View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business

Vol. 20, No. 2 (May-August 2018): 229-253

Perceived Fairness, Emotions, and Intention

of Fast Food Chain Restaurants Customers
in Indonesia

Hety Budiyanti,1* and Shine Pintor Siolemba Patiro2

1
State University Makassar, Indonesia
2
Facilitator of HR Development Board Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia

Abstract: This study aims to investigate interrelationships among perceived service fairness, emotions,
and behavioral intentions in a fast food chain restaurant context. we use terms that are commonly use on
the study of fairness or justice perception. This study uses purposive sampling and the survey method to
generate our sample which consists of 800 respondents from big cities in Indonesia, namely: Jakarta,
Semarang, Surabaya, Medan, and Makassar. The data are analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM). The results show different roles for each fairness perception in relation to peoples’ emotions and
behavioral intentions, based on the Mehrabian-Russel model. Three fairness variables (price fairness, out-
come fairness and interactional fairness) have positive and significant effects on customers’ positive emo-
tions, while, procedural fairness does not influence the formation of a positive emotion. Furthermore, a
positive emotion has a positive influence on a customer’s behavioral intention. Data collected in this study
are limited to the context of the restaurant industry, therefore, precaution must be taken when generaliz-
ing these results to other industries. The results of this study can serve as guidelines for managers in the
restaurant industry to develop effective and efficient strategies for ensuring their services’ perceived fair-
ness and its impact on both customers’ retention rates and the companies’ financial gains.

Keywords: behavioral intention; emotions; service fairness; structural equation modeling

JEL classification: C3, M31, M39

* Corresponding author’s e-mail: hetyvirgo89@gmail.com

229
ISSN: 1141-1128
http://journal.ugm.ac.id/gamaijb
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Introduction vice to their customers, it may create a nega-

tive emotion among the customers, which
Over the last decade, fairness principles could lead them to boycott the service pro-
(distributive fairness, procedural fairness, and vider, or make public their unpleaseant ex-
interactional fairness) have been applied to perience (Kaura et al. 2015; Liang et al. 2017;
numerous studies such as management, psy- Liu et al. 2017)
chology, and organizational attitudes (Azar For customers, fairness and quality ser-
and Darvishi 2011; Blader et al. 2013), as vice are inseparable points (Sekhon et al.
well as legal and political studies (i.e. Zmerli 2016). Fairness is not merely one dimension
and Castillo 2015). For example, Azarand of service, rather, it embraces all the dimen-
Darvishi (2011) created a measure for sions of good quality service (Aggarwal and
organisational fairness based on the fairness Larrick 2012; Naquin et al. 2015). Giovanis
theory from Folger and Cropanzano (1998), et al. (2015) and Nikbin et al. (2016) argue
where they measure organizational fairness that poor service is not a service that equates
based on fairnesses’ perception. They show with low quality service, it is a distinct phe-
that the use of a different measurement for nomenon. In relation to the quality of ser-
organisational fairness will produce a differ- vice, the fairness principle offers a specific
ent result. framework to understand the process of a
Academics and practitioners’ interest in service’s consumption related to it’s fairness,
conceptualizing service fairness has increased and this may be use as a substantial compo-
along with the development of service mar- nent in evaluating the service (Cropanzano
keting literature (Aggarwal and Larrick et al. 2008; Heo and Lee 2011). Therefore, it
2012). The studies by Heo and Lee (2011), is worthwhile studying the appropriateness of
Liang et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2018) all show fairness as one of the instruments when
that when customers are aware of any devia- evaluating any service (Aggarwal and Larrick
tion from the fairness principles, it may trig- 2012).
ger a perception of unfairness. Moreover, con- It has been widely recognized that con-
sumers’ individual characteristics will influ- siderations regarding fairness elicit emotional
ence their perception of fairness depending responses, particularly, when unfairness oc-
on what they experience. In line with these curs (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001;
studies, Aggarwal and Larrick (2012) show Barclay et al. 2005) and finally lead to be-
that consumers’ responses toward perceived havioral reactions such as complaints, nega-
interactional fairness are contingent on the tive word-of-mouth recommendations, or
form of their social relationship (communal support (Adams 1966). Furthermore, despite
and exchange), including the conditon of per- previous fairness theory and other studies
ceived distributive fairness. Linking its effects having shown that emotion forms a part of
on emotions and attitudes, Smith and Bolton the relationship between experiencing unfair-
(2002) argue that customers are involved in ness and wanting to retaliate, there are only a
a psychological contract with the service pro- few studies that have tested the relationship
vider who gratifies their needs and treats them between fairness, emotion, and behavioral
fairly (Chalmers 2016). When a service pro- intention (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001;
vider neglects fairness when providing a ser- Barclay et al. 2005).

230
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

For example, Cropanzano and Stein those studies tended to be conducted in some
(2009) show that organizational unfairness is type of organizational setting and not in the
capable of influencing the ocurrence of em- area of service hospitality organizations,
ployees’ negative emotions, which can lead such as hotels or restaurants. The fairness
to their unethical behavior as a result of the concept used mostly in those studies is based
unfairness they experienced. Tzafrir and on the concept of the equity theory proposed
Hareli (2009) conducted a study into the in- by Adams (1966); while this study uses the
fluence of organizational justice on the for- fairness concept proposed by Seiders and
mation of employees’ positive and negative Berry (1998). Consumers perceive and assess
emotions when they receive a promotion. fairness or unfairness based on the situation
Their study only focused on two variables of related to the potential of maximizing prof-
organizational fairness, which were proce- its by minimizing personal investment or sac-
dural justice and distributive justice. Reuben rifice (Chou et al. 2009). Therefore, accord-
and van Winden (2010) argue that a per- ing to this study, the benefits received by cus-
ceived unfairness by an individual will form tomers and their sacrifices are related to the
a perceived negative emotion (guilt and hu- actual context of the fairness theory (distribu-
miliation) but has no consequence on the for- tive fairness, procedural fairness, and inter-
mation of certain behavior. Radke et al. actional fairness). Thus, this study hopes to
(2013) studied the irrational behavior carried obtain a better understanding concerning
out by individuals who experience depression service’s fairness that captures all the vari-
as a result of perceived unfairness towards ous service contexts based on consumers’
their negative emotions. They employed a sacrifices and the benefits they receive. Mon-
unidimensional fairness concept in their re- etary and time costs, which are associated
search, aside from the fairness concept, which with the experience of customers’ consump-
comprised of procedural, distributive, and tion, are consider as constructs representing
interactional fairness. A study by Uludag sacrifices made by customers, while products
(2014) on the infuence of fairness toward (services non-interactions) and personnel (the
verbal and physical aggresion does not fully way customers are treated) obtained by cus-
explain the measure of the dimension of fair- tomers while consuming products or services
ness towards aggresion as a form of negative are consider as constructs representing cus-
emotion. Moreover, the study by Silva and tomers’ benefits.
Caetano (2016) into organizational fairness In order to fill this research gap, this
across different cultures shows that differ- study proposes a theoretical model which re-
ences in the perception of an organization’s lates to service fairness, emotion, and behav-
members toward organizational fairness is ioral intentions, and examines this empirically
related to the culture where the organization in the context of the service industry, espe-
belongs. They state that the consequences that cially for restaurants. The definition of ser-
arise from organizational unfairness are posi- vice fairness used in this study is the service
tive and negative emotions which are ex- fairness perception of customers related to
pressed by the employees both verbally and the service behavior of organizations or com-
nonverbally. panies (Namkung and Jang 2010). The back-
According to the previous studies, as ground of this study is the customers of fast-
mentioned above, this study concluded that food chain restaurants in Indonesia. Based on

