See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/385276525

The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and guest
behavior in mountain hotels

Article in Menadzment u hotelijerstvu i turizmu · January 2024

DOI: 10.5937/menhottur2400012J

CITATIONS READS

0 4

3 authors, including:

Dragan Živko Ćoćkalo Nikola Radivojevic

University of Novi Sad Technical college at applied studies Kragujevac
175 PUBLICATIONS 758 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 257 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dragan Živko Ćoćkalo on 27 October 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

Received: 26 March 2024

Revised: 14 April 2024
UDC: Accepted: 18 October 2024
Published online: 23 October 2024
DOI: 10.5937/menhottur2400012J

The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service

recovery and guest behavior in mountain hotels
Milica Josimović1, Dragan Ćoćkalo1, Nikola Radivojević2*
1
University of Novi Sad, Technical Faculty ―Mihajlo Pupin‖, Zrenjanin, Serbia
2
Academy of Applied Studies ―Šumadija‖, Kragujevac, Serbia

st
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.

fir
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
e
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
in
and encourage CCB while simultaneously reducing the risk of DCB.

Keywords: loyalty, satisfaction, service recovery, customer citizenship behavior,

dysfunctional customer behaviour, hotel industry
JEL classification: L80
l

Uloga lojalnosti gostiju između zadovoljstva oporavkom

On

usluge i ponašanja gostiju u planinskim hotelima

Sažetak
Svrha – Svrha studije je da se ispita uloga lojalnosti gostiju u odnosu između zadovoljstva
oporavkom usluge i građanskog potrošačkog ponašanja, kao i disfunkcionalnog ponašanja
gostiju hotela. Metodologija – Istraživanje 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 posredničku ulogu u
odnosu između zadovoljstva oporavkom usluge i građanskog potrošačkog ponašanja. S druge
strane, lojalnost nema posredničku ulogu u odnosu zadovoljstva oporavkom usluge i

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

disfunkcionalnog ponašanja gostiju hotela tokom njihovog boravka. Implikacije – Studija

ima teorijske i praktične implikacije. Teorijska implikacija je da lojalnost čini osnovu za
kognitivne i afektivne odgovore gostiju kada su zadovoljni oporavkom usluge; to znači da je
lojalnost pokretač građanskog potrošačkog ponašanja. U suprotnoj situaciji, lojalnost ne
deluje kao amortizer koji će ublažiti uticaj nezadovoljstva povratkom usluge na ispoljavanje
disfunkcionalnog ponašanja. Praktične implikacije su da hoteli moraju dati prioritet
efikasnim strategijama oporavka usluga kako bi povećali lojalnost gostiju, podstakli
građansko potrošačko ponašanje i istovremeno redukovali rizik od pojave disfunkcionalnog
ponašanja.

Ključne reči: lojalnost, zadovoljstvo, oporavak usluge, građansko ponašanje potrošača,

disfunkcionalno ponašanje potrošača, hotelijerstvo

st
JEL klasifikacija: L80

1. Introduction
The absence of a standardized hotel evaluation process affects how hotels around the world

fir
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
e
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
in
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
l

existing ones (Zeithaml, 2000).

On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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.

st
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

fir
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
e
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
in
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
l

dissatisfied customer is significantly greater than the positive impact of a satisfied customer
On

(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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

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.

st
(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.

fir
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
e
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.
in
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
l

(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
On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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

st
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

fir
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
e
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
in
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,
l

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
On

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:
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

Figure 1: Proposed research model

st
Note: SSR – Satisfaction with service recovery, Loy – Guest loyalty,
CCB – Customer citizenship behavior, DCB - Dysfunctional customer behavior
Source: Authors’ research

3. Research methodology

fir
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
e
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
in
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
l

between digital nomads and business travelers was based on the study conducted by
Reichenberger (2018). Subsequently, within each category, participants were selected
On

