Diagnosing the impact of retail bank customers’ perceived justice on their service recovery satisfaction and post-purchase behaviours: an empirical study in financial centre of middle east

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual model. Source: Author.

Table 1. Demographic breakdown of respondents.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Female	69	39
Male	109	61
Age
20–34	117	66
35–44	42	24
45–60	17	9
61 and above	2	1
Maritual Status
Single	91	51
Married	80	45
Divorced or Widowed	7	4
Nationality
Philippine	44	25
India	31	17
Iran	24	13
UAE	18	10
Syria	9	5
Other	52	30
Education Level
Degree Lower than High School High School	39	22
Degree	102	57
Bachelor Degree	14	8
Graduate Degree	23	13
Monthly Family Income Level
Less than $2500	71	40
$2501–$5000	45	25
$5,001–$7500	22	12
$7501–$10,000	19	11
$10,001 and above	21	12
Occupation
Employee	92	52
Manager	33	18
Business Owner	20	11
Doctor/Lawyer/Consultant	16	9
Retired or Housewives	17	10

Source: Author.

Table 2. Convergent validity of constructs.

Variable											Factor Loading
Distributive Justice
ic =	0.93	Factor mean score =		4.66	α =	0.93	SD = 1.24		AVE =	0.65
The outcome I received was fair.											0.8275
I did not get what I was interested in. ®											0.7249
In resolving the problem, the bank gave me what I needed.											0.8409
The outcome I received was not right. ®											0.742
The bank’s employees were willing to provide what I needed when my requests were reasonable.											0.8413
When I brought valid requests, the bank’s employees would provide fair outcomes.											0.8508
When I consider my contribution to this bank as a customer, I am happy with the responses I get from the employees.											0.8137
Interactional Justice
ic =	0.93	Factor mean score =		4.91	α =	0.93	SD = 1.24		AVE =	0.66
The bank’s employees were courteous to me.											0.656
The bank’s personnel were honest with me.											0.8222
The bank’s personnel showed a real interest in trying to be fair.											0.8385
The bank’s employees showed concern.											0.8218
The bank’s employees tried to help me.											0.8552
The bank’s employees’ communication with me was appropriate.											0.8348
The bank’s employees put the proper effort into resolving my problem.											0.8212
Procedural Justice
ic =	0.97	Factor mean score =		4.57	α =	0.94	SD = 1.54		AVE =	0.60
My complaint was handled in a very timely manner.											0.9149
My complaint was not resolved as quickly as it should have been. ®											0.914
I often had to apply to the related bank’s employees for the resolution of my problem. ®											0.8761
Recovery Satisfaction
ic =	0.92	Factor mean score =		4.60	α =	0.89	SD = 1.44		AVE =	0.75
Overall, I am satisfied with the service I received.											0.8801
I am satisfied with the manner in which the service failure was resolved.											0.8841
This bank’s response to the service failure was better than expected.											0.8243
I now have a more positive attitude toward this bank.											0.8746
Trust
ic =	0.93	Factor mean score =		4.68	α =	0.89	SD = 1.40		AVE =	0.76
This bank’s employees can be trusted at all times.											0.861
This bank’s employees have a high level of integrity											0.8645
This bank’s employees make every effort to fulfil the promises made to its customers.											0.9012
Overall, this bank’s is reliable.											0.8612
Repurchase Intention
ic =	0.97	Factor mean score =		4.59	α =	0.94	SD = 1.75		AVE =	0.94
I consider this bank my first choice for work with.											0.9708
I consider this bank to work with when I need banking services.											0.9711
Word of Mouth
ic =	0.95	Factor mean score =		4.64	α =	0.92	SD = 1.62		AVE =	0.88
I would say positive things about this bank to other people.											0.9708
I would recommend this bank to someone who seeks your advice.											0.9711
I would encourage friends and relatives to use this bank.											0.9385

Notes: ‘ic’ is international consistency measure; ‘α’ is Cronbach’s alpha; ‘AVE’ is average variance extracted; ‘®’ means that these items were reversed scored. Source: Author.

Table 3. Discriminant validity of constructs.

	DJ	IJ	PJ	RI	RS	Trust	WOM
Distributive Justice	0.807
Interactional Justice	0.5.541	0.81
Procedural Justice	0.549	0.4.032	0.777
Repurchase Intention	0.3.861	0.5.618	0.2.981	0.971
Recovery Satisfaction	0.4.735	0.5.561	0.3.655	0.681	0.866
Trust	0.4.836	0.658	0.3.734	0.6.685	0.7.022	0.872
Word of Mouth	0.4.275	0.5.886	0.3.326	0.7.702	0.6.998	0.7.073	0.936

Note: Square root of AVE in the diagonal. Source: Author.

Table 4. Structural model results.

	Proposed Effect	Path Coef.	T-value	Significance
Effect on Recovery Sat. (R-Square 0.70)
H1. Distributive Justice	+	0.347	6.29	0.00
H2. Procedural Justice	+	0.218	4.02	0.00
H3. Interactional Justice	+	0.380	5.81	0.00
Effect on Trust (R-Square 0.64)
H4. Recovery Satisfaction	+	0.801	34.28	0.00
Effect on WOM(R-Square 0.69)
H5. Trust	+	0.399	5.84	0.00
H7. Recovery Satisfaction	+	0.477	6.90	0.00
Effect on Repurchase Int. (R-Square 0.67)
H6. Trust	+	0.396	5.56	0.00
H8. Recovery Satisfaction	+	0.465	6.26	0.00
Indirect Effects
Distributive Justice → Trust		0.278	6.49	0.00
Procedural Justice → Trust		0.175	4.13	0.00
Interactional Justice → Trust		0.304	5.43	0.00
Distributive Justice → WOM		0.277	6.23	0.00
Procedural Justice → WOM		0.174	4.06	0.00
Interactional Justice → WOM		0.303	5.71	0.00
Recovery Satisfaction → WOM		0.796	32.45	0.00
Distributive Justice → Repurchase Int.		0.271	5.99	0.00
Procedural Justice → Repurchase Int.		0.170	4.06	0.00
Interactional Justice → Repurchase Int.		0.297	5.75	0.00
Recovery Satisfaction → Repurchase Int.		0.781	26.44	0.00

Notes: p-values < 0,01. Source: Author.

Figure 2. Structural model. Source: Author.