1Original Scientific Paper
UDC: 338.482:316.62-057.68
338.488.2:640.412]:005.336.6 DOI: 10.5 937/menhottur2400012J
The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and guest behavior in mountain hotels
Milica Josimovic1, Dragan Cockalo1, Nikola Radivojevic2*
1 University of Novi Sad, Technical Faculty "Mihajlo Pupin", Zrenjanin, Serbia
2 Academy of Applied Studies "Sumadija", Kragujevac, Serbia
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of the study is to investigate the role of guest loyalty in the relationship between satisfaction with service recovery (SSR) and consumer citizenship behavior (CCB), as well as dysfunctional customer behavior (DCB) of hotel guests. Methodology - The study was conducted on a sample of 1,324 guests from hotels operating in the Republic of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia in mountain tourism. The obtained data were analyzed using an SEM approach. Findings - Loyalty has a mediating role in the relationship between SSR and CCB. On the other hand, loyalty does not have a mediating role in the relationship between SSR and DCB of hotel guests during their stay. Implications - The study has theoretical and practical implications. The theoretical implication is that loyalty forms the foundation for guests' cognitive and affective responses when they are satisfied with a service recovery; this means that loyalty is a driver of hotel guests' CCB. In the opposite situation, loyalty does not act as a shock absorber that will mitigate the impact of dissatisfaction with service recovery on the manifestation of DCB. The practical implications are that hotels must prioritize effective service recovery strategies to enhance guest loyalty and encourage CCB while simultaneously reducing the risk of DCB.
Received: 26 March 2024 Revised: 14 April 2024 Accepted: 18 October 2024 Published online: 23 October 2024
Keywords: loyalty, satisfaction, service recovery, customer citizenship behavior, dysfunctional customer behaviour, hotel industry JEL classification: L80
Uloga lojalnosti gostiju izmedu zadovoljstva oporavkom usluge i ponasanja gostiju u planinskim hotelima
Sazetak
Svrha - Svrha studije je da se ispita uloga lojalnosti gostiju u odnosu izmedu zadovoljstva oporavkom usluge i gradanskog potrosackog ponasanja, kao i disfunkcionalnog ponasanja gostiju hotela. Metodologija - Istrazivanje je sprovedeno na uzorku od 1.324 gosta iz hotela koji posluju u planinskom turizmu u Republici Srbiji, Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji. Dobijeni podaci su analizirani primenom SEM pristupa. Rezultati - Lojalnost ima posrednicku ulogu u odnosu izmedu zadovoljstva oporavkom usluge i gradanskog potrosackog ponasanja. S druge strane, lojalnost nema posrednicku ulogu u odnosu zadovoljstva oporavkom usluge i
Corresponding author: [email protected] fà ®
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http ://creativecommons.org/hcenses/by/4. 0/)_
disfunkcionalnog ponasanja gostiju hotela tokom njihovog boravka. Implikacije - Studija ima teorijske i prakticne implikacije. Teorijska implikacija je da lojalnost cini osnovu za kognitivne i afektivne odgovore gostiju kada su zadovoljni oporavkom usluge; to znaci da je lojalnost pokretac gradanskog potrosackog ponasanja. U suprotnoj situaciji, lojalnost ne deluje kao amortizer koji ce ublaziti uticaj nezadovoljstva povratkom usluge na ispoljavanje disfunkcionalnog ponasanja. Prakticne implikacije su da hoteli moraju dati prioritet efikasnim strategijama oporavka usluga kako bi povecali lojalnost gostiju, podstakli gradansko potrosacko ponasanje i istovremeno redukovali rizik od pojave disfunkcionalnog ponasanja.
Kljucne reci: lojalnost, zadovoljstvo, oporavak usluge, gradansko ponasanje potrosaca, disfunkcionalno ponasanje potrosaca, hotelijerstvo JEL klasifikacija: L80
1. Introduction
The absence of a standardized hotel evaluation process affects how hotels around the world are evaluated based on the quality of the content and services they offer (Hung, 2017; Tsao, 2018). However, the intangible nature of the service means that service failures in the hotel industry are common and unavoidable occurrences (Hwang & Mattila, 2020; Koc, 2019), even for top-rated hotels, which can lead to negative guest experiences and erosion of hotel competitiveness (Bagherzadeh et al., 2020). Even the most successful companies in the world cannot guarantee completely failure-free service. A service failure refers to a situation where a service provider fails to deliver what is necessary to meet the consumer's expectations (Harrison-Walker, 2019; Shams et al., 2020a). The importance of providing failure-free service is illustrated by the results of Glasly's 2018 Customer Service Expectations Survey, which indicated that 26% of respondents would give up repeat purchases after the first negative experience with the service (Forbes, 2018). However, the fact that effective service recovery can turn frustrated consumers into satisfied customers underscores the importance of service recovery. In this context, Migacz et al. (2018) and Luo et al. (2019) emphasize that service recovery is a critical tool in service quality management, underscoring its significance in retaining loyal customers, as effective recovery can lead dissatisfied customers to regain their satisfaction. This is particularly significant given that the costs of attracting new customers are three to five times higher compared to serving the existing ones (Zeithaml, 2000).
Considering the above, it is not surprising that satisfaction with service recovery (SSR) is the subject of numerous studies in marketing and an indispensable topic in the hotel industry. However, there are a few studies that have gone a step further in examining the impact of SSR on consumer citizenship behavior (CCB) that is not related to repeat purchases and sharing positive experiences with others (Odoom et al., 2020; Zoghbi-Manrique-De-Lara et al., 2014). In other words, there are a few studies that focus on consumer citizenship behavior of hotel guests, which, by definition, represents voluntary and discretionary behavior that is not necessarily required for establishing quality relationships with the environment (Groth, 2005), but which leads to the improvement of relations and can have a significant impact on hotel operational outcomes.
The necessity to investigate this form of consumer behavior arises from the fact that guests' (dis)satisfaction with the hotel's attempts to correct service failures is an important driver of their behavior (Betts et al., 2011; Gelbrich & Roschk, 2011). Positive and negative emotions that guests feel during the process of service recovery, in response to their criticisms and complaints, affect their satisfaction. In this context, the satisfaction they feel as a result of the
actions taken by the hotels belongs to the domain of affective feeling, and as such affects their ethics, where ethics refers to reasoning about what is good and what is bad behavior. Depending on whether these emotions are positive or negative, they can lead to CCB (discretionary), or dysfunctional customer behavior (DCB).
The question that arises is: what is the role of loyalty in this relationship? Loyalty is expected to act as a shock absorber that reduces negative emotions that lead to DCB (Turillo et al., 2002), because loyalty should influence dissatisfied guests to find cognitive reasons to justify the hotel's failure to recover service. The result would be the absence of their intention to manifest dysfunctional behavior. This means that it should have a negative mediating role between SSR and DCB of hotel guests. Following the same logic, loyalty is expected to play a positive mediating role between SSR and the CCB of the hotel.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the role of hotel guests' loyalty in the relationship between SSR and guest behavior, as a form of behavior that significantly impacts business costs and revenues. Confirming or refuting either theoretical postulates or empirical findings carries a series of significant implications, both in terms of hotel management and the development of new theoretical perspectives.
2. Literature review
It has long been known that guests' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the hotel's efforts to rectify service failures is a significant factor influencing their subsequent behavior. This is evidenced by numerous studies (Bagherzadeh et al., 2020; Guchait et al., 2019; Harrison-Walker, 2019; Hollebeek & Rather, 2019; Odoom, 2020; Rather & Sharma, 2019). On the one hand, Shams et al. (2020a) provide evidence that there is a positive correlation between SSR and loyalty, while Bagherzadeh et al. (2020) found that there is a positive correlation between SSR and word-of-mouth. Gelbrich and Roschk (2011) emphasize that SSR has a greater impact on word-of-mouth communication compared to overall satisfaction, but it has a lesser impact on repeat purchases compared to overall satisfaction. Jin et al. (2019) found that the level of SSR depends on the guest's involvement in this process. Similar findings were presented by Hazee et al. (2017). The authors point out that guest involvement in service recovery has a positive effect on their intentions to visit the hotel again. A common to these studies is the finding that subsequent behavior can be reflected in increased loyalty to the hotel. The latter is particularly important in the context of the fact that the impact of a dissatisfied customer is significantly greater than the positive impact of a satisfied customer (Kim et al., 2017), which is especially pronounced in the hotel industry. The absence of a standardized hotel rating process, on the one hand, and the growing importance of social networks and the increase in online bookings on the other means that the comments and criticisms of hotel guests have a strong influence on the choice of a hotel by potential guests.
Guchait et al. (2019) point out that effective service recovery can generate repeat visits with improved satisfaction levels. This finding is in accordance with the so-called service recovery paradox according to which effective recovery can turn angry, frustrated customers into loyal customers. The paradox is related to secondary satisfaction when customers compare their service recovery expectations with their perceptions of the actual service recovery performance. If there is positive confirmation, that is, if perceptions of service recovery performance are greater than expectations, a paradox may emerge. However, the findings of De Mantos et al. (2008) indicate that this paradox has a positive effect on consumer satisfaction, but not on loyalty. Study by Jackson (2019) indicate that the level of satisfaction consumers feel due to service recovery depends on their attribution. In other words, the likelihood of forgiving service failures and consequent behavioral intentions and loyalty depend on the sense of perceived control. Since hospitality services are designed to
require the active participation of service recipients in value creation (Rather et al., 2021) hotel guests believe that their personal actions control the outcomes. This leads to guests feeling that their actions and behaviors influence the outcomes or results of their experience. In this way, the service recovery process is accelerated, and guests experience a higher level of satisfaction. The hotel's response to discretionary behaviors also impacts the level of guest satisfaction (Tung et al., 2017). When the hotel responds positively to the guests' discretionary behaviors, it increases their level of satisfaction (Qiu et al., 2018). Numerous authors have proposed different approaches to promote this process including expressions of empathy (Luo et al., 2019), expressions of genuine apology (Radu et al., 2019), compassion, kindness and other positive emotions, offering compensation (Hwang & Mattila, 2020) etc. Although each of these actions can have a different impact on satisfaction (overall satisfaction and satisfaction with service recovery) and loyalty of hotel guests, Yao et al. (2019) have determined that front-line employees play a crucial role in this process. Similar findings were presented by Hewagama et al. (2019). However, if the reactions are negative or indifferent, it may have a negative impact on satisfaction and loyalty. Essentially, the way the hotel staff handles and appreciates the guest's reactions can influence how satisfied those guests are and how likely they are to remain loyal to the hotel.
