Dissatisfaction and service failures in luxury consumption: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

While service failures and recoveries (SFR) constitute a well-explored research domain, such negative consumption experiences have been understudied in the luxury context. The current study undertakes a systematic review to capture current knowledge and stimulate research in this vital domain.

Design/methodology/approach

This study adopts a systematic literature review methodology and employs the Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methods (TCCM) framework.

Findings

Guiding theories, industry and national contexts, relevant constructs and their relationships, and research methods employed in studying SFR in luxury consumption are identified and synthesized.

Originality/value

A comparative analysis of the luxury SFR with broader extant knowledge is offered. Further, hospitality is revealed as the dominant context, meriting its emphasis.

Citation

Arora, S.D. (2024), "Dissatisfaction and service failures in luxury consumption: a systematic review", International Hospitality Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IHR-12-2023-0066

Introduction

While firms strive toward performing well and rising to consumer expectations, instances of dissatisfactory provision are also commonplace. Service failures refer to these negative consumption experiences, which cast a shadow on the consumers’ trust in the provider and have the potential to actuate several behavioral actions collectively captured in the construct of consumer complaining behavior (Istanbulluoglu, Leek, & Szmigin, 2017). Analogously, service recovery constitutes firm-level efforts to remedy a service failure (Parikh & Dutt, 2022; Van Vaerenbergh, Varga, De Keyser, & Orsingher, 2019). At a macro-level, forces like enhanced competition, globalization and information and consumer empowerment imply an exponential rise in consumer expectations, aggravating the firms’ challenges. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that consumer dissatisfaction is pervasive across contexts (Van Vaerenbergh et al., 2019).

Given the ubiquity of SFR, it is thus unsurprising that scholarly research in the domain has been extensive (Grégoire & Mattila, 2021). Studies have focused on various facets, e.g., cognitive and emotive evaluation of consumption experiences (Stephens & Gwinner, 1998), dissatisfaction responses (Arora & Chakraborty, 2020), complainant expectations and differential efficacy of recovery strategies (Davidow, 2003), and consequences for the referent consumer, other consumers, and firms. Despite this volume of work, one area that remains under-assessed is the intersection of SFR and luxury consumption.

While luxury is a subjective and nebulous concept, some features can still be claimed as relatively representative. It is often pricey, distinctive, aesthetic, elegant, personally and socially desirable, and is higher on hedonic than functional utility (Aliyev, Urkmez, & Wagner, 2019). Scholars have emphasized that consumer evaluation is the final decider of what constitutes luxury. Marketing strategies like premium pricing or quality betterment only improve the likelihood of developing these perceptions in consumers’ minds; these are not the decisive aspects demarcating luxury from non-luxury (Ko, Costello, & Taylor, 2019). Further, in terms of its potential, the luxury market presents promising characteristics of immense volumes and tremendous growth and also spans diverse categories (Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017).

In addition to its market size and potential, several additional factors also necessitate a specific study of SFR in the luxury context. One, multiple characteristics of luxury consumption, like exclusivity and price premium, appear to enhance the consumer expectation threshold, making SFR more likely and relevant (Knutson, Stevens, Patton, & Thompson, 1993). Second, firms’ recovery strategies and customer service could possibly be more proactive and liberal, given the upscale nature of the offering (Kim, Kim, & Kim, 2009). Third, the relative prevalence of specific complaining behaviors could differ from a non-luxury context, e.g., direct complaints may increase at the cost of switching, given a plausible shortage of alternatives. For these reasons, the current work systematically reviews the existing literature on SFR in the luxury context, an unchartered territory, to the best of our knowledge. A closer look reveals that one set of extant review studies attempts to delineate the luxury landscape in terms of definition, meaning, and research themes or clusters (Aliyev et al., 2019; Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017; Husain, Samad, & Qamar, 2022; Rathi, Garg, Kataria, & Chhikara, 2022). Similarly, another set of studies focuses on SFR in a context-agnostic manner (Arora & Chakraborty, 2021; Grégoire & Mattila, 2021; Istanbulluoglu et al., 2017; Khamitov, Grégoire, & Suri, 2020) or broader settings such as hospitality and tourism (Akarsu, Marvi, & Foroudi, 2023; Kim & So, 2023), without specifically focusing on luxury. Convinced of the need to address this research gap, we adopt a Theory-Context-Characteristics-Methods (TCCM) framework for the review, which is accepted as a structured and valuable approach in similar studies (Roy Bhattacharjee et al., 2022; De Keyser & Kunz, 2022).

Hospitality emerges as the dominant context in the reviewed literature, meriting its specific emphasis. Broadly, this sector presents a dichotomy of impressive growth and persistent challenges (Cockerell, 2000). At the same time, it instantiates a striking harmony with several characteristics of the notion of luxury, e.g., hedonism, elegance, aesthetics and exclusivity (Japutra, Loureiro, Li, Bilro, & Han, 2022). Further, the nature of the service experience implies a degree of personalization that few other offerings can match. It is thus unsurprising that luxury segments are outperforming the overall market across different sectoral components. For example, the global luxury hotel market is expected to show an 11.1% growth rate to reach USD 293.61 billion in 2030 (Fortune Business Insights, 2023). Instead, the aggregate hotel market size is projected to grow at a relatively modest 4.28% to achieve USD 483.40 billion in 2027 (Statista, 2023). Thus, while we adopt a context-agnostic approach to this review, the hospitality sector is highlighted.

In aiming to realize its objective of providing an integrated view of SFR in luxury consumption, this study contributes in multiple ways. To the best of our knowledge, we present a first review study at the intersection of the two domains of SFR and luxury consumption. Second, we delineate the nomological network of luxury SFR research in terms of its antecedents and consequences. Finally, beyond the syntheses of the TCCM aspects, we offer a comparative analysis of the luxury SFR with broader extant knowledge, facilitating theoretical and managerial guidance. Beyond this introduction, we first present an overview of the two domains of luxury consumption and SFR before detailing our methodology. We then present the findings and chart a future research path before concluding with the implications.

General overview

Before delving into the intersection of SFR and luxury, a brief overview of the two domains is presented.

Luxury consumption

Luxury is argued as a relative and subjective concept. Adam Smith’s four-way classification of consumption viewed luxury against necessary, basic, and affluent (Husain et al., 2022). Thus, though observed and delineated for long, the point where premium or affluent offerings translate into luxurious ones still, remains a point of contention (Aliyev et al., 2019). Factors like globalization, the simultaneity of growth in incomes and widening economic disparities, and technological progress have implied a significant spurt in the demand for luxury offerings across industries (Husain et al., 2022). Relatedly, scholarly research in the domain has also mushroomed in the past decade (Rathi et al., 2022).

