Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the interplay of justice perceptions and satisfaction as a mediator: evidence from Nepal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the influence of distributive, interactional and procedural justice on customer loyalty following service failure in the hotel industry, with customer satisfaction as a mediator. Recognizing service failure as a critical issue impacting satisfaction and loyalty, this study is based on a deductive research approach in which data were collected via structured questionnaires from 481 hotel customers in Far Western Nepal who had experienced a service failure within the preceding 6 months. The study employs a convenience sampling technique within a descriptive and correlational research design. Better and earlier integration of cognitive–affective–behavioral (CAB) model and social exchange theory, the results revealed that interactional justice exerts the strongest effect on customer loyalty, followed by distributive justice, while procedural justice has the least impact. Furthermore, customer satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between all three dimensions of justice and customer loyalty. The findings suggest that hotels in Nepal may prioritize interactional and distributive justice emphasizing empathy, clear communication and discount and rebate in their service recovery strategies to enhance customer satisfaction and retention. This research addresses a gap in the literature concerning service recovery, providing valuable insights for the local hotel industry in the Western part of Nepal. This study adds value in understanding justice theory within service failure contexts in a developing country.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it