From a theoretical perspective depending on the degree of SSR, the reaction of hotel guests is either CCB or DCB. However, Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al. (2014) point out that SSR does not directly influence guest behavior but rather that loyalty mediates that relationship. The study by Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al. (2014) indicates that loyalty acts as a precondition only for CCB. Moreover, the factors that influence such behavior may be independent of those that influence guests to pass on their positive experiences after staying in the hotel to others. When hotel guests are satisfied with the service, loyalty has a positive mediating role. Otherwise, loyalty does not have a significant mediating role. The difference between what theory predicts and what actual research shows highlights the importance of further investigating this topic and understanding the conditions under which this mismatch occurs.
Although some efforts have been made to discover why hotel guests exhibit CCB when SSR, the precise mechanism by which this occurs has not yet been identified. The finding that DCB is manifested in cases of dissatisfaction with service recovery implies that hotel guests' reactions are actually consequences of affective emotions, which motivate certain behaviors. Hence, the representation of loyalty as the result of both cognitive and affective processes (Oliver, 1997) represents a good starting point in researching this issue. According to Oliver (1997), loyalty develops as a consequence of previous experience and knowledge that the guest has about the hotel. It is the result of a cognitive process. Hence, when a hotel responds positively to a service failure, guests will perceive it positively based on their knowledge. As a result, it is possible that they will become loyal. The affective component connects personal perception with cognitive and represents an emotional response to various attributes and external stimuli. With continued service recovery, guests will experience positive emotions, which will further result in an increase in favorability towards the hotel or service brand. This means that loyalty is also formed on the basis of an affective reaction. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is suggested:
Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with service recovery has a positive effect on hotel guest loyalty.
According to The Social Exchange Theory, people establish certain relationships in order to realize and protect their interests, but with a set of certain expectations about what each party contributes with and what they can expect from the other party. The theory predicts that people will respond to positive reactions with positive behavior. This kind of behavior represents results and cognitive reactions because a set of expectations is formed on the basis
of the knowledge that people have about what they can get from the relationship, but also affective reactions (which represent the result of lived experience). Since loyalty is the result of a positive experience (experienced satisfaction), it mediates between satisfaction and reaction as a positive response to experienced satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Loyalty plays a positive mediating role in the relationship between satisfaction with service recovery and customer citizenship behavior among hotel guests
Additional justification for the hypothesis defined in this way can be found in The Social Identity Theory, according to which individuals undertake the activities that match their identity and support institutions that embody that identity. Consequently, depending on whether guests perceive the service recovery as valid or not, they will identify or feel alienated from the hotel. If the service recovery is evaluated as valid, it means that the service recovery was performed in accordance with their value system. Furthermore, it implies that they share common values, which is the basis for feeling a common identity. According to the theory, when people share the same identity, it results in a stronger sense of connection and belonging, which leads to stronger loyalty, solidarity and mutual support. Hence, high identification affects the guests' motivation and willingness to support the hotel in a way that will manifest positive customer behavior, whereby loyalty appears as a result of high identification (Rather et al., 2021). When people feel that they are a part of something, they are more likely to remain loyal to it. Furthermore, this suggests that guest loyalty has a mediating role in a positive CCB when satisfied with service recovery.
If a hotel does not implement adequate service recovery measures, guests will feel frustrated. When guests perceive that the hotel's efforts to resolve the issue are ineffective or inadequate, their frustration can intensify. This expectation is strongly supported by the Frustration-Aggression Theory. According to this theory, heightened frustration tends to lead to Dysfunctional Customer Behavior (DCB) - activities and actions that guests intentionally engage in, resulting in damage to the hotel's value (Kang & Gong, 2019). An additional explanation for this guest behavior can be found in Folger's (2001) theory. According to this theory, people behave the way they do because they believe it is the only correct way. In this context, if they judge that the hotel's activities to recover the service were inadequate, they will interpret it as poor service, which may lead to dysfunctional behavior. However, they can also interpret inadequate service recovery as the hotel's only possible response. In such cases, due to their emotional connection with the service and hotel brand, through loyalty, they may justify such actions and minimize their dissatisfaction, feeling a moral obligation to help the hotel, even at the expense of their personal benefit (Turillo et al., 2002). The affective, or emotional, component that stems from loyalty to the hotel will suppress their cognitive arguments in justifying the hotel's inadequate actions. The above suggests the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Loyalty plays a negative mediating role in the relationship between satisfaction with service recovery and the dysfunctional behavior of hotel guests during their hotel stay.