231
 Budiyanti and Patiro

the data from Euromonitor International: Fast cific judgements about a particular case with-
Food in Indonesia year 2016, there are 7,236 out referring to one’s own feelings
fast-food chain restaurants throughout Indo- (Goldenberg et al. 2016; Faullant et al. 2017).
nesia, which are mainly located in the big cit- In connection with the marketing of
ies. According to data from AAFC Kanada, services, Bagozzi (1975) introduces the con-
part of the Ministry of Farming and Agri- cept of fairness/equity into the marketing
food, in 2015, the fast-food chain industry in exchange theory. He examines the relation-
Indonesia is predicted to grow at roughly ship of fairness in the context of dyadic reci-
around 9.2 percent between 2015 and 2019. procity and the equality needed to maintain
Therefore, it is appropriate to select fast-food the process of ongoing exchanges between
restaurants for our study’s setting. the customer and the marketer. Aggarwal and
This study was conducted in the big cit- Larrick (2012) and Blader et al. (2013) also
ies in Indonesia, such as Jakarta, Semarang, discuss the consumers’ perceptions of mar-
Surabaya, Medan, and Makassar, where some keting practices which are unfair, and so have
of these fast-food chain restaurants are lo- consequences
cated. The selection of research locations is Seiders and Berry (1998) summarize
based on the areas that have high economic the relevant principles based on three catego-
growth and big populations. These fast-food ries of fairness (procedural, distributive, and
chain restaurants have always emphasized interactional) and show these principles are
they satisfy their customers with the quality appropriate for customers to assess the fair-
of their service.
ness they have experienced. Aggarwal and
Based on the previous discussions, the Larrick (2012) and Lee et al. (2013) also
main objectives of this study are to deter- found that three types of fairness are likely
mine the relationship between service fair- to be relevant for background services, such
ness, emotions, and behavioral intentions, as those found in banks, medical facilities,
and to discern the level of importance of each fast-food restaurants, and luxury restaurants,
dimension of service fairness in the context and hence these may be used as a basis for
of restaurant services, and to provide infor- assessment by consumers.
mation for fast-food chain restaurant entre-
The role of fairness in the context of
preneurs to evaluate their service’s qualities
the recovery of service failures has also been
in terms of their service’s fairness.
the focus of attention in many studies. Ac-
cording to Chou et al. (2009) the role of fair-
Literature Review ness, in the context of the recovery of ser-
vice failures, is particulary significant for
The Effect of Fairness on Service some service industries, such as hairdressers,
restaurants or cafes, supermarkets, and banks.
Marketing
By adding a moderating effect of loyalty, Hur
Fairness is defined as an action which et al. (2014) found that both types of fair-
is deemed appropriate from an individual’s ness (distributive fairness and procedural fair-
perception (Aggarwal and Larrick 2012). The ness), when performing recovery services,
term fairness is often used with regard to the have a significant influence on the reactions
ability to make unbiased, concrete and spe- of loyal customers. Although the principles

232
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

of fairness have provided a better under- cated externally from people and consist of
standing concerning the influence of fairness, various elements of physical atmosphere.
especially in the context of service failures Furthermore, the organism refers to structure
and service recovery, yet other areas of re- and internal processes which consequently
search outside these two contexts are limited will intervene in the relationship between the
and not well developed. external stimuli of people and the attitude
being demonstrated or responded to. This
Mehrabian-Russell Model suggests that the impact of the stimuli on
human behavioral intentions is mediated by
This study is based on a model devel-
emotion.
oped by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) for
environmental psychology. They proposed According to Mehrabian and Russell
that environmental stimuli (S) lead to an (1974), there are three forms of emotion,
emotional reaction (O) which, in turn, drives namely: Pleasure, passion, and power. Fur-
consumers’ behavioral response (R), based on thermore, the response to the environment
the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S–O–R) can be classified as either an approach or
paradigm. They posited that consumers have avoidance. Approach behavior includes such
three emotional states in response to envi- things as: Desire to stay, observe the area
ronmental stimuli: Pleasure, arousal, and around you, explore the environment, and
dominance. According to their study, these communicate with others in the environment.
emotional responses result in two contrast- Avoidance behavior is the opposite of ap-
ing behaviors: Approach or avoidance. Ap- proach behavior. Our study applies the model
proach behavior involves a desire to stay, of Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and modi-
explore, and affiliate with others in the envi- fies it in accordance with the background of
ronment, whereas avoidance behavior in- this research (see Figure 1).
cludes escaping from the environment and In line with Mehrabian and Russell
ignoring any communication attempts from (1974), some justice researchers rely on the
other people (Jang and Namkung 2009; social exchange theory to predict relations be-
Namkung and Jang 2010). Using Mehrabian tween perceived fairness and its outcome
and Russell’s model, many studies have been (Cropanzano et al. 2007; Cropanzano et al.
conducted on the role of environmental 2008; Cropanzano and Stein 2009). The so-
stimuli as a predictor of emotional responses, cial exchange theory views organizations as
such as pleasure or arousal, and as a predic- arenas for long-term, mutual social transac-
tor of consumers’ behavior, such as the ex- tions between employees and their organiza-
tra-time they spend in a store and their ac- tion (Cropanzano et al. 2007; Cropanzano et
tual incremental spending (Jang and Namkung al. 2008; Cropanzano and Stein 2009). Jus-
2009). tice is considered to be an input of the orga-
Based on the Mehrabian-Russell model, nization to the exchange relationship and
environmental stimuli will affect the individu- derives from either (a) the organization or (b)
als’ emotions and as a result will affect their the direct supervisor (Cohen-Charash and
response in the form of approach or avoid- Spector 2001). Futhermore, according to
ance (Namkung and Jang 2010). In their re- Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), attitudi-
search model, stimuli are the stimuli is lo- nal and affective reactions toward the orga-

233
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Figure 1. A Modified Mehrabian Russel Model

Emotional Behavioral
Response


Response


Stimulus
Positive Behavioral
Fairness
Emotion Intention

nization were predicted by fairness models, to include both external (i.e. reputation) and
where procedural fairness predicted cognitive internal sources of information (i.e. website
reactions toward the organization, distribu- quality) as stimuli which affect consumers’
tive fairness predicted affective and cogni- response systems. Therefore, the purpose of
tive reactions toward the outcomes (Cohen- their paper was to test a more comprehen-
Charash and Spector 2001). sive model consisting of reputation and
There is some research based on the website quality (stimuli), cognition and emo-
Mehrabian-Russell model, namely: Jang and tion (organism) and purchase intention (re-
Namkung (2009), who undertook research to sponse). Further, Chen et al. (2015) exam-
address the lack of a comprehensive evalua- ined diners’ luxury restaurant consumption
tion of restaurants’ quality. Their study ex- behavior by incorporating diner expectations
tends Mehrabian and Russell’s stimulus–or- into a modified Mehrabian–Russell model.
ganism–response framework by incorporat- They argue that consumers dine at luxury res-
ing restaurant-specific stimuli and including taurants for reasons beyond fulfilling their
restaurant-specific measures of emotion. Lee basic needs.
(2010) investigated how technology products’ The results from all this research shows
attributes influence consumer responses. He that the framework, based on the environ-
proposed a research model of consumers’ use mental psychology model of Mehrabian and
of technology products by applying the Russell (1974), could be used to describe the
Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) frame- sources for the various environments as in-
work (Mehrabian and Russell 1974) to sug- puts/stimuli, and their effects on people’s
gest that technology products’ attributes elicit emotions and behavior. Accordingly, this re-
consumers’ cognitive (attitude) and affective search considers fairness as an input of the
(pleasure and arousal) responses, leading to organization to predict affective and behav-
their approach-avoidance behavior. ior reactions toward outcomes (Cohen-
Charash and Spector 2001).
Ltifi and Gharbi (2012) studied the im-
pact of emotional states and the perceived
risk of remote purchasing on e-satisfaction
Service Fairness
during Internet shopping, as well as the in- For decades, fairness has been viewed
fluence of e-satisfaction on e-loyalty. Kim and as a three-dimensional construct, comprised
Lennon (2013) extended Mehrabian and of distributive fairness, procedural fairness,
Russell’s stimulus-organism-response model and interactional fairness (Seiders and Berry

