Cogent Business & Management

2024, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2296145

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2296145

MARKETING | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Service failure recovery on customer recovery satisfaction and
attitude loyalty for airline industry: the moderating effect of brand
authenticity
Van Dat Tran
Head of Marketing Department, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Vietnam

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study aims to investigate the relationship between service failure recovery, customer Received 2 November
recovery satisfaction, and attitude loyalty for airline industry. The author propose an 2022
experimentally determined model of service recovery based on the function of brand Revised 30 November
authenticity as a moderator in this study. On a sample of 250 customers in Vietnam, 2023
Accepted 13 December
the current study aims to determine the connections between service recovery strategy, 2023
service recovery satisfaction, and attitudinal loyalty. This study found that apologies,
politeness, and recovery speed all have a substantial impact on service recovery KEYWORDS
satisfaction, with only recovery speed having a positive relationship with attitudinal Service failure recovery;
loyalty. Brand authenticity has a moderator influence on the relationship between customer recovery
attitudinal loyalty and service recovery satisfaction, which is an unique trait of this satisfaction; attitude
loyalty; brand authenticity
study. This study contributes insights into how seven service recovery strategies
influenced customer loyalty and service recovery satisfaction in terms of attitudinal JEL CLASSIFICATIONS
characteristics. Managers could strive to improve service failure at their airlines in order M30; M31; M37
to increase brand authenticity now that they are aware of the recovery strategies for
service failure. Furthermore, for the aggrieved clients, service providers should give REVIEWING EDITOR
Osikhuemhe Okwilagwe,
sufficient recovery efforts for resolving problems caused by other customers. Bournemouth University
Faculty of Management:
IMPACT STATEMENT
Bournemouth University
The goal of this study is to see if there’s a link between service recovery and customer Business School, United
happiness, as well as between service recovery and attitude loyalty. The author propose Kingdom
an experimentally determined model of service recovery based on the function of
brand authenticity as a moderator in this study. This study found that apologies, SUBJECTS
politeness, and recovery speed all have a substantial impact on service recovery Consumer Behaviour;
Marketing Management;
satisfaction, with only recovery speed having a positive relationship with attitudinal
Services Marketing; Brand
loyalty. Brand authenticity has a moderator influence on the relationship between Management
attitudinal loyalty and service recovery satisfaction, which is an unique trait of this
study. This study contributes insights into how seven service recovery strategies
influenced customer loyalty and service recovery satisfaction in terms of attitudinal
characteristics. Managers could strive to improve service failure at their airlines in order
to increase brand authenticity now that they are aware of the recovery strategies for
service failure. Futhermore, for the aggrieved clients, service providers should give
sufficient recovery efforts for resolving problems caused by other customers.

Introduction
Increasing numbers of airlines and aircraft are putting the aviation industry competing more fiercely in
Vietnam’s market, which has experienced growth in recent years. Firms compete with each other in order
to survive, maintain their position in the marketplace in many different ways, in which delivering excep-
tional service seems to be a major solution (Chow, 2014). Hence, offering excellent customer service is
critical for airlines all over the world (Lin et al., 2021). However, It is hard to prevent all service failures, even

CONTACT Van Dat Tran dattv@buh.edu.vn Head of Marketing Department, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Vietnam
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 V. D. TRAN

if service organizations provide high level of performance and have a solid client orientation (Fayos-Gardó
et al., 2015). A service failure occurs when a service goes wrong and leaves clients with a negative impres-
sion of the encounter (Gelbrich & Roschk, 2011). It is ubiquitous hurdles to client satisfaction, and they are
difficult to avoid within the service delivery process (Sukri et al., 2014). Particularly, in the airline sector, it
has been discovered that airline service failures have a negative influence on customers’ loyalty and readi-
ness to suggest the airline they use to others (Bejou & Palmer, 1998). In addition, many service businesses
also have recognized other detrimental consequences of service failure on their profitability and success,
and have taken steps to guarantee that protocols for dealing with service failure are in place (Nikbin et al.,
2014). As a result, in this highly competitive service climate, securing extra opportunities with angry con-
sumers has become more difficult, and service providers have been forced to devise effective techniques
to mitigate service errors when they occur. Thus, service recovery is a critical component for service pro-
viders who want to keep their consumers happy (Matikiti et al., 2017). It can be seen as a significant mar-
keting technique that gives service providers a second chance to reclaim dissatisfied customers (Nwokorie,
2016). In addition, service recovery also extremely important in the airline business because airlines will be
able to decrease passenger betrayal and build their relationship with customers if they can efficiently
recover from service failures (Christopher et al., 2002).
Previously, the majority studies on service failure have mostly focused on consumers’ service recovery
expectations and satisfaction (Nwokorie, 2016) as well as service failures and customer satisfaction with
service recovery (Keiningham et al, 2014; Lai & Chou, 2015; Tran 2022). In which, Nwokorie (2016) revealed
that there is a substantial link between service recovery method, time, customer loyalty, and customer
happiness. Meanwhile, Lai and Chou (2015) the severity of a service outage might increase customers’
expectations of a quick recovery. It also demonstrated that expectations and performance have a sub-
stantial impact on service recovery dissonance. Furthermore, Matikiti et al. (2017) sought to determine
the effect of customer service failure characterizations on customer commitment, as well as the effect of
service failure intensity on recovery satisfaction. It can be seen customer commitment is influenced by
recovery satisfaction, and awareness of alternatives moderates the relationship between the two. While
politeness, recompense, and the speed with which a service is remedied have a positive and substantial
influence on satisfaction; brand authenticity and perceived authenticity have a moderating effect on
contentment (Lin et al., 2021). Furthermore, several studies demonstrate other aspect that even success-
ful recovery attempts may not result in improved consumer loyalty (Bolton & Drew, 1991). Jin, DiPietro
and Fan (2019) demonstrated that once a service failure happens, customers’ perceived controllability has
the capacity to influence their level of participation and evaluation outcomes in the service recovery
process. Valentini, Orsingher and Polyakova (2020) developed that a unifying conceptual framework that
considers emotional reactions triggered by both service failure and recovery and explains why customers
are likely to get ‘emotional twice’. Ozuem et al. (2021) showed that, given the specific context of Covid-19,
consumers’ responses to service failure recovery are emotionally mediated based on a challenging con-
sumption landscape. When dealing with an airline brand, cognitive processing refers to how often a
customer thinks about it, while affection refers to how much a customer feels good about it. When
dealing with an airline, a consumer’s cognitive processing of the brand is measured, and affection is
defined as a consumer’s good feelings toward the brand.
Thus, the goal of this study is to see if there’s a link between service recovery and customer happiness,
as well as between service recovery and attitude loyalty. The author propose an experimentally determined
model of service recovery based on the function of brand authenticity as a moderator in this study.
This research helps in a variety of ways, both theoretically and practically. This study found that apol-
ogies, politeness, and recovery speed all have a substantial impact on service recovery satisfaction, with
only recovery speed having a positive relationship with attitudinal loyalty. In addition, there are few
earlier studies that have found a moderate importance for brand authenticity in the association between
customer happiness and attitude loyalty. Managers could strive to improve service failure at their airlines
in order to increase brand authenticity now that they are aware of the recovery strategies for service
failure. Futhermore, for the aggrieved clients, service providers should give sufficient recovery efforts for
resolving problems caused by other customers. While a vast number of studies suggesting that diverse
service recovery improves customer recovery satisfaction, the moderating effect of brand authenticity on
attitude loyalty and customer recovery satisfaction in this study could contribute to the theory.
 Cogent Business & Management 3

