## 4 Results and Discussion
### Results and Discussions of Attribute Bidirectional Performance
#### 4.3.2 Comparative Analysis of Attributes' Bidirectional Performance
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Hotel Star** \\ **Rating** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sentiment** \\ **Values** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Value** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Location** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Service** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Room** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Cleanliness** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sleep Quality** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Two-star and \\ below \\ \end{tabular} } & Negative & \(-\)44,402.05 & \(-\)77,480.13 & \(-\)34,111.69 & \(-\)113,060.25 & \(-\)88,818.79 & \(-\)7304.89 & \(-\)60,862.97 \\  & Positive & 75,603.2 & 141,847.69 & 60,384.86 & 136,324.38 & 147,678.6 & 5874.08 & 94,618.8 \\  & Overall & 15,868.76 & 35,830.05 & 17,723.35 & 9693.39 & 31,797.07 & 490.12 & 18,567.12 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Three-star \\ Overall \\ \end{tabular} } & Negative & \(-\)157,906.9 & \(-\)277,368.47 & \(-\)119,342.87 & \(-\)37,1405.85 & \(-\)318,294 & \(-\)43,190.77 & \(-\)214,584.81 \\  & Positive & 369,114.39 & 770,692.72 & 294,129.77 & 606,484.11 & 77,275.48 & 65,084.39 & 469,943.38 \\  & Overall & 84,434.11 & 205,247.57 & 90,848.91 & 96,265.25 & 238,943.17 & 12,081.31 & 121,217.88 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Four-star \\ Overall \\ \end{tabular} } & Negative & \(-\)102,202.45 & \(-\)242,558.76 & \(-\)192,196.55 & \(-\)409,184.1 & \(-\)364,975.08 & \(-\)46,462.47 & \(-\)226,263.23 \\  & Positive & 296,090.96 & 931,501.55 & 630,134.85 & 1,058,169.12 & 1,384,338.72 & 81,519.98 & 730,292.53 \\  & Overall & 92,485.82 & 352,708.09 & 244,041.18 & 362,762.47 & 622,552.97 & 18,611.68 & 282,193.7 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Five-star \\ Overall \\ \end{tabular} } & Negative & \(-\)13,991.48 & \(-\)48,218.33 & \(-\)32,808.41 & \(-\)70,719.73 & \(-\)63,615.54 & \(-\)10,346.97 & \(-\)39,950.08 \\  & Positive & 47,803.81 & 369,732.22 & 263,145.74 & 358,219.8 & 482,105.65 & 62,616.95 & 263,937.36 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Overall & 14,494.87 & 164,098.46 & 128,769.04 & 169,039.22 & 274,199.1 & 28,743.64 & 129,890.72 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: The negative, positive and overall sentiment values of each attribute according to the hotel star ratings. high-star (four-star and five-star) hotels does not cause as many complaints as in low-star (three-star and below) hotels, and good performance brings less satisfaction for customers of high-star hotels. This finding is consistent with common sense that customers who choose low-star hotels lay greater emphasis on value for money [108], and customers in high-star hotels may take it for granted when value performs well because they spend more [10]. On the contrary, for service, good/poor performance contributes markedly more to high/low customer ratings in high-star hotels than in low-star hotels. The results show the same finding as earlier studies which showed that the effect of service's poor performance on customer dissatisfaction increases with the improvement of hotel level and luxury (i.e., four-five-star ratings) hotel customers emphasize good service [10,21]. Moreover, it is observed that the good performance of sleep quality has the potential to be the incentive for high customer ratings in five-star hotels. By comparing the lines in Figures 5 and 6 for one certain attribute, it can be found that the impact of the bidirectional performance concerning one attribute on high/low customer ratings is different. For room and sleep quality, the effect of their poor performance on low customer ratings is stronger than the effect of their good performance on high customer ratings. On the contrary, for cleanliness, location and service, the effect of their good performance on high customer ratings is stronger than the effect of their poor performance on high customer ratings.