The conceptualization of the previously performed analysis of the theoretical foundations of SSR, loyalty, and CCB and DCB, as well as empirical studies, can be graphically represented by the following research model:
Figure 1 : Proposed research model
XJY^J« (eu
CCB Yt U (ciT
Y, I — » y2 J * Yj « y4
A s
Ci Cfc f c? ) c>
Note: SSR - Satisfaction with service recovery, Loy - Guest loyalty, CCB - Customer citizenship behavior, DCB - Dysfunctional customer behavior Source: Authors' research
3. Research methodology
The study was conducted on a sample of 1324 hotel guests, who stayed in one of the 94 hotels operating in the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Croatia, and the Republic of Slovenia in the field of mountain tourism. The Republic of Slovenia is a well-known Alpine destination. The share of tourism in GDP was around 12%, before the outbreak of the Covid19 pandemic. The Republic of Croatia is also a well-known tourist destination whose share of tourism in the total GDP, before the outbreak of the Covid19 pandemic, was around 10.3%. The share of tourism in the Republic of Serbia is significantly lower and before the outbreak of the pandemic, it was around 1.3%. The Republic of Serbia is included in the study because over 70% of all tourism in the Republic of Serbia is mountain tourism.
The sampling method used for this research was stratified sampling. Participants were grouped into categories of tourists (leisure travelers, business travelers, and digital nomads) to ensure that each category was adequately represented in the sample. The differentiation between digital nomads and business travelers was based on the study conducted by Reichenberger (2018). Subsequently, within each category, participants were selected through random sampling. This approach enabled a balance between the different categories of tourists and their proportional representation in the research, according to their share in the total number of tourists. A more detailed structure of hotel guests who participated in the study is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Structure of hotel guests - respondents
Country Serbia Cro. Slo. Serbia Cro. Slo. Serbia Cro. Slo.
Hotel category 3* 4* 5*
Leisure travelers 72 46 125 27 33 28 17 21 26
Business travelers 33 28 28 76 113 62 47 52 35
Digital nomads 34 138 64 21 47 34 18 63 36
Men 117 135 125 43 66 75 68 74 85
Women 136 119 78 51 50 51 13 22 17
Average length of stay in the hotel 3.8 6.7 4.1 3.3 5.9 6.2 1.8 2.9 3.7
Source: Authors' research
The data was collected in 2022 using a structured questionnaire, which was developed based on relevant claims proposed in the literature. More specifically, the items in the questionnaire were defined by taking into account theoretical and empirical studies related to organizational behavior, CCB and DCB (Kang & Gong, 2019; Odoom et al., 2020; Shams et al., 2020a; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al., 2014). The questionnaire can be found in Table 2.
Table 2: The questionnaire
Item Mark Source
I am satisfied with the behavior of the employees in solving the problem Xi Odoom et al., 2020
I am satisfied with the procedure and resources used to solve the problem X2
I am satisfied with the compensation offered by the company (service restoration, refund, etc.) X3
I am satisfied because the steps taken by the hotel to solve the problem were quick and efficient X4
I will say positive things about this hotel to other people Yi Shams et al., 2020a
I will recommend this hotel to my friends or relatives Y2
I consider this hotel as my first choice for accommodation Y3
I would not switch to another hotel the next time if the price of the stay increased by 10% Y4
I take measures to protect the hotel from potential problems Y5 Zoghbi-Manrique-de- Lara et al., 2014
I am taking action to reduce hotel costs Y6
I show concern for the efficient functioning of the hotel Y7
I write a positive review about the hotel y8
I defend the hotel when others criticize it Y9
I acknowledge that I took advantage of some hotel services Y10 Kang & Gong, 2019
I refused to follow the instructions of the hotel staff Y11
I write a negative review about the hotel Y12
I acknowledge that I use more resources than acceptable at this hotel Yi4
I tend to make the hotel dirtier than I should Yl4
Source: Authors' research
The first four items on the questionnaire pertain to guests' SSR, while the next four focus on guests' loyalty. The remaining items address CCB and DCB. Respondents rated the statements on the questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from (1) "I completely disagree" to (5) "I completely agree".
4. Results
4.1. Measurement model analysis
Data were analyzed using the statistical package JASP. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to assess the validity of the measures and test the hypothesized relationships. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the measurement model, as CFA is a fundamental method for evaluating the internal structural validity of measurement instruments. In addition to x2, which is sensitive to sample size and model complexity (Alavi et al., 2020), various goodness-of-fit indices were used, as suggested by Chen (2007). Results for the overall model are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 : Results for the overall model fit
Goodness Fit Index name p-value
X2(29) = 1066.921 0.0
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.9
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.9
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0.6
Bollen's Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.9
Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI) 0.9
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMS) 0.04
Source: Authors' research
Except for x2, which is known to be sensitive to sample size, all other indices indicated satisfactory values for a good model, as suggested by the literature. The quality of the survey instruments was examined through reliability and validity analyses (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hollebeek & Rather, 2019). Convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs were assessed, and reliability was evaluated using composite reliability, which is a more robust measure than Cronbach's alpha, as it accounts for error variances and factor loadings (Hayes & Coutts, 2020; Trizano-Hermosilla & Alvarado, 2016). The results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: The results of CFA
95% Confidence Interval CR AVE
Factor Item Estimate Std. Error z-value p Lower Upper Std. Estimate
SSR X1 0.805 0.019 41.535 < .001 0.767 0.843 0.894 0.901 0.704
X2 0.890 0.018 49.373 < .001 0.855 0.925 0.987
X3 0.528 0.025 20.712 < .001 0.478 0.577 0.532
X4 0.825 0.021 39.767 < .001 0.784 0.865 0.872
Loy Y2 0.797 0.045 17.532 < .001 0.708 0.886 0.908 0.931 0.870
Y3 0.814 0.046 17.785 < .001 0.724 0.903 0.957
CCB Y5 0.779 0.021 37.638 < .001 0.738 0.819 0.916 0.935 0.878
Y8 0.902 0.023 39.872 < .001 0.858 0.947 0.958
DCB Y12 0.589 0.069 8.572 < .001 0.454 0.724 0.69 0.833 0.720
Y13 0.712 0.081 8.836 < .001 0.554 0.87 0.982
Source: Authors' research
As can be seen from Table 4, all items with factor loadings greater than 0.5 were retained for further analysis (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al., 2014). The AVE values also indicate good convergent validity of the measurement instrument, as each subscale has a value greater than 0.5 (Parrey et al., 2019). Additionally, the instrument demonstrates good reliability, with the composite reliability (CR) for each subscale exceeding the standard of 0.7 (Parrey et al., 2019). According to Eising et al. (2013), when subscales contain two items, the best indicator of reliability is the Spearman-Brown coefficient (SBC). Since the three subscales each contain two items, the Spearman-Brown coefficient was calculated. The SBC values are presented in Table 5, confirming the previous conclusions regarding reliability.
