Multiple mediating effects in the association between hotels’ eco-label credibility and green WOM behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Respondents’ profile (N = 304).

Variables	Frequency	percentage
Age
18–27	73	24.10
28–37	98	32.20
38–47	62	20.40
48–57	50	16.40
58 and older	21	6.90
Gender
Male	121	39.80
Female	180	59.20
Other	3	1.00
Education
Primary school	2	0.70
Secondary and high school	55	18.10
Vocational school (two-year program)	21	6.90
University first degree	129	42.40
Master’s or PhD	97	31.90
Marital status
Single or divorced	180	59.20
Married	124	40.80

Table 2. Results of CFA model, internal consistency, and descriptive statistics.

Items	Factor loadings	AVE	CR	α	Mean	SD
Hotels’ eco-label credibility (Moussa & Touzani, 2008)		0.478	0.845	0.845	5.02	0.832
I can trust what the eco-label says.	0.666
The eco-label comes from an organization or recognized experts.	0.709
The eco-label is honest.	0.747
The body that gives this eco-label has good intentions	0.677
The organization has passed some serious tests before issuing the eco-label.	0.655
The eco-label inspires me confidence.	0.688
Biosphere value (Stern et al., 1995)		0.581	0.806	0.744	4.362	0.617
We, as human beings, should not damage the beauty of the nature.	0.759
We, as human beings, should live harmoniously with the nature.	0.791
The nature is very beautiful.	–
It would be a shame if we, as human beings, damage the environment for our benefits.	0.735
Egoistic value (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2005)		0.513	0.758	0.752	3.650	0.737
I carefully select my food to ensure good health.	0.651
I always consider the health benefits of a product when making a purchase.	0.669
I consider myself as a health-conscious consumer.	0.817
Pro-environmental attitude (Bamberg, 2003)		0.520	0.865	0.792	3.889	0.555
The major part of the population does not act in an environmentally conscious way.	–
The limits of economic growth have been crossed or will be reached very soon.	–
Environmental protection measures should be implemented, even if they result in a reduction in the number of jobs within the economy.	0.886
Thinking about the environmental conditions our children and grandchildren will have to live in worries me.	0.685
Newspaper articles or TV reports addressing environmental issues evoke anger within me.	0.599
If we continue on our current path, we are heading towards an environmental catastrophe.	0.676
It remains evident that politicians are not doing enough to prioritize environmental protection.	0.743
In order to benefit the environment, we should be willing to make sacrifices and limit our current lifestyle.	0.706
Green patronage intention (Han & Kim, 2010)		0.685	0.867	0.860	5.372	1.074
I am willing to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.746
I intend to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.866
I am committed to making an effort to stay at a green hotel when traveling.	0.865
Green word-of-mouth behavior (Molinari et al., 2008)		0.665	0.888	0.882	3.942	0.737
I highly recommend green hotels to others due to their environmental image.	0.780
I would positively recommend green hotels to others because of their environmental functionality.	0.867
I actively encourage others to stay at green hotels because of their environmentally-friendly practices.	0.859
I speak positively about green hotels to others because of their strong environmental performance.	0.749

AVE = (average variance extracted); CR = (composite reliability); α (Cronbach alpha) SD = (standard deviation).

Table 3. Correlation matrix.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Hotels’ eco-label credibility	(0.691)
2. Biospheric value	0.290**	(0.762)
3. Egoistic value	0.296**	0.375**	(0.716)
4. Pro-environmental attitude	0.271**	0.701**	0.402**	(0.721)
5. Green patronage intention	0.463**	0.521**	0.526**	0.587**	(0.827)
6. Green word-of-mouth behavior	0.396**	0.575**	0.535**	0.641**	0.766**	(0.815)

The bold numbers in parentheses on the diagonals represent the square root of the AVE for each latent variable.

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, p < 0.01.

Table 4. Results of testing discriminant validity.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Hotels’ co-label credibility	(0.478)
2. Biospheric value	0.084	(0.581)
3. Egoistic value	0.087	0.140	(0.513)
4. Pro-environmental attitude	0.073	0.491	0.161	(0.520)
5. Green patronage intention	0.214	0.271	0.276	0.344	(0.685)
6. Green word-of-mouth behavior	0.156	0.330	0.286	0.410	0.586	(0.665)

The bold numbers in parentheses on the diagonals represent the AVE for each latent variable.

Figure 2. Model test results.

Moussa, S., & Touzani, M. (2008). The perceived credibility of quality labels: A scale validation with refinement. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00713.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal, 107(11), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510629760

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 659–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.01.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Molinari, L. K., Abratt, R., & Dion, P. (2008). Satisfaction, quality and value and effects on repurchase and positive word‐of‐mouth behavioral intentions in a B2B services context. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(5), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040810889139

 Google Scholar