The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm

Investigating consumer purchase Consumer

purchase
decision based on switching decision

barriers and decision

postponement: moderating
role of time pressure Received 22 December 2022
Revised 23 March 2023
5 May 2023
Pengsongze Xue and WooMi Jo Accepted 16 May 2023
School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Canada

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.
Keywords Online hotel booking, Switching cost, Alternative attractiveness, Decision postponement,
Repurchase intention, Time pressure
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The rising popularity of online travel agencies (OTAs) brings intensifying competition and
conflicts in hotel market. Hotels encourage consumers to make direct booking from their own
websites to avoid commission fees paid to OTAs, which can be as high as 30% of the room
rate (Koo et al., 2020). To increase competitiveness against the third-party distribution
channels, hotels have tried to retain their loyal members by offering lower rates, reward
points, complementary services and other member-only benefits (Shin et al., 2020). However,
OTAs have also competed with their own similar loyalty programs. Most important, as a
hotel room distribution platform, these OTA channels could provide a broader selection than
individual hotel websites (Talwar et al., 2020). Although this system brings direct benefits to
consumers, hesitation and indecisions could be by-products because of the greater time and
effort needed in evaluating and comparing all options. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights
The advanced applications from consumers’ mobile phones and other electronic devices © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
provide the convenience and flexibility for quick searching and receiving the latest DOI 10.1108/JHTI-12-2022-0628
JHTI information to make reservations. Yet these advantages might create some obstacles for
consumers as overwhelming information may cause confusion or hesitation (Xue et al., 2020).
Both the consideration of costs to switch to another booking channel and evaluations of
attractive benefits from other channels could result in decision complexity. Consumers may
delay their decisions because the best option cannot be identified easily. Consumer decision
postponement is generally associated with the available time to make their decisions (Sharma
et al., 2023). When time is perceived as insufficient, time pressure appears during the decision-
making process and affects final decisions. Individual consumers might adopt different
strategies to respond to the time urgency. For example, some consumers might wait until the
last minute in hope of getting a better deal in the future. If no better deal appears, they may
completely abandon all options and cancel their trips. Other consumers might shorten the
decision-making process and choose the current best option, which might not be better than
future options.
Related to the available consumer choice and decision literature, switching barriers and
repeat purchasing have been discussed most often in various contexts, such as the
restaurant (Han et al., 2019) and online knowledge service industries (Du et al., 2022).
Considering the increasing technology-enabled choices, little in-depth understanding of
the consumer psychological process and behaviors in online hotel booking to-date is
available. Furthermore, consumer decision postponement has been treated as a
consequence of consumer confusion (Xue et al., 2020), but the subsequent purchasing
behaviors of decision postponement have hardly been examined. When consumers
postpone their decisions, they might change their minds at any time. Some possible
subsequent behaviors include staying with same brand or product, switching to another
brand or product, abandoning the purchase or even doing nothing (Mitchell et al., 2005).
Therefore, decision postponement should be considered an important psychological stage
in the decision-making process instead of a behavioral outcome. As mentioned, time
constraints are a major cause of decision postponement, and time pressure has an ongoing
effect. Thus, having an in-depth understanding of the influence of time pressure in
different phases of booking decision from the time span perspective is relevant and
important. The current study aims (a) to investigate the roles of two switching barriers,
switching cost (SWC) and alternative attractiveness (AA), on repurchase intention (RI) in
online hotel booking; (b) to examine decision postponement (DP) as a mediator between
two switching barriers and RI and (c) to test moderating effect of time pressure (TP) on the
relationships among the study constructs.

