Inferred respect: a critical ingredient in customer satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to address the following question: Do consumer inferences of respect (disrespect) contribute to satisfaction (dissatisfaction)? The research question is explored over two studies. The first aimed to test whether respect spontaneously emerged as an important component of consumer satisfaction. The second aimed to examine whether perceptions of respect could explain consumers’ satisfaction response beyond traditional antecedents of satisfaction (i.e. product and service factors, expectations). Design/methodology/approach The first (pilot) study examined whether respect/disrespect spontaneously emerged in written descriptions of highly satisfactory/dissatisfactory experiences ( n = 356). The second (main) study used a survey methodology to test whether perceptions of respect could explain customer satisfaction beyond traditional antecedents ( n = 2,641 plus n = 398). Findings Drawing on theories from social psychology and organizational justice, the current study argues that perceived respect, as inferred by customers from elements of their interactions with organizations, may also be critically involved in the satisfaction response. Research limitations/implications Conceptually, the findings place respect as a central antecedent among satisfaction determinants. Practical implications Practically, this research underscores the importance of enacting respect and avoiding actions that communicate disrespect because of their effect on satisfaction. Originality/value Customer satisfaction is critically important to organizations and so a great deal of research or work has sought to understand its causes – traditionally product performance, service quality and expectations. This current work, or This current research argues that inferred respect, as an indicator of the extent to which people perceive they are valued, should have an important, and general, influence on satisfaction that goes beyond what traditional determinants of satisfaction can explain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".