International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

The influence of perceived service fairness on brand trust, brand experience and
brand citizenship behavior
Min-Seong Kim, Dong-Jin Shin, Dong-Woo Koo,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Min-Seong Kim, Dong-Jin Shin, Dong-Woo Koo, (2018) "The influence of perceived service
fairness on brand trust, brand experience and brand citizenship behavior", International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0355
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0355
Downloaded on: 11 August 2018, At: 06:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:145949 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

Influence of
The influence of perceived service perceived
fairness on brand trust, brand service
fairness
experience and brand
citizenship behavior
Min-Seong Kim Received 17 June 2017
Revised 26 August 2017
Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, 16 October 2017
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA Accepted 11 November 2017

Dong-Jin Shin
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

Department of Hotel Management, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and

Dong-Woo Koo
Department of Casino, Kangwon Tourism College, Taebaek-si, Republic of Korea

Abstract
Purpose – Service fairness has been conceptualized as a major part of the foodservice industry due to the
intangibility of foodservice, which is difficult to be evaluated by customers. Considering this challenge, this
study investigates the impacts of perceived service fairness dimensions in encouraging brand citizenship
behaviors (i.e. brand enthusiasm and brand endorsement) along with the mediating roles of brand trust and
brand experience in the foodservice industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on an established framework of perceived service fairness,
brand trust, brand experience and brand citizenship behavior, an exploratory conceptual model was
formulated and empirically assessed. Survey data were collected from customers of casual dining franchise
restaurants in Korea. Data analysis consisted of frequency analysis, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor
analysis, correlation analysis and structural equation modeling.
Findings – The empirical results indicated that brand trust was significantly influenced by price,
procedural, outcome and interactional fairness, while brand experience was significantly affected by price,
outcome and interactional fairness. Additionally, brand trust and brand experience had positive influences on
brand enthusiasm and brand endorsement, respectively.
Practical implications – A foodservice enterprise’s violation of customers’ fundamental need for fairness
leads to negative outcomes, such as customers voicing the undesirable situation and/or leaving the restaurant.
Thus, this study provides a strategy for maintaining service fairness to better develop brand relationships
with customers in the restaurant industry.
Originality/value – There is a paucity of research on the effect of perceived service fairness on brand
development in the restaurant industry. The findings provide greater insights into the impacts of perceived
service fairness, brand trust and brand experience on customers’ brand citizenship behaviors.
Keywords Restaurant, Brand experience, Brand trust, Brand citizenship behaviour,
Perceived service fairness
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of
Introduction Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Just to take care of one customer, a restaurant must provide an immense amount of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
human interaction, which begins with greeting the customer, assigning a table to the DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0355
 IJCHM customer and interacting with the customer (Nikbin et al., 2016). Each interaction of
serving the customer is subjected to an evaluation of fairness (Namkung and Jang, 2010).
While dining out, the customer wants to have a fair experience with a restaurant, and the
customer will judge the relationship with the restaurant and its service providers based
on if the interactions are acceptable, reasonable and just (Heo and Lee, 2011). Thus, the
fairness of the service and the judgments of the customer surface when he/she senses
either uniquely fair service or injustice when his/her dining experience conflicts with his/
her fairness standards (Martinez-Tur et al., 2006).
If a conflict occurs during the dining experience, a customer evaluates the justice or
fairness of the restaurant’s conflict-handling process based on three standpoints:
(1) fairness of outcomes (e.g. compensation);
(2) fairness of procedures (e.g. structural considerations and formal policies); and
(3) fairness of interactional treatment (e.g. politeness, neutrality and concern)
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

(Mattila and Patterson, 2004).

Regardless of service failure, consideration of all restaurant service delivery stages can
provide a better understanding of service fairness to both scholars and practitioners
(Michel et al., 2009). The notion that service quality and fairness are inseparable is
commonly accepted (Seiders and Berry, 1998). However, service quality and fairness are
distinct phenomena, as fairness encompasses all dimensions of service quality (Namkung
and Jang, 2010; Seiders and Berry, 1998). For example, perceived fairness could be an
additional driver of customer satisfaction, which was not captured in “the expectancy
disconfirmation paradigm” to measure service quality (Oliver and Swan, 1989). In
comparison to service quality, a fairness principle provides a distinctive framework to
explain the service consumption procedure, and a fairness episode can be used as a
significant attribute of the service evaluation process (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Despite
the importance of perceived service fairness in general restaurant contexts, however, it
has lacked empirical findings (Namkung and Jang, 2010; Nikbin et al., 2016).
In addition to a lack of empirical research on service fairness, there have been conflicting
perspectives on specifying the multi-dimensions of fairness based on the notion that the
fairness perceptions of a customer are context dependent (Colquitt, 2001). The
conceptualization of perceived fairness has not been congruent with the service failure
situation’s perspectives (Colquitt, 2001; Namkung et al., 2009; Nikbin et al., 2016). Thus,
Namkung et al. (2009) suggested a new “four-factor model of perceived fairness” embracing
the holistic service delivery processes of a restaurant. The four-factor model includes “price
fairness, procedural fairness, outcome fairness and interactional fairness.” After their
research, other research investigated the influences of perceived service fairness on the
positive or negative behavioral intention of customers for a certain type of restaurant, such as
fine dining restaurants (Nikbin et al., 2016) and luxury restaurants (Marinkovic et al., 2014).
To our knowledge, currently, there is little empirical research investigating what leads to
success in restaurant brand management with an emphasis on the role of perceived service
fairness in all brand service delivery situations. Brand management enables restaurant
brands to maintain a fair brand image perception among customers, who expect to have
consistent service and product fairness regardless of the location of the restaurant brand
(Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos, 2013). This approach guarantees economic advantages for
restaurants under a same brand due to the economies of scale. To be successful in the
foodservice business, therefore, restaurant brands need to establish and retain strong brand
management by focusing on service fairness. In particular, trust surrounding brand has the
 greatest potential to be a positive outcome for customers if a chain restaurant provides food Influence of
products and services fairly to the customers, which leads to the customers’ positive perceived
experience with the restaurant brand (Hyun, 2010). Thus, this study considers brand trust
and brand experience to be consequences of perceived service fairness.
service
From a brand management standpoint, prior studies have led to a deeper fairness
understanding of customer–brand relationships based on brand loyalty. However, it is
also noteworthy that research on brand citizenship behavior has created its own arena
of brand study (Nyadzayo et al., 2015). The brand citizenship behavior dimension is
associated with voluntarily supportive activities in two dimensions (i.e. brand
enthusiasm and brand endorsement) to fit the external and internal branding situation,
which enhances brand performance (Nyadzayo et al., 2015). Those behaviors can
enhance brand strength (Nyadzayo et al., 2015). To fill the aforementioned research gap,
this research investigates the influence of perceived service fairness dimensions, brand
trust, brand experience and brand citizenship behavior in the Korean foodservice
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

franchise context (see Figure 1). Thus, this study emphasizes the significant role of
fairness in building strong customer–brand relationships in the casual dining franchise
restaurant context.