234
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

1998; Cropanzano et al. 2008; Aggarwal and ticular it is the magnitude of the economic
Larrick 2012; Hur et al. 2014). Although the costs sacrificed in any transactions. Thus,
principles of fairness developed in social psy- price fairness is defined as the customers’
chology may be useful in the contexts for assessment of the difference between what
which they are developed, they may have they expect to receive and what they actually
limitations when applied to specific con- receive (Kahneman et al. 1986). That is, con-
sumption situations. For example, Deutsch sumers generally have internal standards set
(1985) criticizes the measurement capabili- for the actual price, and compliance with
ties of the original theory of fairness, because these standards will be verified when a judg-
it is difficult for consumers to assess the in- ment is made as to whether it is equitable or
put and output values at the same time. Chou not.
et al. (2009) in their study also argued that The perception of fairness is the judg-
when equity is accounted for in the process ment of whether or not customers accept an
of changing inputs into outputs, with a cer- outcome and/or a transaction process as be-
tain outcome for a customer, it will create ing reasonable, acceptable, and just (Heo and
problems with the operationalization of fair- Lee 2011; Su et al. 2015; Su et al. 2016). Since
ness itself. Since there are conflicting views assessments of price fairness are subjective,
about the dimensions of fairness, a consen- some studies have focused on consumers’
sus is growing that the perception of fairness perceptions regarding relative prices (Haws
is a dependent context, which is not only ap- and Bearden 2006; Gielissen et al. 2008; Xia
propriate for the service failure situation, but et al. 2004). A study by Homburg et al. (2014)
it may also be applied in other situations shows that the price stated in the menu may
(Azar and Darvishi 2011; Aggarwal and be assessed differently by a customer, depend-
Larrick 2012; Blader et al. 2013). ing on the stimulus (stimuli) provided by the
According to Seiders and Berry (1998), restaurant. Daskalopoulou (2008) found evi-
restaurant patrons who are dissatisfied with dence that a price’s fairness perception is
the food served to them, due to its poor qual- based on the acceptance level of the indi-
ity, which they believe is not equivalent with vidual and the prevailing social standards. The
the price they are paying, will question the concept of price in this study is different from
distributive fairness of the transaction. If the concept of price from previous studies,
these patrons are kept waiting for a table de- which stated that prices are fixed and abso-
spite having a reservation, and also for food lute (Kukar-Kinney et al. 2007). Thus, to
and beverage service (once seated), they will expand the understanding of consumers’ per-
question the procedural fairness. Moreover, ceptions of prices’ fairness, this study pro-
if they experience insulting treatment or a poses that the definition of price fairness is
disrespectful attitude from the service staff, the assessment of the overall consumers’
they will also question the interactional fair- price based on a comparison between the
ness. From the perspective of the customers’ actual price and the acceptable price, accord-
sacrifice in consuming the product or service, ing to social standards and conformance lev-
the price to be paid (price fairness) and time els (Homburg et al. 2014).
spent (procedural fairness) are substantial As one of the aspects of customers’
factors (Seiders and Berry 1998). In general, sacrifices, time is viewed as a limited resource
price will appear in any situation, and in par- (Croonen 2010; Liang et al. 2017; Chun et

235
 Budiyanti and Patiro

al. 2018). Customers’ evaluations toward the rectly interact with the service. The service
waiting process are not only altered objec- contact is the critical moment of truth when
tively but also subjectively (Azarand Darvishi customers often attain unforgettable impres-
2011). When there are two customers who sions concerning a business (Lee et al. 2013;
assess time differently, but who are kept wait- Hur et al. 2014). This condition only lasts
ing for the same duration, they will differ in for a few minutes, and may satisfy the cus-
paying for the services they receieved (Blader tomers, or frustrate them (Liang and Zhang
et al. 2013). In restaurants, the waiting time 2011). Therefore, interactional fairness in this
derives from conditions which require extra study refers to the interest and respect shown
time, such as service preparation (i.e. how to by service providers to customers, and as a
serve the food) or a level of demand beyond result, customers will feel that they are
the system’s capacity (i.e. customers arrive treated fairly during the interaction (Aggarwal
when the requirement for service already ex- and Larrick 2012). Thus, in general, our study
ceeds the providers ability to accomodate it). develops a model of fairness services con-
Thus, with regard to this discussion, the con- sisting of four variables of fairness, namely:
cept of procedural fairness can be defined as Price fairness, procedural fairness, outcome
the accuracy of time and the efficiency of fairness, and interactional fairness, all of
the service system as a part of the custom- which will be tested empirically in the con-
ers’ sacrifice, since waiting time and delayed text of restaurant service, specifically fast-
service are categorized as drawbacks. food chain restaurants.
On its relationship with the benefits
perceived by customers, studies into fairness The Effect of Price Fairness on
show that fairness behavior, as demonstrated Positive Emotions
by the service provider, is not only impor- Positive and negative emotions felt dur-
tant for the instrumental aspect, but also im- ing the process of fairness may be character-
portant for the relational aspect ized in various ways; they may stand alone
(Namasivayam 2004; Croonen 2010; (positive or negative) or as a whole (positive
Azarand Darvishi 2011). Thus, service evalu- and negative); or they are experienced or ex-
ations by customers do not only come from pressed (Heo and Lee 2011; Lee et al. 2013).
fairness, regarding the tangible outcome of Some studies of fairness also use the emo-
fairness, but also from the intagible outcome tional approach in isolation, which shows that
of fairness, which is interactional fairness the perception of price unfairness is associ-
(Hur et al. 2014). According to Gronroos ated with feelings of disappointment or an-
(2007) providing exceptional products and ger (Xia et al. 2004; Xiaand Monroe 2010).
service is one of the main interests of the Similarly, in the study of social fairness, the
service business. However, he argues that effect of procedural fairness on separated
fairness regarding the perceived outcome of emotional responses describes emotions of
fairness will affect the emotions of the cus- happiness in the form of happiness, joy, and
tomers, and their behavioral intentions. feelings of pride, along with emotions of sad-
Furthermore, in restaurants there are ness in the form of disappointment, anger,
some human intearctions. Lee et al. (2013) and frustration (Barclay et al. 2005; Blader
and Hur et al. (2014) define a service con- et al. 2013). Based on the descriptions above,
tact as a period of time where customers di- the first hypothesis proposed in this study is:

236
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

H1: Perceived price fairness has a positive effect on negative feeling (Barclay and Skarlicki 2009).
positive emotions Homans (1961) also argues that when the
outcome gained is lower than what was ex-
The Effect of Procedural Fairness pected, it will lead to resentment in the re-
on Positive Emotions cipient (Blader et al. 2013). In relation with
the scheme of positive emotions and nega-
Lind and Tyler (1988) argue that the tive emotions, Lazarus (1991) states that
perceived fairness of outcomes was not only positive emotions, such as pleasure or pride,
considered as a determinant of perceived arise in situations where individuals’ needs
organizational justice, but the perceived fair- are fulfiled. In contrast, negative emotions,
ness of the process in which the outcomes such as shame and anger, arise when the ful-
were achieved was also considered to be im- fillment of an individual’s need is blocked
portant. In some cases, the fairness of the (Cassar and Buttigieg 2015). Therefore, the
process was considered to be the most im- third hypothesis proposed in this study is:
portant determinant of perceived organiza-
tional justice (Blader et al. 2013). H3: Perceived outcome fairness has a positive effect
Futhermore, Hur et al. (2014) show that pro- on positive emotions.
cedural justice, as the fairness of the process
in which outcomes are determined, is con- The Effect of Interactional
sidered to exist when there are procedures Fairness on Positive Emotions
which embody certain types of normatively Liiand Sy (2009) found that failure in
accepted principles. Accordingly, when a pro- the application of interactional fairness stan-
cess leading to a certain outcome is perceived dards in service contacts will result in nega-
to be unfair, a person’s reactions are predicted tive emotional responses (Cassar and
to be directed at the service provider rather Buttigieg 2014). In the study of emotion in
than at the specific outcome in question the customer service area, Dube and Menon,
(Namkung and Jang 2010). Therefore, the as cited in Swartz et al. (1998), illustrate the
second hypothesis proposed in this study is: importance of the role of socialization in the
H2: Perceived procedural fairness has a positive ef- formation of exchange relationships between
fect on positive emotions. customers and service providers (Schlett and
Ziegler 2014). Customers’ satisfaction with
The Effect of Outcome Fairness on service contacts is generally influenced by the
Positive Emotions level of loyalty, and consistency from the ser-
vice provider in service fairness (Skarlicki et
Emotion is an individual’s reaction to
al. 2008). Thus, it should be noticed that
an event or stimulus (Cassar and Buttigieg
emotions may be generated from stimuli that
2015) and it is fundamentally a social phe-
are relevant to the service. Therefore, service
nomenon (Tangney and Fischer 1995). So-
fairness plays a role as a producer of indi-
cial scientists acknowledge that issues of fair-
viduals’ emotions, as presented in this re-
ness can lead to emotional reactions,
search model. Our fourth hypothesis pro-
particulary when unfairness occurs. Adams
posed in this study is:
(1966) stated that when a violation of fair-
ness occurs, it will cause an individual to feel H4: Perceived interactional fairness has a positive
unhappy, and he/she will try to eliminate that effect on positive emotions.