Literature review and hypotheses

Service failure and service recovery
Service failure research is still one of the most important issues in marketing today (Bagherzadeh et al.,
2020). Because people or humans are not faultless, they likely to default at any time, service failures that
lead to faults or mistakes when providing a service are not evitable and foreseeable. Thus, If the issue is
not given enough attention, customer satisfaction will suffer, resulting in negative feedback from dis-
gruntled customers (Bankova et al., 2018). In particular, prior research on airline service breakdowns and
recovery can be divided into two categories (Xu et al., 2018). External factors like severe weather have
been highlighted, as well as internal factors like overbooking (McCollough, 2000; Akbar & Wymer, 2017).
Thus, businesses cannot guarantee fault service delivery, they can ensure that the service faults are
resolved in a timely manner that meets customer expectations (Bagherzadeh et al., 2020).
Hess et al., (2003) also illustrated service recovery relates to a company’s and its employees’ attempts
and activities to recover what consumers have lost in service delivery. It includes all the activities taken
by a service provider in reaction to customers’ complaints (Gronroos, 1988). Thus, recovery attempts con-
tains discounts, refunds, presents, and coupons, free service for a limited period, explanations of the
failure, empathy, and apologies (Jung & Seock, 2017). Kim et al. (2023) constructed a typology of
inter-related concepts in SFR and uncovered the thematic development of related research, delivering a
longitudinal assessment of this domain. Moreover, the aspects of service recovery attempts are magni-
fied because customers who have experienced a service failure generally become more ‘aware’ and emo-
tionally involved in the service experience (McCollough, 2009). As a result, maximizing client retention
by limiting defectors, including customer loss due to service failure (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990), is a more
feasible goal for service organizations.
Based on Gustafsson and Johnson (2004) findings, a successful service recovery could result in a
win-win situation for both the client and the company. Ok et al. (2005) explained that well-executed
service recovery can improve customer satisfaction and loyalty, as well as have a direct impact on
whether unsatisfied consumers stay with or defect from a company (Berry et al., 2006). In addition, Sukri
et al. (2014) also showed that effective service recovery tools and efficiently handling to failures may
hold, and possibly even increase, customer satisfaction and loyalty in the future. Furthermore, it may
result in a higher level of customer satisfaction than would have been the case if the service failure had
not occurred (Berry et al., 2006). Moreover, post – recovery consumer satisfaction has been discovered
to be a necessary precursor of positive word-of-mouth advertising as well as customer loyalty (Chang &
Hung, 2013). In aviation industry, passenger satisfaction is also negatively impacted by service failure,
while passenger satisfaction is also favourably influenced by service recovery which can prevent negative
emotion of customers (Ali et al., 2020).
According to Zemke and Bell (1990), apologizing is the first step in restoring equity from the stand-
point of a service provider, because it acknowledges at the very least that the client has been inconve-
nienced, even if the service firm is not liable for the infraction. Whereas, time delays raise customer
dissatisfaction and have a negative impact on their views of service quality (Boshoff, 1999), but rapid
service recovery may have reduced unhappiness (Park & Park, 2016). Moreover, one of the other service
recovery activities is pointed out by Johnston and Michel (2008) which is compensation strategy is about
giving the customer some value-added benefit to balance the negative effects (Boshoff, 1999) and
increasing the customer’s satisfaction (Sciarelli et al., 2017). Liao (2007) mentioned that this service recov-
ery strategy including politeness, appreciation, friendliness, and patience which its dissatisfied customers
felt they have a high priority (Park & Park, 2016). Therefore, the author proposed the following the
hypothese:

H1a: Service recovery – apology positively influences customer recovery satisfaction

H2a: Service recovery – poliness positively influences customer recovery satisfaction

H3a: Service recovery – Compensation positively influences customer recovery satisfaction

H4a: Service recovery – Response speeds positively influences customer recovery satisfaction
4 V. D. TRAN