Table 5: Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient (SBR)
Y2 and Y3 Y5 and Y8 Y12 and Y13
Coefficient correlation 0.907 0.872 0.7
P value < .001 < .001 < .001
SBR 0.951 0.931 0.820
Source: Authors' research The graphic representation of the measuring part of the model is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Graphic representation of CFA results
Source: Authors' research
The discriminant validity of the scales was tested based on the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion. The square root of the AVE for each construct was compared with the correlations between the constructs. The results supported the discriminant validity, as the correlations between each construct and the others were lower than the square root of their AVE (see Table 6).
Table 6: Results of t
ie discriminant validity
Type travers gender Educ. SSR Loy CCB DCB
Type travers -
Gender 0.234 -
Educ. 0.154 0.578 -
SSR 0.251 0.564 0.671 0.839
Loy 0.182 0.573 0.445 0.141 0.933
CCB 0.405 0.536 0.521 0.516 0.110 0.937
DCB 0.268 0.418 0.476 -0.101 -0.017* -0.114 0.849
Note: Educ. - Level of education of hotel guests - respondents; SSR - Satisfaction with service recovery; Loy - Guest loyalty; CCB - Customer citizenship behavior; DCB -Dysfunctional customer behavior. On the main diagonal is the square root of AVE of construct. All correlations are significant at p < 0.05, except *. * marked that the coefficient was not statistically significant. Source: Authors' research
The results suggest that CCB exhibits significant intercorrelations in the expected directions, as shown in Table 6, while DCB was not correlated with loyalty. These findings
provide a good starting point to support the mediating role of loyalty in the relationship between SSR and CCB, but not for DCB, as the correlation coefficient between loyalty and DCB is statistically insignificant.
4.2. Structural model analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the structural relationships between the variables. The results are presented in Table 7. The various goodness-of-fit indices indicate an acceptable fit for the model.
Table 7: The results of the proposed structural model
Factor Factor Label Estimate Std. Error z-value p Std. (all)
Loy SSR alpha 0.141 0.030 4.733 < .001 0.142
CCB SSR direct 0.496 0.027 18.526 < .001 0.513
CCB Loy beta 0.063 0.025 2.529 0.011 0.065
DCB SSR delta -0.087 0.028 -3.148 0.002 -0.119
DCB Loy omega -0.008 0.021 -0.394 0.694 -0.011
indirect alpha*beta indirect 0.009 0.004 2.263 0.024 0.009
total direct+indirect total 0.505 0.027 18.926 < .001 0.522
proportion direct/total proportion 0.982 0.008 126.10 < .001 0.982
indirect delta*omega indirect -0.001 0.003 -0.393 0.695 -0.002
total1 delta+indirect1 total1 -0.088 0.028 -3.192 0.001 -0.121
proportion delta/total1 proportion 0.987 0.034 28.688 < .001 0.987
Goodness-of-fit indices: x2(29) = 1066.921, CFI = 0.9, TLI = 0.9, PNFI = 0.6, IFI = 0.9, RNI = 0.9; SRMS = 0.04
Source: Authors' research
The value of the coefficient (alpha) (0.141), which describes the relationship between SSR and guests' loyalty, indicates that there is a significant path between SSR and loyalty, supporting Hypothesis 1. This finding is consistent with numerous studies (Bagherzadeh et al., 2020; Harrison-Walker, 2019; Odoom, 2020; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al., 2014). To test Hypotheses H2 and H3, the bootstrap method was employed. The coefficient describing the direct relationship between SSR and CCB indicates that there is a significant path between SSR and CCB. Additionally, this coefficient shows that the impact is less than the correlation coefficient between SSR and CCB, which equals the regression coefficient in the model where only SSR is the predictor variable (Repisti, 2017). This suggests that the second condition for the existence of a mediation effect is met (Repisti, 2017). Furthermore, since both the alpha coefficient and the beta coefficient - describing the relationship between loyalty and CCB—are statistically significant, this indicates a significant indirect effect, thereby confirming Hypothesis H2, which posits that loyalty has a positive mediating role in the relationship between SSR and CCB. Therefore, partial mediation is identified, as the direct effect coefficient is also statistically significant. An analysis of the relationships among direct, indirect, and total effects shows that the direct effect is dominant, which has several implications that will be discussed further.
