The impact of interactional justice on service evaluations in the banking context

This study examines the impact of interactional justice -informational justice and interpersonal justice-on customer service evaluation in banking. Through five scenario-based experiments with 921 Chinese non-banking adults, we systematically manipulated justice levels and service agent source (human vs. AI). Findings reveal that both dimensions significantly enhance service evaluations (supported by a mini meta-analysis: Hedges' g = 0.62 for informational, g = 1.16 for interpersonal justice). Crucially, we identify a critical theoretical boundary condition for algorithm aversion: under low justice conditions, human agents received significantly lower evaluations than AI agents, yet under high justice, no significant human-AI difference emerged . This asymmetry-driven by higher expectations for humans-challenges the universality of human preference in service recovery and demonstrates that AI can achieve parity when justice is optimized. Our results advance interactional justice theory and provide actionable insights for resource allocation in AI-human hybrid service systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Acta Psychologica
Published
2025-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105805
Primary Topic
Management and Organizational Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The impact of interactional justice on service evaluations in the banking context

Jiming Liu, Guangyao Yang, Y. Lyu, Qing Wei
Acta Psychologica
Management and Organizational Studies
article

The impact of interactional justice on service evaluations in the banking context

Jiming Liu, Guangyao Yang, Y. Lyu, Qing Wei
article en

Abstract

This study examines the impact of interactional justice -informational justice and interpersonal justice-on customer service evaluation in banking. Through five scenario-based experiments with 921 Chinese non-banking adults, we systematically manipulated justice levels and service agent source (human vs. AI). Findings reveal that both dimensions significantly enhance service evaluations (supported by a mini meta-analysis: Hedges' g = 0.62 for informational, g = 1.16 for interpersonal justice). Crucially, we identify a critical theoretical boundary condition for algorithm aversion: under low justice conditions, human agents received significantly lower evaluations than AI agents, yet under high justice, no significant human-AI difference emerged . This asymmetry-driven by higher expectations for humans-challenges the universality of human preference in service recovery and demonstrates that AI can achieve parity when justice is optimized. Our results advance interactional justice theory and provide actionable insights for resource allocation in AI-human hybrid service systems.

Acta PsychologicaVol. 261
Renmin University of China (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Management and Organizational Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The impact of interactional justice on service evaluations in the banking context — Jiming Liu, Guangyao Yang, et al. · Acta Psychologica (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS