The Effect of Distrust Regulation and Trustworthiness Demonstration on Trust Repair in Responding to Online Negative Reviews

This paper explores how trust can be repaired after receiving online negative reviews. In this study, trust repair strategies are classified into six categories, and their effects on benevolence, ability, and integrity are examined. A predominant reliance is discerned on trustworthiness demonstration for affective repair strategies within online negative review responses, showcasing a noteworthy efficacy in reinstating trust across the dimensions of benevolence, integrity, and ability. Through a systematic analysis of these strategies, this paper not only uncovers the intricate interplay between responses and their consequential impacts on three dimensions of trust but also provides valuable comprehension of the multifaceted dynamics inherent in trust repair. By offering a refined understanding of the strategies involved in repairing trust, this research contributes actionable insights with theoretical insights into trust repair in digital business communication and practical implications for individuals and organizations grappling with the intricacies of navigating challenging online negative reviews.


Introduction
The hospitality industry has experienced significant growth in recent years, driven by the rapid development of the economy and transportation infrastructure.The increasing popularity of travel websites, such as TripAdvisor, Hotels.com, and Ctrip, now render potential travelers access to copious amounts of tangible information, enabling them to assess these services more effectively.It is found in prior hospitality studies (e.g., Argyris et al., 2021) that a single review can swiftly disseminate online, significantly impacting a company's reputation.Notably, this impact resembles a double-edged sword and is even more pronounced when an online review is negative (Weitzl & Hutzinger, 2017), for they are usually perceived as being more credible and thus attract more attention and closer scrutiny from potential travelers (Papathanassis & Knolle, 2011).Therefore, it is vital for hotel management to address negative reviews in a timely and effective manner (Selem et al., 2022).
Trust is a critical resource for establishing and maintaining various relationships, especially in digital business communication.Travel websites like TripAdvisor open up new channels of communication with potential customers (Litvin & Hoffman, 2012), and they serve as platforms for trust repair resulting from negative reviews (e.g., Looker et al., 2007;O'Connor, 2010;Litvin & Hoffman, 2012).One key feature of effective responses to negative reviews is their capability to win the trust of customers: both the customers who wrote the reviews and those potential ones who are reading the review-response pairs online (Sparks et al., 2016;Ho, 2019).When a hotel (i.e., the trustee) falls short of the anticipation of its customer (i.e., the trustor), a change in the level of trust will result (Linell & Marková , 2013), and the hotel will possibly be accused of violating the trust its customers have in it (Ho, 2019).Thus, practitioners of hospitality should put more emphasis on how to manage the trust repair between the hotel and customers and try to explore relevant trust repair strategies in their responses.
There is limited research on trust repair in online negative review responses.Existing research mainly focuses on the field of interpersonal trust repair to test and compare the effectiveness of repair strategies (e.g., economic compensation, apology, punishment, denial, etc.).To repair trust by fixing ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995), some studies (e.g., Xie & Peng, 2009) classify the trust repair strategies into a) responses that primarily reflect affective repair strategies and b) responses that primarily reflect informational repair strategies.Some studies (e.g., Gillespie & Dietz, 2009) classify trust repair mechanisms into 1) distrust regulation and 2) trustworthiness demonstration.In fact, neither of these two classification methods has been further explored, as the classification of trust repair strategies does not consider situations where companies employ both affective and informational strategies to repair their own trust.While trust repair mechanisms are somewhat autonomous, they prove excessively broad for pragmatic application.Therefore, this study will combine these two ways of classification and add a category that combines affective repair strategies with informational repair strategies and thus classify the repair strategies into six categories to take deeper issues into account and help hoteliers solve problems in a more nuanced manner.
This study delves deeper into the impact of hotel network interaction on trust repair effectiveness and analyzes six different types of trust repair strategies that reflect each of ability, benevolence, and integrity and which has the greatest impact.This paper provides reference guidance and suggestions for effective repair and management of trust crisis-related hotels.Also, all the hotel review data were sourced exclusively from the Guangzhou district section of TripAdvisor, which has well filled the gap in the research of foreign tourism platforms in major Chinese cities market.

Trust and Trust Repair
An increasing number of studies are going in-depth into trust across various disciplines.Different researchers have proposed various definitions of trust in the realm of scholarly inquiry.For instance, trust is "a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence" (e.g., Moorman et al. 1992Moorman et al. , 1993: 82;: 82;Morgan & Hunt, 1994;Mayer et al., 1995;Rousseau et al., 1998).Others define trust as "the trustor's confidence in an exchange partner's reliability and integrity" (Morgan & Hunt, 1994: 23) or "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party" (Mayer et al., 1995: 712).Besides, trust has been conceptualized as "a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another" (Rousseau et al., 1998: 395).This paper refers to Mayer et al.'s (1995) definition of trust.Trust is characterized as the trustor's willingness to be influenced by the trustee's actions, notably when the trustor lacks the ability to monitor or control the trustee.Furthermore, the trustor anticipates that the trustee will undertake actions of significance to the trustor.
Trust plays a pervasive role in both intimate and distant interpersonal relations.Given the dynamic nature of social relations, trust emerges as an ongoing interpersonal construct, constantly negotiated and renegotiated through social interaction (Ingenhoff & Sommer, 2010;Gillespie, 2011;Linell & Marková , 2013;Fuoli & Paradis, 2014).Consequently, trust is a multifaceted and elusive concept (Castaldo, 2007;Castaldo et al., 2010;Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012;Bozic, 2017) and a complex construct concerning the relationships between individuals as well as groups and organizations (Fulmer & Dirks, 2018).In the context of trust between individuals and organizations, its most prevalent manifestation occurs within a business environment.When trust is compromised, it can lead to the breakdown of cooperative relationships, thereby impacting a company's economic performance.Hence, trust stands as a precious asset for business organizations (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011;Fuoli & Paradis, 2014;Isaeva et al., 2020), which is worthy of in-depth research.
The establishment and maintenance of trust-based relationships with customers are pivotal factors.Given the invaluable nature of trust, repairing violated trust holds a position of utmost importance.Research has indicated that trust can be repaired once broken (Mishra, 1996;Bottom et al., 2002;Gillespie & Dietz, 2009).Trust repair involves the restoration of a trustor's trust after it was violated (e.g., Dirks et al., 2009;Kim et al., 2009;Xie & Peng, 2009;Gillespie et al., 2012;Siebert & Gillespie, 2018).Therefore, to efficiently implement the process of trust repair, numerous scholars have developed effective strategies and methods for trust repair, including apologies (e.g., Friend et al., 2010;Bansal & Zahedi, 2015;Knight et al., 2015;Bozic, 2017), denials (e.g., Mattila, 2009;Utz et al., 2009;Van Laer & De Ruyter, 2010), trustee's information sharing with trustors (e.g., Chen et al., 2013), organizational restructuring (Giraud-Heraud et al., 2006;Meyer et al., 2012;Debab & Yateem, 2012), acts of penance (Xie & Peng, 2009), etc.The multi-faceted nature of trust repair strategies suggests their adaptability and relevance in repairing trust across various fields.Investigations in diverse fields offer unique insights into trust-repairing processes, providing a comprehensive understanding of the response strategies and challenges associated with repairing trust in different contexts.
Trust repair research is a multidisciplinary field that offers insights into how damaged trust can be renewed, reconstructed, or strengthened.Prior research has explored trust repair from the perspectives of psychology (e.g., Xie & Peng, 2009;Tomlinson et al., 2020), organizational behavior (e.g., Dirks et al., 2009;Kramer& Lewicki, 2010;Bachmann et al., 2015), management (e.g., Gillespie & Dietz, 2009;Grover et al., 2014;Bozic, 2017), linguistics (e.g., Fuoli & Paradis, 2014;Ho, 2019) and various other disciplines.It has been typically found that trust repair has become a hot topic in the field of organizational behavior or management.For example, Bozic et al. (2019) explored the issue of organizational trust repair based on the impact of trust-breaking events in specific industries, providing a new perspective on the field of organizational trust repair.Likewise, Bachmann et al. (2015) explored trust repair mechanisms at the macro level and advanced academic understanding of trust repair in organizations and institutions.While this multidisciplinary approach, particularly evident in the realms of organizational behavior and management, underscores the richness and diversity of research in trust repair, the trust repair strategies and their functions remain unexplored, thus, necessitating further scholarly inquiry.
Particularly, there remains a notable gap in specific response strategies and the effects of language in trust repair.Although trust has garnered substantial scholarly attention across various disciplines, linguistic research on this subject remains relatively scarce (Fuoli & Paradis, 2014).Trust is notably absent in the research of prominent theorists within pragmatics, with only sporadic references as a background condition for verbal interaction (Linell & Marková , 2013).For instance, in the study of Liu et al.'s (2023) and Jin et al.'s (2021) studies, trust has been identified as an influential factor rather than constituting the primary research inquiry.Consequently, the primary objective of this paper is to address a gap in the discourse on trust repair within the domain of pragmatics.Besides this endeavor, the intention is to contribute novel insights and potential research directions to explore digital business communication.

