| Literature DB >> 33066245 |
Jinkyung Jenny Kim1, Myong Jae Lee2, Heesup Han3.
Abstract
Many recent studies with the topic of innovative technologies have been executed in the viewpoint of adoption/readiness of one specific cutting-edge technology in the hospitality industry. Unlike with the existing studies, the present research comprehensively dealt with consumers' perceived performance of a smart hotel and explored its influence on the formation of attitude and word-of-mouth intention. Furthermore, this study encompassed drivers of technology readiness (optimism and innovativeness) as critical moderators. Our analysis results confirmed that the perceived performance of a smart hotel is essential in generating individuals' favorable attitudes and positive word-of-mouth intentions. The moderating roles of optimism and innovativeness were also found in the link between perceived performance and attitude. Theoretical value and managerial contributions were discussed through unpinning the structural relationships among study variables in the smart hotel context.Entities:
Keywords: attitude; innovativeness; optimism; perceived performance; smart hotel; sustainable consumer behavior; technology advancement; technology readiness; word-of-mouth intention
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33066245 PMCID: PMC7602077 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207455
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Proposed conceptual model. Note: H = hypothesis.
Summary of the confirmatory factor analysis results.
| Construct and Scale Items | Loadings | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Efficiency (AVE: 0.618; CR: 0.866) | |||
| A smart hotel would enable me to enjoy products and services more efficiently | 0.880 | 4.2862 | 1.6820 |
| A smart hotel would enable me to request and receive products/services without spending much time | 0.897 | 4.5866 | 1.5421 |
| A smart hotel would enable me to request and receive products/services without much effort | 0.921 | 4.6926 | 1.5915 |
| High-technology products and services employed at a smart hotel would improve efficiency of my stay | 0.908 | 4.3958 | 1.7419 |
| Ease of use (AVE: 0.572; CR: 0.842) | |||
| It looks easy to use high-technology products and services employed at a smart hotel | 0.873 | 4.4240 | 1.5790 |
| I would go through a simple process to operate the high-technology products and services employed at a smart hotel | 0.920 | 4.4700 | 1.6095 |
| Interactions with advanced technologies (e.g., AI speaker) and robots available at a smart hotel seem to be clear and understandable | 0.866 | 4.3251 | 1.6482 |
| It does not seem to be difficult to interact with advanced technologies and robots available at a smart hotel | 0.857 | 4.4417 | 1.5798 |
| Reliability (AVE: 0.554; CR: 0.832) | |||
| High-technology products and services provided at a smart hotel would be reliable | 0.890 | 4.3498 | 1.5163 |
| Using high-technology products and services provided at a smart hotel, I would get just what I wanted | 0.942 | 4.3922 | 1.5906 |
| Advanced technologies and robots employed at a smart hotel would not result in errors | 0.803 | 3.8940 | 1.6894 |
| High technologies employed at a smart hotel would reduce mistakes that generally occurred by the human | 0.852 | 4.1307 | 1.6003 |
| Convenience (AVE: 0.677; CR: 0.893) | |||
| A smart hotel would enable me to request and receive products/services conveniently | 0.932 | 4.6714 | 1.5350 |
| A smart hotel would enable me to be connected for assistance with no regard to time and place | 0.882 | 4.7350 | 1.5078 |
| Advanced technologies and robots employed at a smart hotel would offer the benefits of convenience | 0.925 | 4.5830 | 1.6230 |
| High-technology products and services available at a smart hotel seem to be convenient | 0.916 | 4.6219 | 1.5873 |
| Control (AVE: 0.603; CR: 0.859) | |||
| High technologies available at a smart hotel would enable me to hold a lot of control over requesting and receiving products/services that I want | 0.891 | 4.5230 | 1.5740 |
| High technologies available at a smart hotel would enable me to hold a lot of control over requesting and receiving products/services regardless time and place | 0.893 | 4.5830 | 1.5446 |
| High technologies available at a smart hotel would give me more control to process a check-in/out | 0.904 | 4.7279 | 1.6068 |
| I would feel more in control using high technologies provided at a smart hotel | 0.886 | 4.2367 | 1.7085 |
| Attitude | |||
| For me, staying at a smart hotel is … | |||
| Bad—Good | 0.956 | 4.9443 | 1.8802 |
| Unfavorable—Favorable | 0.961 | 4.7931 | 1.9319 |
| Negative—Positive | 0.945 | 4.8921 | 1.9114 |
| Foolish—Wise | 0.909 | 4.8068 | 1.8430 |
| Unpleasant—Pleasant | 0.954 | 4.9525 | 1.8640 |
| Word-of-mouth intention | |||
| I am likely to say positive things about a smart hotel to others | 0.905 | 3.8834 | 1.6834 |
| I am likely to recommend a smart hotel to others | 0.964 | 3.8163 | 1.7202 |
| I am likely to encourage others to stay at a smart hotel | 0.940 | 3.7739 | 1.7560 |
| Optimism | |||
| High-technology products and services at a smart hotel would give me more control over my hotel experience | 0.902 | 4.3922 | 1.6215 |
| Advanced technologies and robots at a smart hotel would enable a more efficient experience with products and services that I looked for | 0.927 | 4.3640 | 1.6238 |
| Products and services that use advanced technologies at a smart hotel would be much more convenient to use | 0.902 | 4.4488 | 1.6567 |
| Innovativeness | |||
| Others would come to me for advice on high-technology products and services available at a smart hotel | 0.873 | 3.7986 | 1.8808 |
| I would have fewer problems than others in making technology work at a smart hotel | 0.904 | 4.1484 | 1.7942 |
| I keep up with the latest technological development that I am interested in | 0.889 | 4.1484 | 1.9054 |
| Goodness-of-fit statistics: | |||
Note 1: AVE = average variance extracted, CR = composite reliability. Note 2: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, NFI = normed fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.