237
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Behavioral Intention havior is measure with the intention to stay

and intention to deliver positive opinions of
Modification of the relationship be- the products to family, friends, and colleagues.
tween a stimulus and its emotional response This behavior have the ability to predict con-
will lead to consumer behavior. Zaltman et sumer purchase behavior and Customer’s fair-
al., as cited in Hunt (1978), examined con- ness perceptions are key driver of this be-
sumers’ behavior when faced with unfair havior (White et al. 2012). Behavioral inten-
marketing practices at different stages, tion is defined as the rate at which individu-
namely at the stage prior to purchase; the time als consciously want to display or not display
of purchase; and the time after the purchase certain behaviors in the future (Tzafrirand
(Skarlicki et al. 2008). Their study shows that Hareli 2009; Fishbeinand Ajzen 2010; White
an increase in the awareness of unfair prac- et al. 2012). Therefore, the intention to be-
tices and fraud will increase the tendency of have is a proxy for certain behaviors
consumers to complain (Skarlicki et al. 2008). (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). Thus, this study
White et al. (2012) proposed a model of con- also applied the intention to behave as a con-
sumers’ complaint behavior and concluded struct of the perceived result, where the in-
that perceived fairness influenced the con- tention to behave is influence by positive
sumers grumbling, word-of-mouth opinion, emotions.
and patronage behavior. The patronage be-

Figure 2. Research Model

Price
Fairness

H1
Procedural
Fairness
H2
Behavioral


 Positive
H5 
 Emotion Intention
Outcome H3 
Fairness

H4

Interactional
Fairness

238
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Emotions’ Influence on Methods

Behavioral Intention
Numerous studies have shown that af- Method of Phase 1
fection is a significant factor in consumer This study consists of two phases,
behavior (Yang and Chang 2008; Tzafrir and namely: Phase 1 which is the qualitative
Hareli 2009). The underlying concept of this phase, and Phase 2 the quantitative phase.
theory is people often make judgments con- In Phase 1, the researchers conduct an ex-
cerning external events based on their affec- planatory study. This stage aims to determine
tive reactions that arise at that time. There- the form of the percieved fairness felt by
fore, they use affection as the basis of their customers of fast-food chain retaurants, and
assessment when they assess something they the positive emotions that are formed when
like and are feeling happy (Williamson and someone perceives the fairness, and their
Williams 2011). Positive emotions (such as behavioral intention in the future related to
joy, excitment, and happiness) have been rec- their preference for fast-food chain restau-
ognized to have a consistent effect on an rants.
individual’s behavior (Jangand Namkung
The first step was to conduct a prelimi-
2009). When positive emotions are consis-
nary interview with customers of fast-food
tent during service contacts, the expectation
chain restaurants located in the capital cities
is to be able to deliver a good experience for
of 2 Indonesian provinces, namely Jakarta (3
the consumer (Tu 2004). Associated with
restaurants) and Surabaya (2 restaurants). The
perceived fairness, people will use positive
number of customers selected for these ini-
emotions to evaluate their assessment of their
tial interviews were 15 customers from each
preferred service company (Nguyenand
restaurant. The determination of the custom-
Klaus 2013). Furthermore, they will be will-
ers to be interviewed at this stage was based
ing to spread a positive opinion of the com-
on the following considerations: (1) They
pany by word-of-mouth to other people or to
were eating in the restaurant; and (2) they were
re-visit their preferred service company
willing to engage in the research. In addition
(Nguyen and Klaus 2013). As stated by
to these preliminary interviews, the custom-
Adams (1966), the negative feelings result-
ers were also asked to write down on a piece
ing from unfairness are an emotional state-
of paper how often they ate there, what im-
ment to restore the sense of fairness (Jangand
pressions they have regarding the service pro-
Namkung 2009; Namkung and Jang 2010).
vided when they are eating at the restaurant,
Thus, the fifth hypothesis proposed by this
and why they chose to eat at that restaurant.
study is:
From these interviews, the items men-
H5: Positive emotions have a positive influence on
tioned by at least 10 percent of the respon-
the customer’s behavioral intentions.
dents (Fishbein and Middlestadt 1995) were
The hypotheses in this study can be visual- considered to be essential factors in the de-
ized as in Figure 2. velopment of a questionnaire to be use for

239
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Tabel 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Variables Customer’s Impression Factor Loading

 the price of food and beverages is suitable with the 0.831
Variable 1 taste and quality
 appropriate food and drinks at good price 0.800

 Healthy food, clean, and delicious taste 0.801

Variable 2
 excellent service 0.902

 the order is served immediately 0.909

Variable 3  orders arrive on timely manner 0.876

 Waitres are friendly 0.934

 All customers are treated equally 0.817
Variable 4
 Waitress are devoted to customers 0.939
 Waitress rarely make mistakes 0.899

 The place is comfortable and relaxing 0.872

Variable 5  Happy to be here 0.863
 Feeling at peace and like home 0.836

 I’am here because of my friends’ recommendation 0.886

Variable 6  My family said that foods are nice and the place is 0.900
clean
 I will always come here for a very long time 0.755

Sources: Data processed from SPSS software

conducting the confirmatory factor analysis. 1. Based on the results of the confirmatory
According to Fishbein and Middlestadt factor analysis (in Table 1), it is clear that the
(1995), those attributes or outcomes that are impressions for each variable written by the
mentioned most frequently by the population customers may be used as the basic indica-
must be considered. tors for each of the variables (factor loading
> 0.7). Therefore, each variable was given a
Results of Phase 1 name as follows: Variable 1 (price fairness),
Variable 2 (outcome fairness), Variable 3 (pro-
After the questionnaire was developed, cedural fairness), Variable 4 (interactional
200 copies of it were left in the fast-food chain fairness), Variable 5 (positive emotion), and
restaurants selected as the sample for our re- Variable 6 (behavioral intention). The result
search. Subsequently the questionnaires were from the factor analysis is the formation of
collected and the results from them processed these 6 constructs which will be tested in
using SPSS software; the results are in Table Phase 2.