Trust Repair in Online Negative Review Responses
Numerous studies confirm the significant impact of online reviews on consumer spending and commercial sales (e.g., Jansen, 2010;Ghose & Ipeirotis, 2011).Research on negative review responses has evolved due to the growth of the internet and social media, where businesses and individuals proactively address negative consumer reviews (Argyris et al., 2021;Golmohammadi et al., 2021;Herhausen et al., 2022).This research area primarily focuses on how businesses handle negative consumer reviews, particularly on social media and e-commerce websites (cf.Han et al., 2016;Yang & Wu, 2016;Zhao & Zhang, 2018).Various response strategies are explored, including apologies, explanations, compensations, and other techniques (cf.Zhang & Vá squez, 2014).Also, the impact of these response strategies on consumer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty is investigated (Ho, 2017;Weitzl & Hutzinger, 2017).In terms of response strategies research, some studies delve into consumer psychology and behavioral responses, analyzing emotional fluctuations and decision-making processes when consumers encounter negative review responses (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009;Yang, 2015;Yang & Wu, 2016).Some focus on the linguistic and rhetorical choices made by businesses in their review responses and how they affect consumer trust (Ho, 2017;Johnen & Schnittka, 2019).These studies provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and factors involved in online responses to negative reviews, offering businesses valuable insights to maintain their reputation and build customer relationships in the digital era.
Trust repair research holds an important position in managing online negative review responses, inside which trust represents a fundamental aspect of the interaction between consumers and businesses.When confronted with online negative reviews, businesses can suffer significant trust erosion (Wu & Jia, 2012;Yao et al., 2012).Consequently, scholars have continuously examined trust repair strategies and their impact on consumer trust and attitudes in the context of negative reviews (Argyris et al., 2021;Golmohammadi et al., 2021;Herhausen et al., 2022).Trust repair research, exemplified by studies like Argyris et al. (2021), investigates various strategies' efficacy in influencing consumer trust and attitudes.Genuine apologies, as highlighted by Golmohammadi et al. (2021), significantly enhance customer attitudes and trust.The importance of sincerity and timing in apologies is underscored (Johnen & Schnittka, 2019), as insincerity can damage trust.Effective trust repair for hoteliers involves genuine and timely apologies, active communication, and providing detailed information (Ho, 2017).This approach, supported by research (Salle & Tripp, 2015;Gregoire, 2015;Yang & Wu, 2016), helps consumers understand situations and reduces dissatisfaction.Additionally, positive engagement on social media, addressing questions and suggestions, as advocated by Ho (2017) and Sun & Zhang (2017), fosters trust bonds.Prior research on hotel trust repair, including studies like genre analysis (Zhang & Vá squez, 2014), service recovery attempts (Ho, 2017), and discourse practices in the hospitality industry (Ho, 2019), has built a substantial body of academic and empirical work.Building upon this established body of research on hotel trust repair, recent research has further emphasized the impact of social media and online interactions on trust repair (Argyris et al., 2021;Golmohammadi et al., 2021;Bai, 2022;Herhausen et al., 2022).Hoteliers can effectively use social media platforms to promptly respond to consumer inquiries and reviews, thus enhancing trust and their company's reputation in real-time.
Trust repair research on online negative review responses has gained a lot of progress.Within the realm of pragmatics, some studies (e.g., Xie & Peng, 2009) classify the trust repair strategies into a) responses that primarily reflect affective repair strategies and b) responses that primarily reflect informational repair strategies.Affective and informational repair strategies can respectively enhance the trust level of the recipient in terms of emotions and information (Jia et al., 2012).And they can express the positive attitude of the recipient towards trust repair (Zhang & Zhuang, 2010).Some (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009) classify trust repair mechanisms into 1) distrust regulation and 2) trustworthiness demonstration.Distrust regulation aims to reduce the negative expectations of the victim, while trustworthiness demonstration emphasizes rebuilding the victim's positive expectations by showcasing their trustworthy aspects (Yao et al., 2012).This study is apt to provide hoteliers with more precise strategies and suggestions for trust repair.Both strategies and mechanisms can, to some extent, demonstrate their restoration of benevolence, ability, and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995).However, the classification of trust repair strategies does not consider situations where companies use both affective and informational strategies to repair their own trust.Trust repair mechanisms, although relatively independent, are overly broad for practical use.Therefore, this study introduces a category that combines both strategies on the basis of the two classifications of trust repair strategies and thus combines the three strategies and two mechanisms.By doing so, there are six classifications of trust repair strategies to analyze their repair effects on benevolence, ability, and integrity among the six (see section 3.3).Based on a description of methodology in section three, section four analyzes how trust repair strategies are used in online negative review responses before moving to the conclusion.

Research Questions
In light of the insights gleaned from existing research, three key research questions are formulated to guide the investigation.
a) What are the common types of online negative review responses used by hotel managers?b) How are communication approaches used to repair benevolence, integrity, and ability in online negative review responses?c) How can trust be repaired in different response strategies?
To address these questions, a meticulous analysis of hotel managers' responses will be conducted.Responses will be categorized based on the identified trust repair strategies.Subsequently, the actual trust repair effect of these responses on three trustworthiness dimensions, namely benevolence, ability, and integrity will be evaluated.

