Moisio, Risto, Eric Arnould, and James W. Gentry (2013), “Pro-
ductive Consumption in the Class-Mediated Construction of
Domestic Masculinity: Do-It-Yourself Home Improvement in
Men’s Identity Work,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2),
298-316.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-
Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing,
58 (3), 20-38.
Murphy, Ryan (2017), “The Diseconomies of Do-it-yourself,” The
Independent Review, 22 (2), 245-255.
Journal of Service Research 0(0)
Nagel, Duane M., J. Joseph Cronin, and Richard Utecht (2018),
“Consumption or Prosumption? A Question of Resources,”
Journal of Services Marketing, 32 (6), 739-754.
Oliver, Richard L. (1980), “A Cognitive Model for the Antecedents and
Consequences of Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research,
17 (4), 460-469.
Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko (2009),
“Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to
Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45 (4), 867-872.
Pacheco, Natália Araújo, Larissa Carine Braz Becker, and
Vinı́cius Andrade Brei (2017), “A Light in the Dark: The Benefits
of Co-production in Service Failures,” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 34, 95-101.
Price, Linda L. and Eric J. Arnould (1999), “Commercial Friendships:
Service Provider–Client Relationships in Context,” Journal of
Marketing, 63 (4), 38-56.
Rittle-Johnson, Bethany and Martha Wagner Alibali (1999), “Con-
ceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematics: Does One
Lead to the Other?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1),
175-189.
Schunk, Dale (1995), “Implicit Theories and Achievement Behavior,”
Psychological Inquiry, 6 (4), 311-314.
Senko, Corwin and Judith Harackiewicz (2005), “Achievement Goals, Task
Performance, and Interest: Why Perceived Goal Difficulty Matters,”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (12), 1739-1753.
Smiley, Patricia, Katherine Buttitta, Samuel Chung, Valeska Dubon,
and Lilian Chang (2016), “Mediation Models of Implicit Theories
and Achievement Predict Planning and Withdrawal after Failure,”
Motivation and Emotion, 40, 878-894.
Smith, Amy, Ruth Bolton, and Janet Wagner (1999), “A Model of
Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure
and Recovery,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), 356-372.
Specht, Nina, Sina Fichtel, and Anton Meyer (2007), “Perception and
Attribution of Employees’ Effort and Abilities: The Impact on
Customer Encounter Satisfaction,” International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 18 (5), 534-554.
Spencer, Steven J., Mark P. Zanna, and Geoffrey T. Fong (2005), “Es-
tablishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments are Often More Effective
than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 845-851.
Steenhof, Naomi, Nicole N. Woods, Pascal Van Gerven, and Maria
Mylopoulous (2019), “Productive Failure as an Instructional
Approach to Promote Future Learning,” Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 24, 739-749.
Sugathan, Praveen and Kumar Rakesh Ranjan (2020), “When Co-
Production Fails: The Role of Customer’s Internal Attributions
and Impression Management Concerns,” Journal of Business
Research, 121 (December), 535-548.
Sugathan, Praveen, Kumar Ranjan, and Avinash Mulky (2017), “An
Examination of the Emotions that Follow a Failure of Co-Cre-
ation,” Journal of Business Research, 78, 43-52.
Tax, Stephen, Stephen Brown, and Murali Chandrashekaran (1998),
“Customer Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Im-
plications for Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 62
(2), 60-76.
Hall and Hyodo
Tsiros, Michael, Vikas Mittal, and William Ross Jr. (2004), “The Role
of Attributions in Customer Satisfaction: A Reexamination,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 476-483.
Van Heerde, Harald, Christine Moorman, C. Page Moreau, and
Robert W. Palmatier (2021), “Reality Check: Infusing Ecological
Value into Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing, 85, 1-13.
Van Vaerenbergh, Yves, Chiara Orsingher, Iris Vermeir, and Bart
Larivière (2014), “A Meta-Analysis of Relationships Linking
Service Failure Attributions to Customer Outcomes,” Journal of
Service Research, 17 (4), 381-398.
Vannini, Phillip and Jonathan Taggart (2014), “Do-it-yourself or Do-it-
with? The Regenerative Life Skills of Off-grid Home Builders,”
Cultural Geographies, 21 (2), 267-285.
Watson, Matthew and Elizabeth Shove (2008), “Product, Competence,
Project and Practice: DIY and the Dynamics of Craft Con-
sumption,” Journal of Consumer Culture 8 (1), 69-89.
Williams, Colin (2004), “A Lifestyle Choice? Evaluating Motives of
DIY Consumers,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 32 (5), 270-278.
Wolf, Christine T. (2016), “DIY Videos on YouTube: Identity and
Possibility in the Age of Algorithms,” First Monday, 21 (6). doi:
10.5210/fm.v21i6.6787
Wolf, Marco and Shaun McQuitty (2011), “Understanding the Do-It-
Yourself Consumer: DIY Motivations and Outcomes,” AMS
Review, 1 (3-4), 154-170.
Wolf, Marco and Shaun McQuitty (2013), “Circumventing Traditional
Markets: An Empirical Study of the Marketplace Motivations and
Outcomes of Consumers’ Do-It-Yourself Behaviors,” Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 21 (2), 195-210.
Wurm, Lee and Sebastiano Fisicaro (2014), “What Residualizing
Predictors in Regression Analyses Does (and What it Does not
Do),” Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 37-48.
19
Xie, Chunyan, Richard Bagozzi, and Sigurd Troye (2008), “Trying to
Prosume: Toward a Theory of Consumers as Co-creators of Value,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 109-122.
Yen, HsiuJu, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Wanru Su (2004), “The Impact of
Customer Participation and Service Expectation on Locus At-
tributions following Service Failure,” International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 15 (1), 7-26.
Yi, Youjae and Seo Young Kim (2017), “The Role of Other Customers
during Self-Service Technology Failure,” Service Business, 11
(4), 695-715.
Zhu, Zhen, Cheryl Nakata, K. Sivakumar, and Dhruv Grewal
(2013), “Fix or Leave it? Customer Recovery from Self-
Service Technology Failures,” Journal of Retailing, 89 (1),
15-29.
Zolfagharian, Mohammadali, Reto Felix, and Jakob Braun (2018),
“Boundary Conditions of the Effect of Customer Coproduction:
The Case of Service Failure,” Journal of Marketing Management,
34 (9), 705-731.
Author Biographies
Matthew J. Hall, PhD, is an assistant professor of marketing at
Oregon State University. His research primarily focuses on
understanding how social and psychological factors influence
consumers’ perceptions of themselves and their consumption
experiences.
Jamie D. Hyodo, PhD, is an assistant professor of consumer
behavior in the DAN Department of Management and Orga-
nizational Studies at Western University (Canada). His work has
been published in the Journal of Consumer Research. His re-
search focuses on the effects of consumer morality, emotions,
persuasion, and social influence.