Identifying the underlying structure of perceived service fairness in restaurants

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the applicability of fairness concepts as a lens for evaluating services in restaurants addressing service fairness issues within, as well as outside of, the service failure context. Design/methodology/approach Data are collected from two casual dining restaurants in the USA. In order to identify the underlying structure of perceived service fairness in restaurants, this study proposes and tests the fitness of two competing models – a traditional three‐factor model and an alternative four‐factor model. Findings A confirmatory factor analysis supports that a four‐factor structure of service fairness, which has integrated a customer benefits and sacrifice perspective with the original fairness theory, would be better for evaluating restaurant services instead of the three‐factor model that has frequently been applied in service failure and recovery contexts. Research limitations/implications The data are collected from only casual dining restaurants. Therefore, generalizing the results to other segments of the restaurant industry may not work. Practical implications This study offers managers a perspective for how consumers evaluate service from a fairness standpoint. The results also provide the basis for investigating which aspects of service fairness are critical in eliciting favorable emotional and behavioral consequences. Originality/value Compared with previous fairness studies, which have focused exclusively on the role of justice after service failure and recovery, this study considers all service delivery contexts (with or without service failure) in order to provide a richer portrait of service fairness. Also, this study contributes to the services marketing and consumer behavior literature by shedding light on the issue of “fairness” as an axiom for evaluating services in restaurants.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.