Data Collection
While there are other online review platforms such as TripAdvisor, Qunar, Ctrip, Booking, and so on, TripAdvisor is one of the largest and world's leading travel websites, serving as the most popular online review channel for travel accommodation (O'Connor, 2010;Vásquez, 2011;Levy et al., 2012;Ho, 2017).Moreover, TripAdvisor is recognized for its interactive function, allowing users to post detailed reviews and engage in discussions, encouraging users to share not only their overall ratings but also specific feedback on various aspects of their accommodation experiences.Therefore, data used in this study were collected from TripAdvisor.Considering Guangzhou is one of China's most important economic centers, drawing a significant influx of domestic and international tourists and business travelers, the present study specifically chose Guangzhou as the primary data source.This is also because our location in Guangzhou provides us with the practical advantages of conducting interviews, on-site inspections, and verifying research findings much more conveniently and flexibly.This choice markedly helps to enhance the credibility and feasibility of the research.
The top 20 most popular hotels in Guangzhou were initially selected as the data source.These hotels typically attract large numbers of local and international visitors, providing richer data for the present study.Those hotels are, to a large extent, likely to reflect the real experiences of a broad range of hotel guests, allowing for a more comprehensive investigation and analysis.The 5-star rating system provided by TripAdvisor has a detailed classification of the valence of user reviews, based on research questions, reviews of Terrible and Poor, and corresponding responses were selected for analysis.A total of 356 pieces of customers' negative reviews and responses on TripAdvisor have been collected for the present study.Comprising a cumulative word count of 115,051 words, this dataset allows us a deeper understanding of the characteristics and issues of local hotels and helps to connect the findings with the local social and economic environment.
To be clear, the reviews and responses were collected via the following procedures: a) Guangzhou was chosen, giving the reason for the location.b) From Guangzhou, the top 20 most popular hotels were chosen, giving the reason for getting more data.c) Responses and reviews of Terrible (1-star) and Poor (2-star) were chosen, based on the research questions.

Data Identification and Classification
Data identification and classification are based on a two-level standard.The trust-repairing strategies proposed by existing research (e.g., Dawar & Pillutla, 2000;Lyon & Cameron, 2004;Xie & Peng, 2009;Bozic, 2017) mainly include affective, functional, and informational repair strategies.As this paper mainly focuses on the discursive level, functional repair strategies are not considered.A further investigation of the data set helps to confirm three categories as the first-level standard: a) affective responses, b) informational responses, and c) hybrid responses that combine affective and informational responses.This classification helps us capture the key characteristics of review responses for a more in-depth analysis of trust repair brought by different types of review responses.
Trust repair mechanisms are divided into two types which have been recognized and used by many scholars (e.g., Gillespie & Dietz, 2009;Chen et al., 2010;Wang & Walker, 2023): distrust regulation and trustworthiness demonstration.These two mechanisms are confirmed as the second-level standard for classifying review responses.In order to accurately understand the main functions of different types of review responses on trust repair, refinement is continued based on the first level.Each type of response is further subdivided into these two sub-categories, and altogether six types of responses (see Table 1) are adopted in the present study.

Quantitive Results
The results of the frequency and percentage of each type of strategy in 356 reviews are presented in Table 2.

Repairing trust in terms of benevolence, integrity, and ability
According to Mayer et al. (1995), the trustworthiness or actual trust repair effect achieved by an organization after responding to negative reviews was assessed on three main criteria: 1) benevolence, 2) integrity, and 3) ability.
Benevolence pertains to the extent to which a trustee is perceived as sincerely desiring to benefit the trustor without purely self-centered profit motives.Integrity encompasses the trustee's commitment to a set of principles deemed acceptable by the trustor, as well as the trustee's acknowledgment of factual veracity.Ability comprises a spectrum of skills, capabilities, and attributes that empower a party to exert influence within a specific domain.Fragments in various categories of negative review responses were extracted to analyze how they achieve the trust repair function by displaying benevolence, integrity, and ability.