Literature review
Service fairness
Fairness refers to the fundamental foundation individuals use to judge the nature of a
relationship between a social institution and its members (Namkung and Jang, 2010). Service
fairness, in this study, is defined as a consumer’s perception of the degree of fairness in the
delivery of a restaurant’s service (Seiders and Berry, 1998). Service fairness in the restaurant
context has been considered to have three sub-constructs regarding service failure, which
include distributive (i.e. there is an outcome of exchange and resource allocation, such as a
rebate or refund), procedural (i.e. a procedure is used to reach an exchange’s outcome, such as
refund policy, or time of receiving the refund) and interactional fairness (i.e. the communication
process, such as adequacy of language level, politeness or courtesy) (Nikbin et al., 2016).
According to Namkung and Jang (2010), the principle of fairness established in the area of
social psychology may have limitations and may not be completely applicable to the
foodservice context. Deutsch (1985), for example, criticized the measures of original justice
dimensions, indicating that it is debatable whether a consumer can assess output and input
values simultaneously. Because fairness perception is context dependent, and there may be a
contradiction in the multidimensionality of perceived fairness, the conceptualization of
perceived fairness cannot be congruent with a general perspective on service failure situations
(Namkung and Jang, 2010; Nikbin et al., 2016). To be specific, a consumer forms unfairness or
fairness judgments when he/she interprets a situation regarding the potential to minimize his/
her losses or investments and maximize his/her rewards or benefits (Peter and Olson, 1993).
Regarding sacrifice in consuming services or products, price fairness and procedural fairness
are chief concerns among consumers (Namkung and Jang, 2010). The literature on perceived
service fairness has proposed that, from a customer benefit standpoint, a fair behavior by a
service firm can be critical in interactional fairness (or relational reasons) as well as for outcome
fairness (or instrumental reasons) (Namasivayam, 2004). Therefore, based on a customer’s
sacrifice and benefit, this research uses a four-dimension model of service fairness.
Price fairness. Namkung and Jang (2010) defined price fairness as “a consumer’s overall
judgment of price based on a comparison of the actual price to acceptable prices determined
by both social standards (reference price) and self-interest (adaptation level)” (p. 1237). This
aspect of fairness may be a significant factor that influences a consumer’s purchase
 IJCHM decision-making process (Nikbin et al., 2016). Because price fairness is rooted in community
norms, price will be perceived to be unfair if the norms are violated (Herrmann et al., 2007). If
a company uses higher customer demands to its own advantages by increasing a price,
customers may feel they are being exploited and thus perceive that the price is unfair
(Herrmann et al., 2007). The existing literature has demonstrated that a consumer often
tends to be unwilling to pay prices which are perceived to be unfair (Nikbin et al., 2016;
Swan and Oliver, 1989).
Procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is defined as the procedures and policies used by
service providers for product outcomes (Namkung and Jang, 2010). Based on ethical
standards and accurate information, a fair procedure is impartial, unbiased, consistent and
representative of all parties’ interests (Leventhal et al., 1980). Procedural fairness relates to a
service system’s efficiency and timeliness as part of consumer sacrifice because in service
contexts, consumers perceive delays and waiting time as a loss of value and utility
(Namkung et al., 2009). According to Kellaris and Kent (1992), consumers view time, which
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

is an attribute of customer sacrifice, as a limited and finite resource. In a general restaurant

context, service wait times may be induced when the demand exceeds the delivery system’s
capacity (e.g. when customers arrive at a rate exceeding the ability of the service provider to
accommodate them) as well as by the time required for production (e.g. preparing food)
(Nikbin et al., 2016).
Interactional fairness. Interactional fairness refers to interpersonal behaviors as the
delivery of a consequence and enactment of a procedure (Tax et al., 1998). Interactional fairness
refers to certain features, including politeness, respect, courtesy and honesty (Namkung and
Jang, 2010). In the hospitality context, the quality of service completely depends on the
interpersonal skills of the service provider (Nikolich and Sparks, 1995). The service quality
refers to the overall quality of interpersonal interaction between the service provider and
customer which often impacts the customer’s evaluation of the service (Iacobucci et al., 1995).
Within the restaurant setting, typically, human interactions are frequent and may lead to either
guest frustration or satisfaction (Smith and Bolton, 1998). If customers perceive interactional
unfairness, it is predicted that they will react negatively to the restaurant whose behaviors
generated the unfair interaction (Masterson et al., 2000).
Outcome fairness. A customer’s evaluation of an outcome is referred to as outcome
fairness (Nikbin et al., 2016). The customer’s ties to the firm he/she patronizes are both
transactional and social (Nikbin et al., 2016). The service of the firm also embraces both
process and outcomes (Namkung and Jang, 2010). According to justice theory
(Adams, 1965), the importance of the relational and instrumental dimensions of an
individual’s affiliation with others is acknowledged. In addition, justice theory postulates
that an outcome represents what an individual has gotten from a social relationship
(Namkung and Jang, 2010). Thus, a customer perceiving an outcome’s benefits to be equal to
his/her inputs may perceive outcome fairness to be present (Nikbin et al., 2016). Customers
attempt to maximize their long-term net benefit over the course of the relationship.