240
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Method for Phase 2 suring the construct’s validity (convergence

Phase 2 was the quantitative phase, and and discriminant) and the path analysis to
aimed to discover the effect of service fair- analyze the effect of service fairness on emo-
ness on emotions and their impact on behav- tions that may impact the behavioral inten-
ioral intentions. In this phase, the question- tion was conducted subsequently.
naire was arranged based on the results of
interviews with key informants from Phase Population and Sample
1. The arrangement of the questionnaire was The data colletion method used in this
based on the previous research conducted by study was the survey method. The fast-food
Cropanzano et al. (2008), Jang and Namkung chain restaurants in our sample are located
(2009), Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), Xia and in the capital cities of 5 Indonesian provinces,
Monroe (2010), and Xia et al. (2010). Fur- namely: Jakarta (15 restaurants); Semarang
thermore, the questionnaire was reviewed by (10 restaurants); Surabaya (10 restaurants);
the respective managers of 4 fast-food chain Medan (8 restaurants); and Makassar (7 res-
restaurants included in our sample, and by 3 taurants). A total of 1,000 questionnaires
professional academics in the field of ser- were dissiminated to the sample’s restaurants
vices, in an attempt to test the validity of the and 920 questionnaires were returned to us.
content. The questionnaire contains fairness Futhermore, a check of all the questionnaires
variables, namely: Price fairness, procedural received was conducted and all those ques-
fairness, outcome fairness, and interactional tionnaires with missing values or incomplete
fairness; positive emotions; and behavioral answers were dropped. In the end, there were
intentions. 800 completed questionnaires which met the
sampling requirements. Therefore, the re-
After all the items in the questionnaire
sponse rate was 80 percent and this is con-
receieved a back translation, the Socially
sidered to be adequate for this study. The
Desirable Response test (SDR) was conducted
sampling method applied in this study was
due to the potential for the respondents to
purposive sampling. Sampling was conducted
provide dishonest information to this study,
from August 2016 to February 2017.
which would jeopardize our result. This prob-
lem has been one of the concerns for this
Sample Characteristics
study. In short, Socially Desirable is confirm-
ing good things which is in accordance with Table 2 presents the demographic char-
social norms and hiding bad things which is acteristics. Descriptive information showed
not appropriate by social norms (Sjostrom and that 54.38 percent of the respondents (n =
Holst 2002). Respondent has the tendency 800) were male, and 45.63 percent were fe-
to answer questionnaire with socially desir- male. The majority of respondents (55.13%)
able point of view which sometimes differ- were married. Regarding their education lev-
ent from the truth or from what they are re- els, 38.75 percent of the respondents have
ally feeling or think or do. This sort of re- at least a bachelor’s degree, 28.75 percent and
sponds will create problems and make the 32.50 percent hold master’s and doctoral de-
results of the study inappropriate. Thus, we grees, respectively. The respondents aged
conduct SDR test to minimize this potential between 25 and 30 formed the largest group
problem. The result from the SDR test was (28.75%). The majority of respondents work
appropriate, as expected. The phase of mea- as employees in private companies (32.50%).

241
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Table 2. Sample Characteristics

Variables Categories Sum Percentage

Gender Male 435 54.38

Female 365 45.63

25-30 years 230 28.75

31-35 years 100 12.50

Age 36-40 years 160 20

41-45 years 155 19.38
46-50 years 125 15.63
More than 50 years 30 3.75

Marital Status Single 359 44.88

Married 441 55.13
Public Servant 197 24.63
Army 36 4.50

Occupation Businessman 157 19.63

Employee 260 32.50
Police Officer 130 16.25
Student 20 2.50

Scholar 310 38.75

Education Master 230 28.75
Doctorate 260 32.50

Rp 0 – Rp 1.000.000 0 0
Rp 1.000.001 – Rp 2.500.000 70 8.75
Montly Expenses Rp 2.500.001 – Rp 5.000.000 290 23.75
Rp 5.000.001 – Rp 10.000.000 140 17.50
More than Rp 10.000.000 100 12.50

242
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Twenty-three point seven five percent of the (2 items), and interactional fairness (4 items).
respondents have monthly expenses which The constructs of positive emotions and each
range between Rp 2,500,001 – Rp 5,000,000. behavioral intention’s construct consist of 3
items. The constructs are measured using a
Research Model Measurement 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree).
The construct’s measurement scales for
fairness (equity prices, procedural fairness,
perceived outcome fairness, and interactional
Result Of Phase 2 (The Research
fairness), positive emotions, and intentions Instruments Testing)
to behave refer to Cropanzano et al. (2008), Socially Desirable Response Test
Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), Namkung and
A Socially Desirable Response Test
Jang (2010), Xiaand Monroe (2010), Xia et
(SDR) was conduted on non-paired samples
al. (2010), and Azarand Darvishi (2011). The
for each indicator of the 6 constructs mea-
constructs for fairness comprise of 10 items,
sured. In doing so, this study entrusted 30
namely: Price fairness (2 items), procedural
questionnaire to a restaurant in Jakarta with
fairness (2 items), perceived outcome fairness
direct questions and 30 questionnaire to a
restaurant in Surabaya with indirect ques-
Tabel 3. Socially Desirable Response Re-
tions. The test was performed with non-para-
sult
metric statistics using SPSS 16 (Mann-
Construct Indicators P-value Whitney test). The test results showed the p
value is greater than 0.05 and concluded that
Price Fairness PF 1 0.831
those two samples (non-paired) derived from
PF 2 0.363 the population which has the same average
Procedural Fairness PF 1 0.797 (mean) or expectation. Thus, the average an-
swer of the respondents from these two
PF 2 0.309
samples are similar. See more detailed results
Outcome Fairness OF 1 0.599 in Table 3.
OF 2 0.088 Discriminant Validity Tests and Research
Interactional Fairness IF 1 0.357 Constructs’ Convergence
IF 2 0.850 Discriminant validity and convergence
tests were conducted by distributing 200 cop-
IF 3 0.831
ies of the questionnaires to restaurants lo-
IF 4 0.209 cated in Jakarta, Surabaya, and Semarang. The
Positive Emotion PE 1 0.230 results from these questionnaires were ana-
PE 2 0.400
lyzed using Factor Analysis (FA). The indi-
cator measurements appear to present each
PE 3 0.532
construct (factor loading > 0.6), indicating
Behavioral Intention BI 1 0.611 that the measurements’ constructs have good
BI 2 0.560 discriminant validity. Hair et al. (2010) stated
that for the confirmatory phase of the re-
BI 3 0.788
search into the measurement scale, values for
Sources: Data processed from SPSS software the factor loading of greater than 0.6 are con-

243
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Tabel 4. Discriminant and Convergency Validity Result

Cronbach Alpha Indicators Factor Loading CR AVE

Price Fairness (0.911) PF1 0.840 0.957 0.918

PF2 0.810
Procedural Fairness (0.887) KP1 0.904 0.705 0.563
KP2 0.877
Outcome Fairness (0.762) OF1 0.753 0.888 0.799
OF2 0.943
Interactional Fairness (0.963) KI1 0.942 0.973 0.901
KI2 0.809
KI3 0.927
KI4 0.929
Positive Emotion (0.833) PE1 0.811 0.899 0.749
PE2 0.841
PE3 0.884
Behavioral Intention (0.913) BI1 0.843 0.885 0.731
BI2 0.956
BI3 0.965
Sources: Data processed from AMOS software

sidered adequate. More detailed results are reliable. This study used composite reliabil-
provided in Table 4. ity as its reliability test method, which has
Table 4 shows the result of the calcula- advantages in estimating the internal consis-
tion of the convergence validity (Fornell and tency of a construct (Fornell and Larcker
Larcker 1981; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). 1981; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
The convergent validity for each construct is Measurement Model and Structural Model
properly adequate when the AVE (Average Testing
Variance Extracted) values exceed 0.7 (Hair In conducting the test, Structural Equa-
et al. 2010). In line with this result, Table 5 tion Modeling (SEM) was applied to test the
also shows that the value of Cronbach’s al- validity of the proposed research model and
pha and the composite reliability of each con- its hypotheses with the help of software Amos
struct exceeds 0.7. Thus, it can be concluded 21st. The test’s results are provided in Table
that all the measures used in this study are 6. Table 5, shows the correlation between the

244
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Tabel 5. Latent Construct Correlation

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Price Fairness (PF) 1

Procedural
2 -0.023 1
Fairness
3 Outcome Fairness 0.250** 0.092* 1
Interactional
4 0.141** 0.075 0.312** 1
Fairness
5 Positive Emotion 0.224** 0.039 0.347** 0.267** 1
Behavioral
6 0.084* 0.103* 0.168** 0.207** 0.086* 1
Intention

Sources: Data processed from AMOS software.