Repairing Benevolence
In hotel responses to reviews, expressing benevolence is a common and practical approach.Responses typically achieve trust repair by conveying apologies and empathy, expressing genuine concern, making personal commitments, and proposing proactive measures, thereby showcasing the hotel's benevolence.
Extracts 1-5: (1) I am almost concerned to read your comments.
(2) We are so sorry to read that you were unhappy.
(3) Your valuable comments and feedback will certainly be shared.
(4) To ensure your return stay will be a more pleasant one.
(5) I'd like to personally take charge of your future reservations.
The presented five extracts collectively exemplify the repairing of trust through the demonstration of benevolence.A common and effective approach involves expressing sincere apologies and empathy.Adjectives such as "concerned" and "sorry" are carefully crafted to convey the hotel's deep regret, genuine empathy, and authentic concern for the customer's experience, thereby infusing emotional value into the communication.All of them are fundamental to the process of trust repair.Based on the above foundation, hotels further appease customers' emotions by emphasizing the significance of their feedback.Employing terms such as "valuable" to characterize a customer's comment conveys that their review is highly regarded and appreciated.By explicitly acknowledging shortcomings and paying attention to reviews, the hotel positions itself as actively addressing customer concerns, fostering a sense of reassurance.Moreover, hotel managers strategically deploy personal promises and proactive measures as additional tools in the trust repair process.For instance, using terms like "ensure" and "I'd like to" signifies the hotel's proactive commitment to providing an enhanced consumer experience.These assurances convey a sense of benevolence and underline the hotel's determination to go beyond mere apologies by offering tangible solutions.
Fundamentally, the multifaceted strategy of expressing genuine apologies (Bansal & Zahedi, 2015), conveying empathy, paying attention to reviews, and presenting proactive approaches collectively demonstrates benevolence in various dimensions.Through these methods, managers actively seek to instill customer confidence and trustworthiness, in order to contribute to the complex trust repair process.

Repairing Integrity
Hotel managers often engage in trust repair by acknowledging shortcomings and poor service and admitting failures to provide emotional value to customers.Meanwhile, explaining the actual reasons behind negative feedback situations can also be used to demonstrate the hotel's integrity.
(7) Since you booked through a third party that has cancellation policies, we do indeed have to follow these polices, a paper clarification should have been made and we apologized.
(8) It's true that our work is inadequate.
(9) We have checked and in fact there was a mark on the wall above the luggage rock where the rubber on a suitcase seemed to have made a mark.
(10) We apologize for any inconvenience caused and Wi-Fi signal was not up to standard as we have recently made significant changes to our Wi-Fi to provide our guests with a faster and more reliable connection.
The presented five extracts collectively exemplify the repairing of trust by demonstrating integrity.Managers commonly employ expressions that candidly admit mistakes or deficiencies to showcase the hotel's integrity.Instances such as "We have failed", "It's true that our work is inadequate" and "Wi-Fi signal was not up to standard" all underscore the hotel's commitment to transparency, emphasizing its willingness to acknowledge lapses in customer service and exhibiting genuine integrity in recognizing its errors.Furthermore, the nuanced approach extends beyond mere admission of faults.The restoration of trust is also facilitated by providing elucidating explanations for instances of subpar service or detailing the circumstances surrounding a particular service moment.Phrases like "we do indeed" "We have checked" and "we have recently made" are instrumental in not only admitting shortcomings but also in clarifying the rationale behind consumer grievances regarding service or room conditions.
In essence, the dual approach of candidly admitting deficiencies and thoroughly explaining the circumstances constitutes a robust strategy for repairing trust.By emphasizing integrity strongly, the hotel communicates its sincerity in recognizing and rectifying mistakes and its dedication to offering a transparent account of the situation.This multifaceted communication approach of narrative apology is a powerful tool for repairing customer trust (Van Laer & De Ruyter, 2010) by underscoring the hotel's integrity.

Repairing Ability
In addition to the above two methods, responses can demonstrate the hotel's ability by emphasizing the company's services, competencies, skills, and capabilities to meet customer expectations and needs.Consequently, it achieves the function of trust repair.
Extracts 11-15: (11) Please rest assured that we have been providing training to all our colleagues, ensuring their effectiveness and professional performance.
(12) For late checkout, we also offer free access to our gym and pool, and we hope this option could be a good alternative during your next stay.
(14) Besides, our customers can enjoy in-room dining service any time of day.We will prepare sufficient and clean food to satisfy our customers at any time.
(15) The team was well planned in advance to create some special surprises for you both to make the stay extra special.
The presented extracts underscore the repairing of trust by strategically demonstrating the hotel's inherent capabilities.Hotel managers adeptly highlight the company's proficiency in delivering additional services or introducing supplementary offerings, thereby emphasizing the hotels' overall ability.For example, the statement "offers free access to our gym and pool" "enjoy in-room dining service any time of day" and "to satisfy our customers at any time" communicates specific services and showcases the hotel's diverse capabilities, fostering trust repair by accentuating its strengths.Furthermore, hotel managers adopt a proactive approach by presenting customers with alternative solutions, pledging to exceed expectations, and ensuring the delivery of satisfactory services and solutions.Sentences such as "ensuring their effectiveness and professional performance" "strive to exceed expectation 24/7" "prepare sufficient and clean food to satisfy our customers at any time" and "The team was well planned in advance" serve as compelling illustrations of the hotel's multifaceted capabilities.These expressions promote a positive impression of the hotel's abilities (Fuoli & Paradis, 2014), convey the hotel's unwavering commitment to excellence, and position the company as capable and exceptionally reliable in delivering top-tier services.
In essence, the overarching strategy places emphasis on the hotels' services, showcasing their adept problem-solving abilities and skills, as well as their unwavering commitment to meeting and exceeding customer expectations.By communicating this comprehensive narrative of capabilities, the hotels effectively demonstrate their ability to adapt, cater to diverse needs, and ultimately regain the trust of discerning customers.

