Justice and trustworthiness factors affecting customer loyalty with mediating role of satisfaction with complaint handling: Zalo OTT Vietnamese customer case

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Table 1. Measurement scale

Variable	Source
Procedural justice	Tax et al. (1998)
1. I can talk to them in detail about my problem with Zalo OTT service
2. I am given some control over the outcome of the complaint with Zalo OTT service
3. My complaints are answered quickly with Zalo OTT service
4. To accommodate my needs, they have adjusted their complaints handling procedures with Zalo OTT service
5. I get support to voice my complaints with Zalo OTT service
6. They took responsibility for my complaint with Zalo OTT service
Interactional justice	Tax et al. (1998)
1. They (Zalo OTT service) communicated honestly with me
2. They (Zalo OTT service) were courteous to me
3. I was given a reasonable explanation as to why the original problem occurred with the Zalo OTT service
4. They seemed very concerned about my problem with Zalo OTT service
5. They did everything to solve my complaint with Zalo OTT service
6. They apologized for the problem with Zalo OTT service
Distributive justice	Tax et al. (1998)
1. The result of the complaint with Zalo OTT service was fair
2. In resolving the complaint, Zalo gave me what I needed
3. The result of the complaint with Zalo OTT service was what I expected
4. In resolving the complaint, Zalo tried hard to give me what I expected
Satisfaction with Complaint handling - SATCOM	Tax et al. (1998)
1. I was happy with how Zalo OTT service handled my complaint
2. I was pleased with how the complaint with Zalo OTT service was dealt with 3. Overall I was satisfied with the way the complaint with Zalo OTT service was handled
Trustworthiness	Modified from Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002)
Customer Trust in the Zalo OTT application
I feel that the Zalo OTT application is:
1. Very Undependable/Very Dependable
2. Very Incompetent/Very Competent
3. Of Very Low Integrity/Of Very High Integrity
4. Very Unresponsive to Customers/Very Responsive to Customers
Customer Trust in the Online service of the Zalo OTT application
I feel that the Online service of the Zalo OTT application is:
1. Very Undependable/Very Dependable
2. Very Incompetent/Very Competent
3. Of Very Low Integrity/Of Very High Integrity
4. Very Unresponsive to Customers/Very Responsive to Custo
loyalty factor Return intentions	Modified from Oliver (1999)
1. I will use Zalo OTT service again
2. I will use more Zalo OTT services in the future
3. I consider Zalo OTT service as my number one choice to use related services?
4. I will use the new application of Zalo OTT service
Word of Mouth
1. I will recommend Zalo OTT service to colleagues, relatives, neighbors, and friends
3. I will use both online and offline channels to speak well about Zalo OTT service to colleagues, relatives, neighbors, and friends
3. I will encourage and recommend your colleagues, relatives, neighbors, and friends to use Zalo OTT service

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis

	Justice Factor*^1 PRJ1-PRJ5 INJ1-INJ6 DIJ1-DIJ4	Trustworthiness** TRU1-TRU4 TRU5-TRU8	SATCOM SAT1-SAT3	Loyalty*** RET1-RET4 WOM1-WOM3
Cronbach’s α	0.834; 0.865; 0.727	0.806 & 0.772	0.868	0.818 & 0.792
KMO test	0.839	0.851	0.866	0.848
Bartlett	p < 0.05	p < 0.05	p < 0.05	p < 0.05
EFA	23.18%; 21.06; 17.78	36.52% & 26.12%	66.385%	35.63% & 27.41%
CFA Chi-square/Df	5.614	4.198	4.117	4.679
GFI	0.927	0.938	0.957	0.964
CFI	0.919	0.947	0.963	0.978
RMSEA	0.065	0.054	0.045	0.063

Source: Author’s primary research

¹* Justice factor (PRJF) has been built from three sub-factors including the first sub-factor, procedural justice (PRJ) through 5 variables (PRJ1-PRJ5), interactional justice (INJ) through 6 variables (INJ1-INJ6) and distributive justice (DIJ) through 4 variables (DIJ1-DIJ4).

**Trustworthiness Factor (TRUF) has been built from two sub-factors (1) TRU1-TRU4 Consumer trust in the firm’s website (Zalo OTT application); (2) TRU5-TRU8 Consumer trust in the online service of Zalo OTT application.

***Loyalty Factor (LOYF has been built from two sub-factors including the consumer return intentions (RETF) through 4 variables (RET1-RET4) and positive WOM (WOMF) through 3 variables (WOM1-WOM3).

Table 3. Results of CR and AVE of scales

No.	Scale	Number of observed variables	CR	AVE
1	Procedural justice	5	0.773	0.587
2	Interactional justice	6	0.723	0.671
3	Distributive justice	4	0.810	0.653
4	Consumer trust in the firm’s website	4	0.810	0.596
5	Consumer trust in the online service of the Zalo OTT application	4	0.744	0.625
6	Satisfaction with Complaint handling	3	0.774	0.623
7	consumer return intentions	4	0.731	0.562
8	Word of Mouth	3	0.785	0.634

Source: Author’s primary research

Figure 2. Structural equation model.

Table 4. Hypothesis results

Hypotheses	Linkage	Estimate	P-value	Result
H1a	PRJF→SATF	.32	***	Supported
H1b	INJF→SATF	.38	***	Supported
H1c	DIJF→SATF	.18	***	Supported
H3	SATF→LOYF	.56	***	Supported
H4	TRUF→LOYF	1.19	***	Supported

Source: Author’s primary research

Table 5. Direct – indirect – total effect hypothesis results

Hypotheses	Linkage	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect	Result
H2a	PRJF→SATF→LOYF	.00	.178	.178	Supported
H2b	INJF→SATF→LOYF	.00	.211	.211	Supported
H2c	DIJF→SATF→LOYF	.00	.103	.103	Supported
H5	TRUF→SATF→LOYF	1.187	.162	1.349	Supported

Source: primary research

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200205

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, S., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s105

 Google Scholar