Attitude loyalty and customer recovery satisfaction

In today’s competitive airline travel market, loyalty has been deemed a significant instrument con-
tributing to airlines’ current and future income. Hirschman (1970) defines loyalty as the expectation
that he or she will act in the future. Cheng et al, (2018) also showed that customer loyalty is
described as a deeply felt commitment to repurchase or re-patronize goods from the same service
providers in the future. It might lead to brand-set purchases or repetitive purchases of the same
brand (Oliver, 1999). According to Wong and Sohal (2003), customer loyalty is described as custom-
ers purchasing goods or services frequently over time while maintaining a positive opinion toward
the goods or services or the firm that delivers them. Besides, customer loyalty as behaviour in
which attention is paid to a service provider or behaviour that occurs as a reaction to the positive
behaviour of a service provider (Lam et al., 2004). The concept of loyalty is made up of two parts:
attitudinal and behavioral aspects (Chan & Shaheen, 2016). According to Hsu and Lin (2016), the
emphasis on behavior in behavior loyalty emphasizes gauging loyalty through buying behavior and
intention, while attitude loyalty focuses on assessing brand loyalty based on consumer preferences.
DeWitt et al. (2008) showed individuals’ justice perceptions of service recovery attempts affect their
emotional response, which influences attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. However, customer loyalty
is unaffected by apologizing or recovering quickly (Sciarelli et al., 2017). On the other hand, Chou
(2015) showed that some form of service recovery (apology and compensation) has a beneficial
impact on customer loyalty (both attitudinal and behavioral). Therefore, in the aviation industry,
whether there is a relationship between service recovery attributes and attitudinal loyalty. Moreover,
this research only focused on attitudinal loyalty, which was found positively influenced by customer
satisfaction (Han & Hyun, 2018). The reason focusing on attitudinal loyalty because it is more widely
used than the behavioural approach, Han and Hyun (2018) employed attitudinal loyalty to measure
cruise passengers’ loyalty. As a consequence, the author employed the attitudinal dimension to
measure passengers’ loyalty to airline carriers, as proposed by Han and Hyun (2018). The author has
put forward the following hypotheses:

H1b: Service recovery – apology positively influences attitude loyalty

H2b: Service recovery – poliness positively influences attitude loyalty

H3b: Service recovery – Compensation positively influences attitude loyalty

H4b: Service recovery – Response speeds positively influences attitude loyalty

Customer satisfaction refers to a customer’s reaction to a company’s ability to meet his or her expec-
tations (Jin et al., 2019), which appears to be a major predictor of important behavioral reactions includ-
ing word-of-mouth referrals and loyalty (Hollebeek et al., 2019). Thus, effective service recovery has sparked
a lot of attention and research since it is so vital, especially in the service business (Edvardsson et al,
2000), which may lead to raising loyalty (Choi & Choi, 2014). According to Nusair (2011), if a client has a
favorable service recovery experience, their commitment is likely to enhance. Besides, customers satisfac-
tion is well recognized by Cheng et al. (2018) as one of the conditions for enhancing customer loyalty.
Customers who are happy with a service recovery are more likely to buy it again, which leads to higher
brand loyalty as well as fewer complaints (Johnson et al., 2001). In addition, Mccollough (2000) also
argued that excellent service recovery can boost customer loyalty. Besides, customer satisfaction has a
significant impact on attitudinal loyalty (Banyte et al., 2014), and service recovery satisfaction has a strong
positive impact on both word of mouth and significant optimistic influence as a whole (Kim et al., 2012).
The higher their satisfaction with service recovery, the more likely they are to inform others about the
benefits of doing business with the firm and encourage them to do so as well (Sciarelli et al., 2017). As
a result, the service provider must constantly assess the degree of satisfaction of its consumers and apply
that knowledge to improve service delivery to gain a major competitive advantage. Hence, the following
hypothesis is proposed:

H5: Customer recovery satisfaction positively influences on attitude loyalty

 Cogent Business & Management 5

Brand authenticity
In the disciplines of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and anthropology, authenticity has been defined
in a variety of ways (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). The majority of marketing definitions of authenticity
are based on sociological and psychological notions of authenticity (Jian et al, 2019). According to psy-
chology, individuals with higher levels of authenticity who are driven by their activities from inside rather
than from without, and so are less inclined to modify their behaviour owing to external pressure or
influence (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). While, the identified variables (i.e. brand heritage, brand nostalgia,
brand commercialization, brand clarity, brand’s social commitment, brand legitimacy, actual self-congruence,
and staff passion) can consider as these factor impacting brand authenticity (Fritz et al, 2017). Moreover,
as a counterbalance to current society’s technical complexity, Wang (1999) investigated consumers’ great
need for authenticity. Travelers ask to relaxing time, be genuine to themselves, and have real experiences
as an activity apart from the limitations of daily life (Lin et al, 2021). Tran and Keng (2018) developed
the scale measurements through a comprehensive literature review, and tests the validity of the scale. In
this research, the 17-item brand authenticity scale captures in a reliable and stable way six dimensions
of brand authenticity: virtue, connection, reality, aesthetics, control and originality. Tran and Nguyen
(2022) developed a new model presenting positive significant relationships among brand experience,
brand authenticity, and brand equity and customer satisfaction. Especially, it is a valuable contribution
to branding subject that brand experience positively affects the authenticity of the global brand. Brand
authenticity impacts purchase intentions as a key aspect of brand identification and brand identity. It
suggests an original location, a dedication to quality, and continuity of the brand essence. Furthermore,
prior research has shown that brand authenticity enhances brand attitude (Manthiou et al., 2018).
Moreover, Manthiou et al. (2018) revealed that brand authenticity enhances brand impression and
brand love.
In the aviation industry, customers may give an opportunity to choose the airline brand that they
have good experiences to make them trustworthy if they pay more attention to safety procedures in
the airline business. If customers are more satisfied after flying with a certain brand, they are more
likely to fly with that brand again and develop brand loyalty over time (Lin et al, 2021). Individuals that
are highly motivated to fulfill a given function strengthen their attribution of authenticity, therefore it’s
reasonable to suggest that brand ambassadors improve a brand’s authenticity (Wickham, 2013). As a
result, the following hypothesis predicts that brand authenticity will play a moderator function in
this study:
H6: Brand authenticity has moderator effect between attitude loyalty and customer recovery satisfaction.