Brand trust
Brand trust refers to “the confident expectations of the brand’s reliability and intentions in
situations entailing risk to the consumer” (Delgado-Ballester, 2004, p. 574). A consumer will
trust a brand if he/she feels the brand performs as promised or expected. For a trustworthy
brand, if an unexpected issue arises, such as unfairness, consumers believe the brand will try to
fix the problem. Consumers tend to highlight a product’s tangible characteristics and
performance to estimate whether a brand is trustworthy (Napoli et al., 2014). It has become
increasingly difficult to build brand trust not only because a higher degree of consumer
 cynicism exists in the modern-day market place (Napoli et al., 2014) but also because today’s Influence of
brands are much more commonly related to exaggeration, deception and trickery (Holt, 2002). perceived
Compared to other brands, a trustworthy brand enables consumers to believe that its activities
are led by appreciation for the product, customers and society (Delgado-Ballester, 2004). Brand
service
trust is associated with consumers’ confident belief in a brand’s credibility and reliability fairness
(Delgado-Ballester, 2004). According to Napoli et al. (2014), brand reliability and credibility are
conceptually associated within the principle of brand trust. Brand reliability is associated with
the expected or promised performance of a brand. Consumers tend to evaluate a brand on both
its tangible and intangible characteristics and performance (Holt, 2002). Thus, brand reliability
is defined as a consumer’s confident expectation that the brand will perform as promised or
expected. Brand credibility is associated with the trustworthiness and believability of a brand
among consumers at a particular point in time (Napoli et al., 2014).

Brand experience
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

A consumer experiences service when interacting with physical environments, practices,

policies and even the personnel of a store (Kerin et al., 1992). Hence, customers experience a
brand when searching, consuming and using the holistic offers of the brand (Brakus et al.,
2009). Consumption experiences of customers tend to be multidimensional and embrace
hedonic aspects, including, fantasies, feelings and fun (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). The
literature on a customer’s consumption experiences has emphasized the customer’s hedonic
goals, which occur during and after consumption (Brakus et al., 2009). As a brand is capable
of delivering positive brand experiences, it can differentiate itself from competitors and
accomplish its goals (Brakus et al., 2009).
A customer’s brand perception and his/her post-consumption response can depend on his/
her restaurant experiences. If a restaurant generates a high-quality brand experience, the
restaurant brand will create loyal customers and sustain competitive advantages (Verhoef et al.,
2009). A customer directly experiences a restaurant brand when shopping, buying and
consuming its foods and services as well as indirectly experiences the brand when being
exposed to brand communications and advertising (Brakus et al., 2009). Such foods, service and
brand-focused stimuli are indicated in restaurant environments where the brand is sold or
marketed (Brakus et al., 2009). These environments embrace the dominant source of the
subjective, intrinsic brand experience. Therefore, this study conceptualizes brand experience as
subjective, intrinsic consumer responses (e.g. positive feelings), which are evoked by the
restaurant brand-focused stimuli.

Brand citizenship behavior

The concept of brand citizenship behavior is derived from the theory of organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) (Nyadzayo et al., 2011). Organ (1988) defined OCB as “individual
behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”
(p. 86). Based on the definition of OCB, brand citizenship behavior demonstrates the
voluntary or discretionary behavior benefiting a particular brand (Morhart et al., 2009).
Although this construct reflects employee behaviors toward a brand, it can be applied to
customer behaviors as well because loyal customers also tend to support a brand with extra-
role and cooperative behaviors (Ahn et al., 2016). Specifically, a customer exhibiting high
brand citizenship behavior tends to report a service failure to employees to proactively
provide solutions, share a positive experience about the brand with others, recommend the
brand to others and even help other customers (Ahn et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2013). Interestingly,
if a customer benefits from other customers exhibiting brand citizenship behavior, he/she is
 IJCHM more likely to exhibit similar citizenship behaviors, including helping, providing a
recommendation, providing feedback and demonstrating tolerance toward the brand
(Yi et al., 2013). Therefore, brand citizenship behavior has been considered one of the most
valuable dependent variables for academicians and practitioners because it, as a
discretionary behavior, leads to a more effective operation of a brand and an increase in
consumer performance (Morhart et al., 2009).
Even though brand citizenship behavior includes a discretionary generic behavior, which
enhances brand consideration, self-development, sportsmanship, brand enthusiasm, brand
endorsement and helping behavior (Nyadzayo et al., 2011), prior research suggests brand
citizenship behavior includes a two-dimensional construct comprising:
(1) the willingness to help and further develop the brand; and
(2) brand enthusiasm (Burmann et al., 2009).

Brand citizenship behavior will be strong when we consider both aspects simultaneously
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

(i.e. brand enthusiasm and brand endorsement) (Nyadzayo et al., 2015). First, brand
enthusiasm means taking extra brand developing initiatives, which are:

to be involved in a marketing activity via sponsors or charity event;

to pass on customer views that support a branding decision; and

to participate in a brand-focused event (Nyadzayo et al., 2015).

Second, brand endorsement is associated with positive word of mouth about a particular
brand, such as recommending the brand to family, friends or others. In addition to the two
aspects, Nyadzayo et al. (2015) suggest helping behavior is one part of a three-dimensional
construct of brand citizenship behavior in the franchise context. Thus, helping behavior
embraces helpfulness, friendliness, empathy and positive attitudes toward external and
internal customers, as well as other franchisees. Although helping behavior has been
included in the brand citizenship behavior construct (Morhart et al., 2009; Nyadzayo et al.,
2015), it may be hard for the construct to include helping behavior in the consumer behavior
context because helping behavior should be measured by an employee’s behaviors that help
other members in the same organization (e.g. helping other franchisees with work-related
issues from Nyadzayo et al., 2015). Therefore, this study adopted brand enthusiasm and
endorsement, which can be applied to the consumer behavior context.

Research hypothesis development

In a service setting, a consumer’s perception of fairness has been recognized as a
determinant in forming his/her evaluative judgment on organizational responses to the
service (Schoefer and Ennew, 2005). This perceived fairness helps develop brand trust
(Nikbin et al., 2016). As positive perceived fairness arises from meeting a customer’s
fairness standards, perceived service fairness strengthens a restaurant brand’s reliability
and then cultivates trust towards the brand (Kim et al., 2009). From an empirical
perspective, Aurier and Siadou-Martin (2007) investigated the influence of perceived
fairness on purchase experience/service consumption, and addressed how the perception
of service fairness had a substantial influence on two aspects of trust (i.e. benevolence
trust and credibility). Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1. Perceived service fairness has a positive impact on brand trust.
Price fairness (H1-1), procedural fairness (H1-2), outcome fairness (H1-3) and interactional
fairness (H1-4) have a positive impact on brand trust.
 Prior research analyzing the influence of perceived fairness on emotional responses Influence of
employing experimental designs indicated that a low level of perception of service perceived
fairness corresponded to a low level of positive emotional responses and a high level of
negative emotional responses (del Río-Lanza et al., 2009). In the same vein, Schoefer and
service
Ennew (2005) made an interesting contribution which analyzes the influence of service fairness
fairness on emotional experience in an actual service delivery situation. These studies
found that perceived fairness significantly influenced not only the formation of positive
experiences but also the establishment of negative experiences. Also, del Río-Lanza
et al. (2009) defend the relationship between an experience and perceived service
fairness, citing service providers’ ability to share their emotions, put themselves in
customers’ place and help improve customers’ brand experience. Consequently, this
study established the following:
H2. Perceived service fairness has a positive impact on brand experience.
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