Repairing Trust in Terms of Different Response Strategies
In what follows, the logic, intention, and strategy of trust repair in responses are fully presented.Also, affective response, informational response, and hybrid response that combine affective and informational responses manifest the use of ability, benevolence, and integrity.Three representative responses were selected to explore how they achieve the overall trust repair function by displaying benevolence, integrity, and ability.

Affective Response
The response is initiated by courteously acknowledging the customer's review and actively addressing the concerns articulated.It then embarks on a thorough investigation into the matter, demonstrating a commitment to assuming responsibility for any identified errors.Following this, the message meticulously outlines specific, proactive measures aimed at averting the recurrence of similar issues in the future.The concluding segment extends a sincere invitation to the customer, inviting them to reconsider their decision to stay at the hotel and highlighting the establishment's unwavering dedication to ensuring an unequivocally positive experience.

Dear xx,
Thank you very much for sharing your review with us.We are sorry to hear that certain aspects of our service did not meet your expectations.I was very concerned to read your comments about the no-show fee.We have reviewed your previous email and checked with our reservation and customer engagement and process transformation (CEPT) teams, and we are sorry for the booking made with the wrong dates and the inconvenience this has caused.
I would like to assure you that this does not reflect our colleagues' normal levels of service standards.We have set very clear expectations and guidelines for our colleagues and we will strengthen training to ensure all service standards are in place and well-organised.You have been generous in extending your comments in terms of our service.This is important for us to consistently improve and deliver the Shangri-La experience each and every time.I hope you still consider staying at xx Hotel, Guangzhou in the future.
We look forward to welcoming you back soon for a new and totally different experience.

xx, xx/ xx
This response mainly focuses on ability and benevolence in trust repair.The response showcases the company's ability to address specific customer concerns, such as the no-show fee issue, and exemplifies a benevolent approach.The hotel's management exhibits proactive problem-solving by reviewing the customer's previous email, consulting relevant teams (including reservation, customer engagement, and process transformation teams), and systematically addressing the problem.This reflects the organization's commitment to investigating and rectifying issues, emphasizing a dedication to improving service standards (Ho, 2019).The empathetic tone of the message, with expressions like "Thank you very much for sharing your review" and "We are sorry to hear that certain aspects of our service did not meet your expectations" underscores a genuine concern for the customer's experience.Acknowledging the inconvenience caused and the importance of customer review further reinforces the hotel's benevolent commitment to continuous improvement and customer satisfaction.
The response also partially demonstrated a restoration of integrity.It maintains integrity by acknowledging the mistake concerning the booking with the wrong dates and taking responsibility for it.The admission of the error and the apology convey transparency and honesty, contributing to the integrity dimension.The commitment to setting clear expectations and guidelines for colleagues and the promise to strengthen training reflect a dedication to maintaining high ethical standards within the organization.
This response aims to repair trust by acknowledging the customer's concerns, addressing the specific issue, taking responsibility for any shortcomings, and outlining concrete steps for improvement.The hotel endeavors to assure the customer that their review is valued and measures are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the issue.The invitation to stay again signals a commitment to regain the customer's trust and provide a better experience in subsequent visits (Weitzl & Hutzinger, 2017).

Informational Response
The response starts with an apology and an explanation of the security procedure, then addresses the specific complaint about the offered compensation.The hotel attempts to clarify misunderstandings and presents a reasoned account of its actions, contributing to a coherent and comprehensive response.
Extract 17: Dear xx, We are sorry that our concern for customers safety was misunderstood.The complaint initiated by your friend was actually that he felt bad being momentarily stopped by our Security to check if he was a registered hotel guest.Our Resident Manager has explained to your friend and three other Guests, including yourself, that this procedure was requested by the local authorities, and we had no other choice than to comply.As your friend was very upset to be politely questioned by security, the guard did not insist, which does not represent any breach to the hotel security as our hotel is also equipped with an advanced security system, which fortunately does not only rely on the random control of the keycards.
We are very surprised to read from your comments that only a coffee and a slice of cake was offered.The fact is that all your party members were offered a complimentary dinner at the hotel, even though only one person was complaining.Our offer was declined as you did request instead a complimentary night for all rooms of your party, which I am sure you will admit was a surprising and disproportionate request.As a commercial gesture, the hotel took anyway the initiative to remove the only meal taken in the hotel from your friend's invoice.We hope this clarifies the situation and we hope you appreciate our high concern in our customers safety.