Methodology
Research framework
A beneficial effect of service recovery on customer satisfaction has been proven in the marketing lit-
erature. Emadi and Swaminathan (2018) demonstrated that a positive effect of service recovery on
customer satisfaction. Moreover, The empirical results showed that service recovery and customer sat-
isfaction show a significant positive correlation. Politeness, compensation, and response speed of ser-
vice remediation have a positive and significant impact on satisfaction; brand authenticity and
perceived authenticity have a moderator effect (Lin et al. 2021). In the airline and hospitality industry,
an authentic experience is an essential motivation for a passenger; therefore, when a perceived authen-
ticity and brand authenticity are high, the need for authenticity is satisfied, and the passenger is more
likely to repurchase the airlines and recommend it to others. It has been found that the perception of
authenticity positively affects customer satisfaction for service recovery (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010;
Manthiou et al., 2018) Thus, from all the previous literature, the author assumed the primary study
proposal examining these variables including Service recovery characteristics, Customer recovery satis-
faction, Attitude Loyalty, Brand Authenticity. Moreover, brand authenticity as a moderator in the real-
tionship between customer recovery satisfaction and attitude loyalty. The suitable conceptual framework
was represented in Figure 1.
6 V. D. TRAN

Figure 1. Research framework.

Questionnaire design
This study uses the purposive sample approach to look into customers who have had service problems
with a certain airline. Five-point Likert-type scales were used to assess all of the items. The participants
were asked to fill in whether they had ever experienced a scenario or had a perception of service failure
at the beginning of the questionnaire basic information. Gender, age, educational level, and occupation
are among the demographic factors. the satisfaction of airline customer recovery satisfaction was mea-
sured using the three items below, which were modified from Smith et al. (1999). The 16 items measured
apology, compensation, response speeds, politeness were also based on Mostafa et al. (2015). While, 10
elements derived from Akbar and Wymer (2017) were used to assess brand authenticity. Moreover, atti-
tude loyalty was measured with three items adapted from Sciarelli et al. (2017).

Demographic statistics
The questionnaire to 300 respondents was launched through Google form. A total of 250 valid responses
have been received. There were 51 incorrect responses because the reversed scale questions were not
answered correctly. In which, 116 (46%) were from men and 134 (44%) were from women, however the
one who work in financial sector makes for the majority of the population. The majority of responders
(65, 26%) were between the ages of 30 and 40. The largest (93, 37%) had attended Associate Bachelor
Degree (Table 1).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was utilized to determine the measurement models’ convergent and
discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2009). Convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model
in this study are examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The goodness-of-fit of CFA is utilized
to further examine the constructs’ convergent validity. In the CFA results were represent through the
following indexes including Chi-square/df (cmin/df ) = 1.389, Goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.932, Adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.914, Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.970, Root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEM) = 0.034, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.965. As a result, all of the variables in this
study were within the acceptable range (Table 2).

Construct validity
It is a high degree of reliability if the Cronbach’s coefficient falls between 0.7 and 0.98; if it goes below
0.35, it must be eliminated. Fortunately, each variable’s average value was a range between 0.720 and
0.920. Thus, the reliability of all the variables including service recovery attributes including
 Cogent Business & Management 7

Table 1. Response rate of groups.

Category Number of respondents Percentage
Gender
Male 131 53%
Female 119 47%
Age
Less than 20 60 24%
20–30 59 24%
30–40 51 20%
40–50 39 16%
50–60 31 12%
Above 60 10 4%
Occupation
Student 90 36%
Business Administration 55 22%
Service industry 42 17%
Free industry 38 15%
Retirees 15 6%
Others 10 4%
Education
High school or below 25 10%
College/ University 170 68%
Master Degree 42 17%
PHD Degree 13 5%

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis.

Measure Threshold Present study results Source
Chi-square/df (cmin/df) ≤ 2 good; ≤ sometimes permissible 1.389 Hair et al. (2009)
Goodness of fit index (GFI) ≥ 0.9: acceptable; ≥ 0.8: marginal 0.932 Hair et al. (2009)
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) ≥ 0.8 0.914 Hair et al. (2009)
Comparative fit index (CFI) ≥0.95 great; ≥0.90 traditional; 0.970 Hair et al. (2009)
≥0.80 sometimes permissible
Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEM) ≤0.05 good; ≤0.08 moderate 0.034 Hair et al. (2009)
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥0.90 0.965 Hair et al. (2009)

compensation, apology, speedy, politeness, aattitude loyalty, customer recovery satisfaction, brand
authenticity was acceptable (Table 3).
The factor loading of the majority of the items was greater than 0.5 (Hair el al., 2009). Furthermore,
each construct’s average variance extracted (AVE) ranging from 0.508 to 0.604 which is greater than 0.5.
While all construct reliability (CR) values ranging from 0.774 to 0.938 which are greater than 0.7. Therefore,
results were acceptable (Table 3).
Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the square root of AVE of a latent construct is higher
than all the construct correlation The findings revealed that compensation, apology, promptness, polite-
ness, attitude loyalty, customer recovery satisfaction, and brand authenticity all had square AVE values
(Table 4). As a result, the results were satisfactory (Hair et al, 2009).

Hypothesis testing
We developed a structural equation model to test the hypothesis after obtaining acceptable reliability
and validity results. Various indices of structural model normed, chi-square/df (cmin/df ) = 1.389, Goodness
of fit index (GFI) = 0.932, Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.914, Comparative fit index (CFI) =
0.970, Root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEM) = 0.034, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.965. All
the results were accepted (Hair et al., 2009) (Figure 2).
Overall, within 9 proposed hypotheses have 4 hypotheses unsupported and the rest is definitely sup-
ported (Table 5). Data analysis indicated that apology has a significant, effects to service recovery satis-
faction (β = 0.360, p < .001). Thus, H1a is supported. However, apology has no significant positive effects
on attitude loyalty (β = 0.089), H1b is unsupported in this study. In addition, politeness (β = 0.2160, p <
.01) also have a significant, positive impact on service recovery satisfaction. Thus, H2a is also supported.
However, it can be seen that politeness has no significant influence on attitude loyalty. Follow by,
8 V. D. TRAN

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fitting Indices.