Price fairness (H2-1), procedural fairness (H2-2), outcome fairness (H2-3) and interactional
fairness (H2-4) have a positive impact on brand experience.
Previous research has consistently indicated a positive association between
consumers’ brand trust and brand loyalty, as well as brand experience (Ha and Perks,
2005). Specifically, a service provider, which has the ability to demonstrate competence
and knowledge as well as technical knowledge, has been linked to positive emotional
experiences and behaviors among customers (Harris and Goode, 2004). Thus, if
consumers trust a brand, they are more likely to have positive experiences with the brand
and consume that brand (Ha and Perks, 2005). Previous studies have identified that brand
trust is a long process which occurs due to the consumer’s consideration and reflection of
the purchase experience, while brand experience consists of a consumer’s impulsive
feelings which can be formed spontaneously (Kabadayi and Alan, 2012). This means that
brand trust can be considered a cognitive component which induces an emotional
response, namely, brand experience. Also, brand citizenship behavior, which is part of
the continual process of a valuable and notable relationship, can be produced by brand
trust (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). From this perspective, this study expects to observe
positive associations between brand trust, brand experience and brand citizenship
behavior.
Therefore, the research hypotheses are as follows:
Brand trust has positive influences on brand experience (H3-1), brand enthusiasm (H3-2)
and brand endorsement (H3-3).
Customers tend to avoid pain as well as boredom, and seek pleasure while
experiencing a brand (Brakus et al., 2009). Based on this characteristic, it is arguable that
brand experience provides value to customers. Because brand experience offers value to
customers, this study postulates that the more a foodservice brand evokes customers’
positive experiences, the more engaged they will be in the brand. Furthermore, because
positive brand experiences result in a pleasurable outcome, this study expects customers
to want to repeat those kinds of brand experiences (Brakus et al., 2009). In other words, a
positive brand experience will influence future-oriented consumer behaviors (i.e. brand
enthusiasm) and present-oriented consumer behaviors (i.e. brand endorsement)
(Oliver, 1997). Hence, a consumer is more likely to purchase a certain brand again, is less
likely to purchase an alternative brand and is more likely to recommend the particular
brand to others (Brakus et al., 2009):
Brand experience has positive influences on brand enthusiasm (H4-1) and brand
endorsement (H4-2).
 IJCHM Method
Sample and data collection
The data collection was conducted between August and September of 2015 in Seoul,
South Korea. A paper format, cross-sectional, self-administered survey was conducted at
a total of 15 casual dining franchise restaurants including Outback Steak House, T.G.I.
Fridays, VIPS and Ashley (3-5 for each restaurant brand). A random sampling method
was used through selecting random days to collect data, which made the sampling
process randomized (Cha et al., 2016). The surveys were conducted while the customers
were waiting for their check to ensure the participants had had an appropriate brand
experience. The participants were offered a free beverage or dessert menu item, along
with a $10 gift certificate to be used in the restaurant, to avoid non-response bias. A total
of 500 survey questionnaires were distributed to customers of casual dining franchise
restaurants, and 408 responses were received (a response rate of 81.6 per cent). In all, 21
responses were deleted for excessive missing data. Thus, a total of 387 responses were
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

used for data analysis.

Measures
A seven-point Likert-type scale anchored at 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly
agree” was used to measure respondents’ perceptions. The perceived service fairness
construct (12 items) was operationalized with four dimensions: price, procedural, outcome
and interactional fairness (Namkung and Jang, 2010). Price fairness measures (two items)
addressed how a consumer judges a price by comparing its actual price to his/her acceptable
price determined by both self-interest (adaptation level) and social standards (reference
price) (Namkung and Jang, 2010). The procedural fairness measure (four items) was
concerned with the procedures and policies used by service providers to product outcomes
(Namkung and Jang, 2010). Two items were used to measure outcome fairness, and they
addressed a customer’s evaluation of an outcome regarding food and service (Nikbin et al.,
2016). Interactional fairness measures (four items) were related to an interpersonal behavior
in the delivery of a consequence and enactment of a procedure (Tax et al., 1998). Although
price fairness and outcome fairness were measured with only two items each (following
Namkung and Jang’s (2010) items), the measures were well developed from an academic
perspective and then thoroughly reviewed by restaurant managers as well as academic
professionals in the hospitality field, assuring their content validity. Brand trust was
measured with four items indicating the perceived reliability and credibility of a certain
brand (Napoli et al., 2014). The scales were developed through four stages of rigorous
analysis to assure reliability and validity to completely distinguish from brand authenticity,
which is conceptually similar but distinct from brand trust. Four items were adapted to
measure brand experience, which indicates a customer’s positive experience while dining
out (Xie et al., 2015). The brand citizenship behavior construct was measured with the three-
component model developed by Nyadzayo et al. (2015), which includes brand enthusiasm
and brand endorsement. The measures were well developed, using a panel of experts (i.e.
brand academics and brand managers) to assess how well they represented the constructs.

Data analysis
The reliability and validity of all measures used in the survey were examined using
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of each construct using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences 18.0 (SPSS) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 20.0 to test the
relationships between the latent and observed variables. Then, structural equation modeling
(SEM) was conducted to test the proposed model. To adequately assess the parsimony and
 the goodness-of-fit of the research model, a series of indices, namely, chi-square values with Influence of
related degrees of freedom (d.f.), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the perceived
comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and
the incremental fit index (IFI), was selected (Hair et al., 1998). Other indices, such as the
service
goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and the root mean fairness
square residual (RMR), were not chosen, because they are easily affected by model
characteristics and sample size (e.g. they are attenuated with smaller sample sizes, a larger
number of factors, and larger numbers of indicators per factor) (Bone et al., 1989).