The failure to meet the first condition for mediation - significant correlation between the variables of interest - implies that loyalty does not have a mediating role in the relationship
between SSR and DCB. The results presented in Table 7 support this indication, as the omega coefficient, which describes the relationship between loyalty and DCB, is not statistically significant. Consequently, there is no indirect effect. This finding suggests that Hypothesis H3 is not confirmed, which has several implications, primarily highlighting the significance of SSR in preventing DCB. This conclusion is supported by the sign and statistical significance of the delta coefficient that describes the direct effect of SSR on DCB. One possible explanation for why loyalty does not influence the DCB of hotel guests is that, despite their emotional connection with the hotel, current dissatisfaction overrides the cognitive reasons that justify maintaining a long-term positive relationship between the hotel and the guest.
5. Discussion
The results obtained underscore the significance of SSR for guest loyalty and CCB. Specifically, the findings suggest that when guests are satisfied with service recovery, SSR foster their loyalty. Consequently, SSR as a transaction-specific satisfaction has a positive impact on loyalty. The extent of this influence in relation to other factors of loyalty, remains to be examined. Also, the influence of SSR on the type of loyalty remains to be investigated.
Furthermore, the obtained results indicate that SSR has a strong direct influence on the CCB of hotel guests and helps prevent the occurrence of DCB. According to the Social Exchange Theory (SET), this occurs because when guests feel that the hotel has invested in meeting their needs and rectifying the situation, they feel an obligation of reciprocity. As a result, guests are likely to exhibit CCB, thereby maintaining the dynamics of social exchange. In this mechanism, loyalty influences hotel guests, prompting them to find cognitive reasons to justify viewing the hotel as a victim and feeling obliged to support it in order to sustain the dynamics of social exchange. In other words, loyalty mediates the influence of SSR on CCB.
Loyalty does not act as a buffer in the relationship between SSR and DCB. This indicates that loyal guests do not feel a moral obligation to assist the hotel when service recovery is unsatisfactory. According to the dominant theoretical framework, the moral obligation to help arises from an emotional connection to the hotel. This connection complicates their ability to find cognitive reasons to reject the hotel as a victim, resulting in a decision not to exhibit dysfunctional behavior. To preserve the benefits of their relationship with the hotel, even amid dissatisfaction with the recovery process, guests should not exhibit DCB. Therefore, the emotions stemming from loyalty should ideally mitigate their current dissatisfaction. However, the acknowledgment that loyalty does not mediate this relationship implies that loyal guests, like disloyal ones, can harm the hotel with the same moral imperative and intensity, even when they are aware of their actions. For loyal guests, there is little to prevent them from finding valid reasons to reject the hotel as a victim. In fact, it may be easier for them to "deny the hotel as a victim" and exhibit DCB. This further suggests that current dissatisfaction generated by ineffective service recovery outweighs the cognitive reasons that justify maintaining a long-term positive relationship between the hotel and the guest. In other words, negative emotions stemming from dissatisfaction with service recovery can surpass the positive emotions arising from loyalty. The consequence is the manifestation of DCB, rather than behaviors that would justify the hotel as a victim. This suggests that the emotions triggered by ineffective service recovery have a stronger impact on immediate behavior compared to the loyalty that develops from long-term affective and cognitive responses in the guest-hotel relationship.
The above findings have two significant implications. First, any effective service recovery will lead to enhanced loyalty and the manifestation of CCB. Conversely, any failure to implement effective service recovery increases the risk of DCB and fails to promote further
loyalty. Second, relying on loyalty as a buffer in this context is a risky strategy, as its mediating role in the relationship between SSR and DCB has not been confirmed. Therefore, it is crucial to cultivate an organizational climate and culture among employees that emphasizes the importance of adequately addressing service delivery failures. Such failures will only impact the hotel's performance in the short term if they are effectively managed and swiftly resolved. When handled properly, they should not affect guests' future repeat visits. Employees must understand that repeat visits will only occur if guests believe they have made genuine efforts to correct any failures.
The theoretical implications of the study position loyalty not merely as an outcome or result of SSR but as a driver of positive behavior among hotel guests. This perspective suggests that loyalty is fundamental to the cognitive and affective experiences of guests, influencing their behavior. However, adopting this view necessitates consideration of the factors that shape tourists' cognitive and affective perceptions. Unfortunately, this study does not account for such factors, even though multiple authors (such as Dhir & Chakraborty, 2023) indicate that social context significantly impacts the dynamics of social interactions and that cultural differences affect complaint expression. In some cultures, individuals may be more inclined to publicly express satisfaction or dissatisfaction, while in others, doing so may be less common. This suggests that national culture plays a crucial role in shaping tourists' attitudes. For instance, in many Asian cultures, hotel guests might be more reserved in voicing dissatisfaction to maintain harmonious relationships, potentially leading to lower service dissatisfaction ratings, even if guests feel unsatisfied. Additionally, cultural differences can influence how guests perceive and value various aspects of service. In certain cultures, attributes like staff friendliness and attention to detail may be prioritized, while others might emphasize service efficiency and functionality. Such differences can lead to varying satisfaction ratings under similar circumstances. Moreover, differing value systems and behavioral norms shape guests' expectations regarding service quality; some may prioritize personalization and customization, while others focus on economy and efficiency. Consequently, cultural background significantly impacts guest attitudes and expectations. Recognizing these differences is essential for designing complaint management strategies that accommodate diverse cultural expectations. Within this context, the question of whether and how guests' perceptions of hotel ratings influence the role of loyalty in this relationship is particularly intriguing.
