Investigating consumer purchase decision based on switching barriers and decision postponement: moderating role of time pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although various booking platforms have been contributing to the dramatic growth of hotel industry, little research has been conducted to understand consumer psychological processes and behaviors in online hotel booking. To fill this gap, the current study examines the effect of switching barriers (switching cost and alternative attractiveness) on consumers' decision postponement and repurchase intention. Additionally, the moderating effect of time pressure in different phases of booking decision is investigated. Design/methodology/approach A total of 352 samples was collected through an online platform. Data analysis was conducted via Amos 23 (structural equation modeling) and SPSS 24 (descriptive analysis and PROCESS macro). Findings Results show that switching cost and alternative attractiveness are two significant drivers of decision postponement and repurchase intention. Meanwhile, time pressure only has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between switching cost and decision postponement. Practical implications The findings of this research reveal that hotel operations need to implement strategies to prevent customers' delayed booking decisions and overcome the influence of time pressure on customer decision-making. Originality/value These findings stress the importance of consumer perceptions of switching barriers and time span when making hotel reservations online. Hotel practitioners are encouraged to provide multiple human–computer interaction applications to attract novice consumers and increase their familiarity with booking process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".