Results
Sample characteristics
As shown in Table I, over half of the participants were female (57.6 per cent) and were 18-29
years of age (50.4 per cent) or 30-39 years of age (28.9 per cent). Approximately two-fifths of
the respondents had graduated from or were attending a four-year university, representing
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

39.0 per cent of the sample. Annual household income range was distributed across the
categories of $60,000-$69,999 (30.5 per cent) and less than $49,999 (28.2 per cent). In South
Korea, females as well as customers in their 20s and 30s prefer a casual dining restaurant to
other types of restaurants (Embrain, 2015). Hence, the participants in this study were
representative of the customer population of general casual dining restaurants in South
Korea.

Measurement model
The survey items were subjected to reliability and validity analyses. Reliability was
assessed employing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.799 to 0.944. A
coefficient which exceeds 0.70 is considered acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). To test the
validity of each construct, all items hereafter were subjected to CFA (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1992) using AMOS 20.0. Three measures with factor loadings below 0.50 were

Variables (N = 387) Characteristics Frequency (%)

Gender Male 160 (41.3%)

Female 223 (57.6%)
Missing 4 (1.1%)
Age 18-29 195 (50.4%)
30-39 112 (28.9%)
40-49 51 (13.2%)
50-59 25 (6.5%)
60 above 2 (0.5%)
Missing 2 (0.5%)
Education High school 94 (24.3%)
Two-year college 98 (25.3%)
Four-year university 151 (39.0%)
Graduate school 40 (10.3%)
Missing 4 (1.0%)
Annual household income Less than $49,999 109 (28.2%)
50,000 to $59,999 102 (26.3%)
60,000 to $69,999 118 (30.5%)
70,000 to $79,999 26 (6.7%) Table I.
80,000 or above 25 (6.5%) Demographic
Missing 7 (1.8%) characteristics
 IJCHM removed from further analyses to maintain acceptable levels of convergent and
discriminant validity (Hair et al., 1998).
As shown in Table II, the CFA results suggest good fits: x 2 = 621.560, d.f. = 224 ( x 2/
d.f. = 2.775), p < 0.001, NFI = 0.928, IFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.941, CFI = 0.952, RMSEA =
0.068 (Hair et al., 1998). All standardized factor loadings did exceed 0.50 ( p < 0.01),
signifying evidence of convergent validity after the purification process. Composite
construct reliability (CCR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were investigated to
assess the reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity of the latent
constructs. The CCR coefficients all exceeded 0.70, which is noted as the minimum

Constructs and variablesa Standardized loading t-value

Price fairness (a = 0.913)

Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

The food I ordered was reasonably priced 0.923 Fixed

The cost seemed appropriate for what I got 0.910 25.491
Procedural fairness (a = 0.909)
I was seated in the order I arrived 0.848 Fixed
I was seated in a timely manner 0.899 22.582
The server took my order in a timely manner 0.888 22.219
Food was served in a timely manner* – –
Outcome fairness (a = 0.937)
The quality of the food was higher than I expected 0.940 Fixed
The service was better than I expected 0.937 29.366
Interactional fairness (a = 0.799)
The server was friendly 0.737 Fixed
The server provided equal service to all customers 0.860 14.879
The server exhibited no bias toward me* – –
The server was attentive in providing good service 0.687 12.569
Brand trust (a = 0.923)
I think this restaurant brand is trustworthy 0.856 23.608
I think this restaurant brand is competent 0.891 Fixed
I think this restaurant brand is honest 0.851 23.370
I have confident in the quality of this restaurant brand 0.866 24.187
Brand experience (a = 0.894)
I feel good when I experience this restaurant brand 0.915 Fixed
This restaurant brand gives me pleasure 0.912 27.801
It is fun to experience this restaurant brand 0.762 19.391
Experiencing this restaurant brand is enjoyable 0.713 17.326
Brand enthusiasm (a = 0.944)
Attend business events not required by the company that promotes the brand 0.894 Fixed
Keep abreast with development in the brand 0.942 30.134
Offer ideas to improve the brand 0.926 28.925
Brand endorsement (a = 0.898)
Defend the brand when other people criticize it 0.905 Fixed
Support this brand through good and bad times 0.926 28.202
Forgive negative experiences with this brand* – –
Recommend this brand to others 0.767 19.467
Table II.
Measurement model Notes: a x 2 = 621.560, d.f. = 224 ( x 2/d.f. = 2.775), p < 0.001, NFI = 0.928, IFI = 0.953, TLI = 0.941, CFI =
from CFA 0.952, RMSEA = 0.068; *Items were deleted during the confirmatory factor analysis
 requirement (Hair et al., 1998). Also, all AVE estimates were greater than their Influence of
corresponding interfactor squared correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which perceived
indicates good discriminant validity between any two factors (Table III).
To test for common method bias, finally, this study used Harman’s one-factor test
service
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). A single-factor model yielded x 2 = 3779.924 and d.f. = 252 as fairness
compared to x 2 = 621.560 and d.f. = 224 for the proposed model consisting of eight
dimensions. As the eight-factor model had a better fit, common method bias was not a
consideration.

Structural model and test of hypotheses

AMOS 20.0 was used to test the proposed model. The results suggest that the model fits the
data well: x 2 = 830.413, d.f. = 232 ( x 2/d.f. = 3.579), p < 0.001, NFI = 0.904, IFI = 0.929, TLI =
0.915, CFI = 0.928, RMSEA = 0.082 (Hair et al., 1998). The explained variance for each
endogenous variable is 0.768 (brand trust), 0.590 (brand experience), 0.238 (brand
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

enthusiasm) and 0.415 (brand endorsement). Maximum likelihood estimates for the
parameters of the model are explained in Figure 2 and Table IV.
H1-1 to H1-4 predicted that perceived service fairness would affect brand trust. The
results showed that brand trust was significantly influenced by price (coefficient = 0.084,
t-values = 2.020, p < 0.05), procedural (coefficient = 0.254, t-values = 5.288, p < 0.01),
outcome (coefficient = 0.472, t-values = 10.917, p < 0.01) and interactional fairness
(coefficient = 0.254, t-values = 5.174, p < 0.01), supporting H1-1, H1-2, H1-3 and H1-4.
H2-1 to H2-4 posited that perceived service fairness would influence brand experience.
The results showed that brand experience was significantly affected by price (coefficient =
0.127, t-values = 2.487, p < 0.05), outcome (coefficient = 0.224, t-values = 3.308, p < 0.01) and
interactional fairness (coefficient = 0.125, t-values = 1.962, p < 0.05), supporting H2-1, H2-3
and H2-4.
H3-1 to H3-3 posited that brand trust would affect brand experience and brand
citizenship behaviors. The results showed that brand trust significantly influenced brand
experience (coefficient = 0.440, t-values = 4.659, p < 0.01), brand enthusiasm (coefficient =
0.190, t-values = 2.448, p < 0.05) and brand endorsement (coefficient = 0.403, t-values =
5.602, p < 0.01), supporting H3-1, H3-2 and H3-3. Finally, H4-1 and H4-2 postulated that
brand experience would influence brand citizenship behaviors. The results showed that

