{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039821264292285455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02391904323827047, 'mean_word_length': 5.262825788751715, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 10, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigating the Relative Impacts of Distributive, Procedural and Interactional justice on Affective Organizational Commitment in the Egyptian Hotel Industry

Drawing on the social exchange theory, this paper investigated the relationships between employees' affective organizational commitment (AOC) and their perceptions of the three forms of organizational justice (distributive justice [DJ], procedural justice [PJ] and interactional justice [IJ]) in the hospitality context. Moreover, the current paper tested the relative impacts of these three forms on AOC. With a sample of 322 Luxor hotels' employees using confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regression analyses, the results revealed that the three forms of organizational justice have significantly positive effects on AOC. The results also found that the impact's powers of the three forms on AOC are significantly different indicating that PJ has the strongest effect on AOC while IJ has the lowest impact. These findings led to several theoretical and managerial implications and future research.

interactional justice in the previous investigations (López-Cabarcos, Machado-Lopes-Sampaio-de Pinho, and Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2015a). Also, there exists a lack of research in testing and differentiating the strength of associations between the three dimensions of organizational and AOC. The aim of this paper is to fill the existed research gap through (1) investigating the associations between hotels' employee AOC and their perceptions of organizational justice's dimensions, and (2) discovering which dimension of organizational justice is more predictive of AOC in the hotel industry in Luxor city, Egypt; across comparing the strength of relationships between AOC, and each form of organizational justice (PJ, DJ, and IJ). The current paper seeks to develop much more knowledge about organizational justice and organizational commitment in the hospitality industry. Based on the outcomes of the current study, further theoretical and practical implications will be derived, as well as some future research directions will be suggested.