**. Significant at 0.01 (2-tailed); *. Significant at 0.05 (2-tailed)

Tabel 6. Parameter Structural Estimation

Hypotheses Coefficient t-value Conclusion

H1 0.037 1.901* Supported

H2 -0.038 -1.200 Not Supported
H3 0.143 3.329*** Supported
H4 0.149 2.333** Supported
H5 0.497 2.786** Supported

Sources: Data processed from AMOS software

* significant at p<0.1; ** signficant at p<0.05; *** significant at p<0.001; χ2= 312,719; CMIN/DF=3.327;
GFI=0.942; AGFI=0.916; RMR=0.082; RMSEA=0.062; NFI=0.812; CFI=0.858.

constructs tested in this research. The results service fairness (price fairness, outcome fair-
in Table 5 show that the degree of correla- ness, interactional fairness, and procedual
tion between the constructs is adequate, with fairness) of customers of fast-food chain res-
the exception of procedural fairness. taurants in Indonesia. Most of the hypoth-
eses proposed were supported, as illustrated
Result and Discussion in Table 6. Hypothesis 1 (H1) is supported
(coefficient = 0.037; t = 1.901; p < 0.1). This
The current study was undertaken to implies that when the customer of a fast-food
explore the relationship among the perceived chain restaurant assesses if the money they

245
 Budiyanti and Patiro

spent on their food and beverages is perti- intangible features of the restaurant, such as
nent (fair) with the flavor (good), they will its products’ attributes, the physical environ-
feel a sense of fairness which will affect the ment, and its service aspects.
formation of positive emotions. This finding Hypothesis 4 (H4) is supported (coeffi-
is generally consistent with Namkung and cient = 0.149; t = 2.333; p < 0.05). This re-
Jang (2010) and Wen and Geng-qing Chi sult implies that the quality of service per-
(2013) who concluded that from a customer ceived by the customers will result in a fair-
sacrifice’s perspective, price fairness was ness perception which will affect the forma-
found to be a significant predictor of posi-
tion of positive emotions. Thus, this finding
tive emotions and ultimately future behav-
verified that customers are often influenced
ioral intentions. Futhermore, since it was the
by the knowledge and skills of the employ-
only dimension of fairness that had a signifi-
ees when forming opinions about the service
cant effect on the dependent constructs, the
offered, and inadequate interactions may di-
significance of price fairness should be rec-
rectly lead to unfavorable behavior (Jang and
ognized.
Namkung 2009; Namkung and Jang 2010).
Hypothesis 2 (H2) is not supported. This Given this result, it might be useful to con-
result indicates that when customers assess vey a perception of fair service that is char-
that the timeliness and efficiency of the ser- acterized by friendly and attentive staff who
vice provided to them are presumed to be in-
exhibit equal service to all the customers,
compatible (unfair), they will perceive an
without any bias.
unfair service which results in the failure to
form any positive emotions. This is in line Hypothesis 5 (H5) is supported (coeffi-
with Aggarwal and Larrick (2012) who ar- cient = 0.497; t = 2.786; p < 0.05). The re-
gued that, as it is another aspect of customer sult indicates that positive emotions are ex-
sacrifice, procedural fairness seems to act as cellent predictors for predicting consumers’
a basic requirement. Furthermore, they stated behavior in the context of the service indus-
that qualified procedural fairness should be a try. This finding supports the view of Jang
basic requirement, in the sense that consum- and Namkung (2009) and Namkung and Jang
ers expect their service’s delivery to be effi- (2010) who argue that the role of positive
cient and quick without any delays or decep- emotions should be obvious given the he-
tion. donic nature of restaurants. Furthermore,
Hypothesis 3 (H3) is supported (coeffi- they stated that restaurant managers could
cient = 0.143; t = 3.329; p < 0.001). The improve the probability of favorable behav-
result indicates that when the customers of ioral intentions by establishing fair and rea-
fast-food chain restaurants assess their visit, sonable prices, consistently good-quality
they are satisfied and content with the out- food, and improving the quality of the inter-
comes they received, which they consider to action between customers and service pro-
be a positive experience, so it will result in viders, which would elicit positive emotions.
the formation of positive emotions. As out- Therefore, the 3 fairness variables (price
lined by Jang and Namkung (2009), in a res- fairness, outcome fairness, and interactional
taurant setting, many stimuli could influence fairness) have positive and significant effects
a customer’s emotional state. They stated that on positive emotions. In terms of the ben-
these stimuli encompass both tangible and efits received by the customer, two variables

246
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

of fairness have a positive and significant associated with the ser vices offered
effect on their positive emotions. In terms of (Aggarwal and Larrick 2012), hence, any ad-
the sacrifices made by the customer, one fair- verse interaction will raise the likelihood of
ness variable has a positive and significant customers’ negative behavior.
effect on their positive emotions. Meanwhile, Moreover, Kukar-Kinney et al. (2007)
procedural fairness, which belongs to the con- show that excellent interactions between an
text of customers’ sacrifice, does not have a individual customer and the employees will
positive and significant effect on positive affect the assessment of the services pro-
emotions. It should be noted that emphasiz- vided. Therefore, based on these results, it
ing procedural fairness alone would not be could be concluded that the customers’ per-
enough to create customers’ positive emo- ception of the fairness of the service is in-
tions. Our results show that fast-food chain fluenced by factors such as a friendly
restaurants’ customers expect efficiency and athmosphere, full attention being provided by
timeliness in the service provided, without the service employees, and equal service de-
any delays or errors. Thus, when fast-food liveries, without errors, for every customer.
chain restaurants fail to meet these expecta- The role of positive emotions may be
tions, customers will consider this condition generated and highlighted through excellent
to be unacceptable. This result is in line with first impressions of the restaurant, through
Aggarwal and Larrick (2012) and Hur et al. the quality of the service provided during the
(2014) who concluded that when service de- service contact. Thus, restaurant managers
lays occur, customers assess this condition can increase the positive behavioral intention
as a waste of their time and they rate the ser- of their customers through the development
vice negatively. and provision of fair and reasonable prices
From the perspective of the benefit re- for food and beverages, as well as improve-
ceived by customers, the satisfactory result ments in the quality of the interaction be-
(physical) they perceive has a positive and tween the customers and the restaurant’s
significant effect on the customers’ positive employees, which will result in positive emo-
emotions (Dzansi 2016; Wang et al. 2016; Xu tions.
et al. 2016). Furthermore, when this result
(physical) is capable of influencing and in-
creasing the positive emotions, it will, in turn,
Conclusion
impact on future purchase intentions. Thus, The model used in this study consid-
successfully forming core products and a ered two goals and theoretical questions si-
quality service are substantial requirement multaneously. The first question investigated
that must be met in the restaurant business. the impact of perceived fairness on custom-
Similarly with other fairness variables which ers’ perceptions and emotional reactions. The
are also included in the context of the ben- 4 types of customers’ perceived fairness con-
efits received by the customer, interactional sidered are interactional, procedural, out-
fairness has a positive and significant effect come, and price, which are expected to influ-
on the customers’ positive emotions. These ence customers’ positive emotions. The more
results indicate that, in general, the custom- customers perceive fairness from the service
ers’ opinions are influenced by the knowledge they receive, the more positive emotions they
and expertise possessed by the employees will experience toward the service organiza-

