| Literature DB >> 35967506 |
Jiahua Wei1, Minkun Liu2, Wei Li1, Zhiping Hou1, Lei Li1.
Abstract
This study carried out a scenario experiment in Guangxi, China, and used a questionnaire to obtain the research data of the subjects to explore the service recovery effect of local online travel agencies (OTAs) from the perspective of consumer psychology. The empirical results show that consumer confusion will significantly worsen negative word-of-mouth, and negative word-of-mouth will reduce their repurchase intention. In the above empirical impact relationship research, it shows that negative word-of-mouth and consumer forgiveness play a mediating effect and a moderating effect respectively. Because this study is conducive to responding to and solving the new scenario and problems in the practice of OTA services. It will help to improve the risk resistance of OTA enterprises by providing effective service recovery strategies for these enterprises.Entities:
Keywords: Consumer confusion; Consumer forgiveness; Consumer repurchase intention; Negative word-of-mouth; OTA
Year: 2022 PMID: 35967506 PMCID: PMC9362697 DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-03540-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Psychol ISSN: 1046-1310
Fig. 1Research model diagram
Sources of measurement items of 4 variables
| Variables | Sources of measurement items | Set the number of items |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer confusion | Walsh et al. ( | 5 |
| Negative word-of-mouth | Zhang and Kong ( | 5 |
| Consumer forgiveness | Lee and Cun ( | 4 |
| Consumer repurchase intention | Qi and Zhang ( | 4 |
Sample statistics of scenario experiment
| Demographic characteristics | Category | Sample size | Percentage | Demographic characteristics | Category | Sample size | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 167 | 48.69% | Education | Secondary school and below | 124 | 36.15% |
| Female | 176 | 51.31% | College degree | 108 | 32.34% | ||
| Region | Guilin | 107 | 31.20% | Bachelor | 89 | 25.95% | |
| Laibin | 76 | 22.16% | Master and doctor | 22 | 6.41% | ||
| Liuzhou | 74 | 21.57% | Occupation | Enterprise staff | 74 | 21.57% | |
| Zhongshan | 39 | 11.37% | Professional | 63 | 18.37% | ||
| Zhaoping | 47 | 13.70% | Self-employed person | 59 | 17.20% | ||
| Age | Under 25 years | 88 | 25.66% | Civil service staff | 17 | 4.96% | |
| 26–35 years | 107 | 31.20% | Studen | 29 | 8.45% | ||
| 36–59 years | 116 | 33.82% | Farmer | 86 | 25.07% | ||
| Over 60 years | 32 | 9.33% | Other | 15 | 4.37% |
Test results of reliability and convergent validity of research data
| Variable name | items | Normalized load factor | T | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer confusion | 1. I am confused about service failure | 0.773 | 5.121 | |||
| 2. I am confused about the way of service recovery | 0.828 | 4.741 | ||||
| 3. I am confused about the attitude of the service staff | 0.696 | 3.923 | 0.774 | 0.877 | 0.588 | |
| 4. I am confused about the effect of service recovery | 0.814 | 4.784 | ||||
| 5. I am confused about the environment of service recovery | 0.717 | 2.907 | ||||
| Negative word-of-mouth | 6. I made a negative comment | 0.813 | 2.412 | |||
| 7. Many consumers made negative comments | 0.786 | 3.506 | ||||
| 8. Many consumers are discussing negative comments | 0.856 | 6.704 | 0.838 | 0.907 | 0.661 | |
| 9. Negative comments expressed dissatisfaction with the OTA | 0.788 | 5.578 | ||||
| 10. There are more negative comments than positive comments | 0.853 | 2.876 | ||||
| Consumer forgiveness | 11. I understand the failure of this service | 0.764 | 6.915 | |||
| 12. Service recovery promotes my willingness to forgive | 0.809 | 5.987 | ||||
| 13. I accepted the apology from OTA and the hotel | 0.712 | 2.823 | 0.783 | 0.847 | 0.582 | |
| 14. I forgave OTA and the hotel | 0.759 | 4.956 | ||||
| Consumer repurchase intention | 15. I will continue to book services at this OTA | 0.792 | 3.667 | |||
| 16. I will recommend this OTA to the people around me | 0.881 | 4.053 | ||||
| 17. I would like to be a loyal customer | 0.887 | 6.279 | 0.869 | 0.926 | 0.758 | |
| 18. I trust the OTA more | 0.918 | 8.673 |
Discriminant validity test of research data
| Variable name | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Consumer confusion | 0.767 | |||
| 2 Negative word-of-mouth | 0.593 | 0.813 | ||
| 3. Consumer forgiveness | -0.332 | 0.429 | 0.763 | |
| 4. Consumer repurchase intention | - 0.575 | -0.601 | 0.572 | 0.871 |
Construction validity test of research data
| Fitting index of the model | χ2 | df | χ2 /df | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Index value | 275.087 | 91 | 3.022 | 0.941 | 0.938 | 0.040 | 0.061 |
Multilevel regression statistics
| Variable | Negative word-of-mouth | Consumer repurchase intention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
| Intercept | 2.713** | 2.967* | 3.408* | 3.745** | 3.264** |
| Control variables | |||||
| Gender | 0.091 | -0.129 | 0.078 | 0.104 | 0.082 |
| Region | 0.079 | -0.047 | -0.094 | -0.108 | -0.134 |
| Age | 0.114 | 0.107 | 0.132 | 0.122 | 0.116 |
| Education | -0.135 | -0.124 | -0.029 | -0.035 | 0.137 |
| Occupation | 0.021 | 0.039 | 0.003 | -0.019 | -0.014 |
| Independent variable | |||||
| Consumer confusion | 0.614* | ||||
| Negative word-of-mouth | -0.778* | ||||
| Moderating variables | |||||
| Consumer forgivenes | 0.507** | ||||
| Interaction item | |||||
| Negative word-of mouth × Consumer forgivenes | 0.239** | ||||
| R2 | 0.486 | 0.247 | 0.326 | 0.332 | 0.505 |
| ΔR2 | 0.081 | 0.059 | 0.103 | ||
| F | 2.772* | 3.703** | 3.076** | 3.128* | 5.931* |
*, * * and * * * are statistically significant at 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively
Fig. 2Diagram of variable moderating effect
Fitting index of two models
| Model | χ2 | df | χ2 /df | NNFI | AGFI | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chain mediating model | 48.926 | 17 | 2.878 | 0.947 | 0.918 | 0.931 | 0.921 | 0.040 | 0.071 |
| Competition model | 113.069 | 18 | 6.282 | 0.809 | 0.831 | 0.759 | 0.804 | 0.067 | 0.122 |
Test results of chain mediated effect
| Path and total effect | Indirect effect value | Standard error | Upper limit | Lower limit | Percentage of effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer confusion → negative word of mouth → consumer repurchase intention | -0.244 | 0.023 | -0.083 | -0.409 | 41.36% |
| Total effect | 0.597 | 0.009 | 0.728 | 0.303 | 100% |