Literature review and hypotheses
Social exchange theory (SET) which was described by (Blau, 1964: 91-92) as "the voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others" also was adopted to develop the current hypotheses. In the work settings, SET indicates that when employees expect some positive or negative future returns from employers, they tend to do a favor or revenge for them. SET is, thus, based on a long-term exchange of favors or revenge which produces reciprocations between employees and employers. Therefore, SET (Cook, Cheshire, Rice, and Nakagawa, 2013;Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) can deliver the conceptual support of research on employees' attitudes and behaviors because enhancing the favorable relationships between employers and their employees depend on what extent benefits or favors received by employees from their employers. However, some scholars have reported that the different forms of organizational justice are critical for forming the individuals' affective commitment (Wu and Wang, 2008), very rare hospitality studies have conducted this kind of research. It was found that when organizations treat their employees fairly, the employees tend to develop and maintain favorable relationships with their organization as well as, they will show higher levels of job satisfaction, trust and commitment than they receive unfair treatment (Kim, 2009). In non-hospitality research, previous study focused on the impact of organization justice perceptions on employee attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng, 2001). This study revealed that organization justice has significant strong influences on both employees' attitudes (e.g., organization commitment, turnover intentions and job satisfaction) and behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior and absenteeism). Also, prior work had presented that when employees exhibit higher levels of organizational commitment, they perceive high levels of justice (Lowe and Vodanovich, 1995;Meyer et al., 2002;Moorman et al., 1993). As it was highlighted by Meyer and Allen (1991), individuals with affective commitment desire to emotionally involve in, identify with and attach themselves to the employer. Drawing on SET, Ambrose andSchminke (2009), andWayne, Shore, Bommer, andTetrick (2002) individuals show a higher level of organizational commitment due to a higher level of justice they received from employer or organization, while they present a lower level of organizational commitment due to a lower level of justice they received. Accordingly, the current study hypotheses that: H1: The three forms of organizational justice (DJ -PJ -IJ) have positive impacts on employee AOC. Yet, much prior work had focused on studying the three types of organizational commitment (affective, continues and normative) through only the influence of distributive and procedural forms, while other researchers were unable to differentiate the different strong influences of these forms on AOC (Chai-Amonphaisal and Ussahawanitchakit, 2008;Klendauer and Deller, 2009). Exiting debates among scholars around which DJ or PJ has stronger impact on AOC, some studies had highlighted that DJ has a higher impact on AOC (Clay-Warner, Reynolds, and Roman, 2005;Farmer et al., 2003), adding to the complexity, other studies revealed that PJ has a stronger effect on AOC (Haque, Chowdhury, and Ali, 2010;Harvey and Haines Iii, 2005;López-Cabarcos, Machado-Lopes-Sampaio-de Pinho, and Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2015b). According to the researchers' knowledge, no studies have investigated the different strong effect of the three forms organizational justice on AOC especially in the hospitality context. The current study suggests that PJ has a greater impact on employee AOC than both DJ and IJ because employees perceive DJ as the fairness of organizational outcomes; DJ is concerned with the 'ends' while they perceive procedural justice as the fairness of the process by which distributive organizational outcomes are allocated or organizational decisions are made; it is concerned with the 'means' (Greenberg, 1990;Hegtvedt and Markovsky, 1995;Lambert et al., 2007). According to Lind and Tyler (1988), the distribution of organizational outcomes does not indicate or justify the process/mean by which it is allocated. Also, it was found that however employees receive favorable or unfavorable organizational outcomes, their perceptions of PJ are very important for perceiving organizational justice as the reasons used to distribute organizational outcomes are justified and clear (Landy, Barnes-Farrell, and Cleveland, 1980). Additionally, Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland (2007), and Jiang et al. (2017) suggested that PJ may be more associated with employees' beliefs and attitudes regarding the organization as a whole. Finally, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), and Lind and Tyler (1988) reported that PJ is likely to be the most important predictor of organizational justice perception. This argument leads the study to suppose that: H2: PJ has a greater influence on AOC than DJ. While the discussion regarding the more predictive of AOC between PJ and DJ was conducted (e.g., Farmer, Beehr, and Love, 2003) there is a lack of discussion comparing between IJ and PJ as well as between PJ and DJ as which one is more predictive of AOC. Whereas both PJ and DJ are focused on organization-employee relationship, on the other hand, IJ is concentrated on the interpersonal relationship between managers and their subordinates as another aspect of organizational justice such as employees' perception of politeness, respect , and honesty from the management (Bies and Moag., 1986;Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). In past literature, it was debated that interactional justice is more determined by the interpersonal behavior of managers and less determined by the organizational behavior, contrast, both PJ and DJ are more determined by the organizational behavior and less determined by the managers' behaviors. Thus, this discussion supports the present study to suggest that PJ and DJ are more predictive of organizational commitment than interactional justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). H3: PJ has a greater influence on AOC than IJ. H4: DJ has a greater influence on AOC than IJ. Methodology Procedure and samples Luxor hotels' employees were the target population of the present study. Thus, hotel general managers and human resource managers were contacted from 11 hotels (4 of four-star hotels and 7 of five-star hotels) reflecting the whole four and five-star hotels located in the Luxor city (Egyptian Hotel Association, 2020). The number of hotels that accepted the participation in the study is 8 hotels (3 of four-star hotels and 5 of five-star hotels). The survey questionnaire was used to test the four hypotheses including four constructs -the three organizational justice forms and affective organizational commitment -in the suggested model. The survey is self-reported questionnaire which responded by hotels' employees from five and four-star hotels in Luxor, Egypt. The original questionnaires items were taken from English sources, and to follow Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike's (1973) technique, two bilingual academics translated the questionnaire to Arabic and translated it back to English. The backtranslation process ensured that the translation was proper including a minor revision. The questionnaire item measurement scales were adopted from previous studies which indicated the validity of these items. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part included four constructs, namely, DJ, PJ, IJ and AOC. The three forms of organizational justice constructs were measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree), while AOC construct was measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). The second part included demographic information such as gender, tenure, age and education. The questionnaires were coded with an identification number, as well as each set of questionnaire has a cover letter indicating the aim of the research and mentioning that the employees' responses will be kept confidential. The first author submitted the employees' questionnaires were submitted to the HRMs for employees' survey distribution. The employees mailed the responded questionnaires to the first author's address using self-addressed pre-stamped envelopes. The questionnaires were randomly submitted to 400 employees which exceeded the perfect sample number (384) according to Sekaran and Bougie (2016), and 367 of them returned their questionnaires with a response rate of 91.75%. After excluding the incomplete answers, the valid set for analysis is 322 (80.5%). Of the 322 participants, most participants were male (66.1%), almost 70% of participants were 31 years or older, only 4% had been recruited by the hotel for less than one year, and 56.3% has a bachelor's degree and higher.

Measurements
The items of the three forms of organizational justice were adopted from Colquitt (2001). In the current study, distributive justice's items are 4 items and the value for Cronbach's alpha is 0.855. For procedural justice, 7 items were used and the value for Cronbach's alpha is 0.909. While interactional justice has 4 items with 0.808 Cronbach's alpha. Meanwhile, the effective organizational commitment 's items that have 6 items adopted from Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) have been utilized in , and Alkathiri, Khalifa, Abuelhassan, Isaac, and Alrajawi (2019) studies show 0.882 Cronbach's alpha in the present study. Following Jiang et al. (2017), and Mathieu and Zajac's (1990) recommendation, age, gender, educational level and organizational tenure were used as controlling variables because they may influence affective organizational commitment.

