Purpose – Past research has not given much attention to the roles of consumers’ social relationship type in the effects of justice type of service failure recovery alternatives on their satisfaction to the alternative exposed to them. Current research aimed at exploring the moderation role of consumers’ social relationship central versus peripheral in the effects of justice types of service failure recovery alternatives on the recovery satisfaction, and this research also explored whether the level of satisfaction to interaction justice-focused alternative are significantly different between the two, their social relationship central and peripheral relationship.
Research design, data, and methodology – 2(social relationship central versus peripheral) between-subjects design was employed. 50 participants for each experimental group there were. Participants of each group took forceful steps in choosing one between the procedural justice-focused alternative and the distribution justice-focused alternative. χ2-analysis was used to verify that the number of choosing each alternative becomes different between the two experimental groups, and a one way ANOVA was used to verify that the extent to which participants are satisfied to the alternative chosen by them becomes different between the two groups.
Results – The number of participants choosing procedural justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship central was larger than that at the group of social relationship peripheral, whereas the number of participants choosing distribution justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship peripheral was larger than that at the group of social relationship central. And the level of satisfaction to procedural justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship central was higher than that at the group of social relationship peripheral, whereas the level of satisfaction to distribution justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship peripheral was higher than that at the group of social relationship central. In addition, the level of satisfaction to interaction justice-focused alternative was not significantly different between the two groups.
Conclusions – Marketers should give attention to the type of justice when developing alternatives by which consumers’ service failure can be recovered. They should suggest procedural justice-focused alternative to consumers under social relationship central, whereas they should develop distribution justice-focused alternative for consumers under social relationship peripheral. And in the process of recovering service failure they also should focus on interaction justice.

Abstract
 1. 서론
 2. 이론적 배경과 가설의 설정
  2.1. 서비스실패의 유형 및 크기와 회복 선행요인
  2.2. 서비스실패회복과정에서의 공정성
  2.4 공정성의 서비스실패 회복만족효과와 사회적 관계의 특성
  2.5. 소비자의 사회적 관계 파워와 서비스실패 회복만족
 3. 실험설계 및 자극의 개발과 구성개념의 측정
  3.1. 실험의 설계
  3.2 자극의 개발과 구성개념의 측정
 4. 실증분석
  4.1 사전조사와 본 조사
  4.2. 기초분석
  4.3. 가설의 검증
  4.5. 상호작용공정성에 관한 추가분석
 5. 결 론
  5.1. 연구의 요약
  5.2. 연구의 시사점
  5.3. 연구의 한계 및 향후 연구방향
 Reference

• Nak-Hwan Choi(Department of Business Administration, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea) | 최낙환
• Su-Min Park(Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea.) | 박수민
• Ah-Young Lim(Lecturer of Department of Business Administration, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea.) | 임아영 Corresponding Author