Estimate t-value Cronbach CR AVE
Compensation 0.848 0.852 0.537
COM1 0.740
COM2 0.718
COM3 0.675
COM4 0.664
COM5 0.853
Apology – 0.854 0.595
APO1 0.725
APO2 0.772
APO3 0.825
APO4 0.763
Response speed 0.793 0.804 0.508
RES1 0.697
RES2 0.804
RES3 0.700
RES4 0.643
Politeness 0.720 0.774 0.540
POL1 0.621
POL2 0.670
POL3 0.887
Attitude loyalty
AL1 0.895 0.753 0.778 0.545
AL2 0.671
AL3 0.621 –
Customer Recovery 0.887 0.788 0.553
Satisfaction
CRS1 0.739
CRS2 0.773
CRS3 0.719
Brand Authenticity 0.920 0.938 0.604
BA1 0.725
BA2 0.762
BA3 0.723
BA4 0.862
BA5 0.700
BA6 0.843
BA7 0.775
BA8 0.821
BA9 0.776
BA10 0.773

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

AP PL CP RS RC AT
AP
PL 0.071**
CP −0.189** −0.065**
RS 0.240** 0.291** −0.141**
RC 0.346** 0.251** −0.174** 0.281**
AT 0.187** 0.138** −0.126** 0.216** 0.250**

compensation have no found the positive relationship with attitude loyalty (β = –0.085) and service
recovery satisfaction (β = –0.092). Thus, H3a, H3b are unsupported. Moreover, response speed has signif-
icant positive relates to both attitude loyalty (β = 0.146, p < .01) and service recovery satisfaction (β = 0.119,
p < .01). Hence, H4a, H4b are also supported. Finally, service recovery satisfaction was positively pre-
dicted by attitude loyalty (β = 0.175, p < .01).

Moderation results
The author investigates if brand authenticity may be used to analyze the impact of service recovery
satisfaction on attitude loyalty (moderator). According to the moderating effect of brand authenticity
illustrated in Figure 3, brand authenticity has a considerable influence on the link between attitude
loyalty and service recovery satisfaction (moderate path coefficient = 0.287***, p < 0.001), supporting
Hypothesis 6. Specifically, service recovery satisfaction correlated with brand authenticity, with
 Cogent Business & Management 9

Figure 2. Results of model testing.

Table 5. Results of hypothesis test.

Hypotheses Path Standardized path coefficient Result
H1a APO→ CRS 0.360*** Support
H1b APO → ATL 0.089 Unsupport
H2a POL→ CRS 0.2160** supported
H2b POL→ ATL 0.048 Unsupported
H3a COM→ CRS −0.092 Unsupported
H3b COM→ ATL −0.085 Unsupported
H4a RES→ CRS 0.119** Support
H4b RES→ ATL 0.146** Support
H5 CRS→ ATL 0.175** Support
Note. N = 249, *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 3. Plotted interaction of customer recovery satisfaction and attitude loyalty on brand authenticity.

individuals with lower levels of brand authenticity having lower levels of attitude loyalty. Those with a
higher level of brand authenticity showed higher levels of attitude loyalty when they were more satis-
fied in service recovery.
10 V. D. TRAN

Discussion
The purpose of this study is to see if airline customer service recovery influences customer satisfaction
and attitude loyalty. It also investigates whether brand authenticity has a moderating effect on the
relationship between customer recovery satisfaction and attitude loyalty. Despite the fact that a sub-
stantial body of research shows that different service recoveries improves customer satisfaction, consid-
erably less consideration has been devoted to the moderating influence of brand authenticity.
Furthermore, this study suggested that all service recovery techniques, such as making an apology and
speedy recovery, compensation, and politeness, had an impact on attitude loyalty. Thus, this study was
designed to examine 6 hypotheses. The results stated that apologizing have a positive impact on ser-
vice recovery satisfaction, which quite contract to the findings of Lin et al. (2021). This study support
one of service recovery is making an apology optimistic influence on service recovery satisfaction. In
aviation sector, Atuo and Kalu (2017) illustrated apology is a service recovery technique that is both a
tool for calming down an irritated client and a weapon for increasing loyalty. However, Lin et al. (2021)
did not find any relationship between apology and service recovery satisfaction. Moreover, Levesque
and McDogugall’s (2000) review also supported Lin et al. (2021) finding that apologizing alone is inef-
fective, especially in the case of a fundamental service failure. In addition, customers are not able to
feel satisfied if they have not received any politeness attitude from the airline company during the
recovery service process, Sciarelli et al.’s (2017) and Liao (2007). They demonstrated that being polite-
ness has a substantial influence on service recovery satisfaction. Furthermore, recovery speed was
shown to have a substantial beneficial influence on service recovery satisfaction, which is in line with
Lin et al. (2021), Sciarelli et al.’s (2017), and Mostafa et al. (2014), Wirtz and Mattila (2004). According to
these prior authors, recovery speed has a favorable influence on service recovery satisfaction. On the
other hand, this study found that compensating customers for their service failure has no substantial
beneficial influence on service recovery satisfaction in aviation industry, which is contrast to the find-
ings of Lin et al. (2021), Sciarelli et al.’s (2017) and Kim’s (2007) in other sectors. The mentioned authors
argued that compensation is a good way to improve consumer satisfaction with service recovery.
However, our findings were consistent with those of Mostafa et al. (2014), indicating that compensation
would not have an impact on service recovery satisfaction. Thus, customers witness expressing an apol-
ogy, receiving politeness, and responding quickly as one of the cornerstones for the service provider to
raise customer satisfied feeling during recovery service, while compensation seems to be not relevant
to service recovery satisfaction.
Furthermore, this study emphasizes how service recovery strategies such as apologizing, compen-
sating, speeding up recovery, and being polite may have a good influence on attitude loyalty. As a
result, the relationship between recovery speed and attitude loyalty in the aviation sector has become
significant which contradicts the outcome of Lin et al. (2021). They claimed that all service recovery
techniques, with the exception of making an apology and recovering quickly, had an impact on cus-
tomer loyalty. While other recovery actions containing making apology, being politeness and compen-
sations are not supported in the context of Viet Nam airline industy. According to Komunda and
Osarenkhoe (2012) and Yaya et al. (2013), service recovery efforts lead to positive WOM behavior and
the propagation of positivity for the service provider. Chou (2015) mentioned that apology and com-
pensation which is kind of service recovery influence not only positively on customer attitudinal loy-
alty but also behavioral loyalty, which is defintely constrast to this finding. Thus, in the aviation
context in Vietnam, service recovery speed seems to be considered as one of the effective strategies
because it positively affects passenger loyalty. From there, it will help the airline to create loyal cus-
tomers. That is why a quick response can easily win customers over as it makes them feel cared about
and valued for the business. Moreover, customer recovery satisfaction positively influences on attitude
loyalty which was found in this study. Cheng et al. (2018), Banyte et al. (2014), and Cambra-Fierro
et al., (2017) all found that service recovery satisfaction had a large beneficial impact on customer
attitudinal loyalty.
In addition, the current study investigated the distinctive characteristic of brand authenticity in the
direct and indirect relationships between service recovery satisfaction and attitudinal loyalty. As a result,
the moderator’s findings are regarded as special point to add to the prior hypothesis. This recommends
 Cogent Business & Management 11