Literature review
Switching barriers: Switching cost and alternative attractiveness
A switching barrier is defined as “the consumer’s assessment of the resources and
opportunities needed to perform the switching act, or alternatively, the constraints that
prevent the switching act” (Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003, p. 379). Researchers have
identified it as a multi-dimensional concept, including switching cost (SWC), alternative
attractiveness (AA) and relational investment (Koo et al., 2020). The social exchange theory
posits that relationships between different entities are determined by the trade-off analysis
between their subjective cost and reward appraisals (Fu et al., 2023). SWC, as a cost factor,
relates to the psychological or financial burden when leaving a current service provider.
AA, as a reward factor, relates to the change to another service provider if consumers
perceive attractive or competitive benefits by doing so (Chi et al., 2021). Incorporating the
theory with switching barriers can offer researchers a more profound comprehension of
how customers alter their online hotel booking behaviors. Relational investment focuses on
personal bonds developed between consumers and service providers (Lee and Kim, 2022).
Because the interaction between consumers and service providers in online hotel booking is Consumer
minimal, relational investment is excluded in this study. purchase
SWC refers to “the perception of the magnitude of the additional cost required to
terminate a relationship and secure an alternative one” (Patterson and Smith, 2003, p. 108).
decision
It is associated with penalties or obstacles for consumers discontinuing the current
service or products. Consumers need to replace resources in which they have invested or
spent extra time and effort in finding a new service provider and learning to use it
effectively (Han et al., 2019). High SWC forces consumers to lock into the existing
relationship against their will. For example, consumers might stay with a higher-priced
channel because of external factors, such as service quality standards (Chun et al., 2019).
In this case, consumers are locked in the relationship with channels that offer higher rates
than others.
AA is described as “the degree to which individuals are attracted to, prefer, and support
relationships with a company given its enduring attributes” (Mar
ın and Ruiz de Maya, 2013,
p. 659). Consumers would retain the same relationship if satisfied with the current
relationship or if no better alternatives become available (Mahmud et al., 2021). The perceived
difference between acquired and scarified benefits determines whether consumers prefer to
stay with the same service provider or switch to another one (Yuen et al., 2023). AA is strongly
linked to consumer loyalty in hospitality literature because hotel practitioners use attractive
attributes as a dedication-based mechanism to build loyalty through lowering the possibility
of switching intentions (Kim and Kim, 2020).

Decision postponement
Decision postponement (DP) is conceptualized as a decision deferment to better understand
the confusing circumstances related to a purchase (Sharma et al., 2023). A few models based
on different theories are available to describe the concept. The decision field theory “assumes
that attribute values are sampled sequentially and stochastically” (Bhatia and Mullett, 2016,
p. 118) and preferences for actions accumulate through time (Jessup et al., 2022). The main
idea behind this theory is that each attribute’s value based on consumer preference is updated
over time; thus, consumers are required to refresh their evaluation after each update. Mitchell
et al. (2005) adopted DP as one of seven confusion reduction strategies and developed a
conceptual model for confusion. DP serves as an important psychological stage during
information processing, resulting significant influences on actual purchasing behaviors. By
connecting switching barriers to DP, consumers’ assessments of various costs or attractive
benefits from other available options can be better understood.
Switching barriers and decision postponement. Some empirical studies have identified a
negative relationship between SWC and switching intention in hotel booking choices
(Quoquab et al., 2018). Based on the cost-and-benefit approach (Debrah et al., 2022), SWC
arises when consumers perceive that costs outweigh benefits. Thus, high SWC creates
barriers to terminate the current service provider or product. DP is identified as a strategy
for confused consumers to seek a better purchase decision (Sharma et al., 2023). Beyond the
traditional approach above, consumers need to take more factors into consideration to make
their decision. In a hotel reservation decision, more elements might be involved other than
price alone. Then the trade-off analysis becomes complex in deciding to switch or not. Extra
time and effort might be required of the consumer to process the additional information from
a new booking website and to make comparisons with their familiar regular channels. As an
example, the method of payment is another important external factor for booking decision
(Shukla and Rodrigues, 2022). Many OTA websites offer different currencies and various
methods of payment for international travelers. When consumers have credit cards in
partnerships with certain branded hotels or OTAs, extra benefits associated with these
JHTI credit cards cause more calculations in evaluating each available option. Consumers need
more time to assess which method is the most convenient and valuable for them.
AA is proposed to have a significant influence on DP because negative emotions
resulting from reviewing too many attractive options could lead to unfavorable
decision behaviors, such as delaying decision and decreasing purchase behaviors
(Akhtar et al., 2020b). Consumers with negative emotions are more likely to defer
choices when they have different alternatives due to required searching for additional
information for option comparison (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2019). Regret, as a negative
emotion, plays an important role in decision-making (McCormack et al., 2020). Taking
an action (i.e. deciding on a choice) and inaction (i.e. not deciding) can generate certain
level of regret (Shin, 2022). Inman and Zeelenberg (2002) demonstrated that switching to
a different option is associated with greater regret than habitual repeat purchase.
Consumers also experience more regret with a deferral choice if the future option is
expected to be less attractive than the current one (Mourali et al., 2018). Expected utility
theory suggests that consumers will select the option that maximizes their expected
utility (Masiero et al., 2020), so consumers might delay their decisions to wait for a better
choice to avoid regret. As a searching intermedium, OTAs provide convenience for
consumers to search and compare each individual hotel option. Meanwhile, the speedy
information update from OTA websites requires more searching activity because as
consumers do not want to miss any good deals. Thus, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
H1. SWC has a positive relationship with DP.
H2. AA has a positive relationship with DP.