6. Conclusion
Since failures in service delivery within the hotel industry are inevitable, creating loyal customers involves more than just ensuring stable cash flows and strengthening the current competitive position. It also entails shaping customer behavior, specifically increasing the likelihood that customers will engage in CCB. This approach not only achieves short-term benefits from the CCB of guests - impacting the hotel's ongoing performance (Makuljevic & Knezevic, 2023) - but also contributes to the preservation of the hotel's position and the strengthening of its competitiveness in the long term.
Unfortunately, there is an insignificant correlation between loyalty and DCB, indicating that relying on loyalty is a risky strategy in mitigating service delivery errors, and emphasizing the importance of an effective service recovery process. Only an efficient service recovery will affect the SSR of the hotel's guests and thus prevent the occurrence of DCB. This further implies that all activities designed to encourage satisfaction due to service recovery should have a prominent place in business strategies and hotel business improvement plans.
However, the fact that loyalty does not mediate the relationship between SSR and DCB suggests that hotel guests do not operate through the same mechanism, implying that actions
and the same managerial tools for eliciting reactions to CCB do not have the same effect on discouraging hotel guests from exhibiting DCB. This further implies that they must create other measures in case dissatisfaction with the recovery of the service occurs.
Considering the various types of loyalty, future research should take this into account gaining a deeper understanding of the role of loyalty as a mediator between SSR and CCB. Understanding how each type of loyalty influences customer citizenship behavior is crucial, as it will facilitate better personalization of marketing efforts for each group of loyal guests.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. References
1. Alavi, M., Visentin, D. C., Thapa, D. K., Hunt, G. E., Watson, R., & Cleary, M. L. (2020). Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(9), 2209-2211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399
2. Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Laguna-Garcia, M. (2017). Towards a new approach of destination loyalty drivers: Satisfaction, visit intensity and tourist motivations. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(3), 238-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.936834
3. Bagherzadeh, R., Rawal, M., Wei, S., & Saavedra Torres, J. L. (2020). The journey from customer participation in service failure to co-creation in service recovery. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjretconser.2020.102058
4. Betts, T. K., Wood, M. S. & Tadisina, S. K. (2011). The impact of failure severity, prior failure, and company control on service recovery outcomes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 8(3), 365-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811404892
5. Bowen, D. E. (1986). Managing customers as human resources in service organizations. Human Resource Management, 25(3), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930250304
6. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
7. De Mantos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., & Rossi, C. (2007). Service recovery paradox: A meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507303012
8. Dhir, S., & Chakraborty, T. (2023). Does the perceived efficiency of the HR department matter in influencing satisfaction and employee performance? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(4), 943-961. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2021-0047
9. Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
10. Forbes. (2018). Retrieved March 12, 2024 from www.forbes.com/sites/shephyken/2018/08/05/what-customers-want-and-expect/#366bc4157701
11. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
12. Gelbrich, K., & Roschk, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of organizational complaint handling and customer responses. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510387914
13. Górska-Warsewicz, H., & Kulykovets, O. (2020). Hotel brand loyalty - A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(12), 4810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124810
14. Groth, M. (2005). Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of Management, 31(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271375
15. Guchait, P., Han, R., Wang, X., Abbott, J., & Liu, Y. (2019). Examining stealing thunder as a new service recovery strategy: Impact on customer loyalty. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(2), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0127
16. Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2019). The critical role of customer forgiveness in successful service recovery. Journal of Business Research, 95, 376-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusres.2018.07.049
17. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach's alpha for estimating reliability. But.... Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
18. Hazee, S., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Armirotto, V. (2017). Co-creating service recovery after service failure: The role of brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 74,101-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.006.
19. Hewagama, G., Boxall, P., Cheung, G., & Hutchison, A. (2019). Service recovery through empowerment? HRM, employee performance and job satisfaction in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0256
20. Hollebeek, L., & Rather, R.A. (2019). Service innovativeness and tourism customer outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(11), 4227-4246. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0256
21. Hung, C.L. (2017). Online positioning through website service quality: A case of star-rated hotels in Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31,181-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1711546
22. Hwang, Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2020). The impact of customer compassion on face-to-face and online complaints. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 29(3), 1-21.