the positive linkage between customer customer recovery satisfaction and attitude loyalty decreases
when people are a high level of brand authenticity. It can be inferred that High brand authenticity
among consumers diminishes the positive consequence of customer recovery satisfaction and the resul-
tant consumer attitudinal loyalty. Moreover, it can be seen customers who have high levels of brand
authenticity are more likely to be satisfied with their recovery.

Conclusion
In today’s dynamic marketplace, most airline companies focus on preserving and sustaining their clients,
because customers increasingly complain frequently when companies fail to fulfill their standards or
expectations (Atuo & Kalu, 2017). There has been progress in recovering from insufficient service delivery,
which has gotten a lot of attention in the literature so far. Hence, the purpose of this study is to see if
airline customer service recovery influences customer satisfaction and a key sort of loyalty known as
attitude loyalty. Besides, this study also examines the moderating impact of brand authenticity. These
findings are not entirely consistent with previous research that has looked at such variables in the con-
text of service restoration strategy. Firstly, some of the results of this study contradict that of Lin et al.
(2021). Within these service recovery variables, only recovery speed had a positive effect on attitude
loyalty, whereas except compensation, the rest of the recovery service recovery variables were supported
which have a positive impact on customer recovery satisfaction. While Lin et al. (2021) claimed that
apologizing had a negative impact on service recovery satisfaction, they also stated that politeness, com-
pensation, and reaction speed have favorable impacts. According to Sciarelli et al. (2017), apology and
recovery speed approach have no substantial impact on customer loyalty, both directly and indirectly
through customer recovery satisfaction.

Theoretical contributions
This study is an opportunity to investigate the relationship between service failure recovery, customer
recovery satisfaction, and attitude loyalty for airline industry. Based on the review of existing concepts
and studies, the research also expands and develops definitions of the components of service recovery,
customer recovery satisfaction, and attitude loyalty in the context of the airline business in Vietnam. This
study found that apologies, politeness, and recovery speed all have a substantial impact on service
recovery satisfaction, with only recovery speed having a positive relationship with attitudinal loyalty. In
addition, there are few earlier studies that have found a moderate importance for brand authenticity in
the association between customer happiness and attitude loyalty. Thus, in the context of the airline
business in Vietnam, this study discovered a moderate effect of brand authenticity in the relationship
between customer satisfaction and attitude loyalty.

Practical contributions
This study has a lot of implications for airline management since it reveals service failure recovery strat-
egies. Managers can attempt to reduce service failure at their airlines in order to boost brand authen-
ticity. Furthermore, because of the impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty (Sciarelli et al., 2017),
this research advises managers to think like customers, appreciate and pamper their customers, and
surpass their expectations. Then, managers should be interested in ensuring and implementing efficient
service recovery processes to their staff. Moreover, airline companies must also take feedback and com-
plaint handling into their serious consideration. Because service recovery speed was found to affect
both customer satisfaction and their loyalty in this study. In addition, when customers believe an air-
line’s attitude is sincere, their pleasure is less likely to change as a result of the airline’s apologetic
conduct. Besides, airlines could also create their brand image; they may use a brand collaboration
approach to increase existing customer groups’ loyalty and brand repute while maintaining their pres-
ent market position.
12 V. D. TRAN

Limitation and directions of future research

Although this research adds to our understanding of attitude loyalty, brand authenticity, and recovery
satisfaction, it does have certain drawbacks. This study collected data using quantitative methods and
concentrated on a single industry in Ho Chi Minh city of Vietnam, with an emphasis on airline services.
To improve the relevance of the findings, future study should use a longitudinal design with both qual-
itative and quantitative approaches, as well as investigate other regions of these countries. Besides, it
focuses on investigating the impact of service recovery strategies on positive outcomes such as cus-
tomer loyalty, and recovery satisfaction implying that more research is needed to understand their
impact on some negative outcomes. Moreover, this study classified service recovery strategies to inves-
tigate the effects of each strategy on customer loyalty and recovery satisfaction into four types: com-
pensation, apology, politeness, speed of recovery. As a result, future researchers may want to compare
more service recovery kinds to each other in order to explore a different types of customer loyalty more
thoroughly.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

About the author

Van Dat Tran is a lecturer in marketing and currently heads the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business
Administration, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Vietnam. Van Dat Tran is currently working as head of the
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Vietnam. He has
completed his doctorate from Taiwan in Industrial and business management. Presently, he teaches subjects such as
consumer behaviors, consumer psychology, brand management, marketing management, digital marketing.