Descriptive statistics of the constructs and correlations.
| Variables | Mean (SD) | AVE | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Perceived performance | 4.4535 (1.3846) | 0.835 | 0.962 a | 0.779 b | 0.741 | 0.899 | 0.641 |
| (2) Attitude | 4.8776 (1.8041) | 0.705 | 0.607 c | 0.923 | 0.830 | 0.769 | 0.694 |
| (3) WOM intention | 3.8245 (1.6456) | 0.710 | 0.549 | 0.689 | 0.880 | 0.755 | 0.685 |
| (4) Optimism | 4.4016 (1.5365) | 0.645 | 0.808 | 0.591 | 0.570 | 0.845 | 0.643 |
| (5) Innovativeness | 4.0318 (1.7244) | 0.521 | 0.411 | 0.482 | 0.469 | 0.413 | 0.765 |
Note 1: a Composite reliabilities are along the diagonal, b Correlations are above the diagonal, c Squared correlations are below the diagonal Note 2: SD = standard deviation, AVE = average variance extracted.
Result of the structural model evaluation.
| Hypotheses | Path | Coefficients | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1 | Perceived performance→Attitude | 0.799 | 16.683 ** | Supported |
| Hypothesis 2 | Attitude→WOM intention | 0.858 | 19.797 ** | Supported |
Total variance explained. R2 for attitude = 0.639; R2 for WOM intention = 0.735. Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 935.365, df = 335, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.792, RMSEA = 0.080, CFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.947, NFI = 0.920, TLI = 0.940. Note: ** p < 0.001. Note1. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, NFI = normed fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.
Results for the moderating role of optimism.
| Path | Low Group | High Group | Baseline Model | Nested Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t-Value | β | t-Value | |||
| PP—ATT | 0.641 | 6.947 ** | 0.652 | 8.986 ** | ||
| ATT—WOM intention | 0.822 | 8.260 ** | 0.712 | 10.976 ** | ||
Chi-square difference test: a Δχ2 (1) = 6.926, p < 0.01 (H3a—supported), b Δχ2 (1) = 0.065, p > 0.05 (H3c—not supported). Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 1578.288, df = 670, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.254, RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.905, IFI = 0.906, NFI = 0.843, TLI = 0.893. Note 1: PP = perceived performance, ATT = attitude. Note 2: ** p< 0.001. Note1. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, NFI = normed fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.
Results for the moderating role of innovativeness.
| Path | Low Group | High Group | Baseline Model | Nested Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t-Value | β | t-Value | |||
| PP—ATT | 0.667 | 8.100 ** | 0.753 | 10.560 ** | ||
| ATT—WOM intention | 0.789 | 10.014 ** | 0.775 | 11.406 ** | ||
Chi-square difference test: a Δχ2 (1) = 6.437, p < 0.05 (H4a—supported), b Δχ2 (1) = 0.408, p > 0.05 (H4b—not supported). Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 1553.886, df = 670, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.319, RMSEA = 0.069, CFI = 0.910, IFI = 0.911, NFI = 0.853, TLI = 0.899. Note 1: PP = perceived performance, ATT = attitude, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, NFI = normed fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. Note 2: ** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Standardized theoretical path coefficients. Note 1: L = low level, H = high level. Note 2: ** p < 0.001.