Several strands of knowledge creation are visible in luxury research. First, conspicuousness is seen as one of the vital motives behind buying luxury goods and services (e.g., Han & Hyun, 2013). Individuals employ luxury consumption as a route toward self-expression and status display. Second, a sizeable sub-stream attempts to identify the influence of culture on perceiving and buying luxury offerings (Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017). Cross-cultural patterns and divergences also form a part of this investigation. Third, a distinctive assessment of luxury brands from non-luxury ones and associated customer-based brand equity has been another focus area (Kumagai, 2023). Herein, managerial challenges like balancing exclusivity with line extensions or expansion are also covered. Though otherwise a part of brand management, counterfeiting has been explored separately as a fourth sub-domain, perhaps due to the sheer scale and practical challenges associated with the phenomenon (Husain et al., 2022). Consumer attitudes, preferences, and purchase behavior toward counterfeits of prestige brands are often favorable and wilful, and triggers, as well as deterrents of such proclivity, form the focus here. Fifth, multiple contemporary dimensions, post the advent of social media, have been investigated, e.g., brand communities, customer engagement and co-creation (Rathi et al., 2022). In emerging areas, sustainable luxury is one pertinent theme. For luxury brands, responsibility toward the environment, ethical behavior, and social concerns is seen as more imperative, particularly by newer generation consumers (Amatulli, De Angelis, Pino, & Jain, 2021).

As evident above, negative consumption experiences in the luxury context have been less investigated. Accordingly, investigating service failures and recoveries in luxury consumption forms a focus of this study.

Service failure and recoveries

Despite best efforts, firms often fail to match customer expectations. Such negative consumption experiences, termed service failures, evoke different coping mechanisms on the consumer’s part, manifesting in several behavioral actions collectively understood as consumer complaining behavior (Istanbulluoglu et al., 2017). Service recovery denotes the firm’s remedial response to a service failure (Van Vaerenbergh et al., 2019).

SFR research has an established history with scholars delineating its multiple facets like shaping of consumer dissatisfaction or categorization of consumption experiences as failures (Stephens & Gwinner, 1998), cognitive and emotive evaluations (Stephens & Gwinner, 1998), complaining behaviors (Istanbulluoglu et al., 2017), recovery strategies (Davidow, 2003), and outcomes at various levels, e.g., the referent complainer, other existing and prospective buyers, firm’s performance, and the aggregate marketing system (Grégoire & Mattila, 2021; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998). The field is evolving from an emphasis on primary or first-stage consumer responses to secondary, i.e., post-recovery behaviors (Arora & Chakraborty, 2021). Further, the Internet and social media have transformed SFR from a consumer-firm interaction to an often publicly visible phenomenon, raising its consequences to an altogether different degree (Istanbulluoglu et al., 2017). However, despite claims of the domain’s maturity, several vital contexts like government services and healthcare have remained under-assessed (Grégoire & Mattila, 2021). This study argues that luxury consumption is another setting wherein SFR requires a distinct investigation.

Further, hospitality settings are structurally more prone to service failures. First, services, by their very nature, are more intangible. Hospitality services are highly experiential and difficult to blueprint (Amoako, Doe, & Neequaye, 2023). Second, these involve a very high degree and frequency of customer contact. Third, the balance of power is highly skewed in the consumer’s favor, raising their expectations, thereby making dissatisfaction more likely (Fan, Van Hoof, Dou, & Serrano, 2023). Fourth, such settings also face challenges on account of the precarious nature of employment: work that is often underpaid, casual and part-time (Cetron, Davies, DeMicco, & Song, 2020). Internal marketing tenets argue that customer-experienced service quality is shaped by employee-level outcomes, and such aspects do not help in this regard.

Imperative of studying SFR in luxury

The disconfirmation of expectations paradigm remains a dominant framework for understanding consumers’ categorization of service experiences as satisfactory or otherwise (Oliver, 1980). The model posits that customer satisfaction is determined by the direction and size of the difference between perceived performance and prior expectancy (Arora & Chakraborty, 2020). In this respect, several characteristics of luxury offerings appear linked to a likely augmentation of pre-purchase expectations. For example, price premium is often charged for such products and services and monetary sacrifice being one of the salient components shaping value perception, consumers are indeed expected to demand more in return (Knutson et al., 1993). Similarly, luxury is generally seen as exclusive, conspicuous, aesthetic and higher on hedonic utility (Husain et al., 2022). These aspects also act in the same direction. When a consumer goes into a consumption episode with higher expectations, the perception of service failures becomes more probable, thereby making the luxury setting a likely candidate for higher dissatisfaction.

Recovery systems and processes are also contingent and vary based on several aspects, including brand positioning. For example, in the hospitality context, we often see unconditional service guarantees being offered by upscale hotels rather than budget ones. Scholars have validated that this enhanced relevance is on account of higher perceived risk in luxury consumption, given the premium pricing (Lei, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2008). Accordingly, it can be argued that firms’ recovery strategies and customer service should be more proactive and liberal in luxury markets, given the nature of the offering (Kim et al., 2009). Indeed, while scant research has explored these issues, some preliminary guidance exists. For example, Alrawadieh and Dincer (2019) reveal differences in the recovery modes adopted by firms across online and offline complaints in the luxury hotel industry.

Another aspect that merits a differential emphasis on SFR in luxury consumption is the relative prevalence of specific complaining behaviors. Consumers can react in multiple ways to a service failure: by voicing, i.e., complaining directly to the seller or service provider, spreading negative word of mouth (NWOM), switching to an alternative, or appealing to a third party. One change from broader consumption to the luxury context can be a higher prevalence of voicing than switching because fewer competing alternative providers generally exist in the latter (Kotler, 1989). Also, brand evangelism is higher in luxury settings, thereby further enhancing the possibility of voice as a constructive action against other vindictive alternatives. Convinced of the merit of the study’s objective(s), the methodology adopted is delineated next.