Best regards, xx, xx/ xx
This response mainly focuses on ability and benevolence in trust repair.The hotel management, aiming to repair trust, emphasizes its ability to ensure customer safety by explaining local authorities' mandated security procedures, stating that "our hotel is also equipped with an advanced security system" and emphasizing compliance with the requested procedure.This aligns with the ability dimension of trust repair, assuring customers of the hotel's competency in adhering to security standards.Simultaneously, the hotel demonstrates benevolence by expressing regret over the misunderstanding of the customer safety concern (Johnen & Schnittka, 2019), adopting an apologetic tone, and offering an explanation for the security check.The hotel exceeds minimum requirements by extending a complimentary dinner to all party members, reflecting genuine concern for customer satisfaction.
The integrity aspect is slightly reflected in the hotel's commitment to transparency.The response provides a detailed account of the situation, explaining the security procedure, the offer to the guests, and the decision to remove the meal charge from the complaining guest's invoice.The hotel aims to build trust and demonstrate its commitment to honesty by providing a clear and transparent account of events.
In the context of a negative review, this response aims to repair trust by explaining the situation, addressing the customer's concerns, and demonstrating the hotel's commitment to customer safety and satisfaction.The hotel aims to rebuild trust by showcasing its ability to handle security matters responsibly, its benevolence in offering compensation, and its integrity through transparent communication about the incident and the subsequent actions taken (Gregoire, 2015).The overall tone is conciliatory, seeking to reconcile the customer's dissatisfaction and maintain a positive relationship.

Hybrid Response
The response commences with an acknowledgment of the guest's recent stay and expressions of gratitude for their valuable feedback.A sincere apology follows, acknowledging the hotel's failure to meet the guest's expectations.Subsequently, the communication predominantly addresses the concerns raised in the review.In summary, the hotel endeavors to repair trust by manifesting genuine concern, showcasing competence in issue resolution, and maintaining a transparent communication approach.
Extract 18: Dear xx, We are delighted to have you stay with us recently.Thank you for taking the time to share your review.While we wish you had a better experience, it's apparent in this case that we fell short.First of all, I would like to say outright that we apologize for not delivering the perfect stay to you and your family recently.There is no doubt that you encountered certain issues which got things off to a bad start and despite our best efforts, we were not able to get things back on track for you both.
For the record, I admit we shall improve our pillow menu to satisfy guests with different needs.But one thing I can ensure you is that all the pillows on the menu are for guest use only.Plus a brand new and fresh pillowcase was provided together with the pillow.The Chinese words you have seen were the label for internal tracking.We have taken your comments seriously and I have shared your review with the concerned departments to ensure these issues do not re-occur We are currently sourcing better quality pillows with different heights and materials the new pillow menu will be implemented very soon.
As for the interior design, you are not keen on the layout and style while the size of the guest rooms is more generous against competitors around.If you give us a chance to earn back your trust, please feel free to contact me and I can assure you will get a complimentary room upgrade for your next visit.We will do our best to give you the great experience that so many of our guests have grown so fond of.Again, thank you for your candid review.it's only with review such as yours we can improve our service and product.I do hope you will give us another opportunity to turn this negative experience into a positive.

Best Regards, xx, xx/ xx
Generally, the opening will state the guest's recent stay and express gratitude for their review.Managers through the way of expressing genuine concern to customers to achieve the purpose of ensuring guest satisfaction.Phrases like "we wish you had a better experience" convey this benevolent desire.Immediately after showing benevolence, the manager starts to repair the integrity by acknowledging the hotel's shortcomings and inadequate services and agreeing with the customer's review.To achieve this purpose, apologizing for falling short is a usual method.For example, phrases like "I admit" and "There is no doubt that" After expressing concern for consumers and sincerely admitting shortcomings and inadequate services, the manager re-established the hotel's image by showing its ability.
The manager delves into specific issues raised in the review, such as problems with the pillow menu and concerns about interior design.The hotel acknowledges these issues and outlines concrete steps to address them, such as improving the pillow menu and sourcing better quality pillows.This demonstrates the hotel's ability to rectify specific problems.The statement includes several instances such as "one thing I can ensure", "do not reoccur", "sourcing better quality pillows" and "will be implemented soon".After replying to the main complaint, the hotel repaired trust by promising customers to upgrade their room for their next visit to demonstrate the hotel's ability further.For example, "get a complimentary room upgrade for your next visit" and "do our best to give you a great experience".Interestingly, the response indirectly shows the hotel's fame: the hotel's high-quality service attracts many loyal customers, implying that they can meet customers' expectations and needs.Therefore, the trustworthiness of the hotel's aftermath actions is strengthened (Fuoli & Paradis, 2014).Sentences like "have grown so fond of" serve this function.All these phrases and sentences convey information that the hotel has enough ability to meet customers' expectations and needs.
While consolidating the hotel's image by demonstrating ability, the response also conveys to consumers that we care about you and every consumer's accommodation experience.Consequently, in the statements used by managers to demonstrate the hotel's abilities, they will occasionally intersperse expressions that contribute to the overall perception that the organization genuinely cares about the guest's satisfaction and is actively working towards creating a positive and trustworthy relationship, such as "we have taken your comments seriously", will be used interspersed in explaining the pillow issue.
In summary, the response effectively incorporates trust repair strategies that address the trust repair functions of ability, benevolence, and integrity.It is found that the response begins with an expression of concern, followed by an apology and an admission of mistakes, that is, benevolence first and then integrity.The central part of the response is to show ability.But it is also interspersed with some expressions of benevolence to promote further the effect of demonstrating ability on trust repair.