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
3.8 6.7 4.1 3.3 5.9 6.2 1.8 2.9 3.7
stay in the hotel
Source: Authors’ research
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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 X1
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 Odoom et
X3 al., 2020

st
restoration, refund, etc.)
I am satisfied because the steps taken by the hotel to solve the problem
X4
were quick and efficient
I will say positive things about this hotel to other people Y1
I will recommend this hotel to my friends or relatives Y2
Shams et

fir
I consider this hotel as my first choice for accommodation Y3 al., 2020a
I would not switch to another hotel the next time if the price of the stay
Y4
increased by 10%
I take measures to protect the hotel from potential problems Y5
I am taking action to reduce hotel costs Y6 Zoghbi-
Manrique-
I show concern for the efficient functioning of the hotel Y7
de- Lara et
I write a positive review about the hotel Y8 al., 2014
I defend the hotel when others criticize it Y9
e
I acknowledge that I took advantage of some hotel services Y10
I refused to follow the instructions of the hotel staff Y11
Kang &
I write a negative review about the hotel Y12
in
Gong, 2019
I acknowledge that I use more resources than acceptable at this hotel Y14
I tend to make the hotel dirtier than I should Y14
Source: Authors’ research

The first four items on the questionnaire pertain to guests’ SSR, while the next four focus on
l

guests’ loyalty. The remaining items address CCB and DCB. Respondents rated the
On

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 χ², 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.
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

Table 3: Results for the overall model fit

Goodness Fit Index name p-value
χ²(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

st
Except for χ², 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

Factor Item Estimate

Std.
Error
z-value
fir
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

p
95% Confidence
Interval

Lower Upper
Std.
Estimate
CR AVE
e
SSR X1 0.805 0.019 41.535 < .001 0.767 0.843 0.894
X2 0.890 0.018 49.373 < .001 0.855 0.925 0.987
0.901 0.704
in
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
l

0.935 0.878
Y8 0.902 0.023 39.872 < .001 0.858 0.947 0.958
On

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.
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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

st
Source: Authors’ research
fir
e
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
in
between each construct and the others were lower than the square root of their AVE (see
Table 6).

Table 6: Results of the discriminant validity

Type
gender Educ. SSR Loy CCB DCB
travers
l

Type travers -
On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

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

Std.

st
Factor Factor Label Estimate z-value p Std. (all)
Error
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

fir
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
indirect1 delta*omega indirect1 -0.001 0.003 -0.393 0.695 -0.002
e
total1 delta+indirect1 total1 -0.088 0.028 -3.192 0.001 -0.121
proportion1 delta/total1 proportion1 0.987 0.034 28.688 < .001 0.987
Goodness-of-fit indices: χ²(29) = 1066.921, CFI = 0.9, TLI = 0.9, PNFI = 0.6, IFI = 0.9,
in
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,
l

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
On

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 (Repišti, 2017). This suggests that the second
condition for the existence of a mediation effect is met (Repišti, 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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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

st
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

fir
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
e
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
in
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.
l

Therefore, the emotions stemming from loyalty should ideally mitigate their current
On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

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

st
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

fir
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
e
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.
in
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
l
On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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.

st
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

fir
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/j.jretconser.2020.102058
e
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.
in
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
l

meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 60–77.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507303012
On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

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/j.jbusres.2018.07.049

st
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.

fir
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
e
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
in
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/j.jhtm.2018.04.007
24. Jin, D., Dipietro, R. B., & Fan, A. (2019). The impact of customer controllability and
l

service recovery type on customer satisfaction and consequent behavior intentions.

Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 29(1), 65–87.
On

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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX.

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), 393–
408. 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. 29–
36). 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

st
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.

fir
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/j.ijhm.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
e
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,
in
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
l

39. Pimić, M., Marković, Z., Dinić, G., & Radivojević, N. (2023). Determinants of success in
hotel industry: Case study of the Republic of Serbia. Ekonomija: Teorija i Praksa, 26(2),
On

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. 53–
67). 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
 Josimović, M. et al. – The role of guest loyalty between satisfaction with service recovery and
guest behavior in mountain hotels –
Hotel and Tourism Management, XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. X-XX

45. Repišti, S. (2017). Posebne teme u statističkom obrazovanju: Lekcija o medijatorskim i

moderatorskim efektima [Special topics in statistical education: The lesson on mediating
and moderating effects]. Istraživanje Matematičkog 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

st
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), 1092–
1111. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2016-0247

fir
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
e
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
in
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
l

55. Zoghbi-Manrique-De-Lara, P., Aguiar-Quintana, T., & Suárez-Acosta, M. A. (2014).

Hotel guests’ responses to service recovery: How loyalty influences guest behavior,
On

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(2), 152–164.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513513348

View publication stats