Methodology

Following the tenets of a systematic review process, this study began with identifying the relevant literature (Mittal & Sinha, 2022). We searched the comprehensive database Scopus with the search scheme (“Luxury OR conspicuous OR “Status brand” OR “Status consumption” OR “Prestige brand” OR “Prestige consumption”) AND (“Service failures” OR “Service recovery” OR “Complain*” OR “Dissatisfaction” OR “switching” OR “Exit” OR “Voice” OR “NWOM” OR “Negative word of mouth” OR “Negative review*” OR “Negative WOM” OR “Third party”). As visible, the logical operator ‘AND’ combines the research streams of luxury consumption and SFR. Further, the search strings across the two domains are guided by published systematic review studies (Arora & Chakraborty, 2021; Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2017). The initial 807 results were filtered to 225 by restriction to English language peer-reviewed journal articles in relevant subject categories (Business, Management and Accounting, Social Science, Arts and Humanities, Psychology, Economics, Econometrics, and Finance). Finally, reading Abstracts and, in some cases, the complete paper enabled the identification of 51 papers relevant to the study’s scope. Figure 1 illustrates the article selection methodology, and Table 1 lists the journals where these articles have been published. As evident, the hospitality domain has seen the maximum focus. Next, these papers were entirely and iteratively read to assess the TCCM dimensions and other aspects, for which an Excel sheet was employed as a coding mechanism. Some dimensions that were coded include antecedents of consumers’ cognitive or affective evaluation of their consumption experience, behavioral responses, including complaining, recovery efforts of firms, and consequences.

It is worth noting that this study’s methodology falls within what has been generally termed a framework-based review (Paul & Criado, 2020). Further, the process followed in this work is systematic in that different stages are clearly delineated and enable replicability (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). While the TCCM framework adopted, structures and enriches the discussion, the work conforms broadly to the integrative assessment of a research domain (Snyder, 2019). This narrative-based approach differs from the quantitative lenses adopted by meta-analytic or bibliometric reviews. While the former relies on statistical methods to identify relationships, patterns, or divergences amongst published studies (Linnenluecke, Marrone, & Singh, 2020), the latter works on citations or bibliographies to examine how different facets of extant research relate to one another (e.g., articles, authors, journals, affiliation institutions, countries, research streams) and how existing body of knowledge can be structured into different themes, groups, or clusters (Zupic & Čater, 2015).

Findings and discussion

Theories

Given the broadly conspicuous nature of luxury consumption, the theories drawn from in extant studies generally belong to the social psychology domain, e.g., social identity (Ward & Dahl, 2014), self-congruity (Bryson, Atwal, & Hultén, 2013), social comparison (Sundie, Ward, Beal, Chin, & Geiger-Oneto, 2009), and self-categorization (Lee & Kim, 2020). Similarly, since issues assessed relate to attribute evaluation, shaping of dissatisfaction, consumer responses, service recovery, and post-complaint outcomes, relevant frameworks like expectation-disconfirmation, exit-voice-loyalty, and justice dimensions (Alrawadieh & Dincer, 2019; Morgeson III, Hult, Mithas, Keiningham, & Fornell, 2020), also find a significant place. While Table 2 provides a complete listing, we briefly discuss the frequently adopted theories below.

Justice theory/framework

The notion of justice as an element of the service experience is widely reflected in scholarly work (Kim et al., 2009). It is generally seen as a salient mechanism through which consumers assess how satisfactory a firm’s service recovery effort is in response to an initial service failure and customer complaints. Marketing research conceptualizes justice as comprising three dimensions: distribution, procedure, and interaction (Tax et al., 1998). The first concerns the outcome, e.g., the degree of compensation. Second is the perceived fairness of the process adopted to arrive at the outcomes. Third is the extent to which the firm has treated the complainer with respect and dignity. In the luxury landscape, we observe a focus on all three justice dimensions, e.g., distributive justice (Sarkar, Sarkar, & MR, 2018), procedural justice (Alrawadieh & Dincer, 2019), interactional justice (Boadi et al., 2022), or a proportionate emphasis (Kozub, O’Neill, & Palmer, 2014).

Social identity theory

Consumers’ intent to aspire for and maintain a coherent self-concept is a social instrument for inhabiting self-relevant groups (Bhalla & Pathak, 2023). Luxury consumption is often driven by aspirations to project a desired identity (Lau, Ng, Chan, & Cheung, 2023). Accordingly, while justice theory is more specific to the SFR context, the social identity framework is more generally applicable to the luxury domain. The reviewed literature under this study reveals that consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward luxury providers are shaped by the former’s self and social identities (Ward & Dahl, 2014). Further, several related frameworks like self-congruity (Bryson et al., 2013) and personal construct theory (Prayag & Ryan, 2012) have also been employed in the reviewed literature on SFR in luxury consumption.

Theory of reasoned action

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) postulates that individuals’ salient beliefs influence subjective norms and attitudes, leading to exhibited behavior via the mechanism of intentions (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). In our context, TRA has been used to predict behaviors by adopting a technology artifact for consumer-firm communication (Mrad, Farah, & Mehdi, 2022). Similarly, Bhalla and Pathak (2023) draw from TRA to conceptualize a model explaining how negative word of mouth (NWOM) predicts attitudes and purchase intention toward a seller.

Other theories

Several other theories guide the SFR works in the luxury context, e.g., attribution theory suggests that individuals attempt to explain events and happenings and has been widely adopted in SFR research (Kim & Jang, 2022). Some conceptions blur with the theories earlier discussed, e.g., image congruence, self-congruity and social identity reflect significant commonalities (Han & Hyun, 2013). Similarly, the expectation disconfirmation paradigm, dissonance, and regret theory explain the process of customers’ evaluation of the luxury offering as dissatisfactory.

Context

Industries

More than half of the relevant studies study SFR in the luxury hospitality space (Han, Hwang, & Lee, 2018), and that, too, dominantly in the hotel sector (Dinçer & Alrawadieh, 2017). Fashion products (e.g., Ward & Dahl, 2014) and cars (e.g., Sundie et al., 2009) constitute other significant specific contexts (Table 3). Then, there are a good number of works that focus on the consumer-chosen luxury sector as a referent for studying their attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Bryson et al., 2013).

Multiple factors can explain the relative dominance of the hospitality domain in this research space. First, product-oriented conceptions of marketed offerings have seen a transition to the underlying services and experiences (Boadi et al., 2022). Within this realm, hospitality is a natural fit and has become a euphemism for the connotation of luxury. As earlier argued, the different characteristics of luxury consumption, like exclusivity and elegance, are unequivocally ingrained in this context. Second, these sectors have a higher potential of attracting marginal prospects: those who see luxury pricing as a barrier but are willing to consume considering the experience as a one-off event. Third, services are more prone to failure and dissatisfaction (Kozub et al., 2014). Accordingly, within the luxury context, it becomes understandable that hospitality, as an industry, focuses more on identifying and correcting problem areas.