Conclusion
This study investigates the trust repair strategies implemented by hotel managers when confronted with allegations of trust violation from dissatisfied customers on TripAdvisor.Previous studies tended to isolate specific trust strategies without considering the comprehensive categorization of trust repair strategies.This study seeks to identify the actual preferences in trust repair strategies employed by hotel management, encompassing not only competence and integrity-based trust but also benevolence-based trust.
This study meticulously adopts discourse analysis to examine responses provided by hotel managers tasked with addressing trust violation accusations from real customers.The findings of this paper disclose that, in responses to online negative reviews, managers primarily rely on affective-based repair strategies through trustworthiness demonstration for trust repair.This implies its significant efficacy in repairing trust based on benevolence, competence, and integrity.The results indicate that employing affective repair strategies such as expressing concern, regret, apologizing, admitting mistakes, and taking responsibility allows hotel management to manage rapport with dissatisfied reviewers and repair trust by showcasing positive symbols and tangible actions.
This study has certain limitations.Firstly, it primarily focuses on TripAdvisor, potentially introducing bias toward specific platforms as users on TripAdvisor may display different commenting behaviors than those on other platforms.Secondly, the selection of the top 20 hotels in Guangzhou may favor larger establishments, overlooking unique online negative review response patterns in smaller hotels.The findings may not fully capture review dynamics across the broader hospitality industry.Moreover, the study is tailored to the hotel service sector and may not universally apply to diverse industries.Lastly, the geographical focus on hotels in Guangzhou means outcomes are influenced by the local environment.To enhance generalizability, future research should broaden the scope to diverse locations and industries.
Future research could broaden its scope by selecting diverse platforms and hotels of varying scales across different cities for investigation.Consumer perceptions and reactions to trust repair strategies could be further explored, facilitating businesses in better understanding and applying these strategies.Additionally, a comparative analysis of trust repair strategies across various service industries could be considered in future studies.Finally, linguistic or pragmatic studies could further explore how particular linguistic resources or pragmatic strategies contribute to trust repair in digital business communication.
publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Based on the above classification criteria, this paper proposes the research framework shown in Figure1.This model aims to help better classify the data and visualize classified numbers.It attempts to explore how each type of response achieves the trustworthiness or actual trust repair effect through benevolence, integrity, and ability.

Figure. 1
Figure. 1 A two-level framework for review response classificationThe model is employed to code and categorize 356 review responses.Initially, adhering to the first-level standard, responses predominantly characterized by affective expressions are classified into category a).The criterion for determining predominance is that affective words or phrases constitute over 50% of the factors related to repair strategies within the entire response.Analogously, all reviews are segmented into categories a) affective responses, b) informational responses, and c) hybrid responses.Subsequently, following the second-level classification standard, responses utilizing distrust regulation for trust repair are categorized into category 1).Similarly, responses aiming for trust repair through the demonstration of trustworthiness fall into category 2).Before initiating the coding process, a pilot coding of 10% of all responses revealed an inter-coder reliability of 95.4%.In cases of inconsistency, consensus was reached through discussions between the two coders.

Table 1 .
Types of responses and their working definitions Responses that primarily reflect informational repair strategies through trustworthiness demonstrationHybrid responsesResponses that combine the two through distrust regulationResponses that combine the two through trustworthiness demonstration

Table 2 .
The results of frequency and percentage of each type of strategy in 356 reviews responses were meticulously classified, revealing a distribution of affective, informational, and hybrid repair strategies based on predefined criteria.The results highlight the dominance of affective responses, comprising 87.92% of the total responses, with a frequency of 313.Notably, almost every response employs affective strategies for trust repair.Informational strategies are present in 12.15% of the responses, and among them, 9.55% combine with affective strategies.