Switching barriers and repurchase intention

Repurchase intention (RI) is adopted as the behavioral intention in the current study to link
with two types of switching barriers. SWC has a positive impact on consumer retention
because consumers perceive high financial loss from leaving a current service provider (Kim
et al., 2018). Thus, SWC increases the financial burden for consumers to find another
satisfying provider (B€olen, 2020). In other words, high perceived SWC is a crucial barrier to
dissuade switching intention. If consumers observe a hotel offer with a higher rate from other
booking channels than their current one, they would be more likely to choose the same one
rather than switching to another.
AA is representative of the available competing alternatives, and it is a significant
predictor for a consumer’s decision whether to stay or leave the current relationship (Tiamiyu
et al., 2020). When consumers place a high value on the current choice and are highly satisfied,
they probably believe that they will not receive the same or a higher level of value from other
providers (Yang and Peterson, 2004). However, perceiving more AA will increase the
possibility of switching behavior (Chi et al., 2021). When other booking channels offer a better
option, consumers have a propensity to switch. Similarly, Yim et al. (2007) found that
more available AA positively affects switching intention and negatively affects repurchase
intention. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. SWC has a positive relationship with RI.
H4. AA has a negative relationship with RI.

Decision postponement and repurchase intention

Because DP is considered the deployment of other confusion-reduction strategies, consumers
need extra time to collect additional information to make purchase decisions (Mathur, 2021).
After delaying for a certain time, consumers are more likely to stay with familiar brands or Consumer
service providers if they have difficulties in evaluating each option because they have built purchase
trust from previous purchases (Lobbers and Benlian, 2019). In the e-commerce literature,
Siegfried et al. (2020) found that the good or bad previous experience can significantly
decision
increase or decrease consumer’s perceived level of trust, respectively. If consumers have a
positive experience, they are willing to maintain high-quality relationship with a familiar
service provider (Chia-Ying, 2015). After a bad experience, consumers might still choose the
same brand or product because they want to lower the perceived risk from switching to
another one (Zhao et al., 2020). Studies have demonstrated the negative relationship between
perceived risk and purchase intention (Sadiq et al., 2022). In other words, consumers have a
deep-rooted instinct to avoid potential risk and uncertainty (Zhao et al., 2020). Repeated
purchasing from a vendor could reduce potential risks even if they had bad experience in the
past. Therefore, consumers might make repeat purchase when delaying their decisions.
The current study proposes that direct relationships exist among switching barriers, DP,
and RI, so DP has a mediating effect between switching barriers and RI based on three
premises for a variable to function as a mediator (Liu and Jo, 2020). Even though many studies
have examined switching barriers’ direct significant influence on RI, researchers might
ignore an important psychological consequence when consumers confront difficulty in the
evaluation of the site. When delaying the purchase becomes an option, additional searched
choices will increase choice size. To avoid psychological discomfort from information
processing (Akhtar et al., 2020b), repeat purchase from the same booking channel seems
simple and safe. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.
H5. DP has a positive relationship with RI.
H6. DP mediates the relationships between switching barriers (SWC & AA) and RI.