247
 Budiyanti and Patiro

tion (Huang 2016; Roy et al. 2016; Kimand taurants. Therefore, the possibility to gener-
Park 2017). This result supports those of pre- alize the results of this study into the con-
vious studies such as by Namkung and Jang text of other service industries or other in-
(2010) and Wen and Geng-qing Chi (2013). dustrial fields is very small. Thus, further re-
However, the findings from this study search needs to be conducted into different
show that procedural fairness does not affect contexts, especially in the restaurant indus-
the customers’ emotions, while the effect of try (other than fast-food chain restaurants)
the other types of fairness is not confirmed. and other industrial fields, to reveal their is-
Procedural fairnesses’ dimension on positive sues of service fairness and its related dimen-
consumption’s emotion is, to some extent, sions. From the methodological aspect, fur-
inconsistent. Therefore, the result of this study ther research should conduct a validation test
is in contrast with Namkung and Jang (2010), on fairnesses’ service dimensions along with
who state that only the procedural aspect the indicators used in this study, and exam-
negatively affects negative consumption’s ine their application to assess the quality of
emotions, while other aspects do not have service in the restaurant business.
any effects. However, Wen and Geng-qing Chi Further research is expected to involve
(2013) find evidence that interactional fair- personal and situational characteristics, such
ness is not effective in predicting positive as sensitivity to fairness, loyalty, and various
emotions. Furthermore, a study by Smith and contexts regarding service problems, which
Bolton (2002) claims that all three dimensions may moderate the relationship between these
of perceived fairness have the ability to af- constructs. Aggarwal and Larrick (2012), Hur
fect customers’ negative emotions. et al. (2014), and Chen et al.(2015) state that,
The next theoretical question is the ef- based on the personal sensitivity of fairness,
fect of positive emotional fairness on cus- each individual has a different level of im-
tomers’ intentions. The findings reveal that portance for the perceived fairness of service.
positive consumption emotions have a posi- There are several questions in this regard,
tive effect on customers’ intentions. Thus, the namely: Whether considerations of the fair-
more positive emotions customers experience ness of different services are based on the
from the service, the more likely it is that they level of sensitivity to the fairness or on con-
will repeat their purchases. Hence, they will tact based services? What level of loyalty to
be more enthusiastic in sharing positive com- a particular restaurant affects consumers
ments and recommendations through word- when they evaluate the perceived fairness of
of-mouth advertising. This has already been the service? Is a loyal customer more toler-
observed in other studies (i.e. Lee 2010; Wen ant of unfairness than customers who are not
and Geng-qing Chi 2013; Hur et al. 2014; loyal? Are customers who often come to visit
Chen et al. 2015). a particular restaurant antagonistic when they
feel the unfairness of service? Therefore, fur-
ther research is expected to uncover the mod-
Limitations and Suggestions erating role of loyalty and the frequency of
Regardless of the contribution made visits in the relationship between emotions
and the managerial implications, there are and behavioral intention, in order to gain
some limitations to this study. The first limi- more knowledge regarding customers’ percep-
tation is concerning the data collected in this tions of service fairness that impact their emo-
study, which is only from fast-food chain res- tions and behavioral intentions.

248
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

References
Adams, J. S. 1966. Inequity In Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2(C), 267–299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Aggarwal, P., and R. P. Larrick. 2012. When consumers care about being treated fairly/ : The interaction
of relationship norms and fairness norms &. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 114–127. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.009
Azar, A. and Z. A. Darvishi. 2011. Development and validation of a measure of justice perception in the
frame of Fairness theory – Fuzzy approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 7364–7372.
Bagozzi, R. P. 1975. Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1250593
Barclay, L. J., D. P. Skarlicki,and S. D. Pugh. 2005. Exploring the Role of Emotions in Injustice Percep-
tions and Retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629–643.
Barclay, L. J., and D. P. Skarlicki. 2009. Healing the Wounds of Organizational Injustice: Examining the
Benefits of Expressive Writing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 511–523.
Blader, S. L., B. M. Wiesenfeld, M. Fortin, and S. L. Wheeler-Smith. 2013. Fairness Lies in The Heart of
The Beholder: How The Social Emotions of Third Parties Influence Reactions to Injustice. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 62–80.
Cassar, V., and S. C. Buttigieg. 2015. Psychological Contract Breach, Organizational Justice and Emotional
Well-being. Personnel Review, 44(2), 217–235.
Chalmers, S. 2016. Ethical Fairness in Financial Services Complaint Handling. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 34(4), 570–586.
Chen, A., N. Peng, and K. Hung. 2015. The Effects of Luxury Restaurant Environments on Diners’
Emotions and Loyalty: Incorporating Diner Expectations into An Extended Mehrabian-Russell
Model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(2), 236–260.
Chou, C., Y. Hsu, and Y. Goo. 2009. Service Failures and Recovery Strategies from the Service Provider
Perspective. Asia Pacific Management Review, 14(2), 237–249.
Chun, J. S., J. Brockner, and D. De Cremer. 2018. How Temporal and Social Comparisons in Perfor-
mance Evaluation Affect Fairness Perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
145, 1–15.
Cohen-Charash, Y., and P. E. Spector. 2001. The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On The Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a
Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386
Cropanzano, R., D. E. Bowen, and S. W. Gilliland. 2007. The Management of Organizational Justice.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48.
Cropanzano, R. L. Paddock, D. E. Rupp, J. Bagger,and A. Baldwin. 2008. How Regulatory Focus Im-
pacts The Process-by-Outcome Interaction for Perceived Fairness and Emotions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 36–51.
Cropanzano, R., and J. H. Stein. 2009. Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics: Promises and Pros-
pects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 193–233.

249
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Croonen, E. 2010. Trust and Fairness During Strategic Change Processes in Franchise Systems. Journal of
Business Ethics, 95(2), 191–209.
Daskalopoulou, I. 2008. Fairness perceptions and observed consumer behavior: Results of a partial
observability model. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 31–44.
Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive Justice. (Lexington Books, Ed.)
Dzansi, L. W. 2016. A South African Study Of Influence Of Fairness Of Human Resource Management
Practices On Service Quality. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 32(2), 871–882.
Faullant, R., J. Fueller, and K. Hutter. 2017. Fair Play: Perceived Fairness in Crowdsourcing Competitions
and The Customer Relationship-Related Consequences. Management Decision, 55(9), 1924–1941.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York
Hove: Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group.
Fishbein, M., and S. Middlestadt. 1995. Noncognitive Effects on Attitude Formation and Change: Fact or
Artifact? Jour nal of Consumer Psycholog y, 4(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327663jcp0402_05
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluation Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Giovanis, A., P. Athanasopoulou, and E. Tsoukatos. 2015. The Role of Service Fairness in The Service
Quality – Relationship Quality – Customer Loyalty Chain: An Empirical Study. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, 25(6), 744–766.
Goldenberg, I., M. Andres, and D. Resteigne. 2016. Is Military Employment Fair? Application of Social
Comparison Theory in a Cross-National Military Sample. Armed Forces & Society, 42(3), 518–541.
Gronroos, C. 2007. Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in Service Competition. (3rd ed.).
Wiley.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010.Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.02.019
Haws, K. L., and W. O. Bearden. (2006). Dynamic Pricing and Consumer Fairness Perceptions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 33(3), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1086/508435
Heo, C. Y., and S. Lee. 2011. Influences of Consumer Characteristics on Fairness Perceptions of Revenue
Management Pricing in The Hotel Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 245–
251.
Homburg, C., D. Totzek, and M. Kramer. 2014. How Price Complexity Takes Its Toll: The Neglected
Role of a Simplicity Bias and Fairness in Price Evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1114–
1122.
Huang, W. 2016. Responsible Pay: Managing Compliance, Organizational Efficiency and Fairness in The
Choice of Pay Systems in China’s Automotive Companies. The International Journal of Human Re-
source Management, 27(18), 2161–2181.
Hur, W., S. I. L. Park,and T. Moon. 2014. The Moderating Roles of Organizational Justice on The
Relationship between Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Loyalty in Airline Services. Journal
of Services Marketing, 28(3), 195–206.
Jang, S.,and Y. Namkung. 2009. Perceived Quality, Emotions, and Behavioral Intentions: Application of
An Extended Mehrabian–Russell Model to Restaurants. Journal of Business Research, 62, 451–460.