Countries

Regarding geography, the extant work is still more diverse, though around 40% of studies adopt the US context (Table 4). Thus, while 18 unique countries offer requisite structural and cultural heterogeneity, very few studies (N = 4) adopt a multi-country lens. Another notable aspect is a good representation of Asian countries, implying a broadening focus on emerging markets, as well as a higher relevance of SFR in these geographies. Higher economic growth in these countries coupled with a rising middle class may also be representative of growing luxury consumption and proportionate instances of SFR.

Characteristics

An extraction of prevalent dimensions in luxury SFR research is one of the most significant focus areas of this study, for it enables comparison with broader SFR research and identifies areas that are peculiar to the luxury context. Herein, three sub-categories are specifically emphasized: triggering factors, exhibited complaint behaviors, recovery strategies adopted by firms, and consequences.

Antecedents and moderators

SFR literature has established that consumer dissatisfaction while being necessary for legitimate consumer complaints to be exhibited, is not sufficient. In other words, additional factors act as antecedents to the categorization of an experience as dissatisfactory as well as regarding the exhibited complaining behavior.

Table 5 summarizes the identified antecedents from the reviewed literature. While contingent factors hold independent conceptual significance, Table 5 clubs them with antecedents, given the relatively small volume of SFR research in luxury and the specific lack of focus on moderators. As can be seen, this review reveals a number of antecedents to luxury SFR that are better understood via a four-way taxonomy. The first set of antecedents is individual-consumer-related. These include traditional personal differences like demographics and personality (Bolfing, 1989; Morgeson III et al., 2020). Similarly, other relatively context-independent factors emerge, e.g., consumer activism (Bolfing, 1989). However, more interestingly, some dimensions are more peculiar to the luxury context, e.g., country-of-origin perceptions, which relate directly to the cultural foundations of luxury offerings (Bryson, Atwal, Hultén, & Heine, 2021). Similarly, the relation to ideal self-concept and value expressiveness is linked with the conspicuous aspect, often relevant in luxury consumption (Kashif, Korkmaz Devrani, Rehman, & Samad, 2021; Ward & Dahl, 2014). Across the different sub-categories identified in Table 5, the comparison of luxury SFR antecedents and moderators with their corresponding aspects in broader SFR research is based on a structured comparison using Arora and Chakraborty’s (2020) review paper as a recent comprehensive work that synthesized the antecedents of consumers’ perceptions of SFR and coping responses.

A second set, as specified in Tables 5 and is firm-related. Herein, some aspects apply more uniformly to all consumption contexts, e.g., the firm’s responsiveness, hard-sell approach and uninformed service employees are associated with SFR across the value spectrum (Bolfing, 1989; Lin & Chen, 2013; Mrad et al., 2022). Notably, the luxury setting accentuates the significance of some of these factors, e.g., consumers’ perceptions of firms’ social (ir)responsibility and conspicuous cues provided by employees (Bryson et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019). As earlier argued, since the perceived consumer risk is higher in luxury, service guarantees and third-party certifications play a more vital role (Jun, Kang, & Hyun, 2017; Kandampully & Duddy, 2001).

Third, consumer-firm exchange aspects signifying the relationship salience also drive luxury SFR. Herein, notable correspondence with the broader SFR literature is manifested by constructs like service severity, service quality, prior experience with the firm, trust, nature of failure, and perceived recovery effort (Bolfing, 1989; Jun et al., 2017; Morgeson III et al., 2020). From a luxury standpoint, notable specificities are massification, deficient sensory experience, and branding strategy misalignments (Ahn, 2023; Mrad et al., 2022). Since exclusivity is traditionally seen as an imperative characteristic, a firm’s attempts to widen the target consumer base are often perceived negatively by loyal buyers. Similarly, luxury offerings are desired to stimulate experiences, and the contemporary push towards digitalization and associated reduction of human touch is often undesirable from a customer standpoint. More broadly, these aspects point to the imperative of balancing technology advancements with the sustenance of the core value proposition and the often culturally rooted nature of luxury consumption. Indeed, contemporary studies, e.g., Xu and Mehta (2022), demonstrate that technology often devalues luxury, particularly for offerings relying more on emotional value. Relatedly, scholars emphasize that luxury businesses’ extent of technology adoption needs to be contingent on several aspects such as customer and market characteristics (Kucukusta, Heung, & Hui, 2014; Shin & Jeong, 2022). Perceptions of price unfairness are also observed to be more relevant in the luxury landscape (Sahin, Gulmez, & Kitapci, 2017).

Finally, this review reveals multiple structural factors as precursors of luxury SFR. While macro-level differences shaped by nationality, cultural, and economic aspects emerge as expected from broader SFR knowledge, two critical luxury-specific dimensions are also revealed. Luxury consumption is often seen negatively at an aggregate level as a stereotype, resulting in a higher inclination toward negative attitudes and behaviors, particularly by observer customers. The hyper-connected world of today unequivocally augments the vitality of this aspect. Additionally, sustainability concerns get heightened attention in today’s times, and luxury consumption is seen negatively in this regard, too.

Specific complaining behaviors studied

SFR research has conceptualized a number of complaining behaviors, collectively expressed in the construct of consumer complaining behavior (Arora & Chakraborty, 2021). As identified in this review, an elaborate assessment of these distinct responses is missing in luxury SFR research. Negative word of mouth via online reviews has been the most studied complaining behavior (e.g., Dinçer & Alrawadieh, 2017; Padma & Ahn, 2020). Exit behavior or switching (e.g., Han & Hyun, 2013) and voicing to the firm (Kozub et al., 2014) only find some focus. The domain has mainly concentrated on studying online complaints (e.g., Zheng, Youn, & Kincaid, 2009), irrespective of their specific nature, as directed at the referent firm or other prospective customers. More generally, the emphasis has been on studying the intermediate mechanisms, e.g., negative emotions, rather than complaint responses (Bryson et al., 2013; Sarkar et al., 2018). Similarly, terminal outcomes like repurchase intentions are more in focus, as detailed in a subsequent sub-section. Further, as elaborated more in the future research section, there are ample opportunities that should be capitalized moving forward.