References
Akbar, M. M., & Wymer, W. (2017). Refining the conceptualization of brand authenticity. Journal of Brand Management,
24(1), 1–15.
Ali, S. R., Said, N., Jislan, F., Mat, K. A., & Aznan, W. N. (2020). The Relationship between Service Failure and Service
Recovery with Airline Passenger Satisfaction, 1529(2), 022062.
Atuo, E. C., & Kalu, S. E. (2017). Service failure recovery and customer loyalty: A study of airline industry in Nigeria.
International Journal of Marketing Communication Studies, 2(2), 33–46.
Bagherzadeh, R., Monika, R., Wei, S. P., Torres, S., & Luis, J. (2020). The journey from customer participation in service
failure to co-creation in service recovery, 54(4), 102058.
Bankova, M., B, A., & Vu, H. L. (2018). Airline Service Failures: A study on relationships between lack of control, emo-
tions, and negative word-of-mouth. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54(2), 76–88.
Banytė, J., Tarutė, A., & Taujanskytė, I. (2014). Customer engagement into value creation: Determining factors and
relations with loyalty. Engineering Economics, 25(5), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.25.5.8402
Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest for authenticity consumption: consumers’ purposive choice of au-
thentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838–856. https://doi.
org/10.1086/615047
Bejou, D., & Palmer, A. (1998). Service failure and loyalty: An exploratory empirical study of airline customers. Journal
of Services Marketing, 12(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049810202339
Berry, L. L., Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (2006). Service clues and customer assessment of the service experience:
Lessons from marketing. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.
2006.20591004
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal
of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1086/208564
Boshoff, C. (1999). RECOVSAT: An instrument to measure satisfaction with transaction-specific service recovery. Journal
of Service Research, 1(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467059913005
Cambra-Fierro, J., Pérez, L., & Grott, E. (2017). Towards a co-creation framework in the retail banking services industry:
Do demographics influence? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jret-
conser.2016.10.007
Chan, Y. Y., & Shaheen, M. (2016). Factor that influences consumers’ Brand loyalty towards cosmetic products. Journal
of Marketing Management and Consumer Behavior, 1(1), 12–29.
 Cogent Business & Management 13

Chang, L. Y., & Hung, S. C. (2013). Adoption and loyalty toward low cost carriers: The case of Taipei–Singapore pas-
sengers. Transportation Research Part E, 50, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.10.003
Cheng, B. L., Gan, C. C., Imrie, B. C., & Mansori, S. (2018). Service recovery, customer satisfaction and customer loy-
alty: Evidence from Malaysia’s hotel industry. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 11(2), 187–203.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-09-2017-0081
Chow, C. K. W. (2014). Customer satisfaction and service quality in the Chinese airline industry. Journal of Air Transport
Management, (35), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2013.11.013
Choi, B., & Choi, B. J. (2014). The effects of perceived service recovery justice on customer affection, loyalty, and
word-of-mouth. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2011-0299
Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D. (2002). Relationship marketing: Creating stakeholder value. Butterworth-Heinemann.
DeWitt, T., Nguyen, D. T., & Marshall, R. (2008). Exploring customer loyalty following service recovery: The mediating
effects of trust and emotions. Journal of Service Research, 10(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507310767
Edvardsson, B., Johnson, M. D., Gustafsson, A., & Strandvik, T. (2000). The effects of satisfaction and loyalty on
profits and growth: Products versus services. Total Quality Management, 11(7), 917–927. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09544120050135461
Emadi, S. M., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2018). Customer learning in call centers from previous waiting experiences.
Operations Research, 66(5), 1433–1456. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2018.1738
Fayos-Gardó, T., Moliner-Velázquez, B., & Ruiz-Molina, M.-E. (2015). Is it possible to increase customer satisfaction after
a complaint? The Service Recovery Paradox in retailing. Universia Business Review, 2015(46), 54–69.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – Exploring antecedents and consequences
of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2014-0633
Gelbrich, K., & Roschk, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of organizational complaint handling and customer responses.
Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510387914
Gustafsson, A., & Johnson, M. D. (2004). Determining attribute importance in a service satisfaction model. Journal of
Service Research, 7(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504268453
Gronroos, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service quality. Review of Business, 9, 10–13.
Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. B., Anderson, R. E., Tatham,., & R., L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados (6th ed.).
Bookman.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2018). Role of motivations for luxury cruise traveling, satisfaction, and involvement in build-
ing traveler loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 70, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2017.10.024
Hess, R. L., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2003). Service failure and recovery: The impact of relationship factors on customer
satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302250898
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and States. Harvard
University Press.
Hollebeek, L. D., Sprott, D. E., Andreassen, T. W., Costley, C., Klaus, P., Kuppelwieser, V., Karahasanovic, A., Taguchi, T., Ul
Islam, J., & Rather, R. A. (2019). Customer engagement in evolving technological environments: Synopsis and guiding
propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 2018–2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2019-970
Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2016). Effect of perceived value and social influences on mobile app stickiness and in-app
purchase intention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 108, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tech-
fore.2016.04.012
Jin, D., DiPietro, R. B., & Fan, A. (2019). The impact of customer controllability and service recovery type on custom-
er satisfaction and consequent behavior intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(1), 65–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1602095
Jian, Y., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2019). Brand cultural symbolism, brand authenticity, and consumer well-being: The
moderating role of cultural involvement. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(4), 529–539. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-1981
Johnston, R., & Michel, S. (2008). Three outcomes of service recovery: Customer recovery, process recovery and em-
ployee recovery. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28(1), 79–99. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01443570810841112
Jung, N. Y., & Seock, Y. (2017). Effect of service recovery on customers’ perceived justice, satisfaction, and word-of-
mouth intentions on online shopping websites. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37, 23–30.
Keiningham, T. L., Morgeson, F. V., Aksoy, L., & Williams, L. (2014). Service failure severity, customer satisfaction, and
market share: An examination of the airline industry. Journal of Service Research, 17(4), 415–431. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094670514538119
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Research and theory.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 284–357.
Kim, T., Yoo, J., & Lee, G. (2012). Post-recovery customer relationships and customer partnerships in a restaurant setting.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(3), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211217879
Kim, H., Kam, K., & So, F. (2023). The evolution of service failure and recovery research in hospitality and tourism: An
integrative review and future research directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 111, 103457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103457
14 V. D. TRAN