Analysis
The measurement theory needs Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as a method that is utilized to ensure or reject it (Alkutbi, Alrajawy, Nusari, Khalifa, and Abuelhassan, 2019;Alsaadi, Abuelhassan, Khalifa, Ameen, and Nusari, 2019;Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson, 2010). With Maximum likelihood, the SPSS AMOS 25 software was employed to investigate CFA to ensure the construct validity and measure the fitness of the proposed model. Furthermore, the SPSS 25 was used to test the current hypotheses. For the hypotheses 2, 3, 4, the relative impacts of DJ, PJ and IJ on AOC were measured. This software also was used to calculate the amount of unique variance in affective organizational commitment explained by DJ, PJ and IJ.

Construct validity
The correlations, means, and standard deviations, among the constructs are showed in Table 2. The results present AOC to be significantly correlated with the three forms of organizational justice. Additionally, a variance inflation factors (VIF) test was performed. The VIF values are less than 5 ranging from 1.23 to 1.26 to indicate that the current study is free of multicollinearity issue. For construct validity, firstly, the CFA was carried out to assess the measurement model revealing a good fit (χ 2 /df= 1.20; CFI=0.99; GFI=0.94; AGFI= 0.92; NFI=0.94; NFI=0.94; IFI=0.99; TLI=0.999; RMSEA=0.03) see Fig 1. Secondly, the convergent validity was measured by the loading factor, the composite reliabilities (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE). In Table 3, the factor loadings of all constructs' items were significant (p<0.001) ranging from 0.67 to 0.86 in the acceptable limits. Also, the CR values of all constructs are higher than 0.60 ranging from 0.81 (interactional justice) to 0.91(procedural justice), as well as, the AVE values of them are greater than 0.50 ranging from 0.51 (interactional justice) to 0.60 (distributive justice), thus, the results of loading factors, CR, AVE' values ensure the convergent validity (Alharthi, Khalifa, Abuelhassan, Nusari, and Isaac, 2019;Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Thirdly, in Table 2, the AVE value of each construct is greater than the squared correlation coefficient with other constructs highlighting that all the study constructs are distinct, thus, the discriminant validity is ensured (Alsaadi, Khalifa, Abuelhassan, Alrajawi, and Ibrhim, 2019;Alshehhi, Abuelhassan, and Bhaumik, 2019;Alshehhi, Abuelhassan, and Nusari, 2019;Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As the respondents of the study survey were from one single source (employees), therefore, the challenge of common method bias (CMB) might exist. Harman's one factor test was utilized and the results indicated that the first factor explained a variance is 35.23 %less than 50%, accordingly, this study is free of CMB issue (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).

Hypotheses test
In the current study, the R-square value (0.414) reveals that the three forms of organizational justice determine an adequate variance in AOC. The results in Table 4 indicate that the associations between AOC with DJ (β = 0.262, t = 5.347, p < 0.001), PJ (β = 0.354, t = 7.361, p < 0.001) and IJ (β = 0.196, t = 4.040, p < 0.001) are significantly positive, supporting H1. Also, in Table 4, the effect of PJ (β = 0.35) on AOC is higher than DJ's effect (β = 0.26). Additionally, the corresponding amount of unique variance in AOC explained by PJ and DJ is 1.41% (p < 0.001) and 0.96% (p < 0.001), supporting H2. In Hypothesis 3, PJ (compared with IJ) has a higher influence on AOC (0.35 vs. 0.20). Moreover, the unique variance values in AOC explained by IJ and PJ are 1.59% (p < 0.001) and 0.66% (p < 0.001), supporting H3. Finally, DJ (compared with IJ) has a greater impact on AOC (0.26 vs. 0.20). As well as, the corresponding amount of unique variance in AOC explained by DJ and IJ is 1.16% (p < 0.001) and 0.68% (p < 0.001), supporting H4. The values of standardized regression coefficient and the unique variance can be seen in Table 4.