Service recovery characteristics

Davidow (2003) argued that recovery approaches can be viewed in six categories, namely, redress, apology, timeliness, facilitation, credibility, and attentiveness. These six further map pairs to the distributive, procedural, and interactional justice dimensions, respectively. As with broader SFR research, the outcome aspect, i.e., redress or compensation and apology, is predominantly assessed (Dinçer & Alrawadieh, 2017; Kozub et al., 2014). Notably, communication of improvement plans and actions taken as signals of organizational learning are also identified, albeit scantily (Sahin et al., 2017). In general, while the volume of service recovery research in the luxury context is minuscule, no qualitative difference in emphasis is otherwise visible relative to broader SFR research. Further, most works have assessed types or typologies of failure episodes without giving guidance regarding suitable recovery strategies (e.g., Zheng et al., 2009).

Consequences

This review reveals a multi-faceted range of outcomes once consumers perceive dissatisfaction in the luxury context (Table 6). At the micro-level, studies have assessed consequences ranging from brand attitude dilution (Bhalla & Pathak, 2023), negative affect including hate (Bryson et al., 2013), as also reduced repurchase and switching intention (Qian & Park, 2021). Extant scholarship has also established that negative luxury consumption experiences have detrimental effects on relational aspects of the firm-consumer relationship, like trust and loyalty (Han et al., 2018; Lee & Kim, 2020). In terms of cross-over actions that potentially have implications beyond the referent consumer, a heightened propensity to spread the word about the firm has been studied, with the valence being contingent on the degree of (dis)satisfaction (Jun et al., 2017). Interestingly, another individual-level outcome that is less identified in broader SFR research is the reduced tendency of the consumer to assist the firm via marketing research cooperation (Lacey, 2012).

Transitioning toward the macro-level, some consequences pertain to detrimental employee-level outcomes, e.g., a reduced propensity to share organizational feedback (Boadi et al., 2022). Additionally, firms are seen to suffer intangible as well as tangible harms such as reputational and revenue losses. More importantly, customer expectations take a hit at the aggregate level, implying a vicious long-term downside in performance. Finally, from a consumer standpoint, luxury SFR is seen to lead to reduced well-being and enhanced proclivity toward anticonsumption. Coupled with rising concerns toward sustainability and the general view of luxury consumption as its antithesis, meeting customer expectations is thus much more paramount herein, relative to the broader market exchanges.

Methods

Following the positivist paradigm that is dominant across social sciences, most studies adopt a quantitative research design. Herein, surveys and experiments are primarily adopted as a tool for data collection (Table 7). Alternative sources and extraction methods are seen to be increasingly used, e.g., text mining and the use of proprietary firm-level data sets. Social media serves as a ready source of extensive data, particularly when seen in the context of negative online reviews or firm-directed complaints on official handles. Given the often experiential nature of luxury consumption, this positivist dominance of SFR research in these settings needs to be augmented with interpretive designs. Some recent studies exploring niche sub-contexts within luxury consumption are showing the way in adopting qualitative research designs. For example, Angelini (2023) explores causes of dissatisfaction for luxury tourists who stay in sustainable locations, terming this combination of nature and luxury as glamping (glamorous camping). The study assesses the negative reviews and thereby classifies the dissatisfaction aspects into four illustrative categories. As emphasized in the next section, similar methodological pluralism needs to be increasingly adopted by luxury SFR researchers.

In terms of data analysis, methods like Structural Equation Modeling (e.g., Han & Hyun, 2013), Analysis of Variance (e.g., Ward & Dahl, 2014), or Regression (e.g., Amatulli, De Angelis, Pino, & Guido, 2020) are predominantly used (Table 8). Qualitative works that rely on content or thematic analysis are also significant in number and contribution (e.g., Bryson et al., 2013). However, very few studies adopt a conceptual (e.g., Carrigan, Moraes, & McEachern, 2013) or multi-method approach (e.g., Kozub et al., 2014).

Conclusion and future research

In aiming to fulfill its objectives, this study aids theory and practice in multiple ways. Regarding theoretical contribution, first, it answers recent calls for adopting newer contexts in SFR research (Grégoire & Mattila, 2021). Based on several arguments for how SFR phenomena could vary in the luxury context, it assesses the published literature and illustrates identified differences. Second, it broadens luxury SFR research by delineating its diverse offering categories and geographies, theoretical strands, elements of its nomological network, and adopted research methodologies. In doing so, the study also suggests knowledge gaps, wherein theoretical augmentation is most plausible. In terms of practice, it guides luxury marketers toward better customer outcomes by focusing on five pillars: expectation setting, empowered performance, complaint facilitation, recovery liberality, and corrective learning. First, managers need to emphasize the experiential nature of luxury consumption and adopt the tangibles of the offering as a route toward that goal. Such an approach enables consumers to enter the marketing exchange with expectations that conform to the offer’s positioning. Second, luxury brands need to ensure autonomy as well as knowledge dissemination to the front-line personnel since the often-customized nature of luxury consumption necessitates decisions at the delivery interface. Third, despite best efforts, when consumers perceive dissatisfaction, they need to be encouraged to cope actively by sharing the negative experience with the firm. While this applies more generally to all categories, it is even more vital in luxury consumption, given its relational nature and other associated attributes. Fourth, luxury businesses invariably need to be more liberal in their service recovery strategies. It is pertinent to note that unconditional guarantees are often employed more in the luxury space. Finally, luxury firms need to institutionalize processes that seek to learn from prior SFR incidents.

Further, though it is a maiden attempt at the cross-section of SFR and luxury, this work has certain limitations that make ground for further research. First, though the systematic review process enabled the objective extraction of relevant literature, some relevant works may have been missed, and there is no way to quantify the same. Second, the limited studies available restricted our attempt to demarcate the findings across luxury and non-luxury. Future work may specifically attempt to search and assess both streams. For example, is the consumer satisfaction threshold higher in the luxury context and, relatedly, whether SFR issues get aggravated therein? Herein, attempts also need to be made to adopt longitudinal assessments since consumer expectation thresholds are constantly evolving. This aspect is particularly relevant to luxury settings, given the often dual trends, e.g., simultaneity of massification and customization. Third, there appears to be a dire need for more cross-cultural research in luxury SFR. The context dimension of the TCCM framework has revealed that few works have worked in cross-national settings. Fourth, there is extensive scope for studying technology advancements in relation to luxury SFR. While this review identifies some pointers in this direction, several directions appear worthwhile, e.g., identifying contingent aspects that shape this association and explanatory processes that elucidate the causes for it.