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Price fairness 1
2. Procedural fairness 0.474** 1
3. Outcome fairness 0.476** 0.508** 1
4. Interactional fairness 0.433** 0.535** 0.412** 1
5. Brand trust 0.526** 0.656** 0.720** 0.586** 1
6. Brand experience 0.509** 0.499** 0.640** 0.519** 0.703** 1
7. Brand enthusiasm 0.661** 0.420** 0.312** 0.383** 0.384** 0.480** 1
8. Brand endorsement 0.679** 0.476** 0.465** 0.342** 0.571** 0.571** 0.582** 1
Mean 3.767 4.743 4.911 4.892 4.838 4.644 3.279 4.010 Table III.
SD 1.561 1.153 1.181 1.075 1.144 1.301 1.616 1.441
CCRa 0.913 0.910 0.937 0.807 0.923 0.898 0.944 0.902
Construct
AVEb 0.840 0.772 0.881 0.585 0.751 0.689 0.848 0.755 intercorrelations (U),
mean and standard
Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; aComposite construct reliability; bAverage variance extracted deviation (SD)
 IJCHM brand experience significantly influenced brand enthusiasm (coefficient = 0.330, t-values =
4.200, p < 0.01) and brand endorsement (coefficient = 0.286, t-values = 4.006, p < 0.01),
supporting H4-1 and H4-2.
In addition, the indirect effects of perceived service fairness on brand citizenship
behaviors were analyzed through the bootstrapping method of AMOS with Bootstrap ML
and Monte Carlo (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The results indicated that price, procedural,
outcome and interactional fairness dimensions had significantly indirect impacts on brand
enthusiasm and brand endorsement.

Discussion and implications

For decades, the principle of service fairness has been viewed through the lens of
distributive, procedural and interactional aspects mostly within the context of a restaurant’s
service failure situation (Namkung and Jang, 2010). However, to deeply understand the
fundamental concept of a restaurant’s service fairness, the all-inclusive service delivery
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

context needs to be considered. Due to the saturated market condition, foodservice

enterprises have sought competitive branding and service strategies to win the market and
obtain high levels of brand perception and behaviors among customers. Based on this
notion, this study examined the impacts of the diverse dimensions of perceived fairness

Figure 1.
The conceptual
model

Figure 2.
Estimates of
structural equation
modeling
 Path Standardized estimates Standardized error t-value
Influence of
perceived
Price fairness ! Brand trust 0.084 0.031 2.020* service
Procedural fairness ! Brand trust 0.254 0.053 5.288**
Outcome fairness ! Brand trust 0.472 0.043 10.917** fairness
Interactional fairness ! Brand trust 0.254 0.055 5.174**
Price fairness ! Brand experience 0.127 0.047 2.487*
Procedural fairness ! Brand experience 0.045 0.083 0.723
Outcome fairness ! Brand experience 0.224 0.083 3.308**
Interactional fairness ! Brand experience 0.125 0.088 1.962*
Brand trust ! Brand experience 0.440 0.116 4.659**
Brand trust ! Brand enthusiasm 0.190 0.102 2.448*
Brand trust ! Brand endorsement 0.403 0.090 5.602**
Brand experience ! Brand enthusiasm 0.330 0.084 4.200**
Brand experience ! Brand endorsement 0.286 0.073 4.006**
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

Indirect effects Standardized estimates p-value

Price fairness ! Brand enthusiasm 0.070** 0.006
Procedural fairness ! Brand enthusiasm 0.070* 0.038
Outcome fairness ! Brand enthusiasm 0.232** 0.001
Interactional fairness ! Brand enthusiasm 0.127** 0.002
Price fairness ! Brand endorsement 0.081* 0.011
Procedural fairness ! Brand endorsement 0.121** 0.002
Outcome fairness ! Brand endorsement 0.313** 0.001
Interactional fairness ! Brand endorsement 0.170** 0.002
Endogenous variables SMC (R2)
Brand trust 0.768
Brand experience 0.590
Brand enthusiasm 0.238
Brand endorsement 0.415
Table IV.
Notes: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; x 2 = 830.413; d.f. = 232 ( x 2/d.f. = 3.579); p < 0.001, NFI = 0.904; IFI = 0.929; Standardized
TLI = 0.915; CFI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.082 parameter estimates

regarding service delivery on the casual dining franchise restaurant context in South Korea.
This study also investigated the significant roles of brand trust and brand experience in
explaining restaurant customers’ brand citizenship behaviors. This study contributed to the
existing literature and provided practical implications for casual dining franchise restaurant
brand management.

Theoretical implications
From a theoretical perspective, this study refined the relationship among perceived service
fairness, brand trust, brand experience and brand citizenship behaviors in the casual dining
franchise restaurant context. Previous research in the restaurant industry has already been
conducted regarding the influences of the multi-dimensions of perceived service fairness (i.e.
price, procedural, outcome and interactional) on emotional responses and behavioral
intentions (Namkung and Jang, 2010) and on trust, commitment and switch behavior toward
a certain restaurant. In fact, Namkung and Jang (2010) and Nikbin et al. (2016) have
suggested that more research on the new consequences of perceived service fairness with a
basis in a brand context needs to be done. Recognition of the importance of service fairness
enables scholars to develop more sophisticated theoretical models for the restaurant brand
context. Compared to previous studies, this study extended Namkung and Jang’s (2010)
 IJCHM service fairness theory by suggesting that each dimension of perceived service fairness has
direct and indirect influences on brand-related constructs separately (e.g. trust, experience
and behaviors). Consequently, a branded restaurant’s service fairness can be a critical
marketing tool to induce brand behaviors as well as brand perceptions among customers,
which positively influence brand performance.
Prior literature suggests that brand-related constructs can be key drivers of enhancing
brand performance (Buil et al., 2013). To date, scholars have focused on the role of brand
loyalty, a brand-related construct because the construct is conceptually and empirically able to
predict brand performance (Hyun, 2010; Kabadayi and Alan, 2012). However, brand citizenship
behavior is considered a collective form of behavior, as customers’ citizenship behaviors tend to
involve public actions rather than individual ones for a certain brand (Yi et al., 2013). Also, this
study provides two distinct dimensions of a customer’s brand citizenship behavior in the
restaurant context developed from the organization’s perspective. The proposed research
framework offers a greater understanding of customers’ various brand responses, which
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

enables scholars to examine the determinants of multiple brand citizenship behaviors

(Nyadzayo et al., 2011, 2015). This study furthers the research by examining the influences of
brand trust and brand experience on two types of brand citizenship behavior, ultimately
contributing to the existing brand literature by investigating the distinct dimensions of brand
citizenship behavior as outcomes of brand trust and brand experience in the casual dining
restaurant context.