Discussion and implications
To achieve a competitive advantage, progress, and sustainability in the hotel industry, organizations have to pay more attention to employee AOC, as it was found that AOC has great impacts on employees' turnover intention (Alkhateri et al., 2018), service quality (Dhar, 2015) and performance (Alshehhi, Abuelhassan, and Bhaumik, 2019). Drawn on social exchange theory (SET), the current study contributes to the hospitality industry literature through investigating the effect of the three forms of organizational justice (DJ, PJ, and IJ) on AOC. The findings found that all these three forms have significant impacts on AOC in the Egyptian hospitality industry. Existing debate around the significant impacts of the two forms of organizational justice (DJ and PJ) on AOC is influenced by different cultures (Jiang et al., 2017). Furthermore, in the Portugal Hotel Industry, it was found that both DJ and IJ have no significant effect on AOC (López-Cabarcos et al., 2015). The current findings agree with the previous studies that the three different forms of organizational justice have important impacts on AOC (Crow, Lee, and Joo, 2012;Müller and Djuatio, 2011;Swalhi, Zgoulli, and Hofaidhllaoui, 2017). SET is the prevalent way of clarifying the association between employees and their organization (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). In the work environment, SET is a type of reciprocal satisfaction exchange between an organization and its employees and the development of reciprocity under a popularized ethical criterion, which means that organizational fairness is seen as a substantial source of reciprocity (Greenberg, 1990). Accordingly, when organizations present their goodwill (justice) towards their individuals, like a good act in return, a positive obligation will be created from the individuals towards their organizations (Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen, 2002;Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). One way to explicate these findings is to note that DJ or PJ are two types in which employees can judge the organizations' fairness through the fairness of organizations' outcomes distribution and the procedures by which these outcomes are made that ultimately influence the employees' AOC (Poon, 2012), as well as, these employees are considering the fairness of supervisors through fair interpersonal treatment as another facet of organizational justice because the supervisors/ managers represent as agent of the organization in implementing the organizational fairness and support (Li, 2014), hence, interactional justice can positively and significantly predict AOC (Farndale, Van Ruiten, Kelliher, and Hope-Hailey, 2011). Thus, favorable and fair treatment employees receive from their supervisors influences their affective commitment towards their organization. Finally, very little research directly compares the distinct impacts of different forms of justice on AOC in the hospitality industry (e.g., López-Cabarcos et al., 2015). Another major contribution in the present study is to differentiate the different power impact of organizational justice's forms on AOC. The findings reveal that PJ has more power on AOC than DJ. However, DJ as the fair sharing of organizational resources is very important for building a good relationship between organizations and employees (Cropanzano et al., 2007), the feeling of equity does not rely only on organizational rewards' distributions but also and, far much significant, on the means and methods applied to make these distributions (Swalhi et al., 2017). The findings also find that and IJ has a lower impact on AOC than PJ and DJ. However, the significant effect of IJ on AOC in the current findings go along with several authors who mentioned that IJ is a more leaderemployee relationship than an organization-employee relationship. It was supposed that IJas interpersonal and informational justice such as politeness, honesty, respect, and a timely response and equity of given information (Colquitt, 2001) -evaluates the fairness of a manager / supervisor and both DJ and PJ measures the fairness of an organization (Folger and Cropanzano, 2001). With the evidence of the Egyptian hospitality context, the results of this study validate, support and generalize the applicability of prior works highlighted the social exchange-based effects of justice in such a way that the different forms of organizational justice have a great impact on AOC. Thus, drawing on these results, hotels' top management is suggested to review their organizational justice practices and draft them in such a way that they positively influence the levels of employee AOC, to achieve favorable organizational outcomes such as increasing performance and competitive advantages, and declining employee turnover intention. The hotels' top management and human resource directors (HRDs) should consider that PJ has the greatest effect on AOC among organizational justice's forms. Hotels' HRDs should review and ensure the processes by which hotels' training programs, promotion, performance appraisal, recruitment, and other human resources department's practices are achieved in a highly fair manner. Also, DJ should be highly appreciated by the top management as an important justice form influencing employees' commitment. Hotels' employees need to feel that the hotels' resources (e.g., rewards, compensations, and other benefits) are distributed fairly based on equitable criteria including employee effort or performance in order to reciprocate to their hotels with a high obligation. Although IJ has the lowest effect among organizational justice's forms, still has a significant impact on employee commitment. The findings detect that to exchange emotional commitment from the employees to their hotels; these employees require receiving adequate respect and dignity from their supervisors/managers along with receiving enough information and rationale for the decisions made.

Limitations and directions for future research
Like much research on organizational behavior, the current study was limited by investigating the impact of organizational justice on affective commitment. For future research, the researchers suggest linking organizational behavior research (e.g., organizational justice) to market research (e.g., service quality) through the mediating role of affective commitment as a great predictor of service quality. The findings provided evidence from the Egyptian hospitality perspective that procedural justice has a higher effect on affective commitment than distributive and interactional justice; meanwhile, the latter has the lowest impact. For generalization, these results can be tested in another industry and geographical location.