Fifth, several vital behaviors like voicing to the firm and third-party actions lie under-assessed in the luxury SFR space. Relational marketing tenets guide us that stronger consumer-brand affinity, as evident in luxury consumption, should lead to constructive sharing of information and feedback. Thus, when consumers perceive dissatisfactory experiences, voicing is expected as a dominant coping mechanism. However, this review reveals a focus on vindictive behaviors like negative word of mouth and brand hate. On a different yet related note, formal third-party complaining has wholly been ignored in luxury SFR research. With the increasing significance of regulators and similar executive bodies having systemic power over firms, luxury research needs to assess how these mechanisms influence consumers’ sensemaking of their rights in the marketplace. Sixth, other relevant research questions emerge from this review, e.g., price fairness perceptions have not been sufficiently studied as an antecedent of consumer complaining behaviors or recovery expectations, though this construct appears central to the luxury context.

Similarly, there have been limited attempts to contextualize service recovery in luxury consumption. In other words, the efficacy of different recovery strategies in the luxury context also needs more emphasis. Broader consumer complaining behavior research guides us that experimental methods may be instructive in this regard (Wirtz & Mattila, 2004). Finally, contemporary sub-domains within luxury consumption present abundant opportunities for knowledge building. For example, sustainability concerns have been getting increased traction from luxury customers and providers alike. Across product and service categories, these issues potentially manifest as an additional trigger of SFR. However, equally vitally, research needs to demarcate whether sustainable luxury consumption and its users differ in their expectations, too. In the hospitality context, Angelini (2023) indicates that this may be the case. Further, these sub-domains being niche contexts, interpretive and mixed-methods research appears more likely to provide better insights and understanding.

To sum up, the current work has delineated SFR research in the luxury space and attempted to chart a roadmap for more scholarly efforts. Notable takeaways of this work include the identified differential drivers of luxury SFR and a preliminary delineation of effective recovery elements. Exhorting researchers to build on the rich cumulative knowledge base of the broader SFR domain and arguing for a contextual path forward, it has revealed multiple specificities of how SFR might vary in luxury consumption. Though the volume of existing research in the luxury SFR domain is unspectacular, the hospitality sector emerged as the dominant setting on a relative scale. Rising consumer expectations coupled with the expected buoyancy of the hospitality sector, one expects SFR scholars to engage more with this space in the future.

Figures

Figure 1

Literature selection schema

Table 1

Journals that have published luxury service failure and recovery research

S.No	Title	Frequency	Percentage
1	International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management	4	7.84
2	Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management	4	7.84
3	Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology	3	5.88
4	Journal of Services Marketing	3	5.88
5	Qualitative Market Research	2	3.92
6	Sustainability	2	3.92
7	Annals of Leisure Research	1	1.96
8	Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics	1	1.96
9	British Food Journal	1	1.96
10	Cornell Hospitality Quarterly	1	1.96
11	Current Issues in Tourism	1	1.96
12	Current Opinion in Psychology	1	1.96
13	Current Psychology	1	1.96
14	International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research	1	1.96
15	International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration	1	1.96
16	International Journal of Hospitality Management	1	1.96
17	International Journal of Research in Marketing	1	1.96
18	International Journal of Technology Marketing	1	1.96
19	International Marketing Review	1	1.96
20	Journal of Brand Management	1	1.96
21	Journal of Business Research	1	1.96
22	Journal of Consumer Psychology	1	1.96
23	Journal of Consumer Research	1	1.96
24	Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management	1	1.96
25	Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science	1	1.96
26	Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing	1	1.96
27	Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research	1	1.96
28	Journal of Macromarketing	1	1.96
29	Journal of Marketing	1	1.96
30	Journal of Marketing Management	1	1.96
31	Journal of Modelling in Management	1	1.96
32	Journal of Product and Brand Management	1	1.96
33	Journal of Promotion Management	1	1.96
34	Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism	1	1.96
35	Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services	1	1.96
36	Journal of Vacation Marketing	1	1.96
37	Marketing Intelligence and Planning	1	1.96
38	Strategic Change	1	1.96
39	Tourism and Hospitality Research	1	1.96
	Total	51	100

Source(s): Table by author

Table 2

Theories that guide extant SFR research in the luxury context

S.No	Theory	Article count*	% Relative to the total sample	Exemplar articles
1	Three-dimensional justice framework	5	9.80	Kozub et al. (2014), Morgeson III et al. (2020)
2	Social identity theory	3	5.88	Lee and Kim (2020), Ward and Dahl (2014)
3	Theory of reasoned action	3	5.88	Mrad et al. (2022), Qian and Park (2021)
4	Attribution theory	2	3.92	Kim and Jang (2022)
5	Bottom spillover theory	2	3.92	Sirgy (2021)
6	Dissonance theory	2	3.92	Kozub et al. (2014)
7	Expectancy disconfirmation theory	2	3.92	Wu and Zhao (2023)
8	Kano model/Three-factor theory	2	3.92	Park, Lee, and Back (2020)
9	Regret theory	2	3.92	Keaveney, Huber, and Herrmann (2007)
10	Self-congruity theory	2	3.92	Bryson et al. (2013)
11	Service dominant logic	2	3.92	Carrigan et al. (2013)
12	Theory of planned behavior	2	3.92	Mrad et al. (2022)
13	Other theories	36	70.59	Han and Hyun (2013), Loo and Leung (2018), Sundie et al. (2009), Ying, Chan, and Qi (2020)

Note(s): *The total does not match the reviewed sample count, as some articles draw from more than one theory

Source(s): Table by author

Table 3

Industries studied by SFR works in the luxury domain

S.No	Industry	Article count	% Relative to the total sample	Exemplar articles
1	Hotels	23	45.10	Dinçer and Alrawadieh (2017), Lee and Kim (2020)
2	Fashion	4	7.84	Carrigan et al. (2013), Ward and Dahl (2014)
3	Restaurants	4	7.84	Han and Hyun (2013), Jun, Kang, and Hyun (2017)
4	Automobiles (Cars)	3	5.88	Keaveney et al. (2007), Sundie et al. (2009)
5	Retail	2	3.92	Lacey (2012)
6	Cruises	1	1.96	Han et al. (2018)
7	Spas	1	1.96	Elrod, Stanley, Cudney, and Fisher (2015)
8	Hospitality and tourism (specific sector not mentioned)	1	1.96	Kandampully and Duddy (2001)
9	Multiple industries	9	17.65	Bryson et al. (2013), Lin and Chen (2013), Morgeson III et al. (2020)
10	Not mentioned	3	5.88	Amatulli et al. (2021), Sirgy (2021)