Moderating effect of time pressure

As one dimension of time constraints, time pressure (TP) occurs “only when the available
time to complete a task is perceived as insufficient or limited . . . induce feelings of stress”
(Thomas et al., 2010, p. 288). TP is associated with DP because consumers want to find a better
choice to maximize benefits (Akhtar et al., 2020a). The literature suggested that TP has a
positive influence on DP (Sugandini et al., 2019). When consumers are making comparisons
among abundant attractive options, they cannot simplify decision tasks by ranking each
attribute by importance (Guo and Li, 2022). Consumers need more time to identify any
differences in price, terms or conditions between the options prior to the final purchase
decision. Therefore, when consumers are facing high levels of switching barriers, TP would
make them more likely to postpone their decision. Additionally, TP would have a moderating
effect on the relationship between DP and RI. If consumers have already decided to delay their
decision, the frequently purchased product or service might increase confidence in the
decision. When TP is involved in a postponement scenario, a consumer’s trust in these
familiar product or service can encourage them to make a decision quickly.
Moreover, any urgency in decision-making limits the amount of information to be
analyzed and motivates the habitual purchase or adoption of non-compensation strategy that
only focuses on a restricted set of attributes or even a single attribute (Marjerison et al., 2022).
TP creates the sense of urgency and prompts people to make a quick decision, so it produces a
reverse effect on DP (Zhang et al., 2021) and increases the tendency of making repeat
purchases. Godinho et al. (2016) explained that a faster cognitive processing or an increased
motivation to analyze the available information are two factors that could increase the speed
of decision process. They also introduced another manipulation of TP, namely, “stock-out.”
This concept is relevant to perceived risk of having a product sell out, which increases
JHTI urgency for consumer decisions. When consumers know there are stock-out products in the
assortment or even just worry a stock-out may occur, decision-making will be quicker in
selecting that particular product (Kim et al., 2020a). Therefore, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
H7. abcde: TP moderates the relationship between SWC and DP (AA and DP, SWC and
RI, AA and RI and DP and RI).

Methods
Study population and data collection
The target population of this study is comprised of Canadian and U.S. residents over 18 years
old who had booked hotel reservations online in the past six months. An online convenience
sampling was adopted to collect panel data via Qualtrics (Quatrics.com). A total of 521
respondents completed the online survey. After removing 169 unqualified cases for missing
data or suspicious response patterns, 352 useable surveys were retained for analysis.
Harman’s single factor test was conducted to test common method bias. The test result shows
that the combined variance for a single factor was 20.7%, which is below the 50% threshold.
Therefore, no obvious common method bias existed (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Measurements
All measurement items were modified as needed to fit within the context of this study. SWC
and RI were measured by four items and three items respectively (Kim et al., 2014). AA was
measured by four items adopted from Liao et al. (2017). Four DP measurement items were
adopted from Walsh et al. (2007). A single item for TP was measured (Saqib and Chan, 2015).
The full list of measurement items is shown in appendix. A 7-point Likert scale (1 5 “Strongly
disagree” to 7 5 “Strongly agree”) was used for all measurement items. A pretest was
conducted among 10 graduate students and faculty members, and some potential wording
and ambiguity issues were addressed to better fit the study context.

Data analysis
The two-step process was followed to conduct confirmative factor analysis (CFA) and the
structural equation modelling (SEM) via AMOS 23 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). First, the
consistency between measured variables and latent variables and the reliability and validity
of all four constructs with 15 measurement items and overall measured model fit were tested
via CFA. With the established measurement model, hypothesized paths among four
constructs were then examined in SEM. The mediating effect of DP was tested using the SPSS
PROCESS macro by inspecting the direct and indirect effects with 95% of the confidence
interval (Hayes, 2013). Lastly, the moderating effect of TP was examined by dividing the
sample into two groups by the mean value (4.92) of TP. The p value of structural weights was
compared between the models.

Results
Respondent demographic profiles
The respondents were almost equally divided between Canadian (50.6%) and American
respondents (49.4%). A majority was relatively young between 19 and 49 (68%) female
(67.3% versus male 32.7%) Caucasians (69.3%). There were slightly more singles (43.5%)
than married (40.6%), holding high school diplomas (32.4%) or 4-year degrees and more
(45.4%), and reporting between $20,000 and 79,999 (55.4%) for their annual household
income. About 67% of the respondents had booked hotel rooms online one or two times in the Consumer
past six months for leisure travel (75.3%). purchase
Confirmatory factor analysis. Table 1 provides the standardized factor loadings and
construct reliability from convergent validity. One SWC (0.55) and one AA ( 0.14) items were
decision
removed due to low standardized factor loadings. One SWC item with factor loading of 0.53
was retained despite being less than 0.60. A cut-off point of 0.50 factor loading has been
accepted in the tourism literature (Chen &Tsai, 2007). The factor loadings t-values for all
retained items were significant (p < 0.001). The key goodness-of-fit indices for the
measurement model were examined. The chi-square χ2 5 147.66 (d.f. 5 58, χ2/d.f. 5 2.55) and
other indexes, such as the goodness of fit index (GFI) 5 0.94, adjusted goodness of fit index
(AGFI) 5 0.90, normed fit index (NFI) 5 0.92, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) 5 0.93, comparative
fit index (CFI) 5 0.95 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.07, show an
adequate fit (Hair et al., 2010).
The correlation, average variance extracted (AVE), mean value and standard deviation
among the seven constructs are shown in Table 2. Convergent validity was gauged by
composite reliability and AVE. The AVEs ranged from 0.53 to 0.79, above the threshold value
of 0.50, and the composite reliability of seven latent constructs ranged from 0.77 to 0.85, all