Komunda, M., & Oserankhoe, A. (2012). Effects of service recovery on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Business
Process Management Journal, 18(1), 82–103.
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, M. V., Erramilli, K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs:
An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3),
293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304263330
Lai, M. C., & Chou, F. S. (2015). The relationships among involvement level, service failure, service recovery disconfir-
mation and customer lifetime value. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 3(4), 452–457. https://doi.
org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.227
Levesque, T. J., & McDougall, G. H. (2000). Service problems and recovery strategies: An experiment. Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L’Administration, 17(1), 20–37. (https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00204.x
Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service recovery performance in customer-perceived jus-
tice and customer loyalty after service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 475–489. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.475
Lin, W. C., Lu, T. E., & Peng, M. Y. (2021). Service failure recovery on customer recovery satisfaction for airline industry:
The moderator of brand authenticity and perceived authenticity. Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(5), 1079–
1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3292
Manthiou, A., Kang, J., Hyun, S. S., & Fu, X. X. (2018). The impact of brand authenticity on building brand love: An
investigation of impression in memory and lifestyle congruence. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
75, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.005
Matikiti, R., Mpinganjira, M., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2017). Social media in Tourism: Establishing factors influencing
attitudes towards the usage of social networking sites for trip organisation. Acta Commercii, 17(1), 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.4102/ac.v17i1.396
McCollough, M. A. (2000). The effect of perceived justice and attributions regarding service failure and recovery on
postrecovery customer satisfaction and service quality attitudes. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(4),
423–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400402
McCollough, M. A. (2009). The recovery paradox: The effect of recovery performance and service failure severity
on post-recovery customer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 13(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/
10.1177/109634800002400402
Mostafa, R., R. Lages, C., & Sääksjärvi, M. (2014). The CURE scale: A multidimensional measure of service recovery
strategy. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(4), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2012-0166
Mostafa, R., Lages, C. R., Shabbir, H., & Thwaites, D. (2015). Corporate image: A service recovery perspective. Journal
of Service Research, 18(4), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670515584146
Nikbin, D., Marimuthu, M., Hyun, S. S., & Ismail, I. (2014). Effects of stability and controllability attribution on service
recovery evaluation in the context of the airline industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(7), 817–834.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.889642
Nusair, K. (2011). Examining the relationship among service recovery, affective commitment, calculative commitment,
and trust for e-travel retailers. The role of e-service recovery in building long-term customer relationships.
Information Technology & Tourism, 12(4), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830511X13049763021899
Nwokorie, E. C. (2016). Service recovery strategies and customer loyalty in selected hotels in Lagos state, Nigeria. Net
Journal of Business Management, 4(1), 1–8.
Ok, C., Back, K. J., & Shanklin, C. W. (2005). Modeling roles of service recovery strategy: A relationship-focused view.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(4), 484–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348005276935
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022
2429990634s105
Ozuem, W., Ranfagni, S., Willis, M., Rovai, S., & Howell, K. (2021). Exploring customers’ responses to online service
failure and recovery strategies during Covid-19 pandemic: An actor-network theory perspective. Psychology &
Marketing, 38(9), 1440–1459. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21527
Park, J. J., & Park, J. W. (2016). Investigating the effects of service recovery quality elements on passengers’ behav-
ioral intention. Journal of Air Transport Management, 53, 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.03.003
Reichheld, F., & Sasser, W. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68(5),
105–111.
Sciarelli, M., Nagm, A. A., Dakrory, M. I., Tani, M., & Khashan, M. A. (2017). Mediating service recovery satisfaction in
the relationship between internet service recovery and customer loyalty. International Journal of Business and
Management, 12(10), 24. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v12n10p24
Smith, A., Bolton, R., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure
and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152082
Sukri, S., Abdullah, F., & Waemustafa, W. (2014). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in the airline industry: A case study
of Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and Air Asia. International Case Study Conference, 18–19.
Tran, V. D., & Keng, J. (2018). The brand authenticity scale: Development and validation. Contemporary Management
Research, 14(4), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.18581
 Cogent Business & Management 15

Tran, D., & Nguyen, T. D. (2022). The impact of security, individuality, reputation, and consumer attitudes on purchase
intention of online shopping: The evidence in Vietnam. Cogent Psychology, 9(1), 2035530. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311908.2022.2035530
Tran, V. D. (2022). Consumer impulse buying behavior: The role of confidence as moderating effect. Heliyon, 8(6),
e09672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09672
Tran, V. D., & Nguyen, N. T. (2022). Investigating the relationship between brand experience, brand authenticity,
brand equity, and customer satisfaction: Evidence from Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2084968.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2084968
Valentini, S., Orsingher, C., & Polyakova, A. (2020). Customers’ emotions in service failure and recovery: A meta-analysis.
Marketing Letters, 31(2–3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09517-9
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–370. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0
Wickham, R. E. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5),
878–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.001
Wirtz, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2004). Consumer responses to compensation speed of recovery and apology after a service
failure. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230410532484
Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2003). Service quality and customer loyalty perspectives on two levels of retail relationships.
Journal of Services Marketing, 17(5), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040310486285
Xu, X., L, W., & Gursoy, D. (2018). The impacts of service failure and recovery efforts on airline customers’ emotions
and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 58(6), 1034–1051. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518789285
Yaya, L., Marimon, F., & Casadesus, M. (2013). Can ISO 9001 improve service recovery? Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 113(8), 1206–1221. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2013-0150
Zemke, R., & Bell, C. (1990). Service recovery: Doing it right the second time. Training, 27(6), 42–48.