Source(s): Table by author

Table 4

Countries where SFR works in the luxury domain have been conducted

S.No	Country	Continent	Article count	% Relative to the total sample	Exemplar articles
1	USA	North America	17	33.33	Ahn (2023), Lee and Kim (2020), Ward and Dahl (2014)
2	China*	Asia	6	11.77	Lin and Chen (2013), Qian and Park (2021)
3	India	Asia	5	9.80	Gunasekar and Sudhakar (2019), Sarkar et al. (2018)
4	Malaysia	Asia	3	5.88	Ekiz, Khoo-Lattimore, and Memarzadeh (2012) Memarzadeh and Chang (2015)
5	Jordan	Asia	2	3.92	Dinçer and Alrawadieh (2017)
6	France	Europe	1	1.96	Bryson et al. (2021)
7	Ghana	Africa	1	1.96	Boadi et al. (2022)
8	Italy	Europe	1	1.96	Amatulli et al. (2020)
9	Japan	Asia	1	1.96	Kumagai (2023)
10	Korea$	Asia	1	1.96	Han and Hyun (2013)
11	Mauritius	Africa	1	1.96	Prayag and Ryan (2012)
12	Pakistan	Asia	1	1.96	Kashif et al. (2021)
13	Turkey	Transcontinental (Asia, Europe)	1	1.96	Sahin et al. (2017)
14	UK	Europe	1	1.96	Mrad et al. (2022)
15	Vietnam	Asia	1	1.96	Hien, Su, Sann, and Thanh (2022)
16	Multiple countries	……	4	7.84	Amatulli et al. (2020), Brochado, Oliveira, Rita, and Oliveira (2019)
17	Not mentioned#	……	4	7.84	Kandampully and Duddy (2001), Sirgy (2021)

Note(s): * Studies conducted in the Hong Kong and Taiwan context included

$The study does not mention whether it is North or South Korea

#Conceptual and review studies that involved no data collection or analysis

Source(s): Table by author

Table 5

An overview of the antecedents and moderators of SFR research in the luxury context

Category	Construct	Operating definition	Representative literature support
Consumer-related	Attribute evaluation/Pre-purchase effort	The level of cognitive effort expended in terms of comparing different available alternatives for satisfying the same consumption need(s)	Bolfing (1989), Keaveney et al. (2007)
	Consumer activism	Awareness and consciousness of one’s responsibility to proactively pursue rights as a consumer	Bolfing (1989)
	Country-of-origin perceptions	Beliefs about the perceived quality of a country’s goods and services as shaped by its culture, policies, and workforce skills	Bryson et al. (2021)
	Demographics	Individual characteristics such as age, gender, education, and occupation	Bolfing (1989), Morgeson III et al. (2020)
	Envy	Perceived lack of some attribute of positive valence seen as present in someone else, coupled with the wish to have the same	Sundie et al. (2009)
	Financial perceived risk	The consumers’ intrinsic fear of a product or service not matching the monetary sacrifice paid for it	Mrad et al. (2022)
	Hostility	Feelings of perceived injustice, resentment and anger	Sundie et al. (2009)
	Image congruence/Relation to ideal self-concept/Value expressiveness	Match or coupling between a desired image of oneself often shaped by social and cultural norms and the product/service brand image	Han and Hyun (2013), Kashif et al., (2021), Ward and Dahl (2014)
	Personality	Individual traits such as assertiveness, self-control, and extraversion, which are quite stable yet malleable	Bolfing (1989)
Firm-related	Corporate social (ir)responsibility/Deceptive practices/Unethical practices	The inability of some firms to go beyond treating social and environmental responsibility as a promotional exercise	Bryson et al. (2021), Carrigan et al. (2013), Mrad et al. (2022)
	Employee’s conspicuous consumption cue	Employee’s display of items and possessions symbolic of luxuriousness	Wu, So, Xiong, and King (2019)
	Employee empowerment	Enabling employees to exercise discretion in their work, particularly aspects related to customer-facing tasks	Kandampully and Duddy (2001)
	Employee’s physical attractiveness	Consumers’ perception of how attractive the employee is, in sensory terms	Wu et al. (2019)
	Hard sell	Exclusive emphasis on selling rather than matching the product or service to customer requirements	Mrad et al. (2022)
	Provider responsiveness	Systems and processes to extract complaints and eagerness to resolve them	Bolfing (1989)
	Service guarantee	A commitment that the firm will be liable to compensate in case of service levels falling below a certain threshold	Kandampully and Duddy (2001)
	Third-party certification	An attestation by a neutral party to the efficacy of a firm’s goods or services	Jun et al. (2017)
	Uninformed employees	Service employees not having requisite information about the firm’s offerings and processes	Lin and Chen (2013)
	Wellness attributes	Product/service features that help toward holistic physical and mental well-being, e.g., by facilitating stress management, nutritional awareness, physical fitness, and social sensitivity	Park et al. (2020)
Consumer-firm exchange and relationship related	Brand hate	Intense negative emotions directed at the brand	Kashif et al. (2021)
	Dark triad in brand personality	Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism as three established facets of personality that are generally considered negative in valence	Ahn (2023)
	Deficient sensory experience	Lack of perceived enjoyment that can be had from employing consumption as a means to gratifying our senses	Mrad et al. (2022)
	Influencer-brand poor fit	When an endorser is dissimilar to and not well matched with the brand endorsed	Qian and Park (2021)
	Infringement	A situation when another individual or group tries without concurrence to enter into a space that belongs to the person or group under reference	Lee and Kim (2020)
	Likeability of non-core users	People whom the referent consumers perceive as non-loyal to a brand	Lee and Kim (2020)
	Massification	Attempting to make a product or service available to the masses rather than select consumers	Mrad et al. (2022)
	Nature of failure (Outcome/Process)	Outcome failures involve a deficiency in the delivery of core service, whereas process failures are deficient in the mode of provision or employees’ behavior	Wu et al. (2019)
	Overpricing perception	Charging above the expected fair price or beyond the price communicated pre-purchase	Brochado et al. (2019), Kwon, Lee, and Bowen (2022), Sahin et al. (2017)
	Poor interaction quality	Below-par service delivery in terms of the attitude of front-line employees and the efficacy of customer service	Bryson et al. (2013)
	Prior experience with the firm	Customer’s history of interactions with the same firm and resultant cumulative satisfaction	Morgeson III et al. (2020)
	Service failure severity	The extent of perceived harm, which could be in monetary as well as psychological terms	Bolfing (1989)
	Service quality	Aggregate-level perceptions of service performance, including tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy	Dinçer and Alrawadieh (2017), Sahin et al. (2017), Zheng et al. (2009)
	Trust	The expectation that the firm will provide goods and services of high quality, i.e., the firm is seen as dependable	Jun et al. (2017)
	Wait time	Time spent before the service delivery begins	Kwon et al. (2022)
Broader market factors	Consumer nationality	The country where the consumption market is located	Prayag and Ryan (2012)
	Culture	Consumption differences across markets, as shaped by broader social norms, e.g., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, time orientation, collectivism, masculinity, and restraint	Amatulli et al. (2021), Ying et al. (2020)
	Economic and industry factors	Macro aspects such as aggregate growth and consumer spending and industry-specific variations, e.g., in the degree of competition	Morgeson III et al. (2020)
	Negative stereotyping of luxury	Bias against luxury consumption and its current users or buyers	Bryson et al. (2021)
	Unsustainability	Adopting production processes that emit significant pollutants, exploit the workforce, or generate other negative social externalities disproportionate to the scale of operation	Amatulli et al. (2020, 2021)