Managerial implications
From a practical standpoint, fairness may enable a franchisor to maintain customers’
favorable brand perceptions and behaviors that guarantee economic advantages. Within the
franchise structure, more specifically, a franchisee is considered a key brand contact for
customers and bears responsibility for consistently reflecting the meaning of the franchised
brand as well as affecting customers’ behaviors and attitudes toward the brand. This means
a franchise restaurant’s fairness can increase positive perceptions of other restaurants under
the same restaurant brand, not just a certain restaurant. Thus, all franchisees (or
restaurants) share the responsibility for promoting and maintaining the franchised brand’s
equity (Nyadzayo et al., 2011).
More specifically, price fairness had positive influences on brand trust and brand
experience. In addition, price fairness had significantly indirect impacts on brand
enthusiasm and brand endorsement. It is recommended that restaurant brand managers
consider customers’ economic acceptability of price magnitude, community rules or
standards and social acceptability of prices when establishing their pricing strategy
(Namkung and Jang, 2010). Therefore, the pricing strategy should be based on both the
instrumental standpoint and the psychological perspective (Etzioni, 1988). From a
psychological perspective, if a franchise restaurant raises prices too quickly or drastically,
consumers may feel that the restaurant brand is trying to take advantage of them. This may
lead to consumers’ switching to other restaurant brands with a more acceptable price range.
Thus, a restaurant franchise may need to train employees how to provide information to
customers on pricing. This approach may increase consumers’ enhanced fairness perception
and favorable brand perception over time.
Procedural fairness has a significant influence on brand trust. For procedural fairness, a
restaurant’s service procedures must be accurate and consistent as well as non-biased to any
group. In addition, service procedures need to be ethical and representative of all groups
with high correctability (Seiders and Berry, 1998). To create fair perceptions of procedure,
therefore, restaurant brand managers must encourage all same-branded branches to work
 on offering a reasonable, consistent and non-biased procedure to customers. For example, all Influence of
branches need to follow the first-come, first-served policy without any preferences or biases. perceived
In addition to consistency, branches should consider the speed of responding to a customer’s
service requests or problems. This is because even if they successfully handle the problem
service
and respond to the request, the customer may not be satisfied due to the time cost. Internal fairness
policies for procedural fairness cannot directly establish a positive brand experience for
customers because customers tend to take these policies for granted. But they can enhance
customers’ brand trust, which in turn will lead to positive brand experiences.
In addition to price and procedural fairness, restaurant brand managers need to
improve outcome fairness. Customers more often complain to a restaurant when they
believe they received a substandard product than when they experienced an inadequate
service (Kim and Boo, 2011). Therefore, restaurant brand managers need to not only
maintain a high quality of tangible outcomes, which meet or exceed their customers’
standards, but also offer additional influences with a differentiated service aspect to their
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

customers. To enhance interactional fairness, finally, restaurant brand managers need to

ensure that all branches provide customers with friendly as well as equal services. Also,
restaurant brand managers need to be attentive in offering good service and have no bias.
All branches’ employees need to treat their customers with courtesy and respect,
demonstrating interpersonal fairness. To do so, restaurant brand managers must train
employees who have direct contact with customers to be sensitive to perceptions of
fairness among customers. As part of the training program, employees should be taught
what to do to restore fairness when customers’ expectations are not met because
maintaining fairness can ensure a long-term brand relationship with customers.
With regards to brand trust and brand experience, the results of this study addressed
that brand perceptions established by service fairness had significant effects on brand
citizenship behaviors. It is suggested that inducing a higher level of trust toward a
restaurant brand may reduce the level of perceived negative fairness related to the
products and services of the restaurant brand, ultimately encouraging customers to be
loyal to the restaurant brand (Sweeney and Swait, 2008). In addition to brand trust, brand
experience significantly influenced brand enthusiasm and brand endorsement. This
result indicates that when customers have positive experiences with a restaurant brand,
they are willing to keep a long-term relationship with the restaurant brand. Branded
restaurant firms can efficiently improve their financial performance through consumer
repurchasing and word-of-mouth marketing. As such, brand experience may provide
restaurant brand managers with a measurable strategic goal that extends and echoes
their thinking about the importance of forging emotional relationships with restaurant
customers.

Limitations and future research

Despite its theoretical and practice implications, some limitations of the research need to be
outlined. First, this research was conducted only in casual dining franchise restaurants.
Hence, the results may not be generalizable to other restaurant contexts, such as independent
restaurants and fast food restaurant brands. Future research needs to consider and
investigate the role of each perceived service fairness dimension in other contexts. Another
limitation is the use of subjective personal characteristics, including sensitivity to service
fairness. Based on personal sensitivity to service fairness, the perceived importance of service
fairness may vary from irrelevant to extreme (Namkung and Jang, 2010). It may lead
to fairness consideration differentiations among customers. In addition to personal
characteristics, situational factors such as level of loyalty may possibly be a moderator of the
 IJCHM relationship between perceived service fairness and brand-related behaviors. Demographic
factors (e.g. occupation or income) may also have potential influences on a customer’s way of
processing and evaluating service fairness as moderators. Hence, future research should
thoroughly investigate their moderating role on the relationships among constructs.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2,
pp. 267-299.
Ahn, Y.J., Kim, I. and Lee, T.J. (2016), “Exploring visitor brand citizenship behavior: the case of the
‘MICE city Busan’, South Korea”, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 249-259.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1992), “Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step
approach: comment on Fornell and Yi”, Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 321-333.
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