250
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. 1986. Fairness and The Assumptions of Economics. Journal
of Business, 59(4), S285–S300.
Kaura, V., C. S. D. Prasad, and S. Sharma. 2015. Service Quality, Service Convenience, Price and Fairness,
Customer Loyalty, and The Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 33(4), 404–422.
Kim, J.,and S. J. Lennon. 2013. Effects of Reputation and Website Quality on Online Consumers’ Emo-
tion, Perceived Risk and Purchase Intention: Based on The Stimulus-Organism-Response Model.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(1), 33–56.
Kim, S.,and S. Park. 2017. Diversity Management and Fairness in Public Organizations. Public Organization
Review, 17, 179–193.
Kukar-Kinney, M., L. Xia, and K. B. Monroe. 2007. Consumers’ Perceptions of The Fairness of Price-
Matching Refund Policies. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 325–337.
Lee, S. H. 2010. Consumer Response to Technology Products. Dissertation, Consumer Science and Retailing
Purdue University
Lee, Y. L., B. Sparks, and K. Butcher. 2013. Service Encounters and Face Loss: Issues of Failures, Fair-
ness, and Context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 384–393.
Liang, R.,and J. Zhang. 2011. The Effect Of Service Interaction Orientation On Customer Satisfaction
And Behavioral Intention: The Moderating Effect Of Dining Frequency. Procedia Social and Behav-
ioral Sciences, 24, 1026–1035.
Liang, C., D. Gua, F. Tao, H. K. Jain, Y. Zhao, and B. Ding. 2017. Influence of Mechanism of Patient-
Accessible Hospital Information System Implementation on Doctor–Patient Relationships: A Ser-
vice Fairness Perspective. Information & Management, 54, 57–72.
Lii, Y., and E. Sy. 2009. Internet Differential Pricing: Effects on Consumer Price Perception, Emotions,
and Behavioral Responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 770–777.
Liu, W., X. Shen, and D. Xie. 2017. Decision Method for The Optimal Number of Logistics Service
Providers with Service Quality Guarantee and Revenue Fairness. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 48,
53–69.
Ltifi, M.,and J. Gharbi. 2012. E-Satisfaction and E-Loyalty of Consumers Shopping Online. Journal of
Internet Banking and Commerce, 17(1), 1–20.
Mehrabian, A., and J. A. Russell. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press.
Namasivayam, K. 2004. Action Control, Proxy Control, and Consumers’ Evaluations of The Service
Exchange. Psychology and Marketing, 21(6), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20014
Namkung, Y., and S. C. Jang. 2010. Effects of Perceived Service Fairness on Emotions, and Behavioral
Intentions in Restaurants. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1233–1259.https://doi.org/
10.1108/03090561011062826
Naquin, C. E., T. R. Kurtzberg, and A. Krishnan. 2015. Fairness Judgments and Counterfactual Thinking:
Pricing Goods versus Services. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(2), 174–190.
Nguyen, B., and P. Klaus. 2013. Retail Fairness: Exploring Consumer Perceptions of Fairness towards
Retailers’ Marketing Tactics. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 311–324.
Nikbin, D., M. Marimuthu, and S. S. Hyun. 2016. Influence of Perceived Service Fairness on Relationship
Quality and Switching Intention: An Empirical Study of Restaurant Experiences. Current Issues in
Tourism, 19(10), 1005–1026.

251
 Budiyanti and Patiro

Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.
Radke, S., I. C. Schäfer, B. W. Müller, and E. R. A. de Bruijn. 2013. Do Different Fairness Contexts and
Facial Emotions Motivate “Irrational” Social Decision-Making in Major Depression? An Explor-
atory Patient Study. Psychiatry Research, 210, 438–443.
Reuben, E., and F. van Winden. 2010. Fairness Perceptions and Prosocial Emotions in The Power to
Take. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 908–922.
Roy, S. K., W. M. Lassar, and V. Shekhar. 2016. Convenience and Satisfaction: Mediation of Fairness and
Quality. The Service Industries Journal, 36(5–6), 239–260.
Schlett, C., and R. Ziegler. 2014. Job Emotions and Job Cognitions as Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
The Moderating Role of Individual Differences in Need for Affect. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
84, 74–89.
Seiders, K., and L. L. Berry. 1998. Service Fairness: What It Is and Why It Matters. Academy of Management
Executive, 12(2), 8–20.
Sekhon, H. S., S. L. Roy, and J. Devlin. 2016. Perceptions of Fairness in Financial Services: An Analysis of
Distribution Channels. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(2), 171–190.
Silva, M. R., and A. Caetano. 2016. Organizational Justice Across Cultures: A Systematic Review of Four
Decades of Research and Some Directions for the Future. Social Justice Research, 29, 257–287.
Sjostrom, O., and D. Holst. 2002. Validity of A Questionnaire Survey: Response Patterns in Different
Subgroups and The Effect of Social Desirability. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 60(3), 136–140.
Skarlicki, D. P., D. D. van Jaarsveld, and D. D.Walker. 2008. Getting Even for Customer Mistreatment:
The Role of Moral Identity in the Relationship Between Customer Interpersonal Injustice and
Employee Sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335–1347.
Smith, A. K., and R. N. Bolton. 2002. The Effect of Customers’ Emotional Responses to Service Failures
on Their Recovery Effort Evaluations and Satisfaction Judgments. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 30(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079450094298
Su, L., S. Huang, and X. Chen. 2015. Effects of Service Fairness and Service Quality on Tourists’ Behav-
ioral Intentions and Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(3), 290–307.
Su, L., S. R. Swanson, and X. Chen. 2016. The Impact of Perceived Service Fairness and Quality on the
Behavioral Intentions of Chinese Hotel Guests: the Mediating Role of Consumption Emotions.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(1), 88–102.
Tangney, J. P., and K. W. Fischer. 1995. Self-conscious Emotions: The Psychology of Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment,
and Pride. Guildford Press.
Tzafrir,S. S., and S. Hareli. 2009. Employees’ Emotional Reactions to Promotion Decisions: The Role of
Causal Attributions and Perceptions of Justice. Career Development International, 14(4), 351–371.
Uludag, O. 2014. Fair and Square: How does Perceptions of Fairness is Associated to Aggression?
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 504–508.
Wang, N., Z. Fan, and X. Wang. 2016. Channel Coordination in Logistics Service Supply Chain consider-
ing Fairness. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–15.
Wang, X., K. F. Yuen, Y. D. Wong, and C. Teo. 2018. It is Green, but Is It Fair? Investigating Consumers’
Fairness Perception of Green Service Offerings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 235–248.

252
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business – May-August, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2018

Wen, B., and C. Geng qing Chi. 2013. Examine The Cognitive and Affective Antecedents to Service
Recovery Satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(3), 306–327.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311310991
White, A., M. Breazeale, and J. E. Collier. 2012. The Effects of Perceived Fairness on Customer Re-
sponses to Retailer SST Push Policies. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 250–261.
Williamson, K., and K. J. Williams. 2011. Organisational Justice, Trust and Perceptions of Fairness in The
Implementation of Agenda for Change. Radiography, 17, 61–66.
Xia, L., K. B. Monroe, and J. L. Cox. 2004. The Price Is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price
Fairness Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.42733
Xia, L., and K. B. Monroe. 2010. Is A Good Deal Always Fair? Examining The Concepts of Transaction
Value and Price Fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 884–894.
Xia, L., M. Kukar-Kinney, and K. B. Monroe. 2010. Effects of Consumers’ Efforts on Price and Promo-
tion Fairness Perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 86(1), 1–10.
Xu, X., S. C. Payne, M. T. Horner, and A. L. Alexander. 2016. Individual Difference Predictors of
Perceived Organizational Change Fairness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 420–433.
Zmerli, S., and J. C. Castillo. 2015. Income Inequality, Distributive Fairness and Political Trust in Latin
America. Social Science Research, 52, 179–192.

253