23. Jackson, M. (2019). Utilizing attribution theory to develop new insights into tourism experiences. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 38, 176-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjhtm.2018.04.007
24. Jin, D., Dipietro, R. B., & Fan, A. (2019). The impact of customer controllability and service recovery type on customer satisfaction and consequent behavior intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 29(1), 65-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1602095
25. Kang, M., & Gong, T. (2019). Dysfunctional customer behavior: Conceptualization and empirical validation. Service Business, 13(4), 625-646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-019-00398-1
26. Kim, J., Lee, S., Chun, S., Han, A., & Heo, J. (2017). The effects of leisure-time physical activity for optimism, life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and positive affect among older adults with loneliness. Annals of Leisure Research, 20(4), 406-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2016.1238308
27. Koc, E. (2019). Service failures and recovery in hospitality and tourism: A review of literature and recommendations for future research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 28(5), 513-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1537139
28. Lee, K., & Allen, N. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.131
29. Lee, S. W., & Xue, K. (2020). A model of destination loyalty: Integrating destination image and sustainable tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(4), 393408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1713185
30. Luo, A., Guchait, P., Lee, L., & Madera, J. M. (2019). Transformational leadership and service recovery performance: The mediating effect of emotional labor and the influence of culture. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.011
31. Makuljevic, Dj., & Knezevic, M. (2023). The impact of dysfunctional guest behavior on hotel business efficiency: A case study of the Republic of Serbia. Managing the Future by Learning from the Past - Contemporary Trends in Tourism & Hospitality (pp. 2936). https://doi.org/10.15308/Sitcon-2023-29-36
32. Migacz, S. J., Zou, S., & Petrick, J. F. (2018). The terminal effects of service failure on airlines: Examining service recovery with justice theory. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516684979
33. Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications of the Republic of Serbia. (2022). Report on hotel categorization. Belgrade: Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications of the Republic of Serbia.
34. Nunkoo, R., Teeroovengadum, V., Ringle, C. M., & Sunnassee, V. (2020). Service quality and customer satisfaction: The moderating effects of hotel star rating. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102414. https://doi.org/10.1016/jij hm.2019.102414
35. O'connor, P., & Assaker, G. (2022). Examining the antecedents and effects of hotel corporate reputation on customers' loyalty and citizenship behavior: An integrated framework. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 31(5), 640-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2022.2034560
36. Odoom, R., Agbemabiese, G., & Hinson, E. (2020). Service recovery satisfaction in offline and online experiences. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 38(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2018-0422
37. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
38. Parrey, S. H., Hakim, I. A., & Rather, R. A. (2019). Mediating role of government initiatives and media influence between perceived risks and destination image: A study of conflict zone. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(1), 90-106 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-02-2018-0019
39. Pimic, M., Markovic, Z., Dinic, G., & Radivojevic, N. (2023). Determinants of success in hotel industry: Case study of the Republic of Serbia. Ekonomija: Teorija i Praksa, 26(2), 151-176. https://doi.org/10.5937/etp2302151P
40. Qiu, C., Li, M., Mattila,S., & Yang, W. (2018). Managing the face in service failure: The moderation effect of social presence. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1314-1331. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2016-0315
41. Radu, A. G., Arli, D., Surachartkumtonkun, J., Weaven, S., & Wright, O. (2019). Empathy and apology: The effectiveness of recovery strategies. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 30(4), 358-371. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-03-2018-0080
42. Rather, R. A., Najar, A. H., & Jaziri, D. (2021). Destination branding in tourism: Insights from social identification, attachment and experience theories. Tourism in India (pp. 5367). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1747223
43. Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2019). Dimensionality and consequences of customer engagement: A social exchange perspective. Vision, 23(3), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262919850923
44. Reichenberger, I. (2018). Digital nomads - A quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Annals of Leisure Research, 21(3), 364-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098
45. Repisti, S. (2017). Posebne teme u statistickom obrazovanju: Lekcija o medijatorskim i moderatorskim efektima [Special topics in statistical education: The lesson on mediating and moderating effects]. IstrazivanjeMatematickog Obrazovanja (IMO), 9, 15-25.
46. Shams, G., Rather, R., Rehman, A., & Lodhi, N. (2020a). Hospitality-based service recovery, outcome favourability, satisfaction with service recovery and consequent customer loyalty: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(2), 266-284 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2020-0079
47. Shams, G., Rehman, M.A., Samad, S., & Rather, R.A. (2020b). The impact of the magnitude of service failure and complaint handling on satisfaction and Brand credibility in the banking industry. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 25(1/2), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-020-00070-0
48. Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach's alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
49. Tsao, W. C. (2018). Star power: The effect of star rating on service recovery in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 10921111. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2016-0247
50. Tung, V. W. S., Chen, P. J., & Schuckert, M. (2017). Managing customer citizenship behavior: The moderating roles of employee responsiveness and organizational reassurance. Tourism Management, 59, 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .tourman.2016.07.010
51. Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 839-865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00032-8
52. Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (1987). Thinking ethically. Issues in Ethics, 1(1, Fall).
53. Yao, S., Wang, X., Yu, H., & Guchait, P. (2019). Effectiveness of error management training in the hospitality industry: Impact on perceived fairness and service recovery performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 79, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.009
54. Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281007
55. Zoghbi-Manrique-De-Lara, P., Aguiar-Quintana, T., & Suarez-Acosta, M. A. (2014). Hotel guests' responses to service recovery: How loyalty influences guest behavior, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(2), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513513348