Aurier, P. and Siadou-Martin, B. (2007), “Perceived justice and consumption experience evaluations: a
qualitative and experimental investigation”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 450-471.
Bone, P.F., Sharma, S. and Shimp, T.A. (1989), “A bootstrap procedure for evaluating goodness-of-fit
indices of structural equation and confirmatory factor models”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 105-111.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martínez, E. (2013), “Examining the role of advertising and sales
promotions in brand equity creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 115-122.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. and Riley, N. (2009), “Towards an identity-based brand equity model”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 390-397.
Cha, M.K., Yi, Y. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2016), “Effects of customer participation in corporate social
responsibility (CSR) programs on the CSR-brand fit and brand loyalty”, Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 235-249.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
del Río-Lanza, A.B., Vázquez-Casielles, R. and Díaz-Martín, A.M. (2009), “Satisfaction with service
recovery: perceived justice and emotional responses”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 8,
pp. 775-781.
Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004), “Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 5/6, pp. 573-592.
Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Embrain (2015). “Trend monitor: food & Beverage/dine out”, available at: www.trendmonitor.co.kr/
tmweb/trend/allTrend/detail.do?bIdx=1311&code=0301&trendType=CKOREA (accessed 24
August 2017).
Etzioni, A. (1988), The Moral Dimension – towards a New Economics, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ha, H.Y. and Perks, H. (2005), “Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web:
brand familiarity, satisfaction and Brand trust”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 6,
pp. 438-452.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.E. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, (5th ed.).
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
 Harris, L.C. and Goode, M.M. (2004), “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of Influence of
online service dynamics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 139-158.
perceived
Heo, C.Y. and Lee, S. (2011), “Influences of consumer characteristics on fairness perceptions of revenue
management pricing in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
service
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 243-251. fairness
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K.B. and Huber, F. (2007), “The influence of price fairness on customer
satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-90.
Hyun, S.S. (2010), “Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurant industry”,
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 251-267.
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

acobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Grayson, K. (1995), “Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: the voice of the consumer”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 277-303.
Kabadayi, E.T. and Alan, A.K. (2012), “Brand trust and Brand affect: their strategic importance on
Brand loyalty”, Journal of Global Strategic Management, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 80-88.
Kellaris, J.J. and Kent, R.J. (1992), “The influence of music on consumers’ temporal perceptions: does
time fly when you’re having fun?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 365-376.
Kerin, R.A., Jain, A. and Howard, D.J. (1992), “Store shopping experience and consumer price-quality-
value perceptions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 376-397.
Kim, J. and Boo, S. (2011), “Influencing factors on customers’ intention to complain in a franchise
restaurant”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 217-237.
Kim, T.T., Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.B. (2009), “The effects of perceived justice on recovery satisfaction,
trust, word-of-mouth, and revisit intention in upscale hotels”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Leventhal, H., Meyer, D. and Nerenz, D. (1980), “The common sense model of illness danger”, In
Rachman, S. (Ed.), Medical Psychology, pp. 7-30, Pergamon, New York, NY.
Marinkovic, V., Senic, V., Ivkov, D., Dimitrovski, D. and Bjelic, M. (2014), “The antecedents of
satisfaction and revisit intentions for full-service restaurants”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 311-327.
Martinez-Tur, V., Peiro, J.M., Ramos, J. and Moliner, C. (2006), “Justice perceptions as predictors of
customer satisfaction: the impact of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice”, Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 100-119.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Mattila, A.S. and Patterson, P.G. (2004), “Service recovery and fairness perceptions in collectivist and
individualist context”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 336-346.
Michel, S., Bowen, D. and Johnston, R. (2009), “Why service recovery fails: tensions among customer,
employee, and process perspectives”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 253-273.
Namasivayam, K. (2004), “Action control, proxy control, and consumers’ evaluations of the service
exchange”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 463-480.
Namkung, Y. and Jang, S.C. (2010), “Effects of perceived service fairness on emotions, and
behavioral intentions in restaurants”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1233-1259.
 IJCHM Namkung, Y., Jang, S., Almanza, B. and Ismail, J. (2009), “Identifying the underlying structure of
perceived service fairness in restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 375-392.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S.J., Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F. (2014), “Measuring consumer-based brand
authenticity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1090-1098.
Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W. and Tomczak, T. (2009), “Brand-specific leadership: turning employees into
brand champions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 122-142.
Nikbin, D., Marimuthu, M. and Hyun, S.S. (2016), “Influence of perceived service fairness on
relationship quality and switching intention: an empirical study of restaurant experiences”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1005-1026.
Nikolich, M.A. and Sparks, B.A. (1995), “The hospitality service encounter: the role of communication”,
Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 43-56.
Nyadzayo, M.W., Matanda, M.J. and Ewing, M.T. (2011), “Brand relationships and brand equity in
franchising”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1103-1115.
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

Nyadzayo, M.W., Matanda, M.J. and Ewing, M.T. (2015), “The impact of franchisor support, brand
commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchise experience on franchisee-perceived
brand image”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 9, pp. 1886-1894.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), “Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transactions: a field survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 21-35.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books/DC Health and Com, Lexington, MA.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1993), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, (3rd ed.), Irwin, Boston, MA.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Schoefer, K. and Ennew, C. (2005), “The impact of perceived justice on consumers’ emotional responses
to service complaint experiences”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 261-270.
Seiders, K. and Berry, L.L. (1998), “Service fairness: what it is and why it matters”, Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 8-20.
Sichtmann, C. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2013), “The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin
image, and brand origin-extension fit on brand extension success”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 567-585.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (1998), “An experimental investigation of customer reactions to service failure
and recovery encounters: paradox or peril?”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Swan, J.R. and Oliver, R.L. (1989), “Postpurchase communications by consumers”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 516-533.
Sweeney, J. and Swait, J. (2008), “The effects of Brand credibility on customer loyalty”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 179-193.
Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998), “Customer evaluations of service complaint
experiences: implications for relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 60-76.
 Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2009), Influence of
“Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management strategies”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 31-41. perceived
Xie, Y., Batra, R. and Peng, S. (2015), “An extended model of preference formation between global and service
local brands: the roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect”, Journal of International fairness
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 50-71.
Yi, Y., Gong, T. and Lee, H. (2013), “The impact of other customers on customer citizenship behavior”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 341-356.

Corresponding author
Min-Seong Kim can be contacted at: minseong@ufl.edu
Downloaded by University of Canberra At 06:24 11 August 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com