Source(s): Table by author

Table 6

An overview of the consequences studied in SFR research in the luxury context

Category	Consequence*	Operating definition	Representative literature support
Consumer(s)	Customer expectations (−)	Customers’ perceptions of how the service encounter would be before they enter into the exchange	Chen, Law, and Yan (2022)
	Consumer well-being (−)	Reflected in consumers’ better quality of life at an aggregate level	Sirgy (2021)
	Moral disengagement (+)	When customers perceive negative traits or actions on the part of a brand, they tend to dissociate or avoid the brand on moral considerations	Ahn (2023)
Firm(s)	Employee workaholism (−)	Too much emphasis on and thinking about work both during working and non-working hours	Boadi et al. (2022)
	Employees’ fear-based silence (+)	Withholding information and knowledge about an issue that needs resolution out of fear of retribution	Boadi et al. (2022)
	Firm’s reputation (−)	Market standing of a firm based on past conduct	Chen et al. (2022)
	Revenues/Sales (−)	Earnings of the firm without adjusting for any costs	Sharma and Aggarwal (2021)
Consumer-firm relationship	Anticonsumption (+)	Reduction or complete avoidance of buying from a firm or an entire product category	Mrad et al. (2022)
	Attitude toward the firm (−)/Brand attitude dilution (+)/Impaired brand image	A predisposition toward the firm, which could be positive or negative in valence	Ward and Dahl (2014)
	Brand hate (+)/Brand negative affect (+)/Brand love (−)	Intense negative emotions directed at the brand	Bryson et al. (2013)
	Brand loyalty (−)/Loyalty (−)	A favorable attitude toward the brand and an inclination to purchase it despite situational benefits offered by alternatives	Morgeson III et al. (2020)
	Future behavioral intention (−)/Repurchase intentions, Purchase intention, Willingness to purchase (−), Negative behavioral intention (+)	Recurring inclination of continuing the buying relationship with the same firm	Keaveney et al. (2007), Kozub et al. (2014)
	Marketing research cooperation (−)	Customer assistance to a firm that is helpful toward improving its marketing performance through participation in new offering design, evaluating advertising campaigns, or, in general, giving opinions on any aspect of its offerings	Lacey (2012)
	Negative word of mouth (+)/Positive word of mouth (−)	Sharing one’s consumption experience with other individuals or groups in society	Jun et al. (2017)
	Recovery satisfaction (+/−)	Perceived contentment with how the firm has redressed a consumer complaint following a service failure	Kim and Jang (2022)
	Switching (+)	Terminating a buying relationship with one firm and starting it with another competitor	Sahin et al. (2017)
	Trust (−)	The expectation that the firm will provide goods and services of high quality, i.e., the firm is seen as dependable	Han et al. (2018)

Note(s): * These signs represent the more likely valence of the relationship between SFR and its outcomes. However, other possibilities exist, e.g., when firms offer satisfactory service recoveries

Source(s): Table by author

Table 7

Data collection methods adopted by SFR works in the luxury domain

S.No	Broad design	Method	Article count	% Relative to the total sample	Exemplar articles
1	Quantitative	Surveys	15	29.41	Ahn (2023), Bhalla and Pathak (2023)
2	Quantitative	Experiments	7	13.73	Amatulli et al. (2021), Kim and Jang (2022)
3	Quantitative	Others (e.g., Secondary data, Real-world data, Text mining and analytics)	9	17.65	Morgeson III et al. (2020), Sharma and Aggarwal (2021)
4	Qualitative	Semi-structured interviews	4	7.84	Bryson et al. (2013), Mrad et al. (2022)
5	Qualitative	Others (e.g., Secondary data	9	17.65	Dinçer and Alrawadieh (2017), Sahin et al. (2017)
6	Mixed	Focus groups and Survey	1	1.96	Kozub et al. (2014)
7	Mixed	Otḥers (Secondary data, Social media analytics, and Regression)	1	1.96	Park et al. (2020)

Note(s): *The total does not match the reviewed sample count, as some articles are conceptual

Source(s): Table by author

Table 8

Data analysis techniques adopted by SFR works in the luxury domain

S.No	Analysis technique	Article count	% Relative to the total sample	Exemplar articles
1	Content/Thematic Analysis	17	33.33	Bryson et al. (2013), Chen et al. (2022), Dinçer and Alrawadieh (2017)
2	Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)	12	23.53	Bryson et al. (2021), Keaveney et al. (2007), Lacey (2012)
3	Regression	8	15.69	Amatulli et al. (2020), Morgeson III et al. (2020)
4	(Multivariate) Analysis of (co)Variance	7	13.73	Gunasekar and Sudhakar (2019), Kim and Jang (2022), Ward and Dahl (2014)
5	Data Analytics, e.g., Big Data Analysis, Social Media Analytics, and Topic Modeling	5	9.80	Wu and Zhao (2023), Ying et al. (2020)
6	Descriptive Statistics	3	5.88	Kozub et al. (2014)
7	Discriminant Analysis	1	1.96	Bolfing (1989)
8	Ridit@ Analysis	1	1.96	Lin and Chen (2013)

Note(s): *The total does not match the reviewed sample count, as some articles use more than one data analysis technique; @ Ridit analysis facilitates the analysis of categorical data. More information can be found in the exemplar article

Source(s): Table by author