Factor
Loading Cronbach’s α

Switching cost (SWC) 0.77

SWC 1 0.53
SWC 2 0.86
SWC 3 0.83
Alternative attractiveness (AA) 0.77
AA 1 0.73
AA 2 0.76
AA 3 0.70
Decision postponement (DP) 0.84
DP 1 0.83
DP 2 0.83
DP 3 0.64
DP 4 0.77
Repurchase intention (RI) 0.84
RI 1 0.86
RI 2 0.73 Table 1.
RI 3 0.80 Confirmatory factor
Source(s): Table by authors analysis (n 5 352)

Constructs SWC AA DP RI AVE x¯ SD C.R.

SWC 0.75 0.79 3.97 1.07 0.79

AA 0.21 0.73 0.53 5.28 0.90 0.77
DP 0.67 0.23 0.77 0.60 4.34 1.29 0.85
RI 0.32 0.03 0.16 0.80 0.64 4.59 0.97 0.84
Note(s): AVE 5 Average variance extracted; x¯ 5 Mean value; SD 5 Standard deviation
C.R. 5 Composite reliability; AA 5 Alternative attractiveness; DP 5 Decision postponement
RI 5 Repurchase intention; SWC 5 Switching cost Table 2.
Source(s): Table by authors Correlation matrix
JHTI exceeding the minimum requirement of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). The discriminant validity was
also evident as all square root of AVE was higher than the inter-correlation (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).

Structural model analysis

SEM results indicated that the proposed model achieved an acceptable overall fit to the data:
χ2 5 147.66, d.f. 5 58 (p < 0.001), χ2/d.f. 5 2.55, GFI 5 0.94, AGFI 5 0.90, NFI 5 0.92,
TLI 5 0.93, CFI 5 0.95 and RMSEA 5 0.07. All indices achieved the threshold suggested by
the literature. Figure 1 and Table 3 show that most hypotheses are supported based on

TP

Significant R2 = 0.19

SWC 0.38 (t = 6.05) *** DP

n.s.
0.48 (t = 6.59) ***
–0.36 (t = –5.17) **

n.s.
n.s.

0.31 (t = 4.65) ***

n.s.

AA 0.21 (t = 3.05) ** RI

R2 = 0.22
Note(s): AA = Alternative attractiveness; DP = Decision postponement; RI = Repurchase
intention; SWC = Switching cost; R2 = Multiple coefficient of determination;
Figure 1. n.s = non-significant; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Structure model results
Source(s): Figure by authors

Paths Coefficients Standardized error t-value Result

H1: SWC → DP 0.38*** 0.07 6.05 Supported

H2: AA → DP 0.31*** 0.11 4.65 Supported
H3: SWC → RI 0.48*** 0.06 6.59 Supported
H4: AA → RI 0.21** 0.09 3.05 Rejected
H5: DP → RI 0.36** 0.05 5.17 Rejected
R2
DP 0.19
RI 0.22
Note(s): AA 5 Alternative attractiveness; DP 5 Decision postponement; RI 5 Repurchase intention
Table 3. SWC 5 Switching cost; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01
SEM results (n 5 352) Source(s): Table by authors
multiple coefficients of determination (R2), path coefficient (β) and t-value. The positive path Consumer
coefficients are significant between two antecedents (SWC and AA) and two consequences purchase
(DP and RI), including H1:SWC→DP (β 5 0.38, t 5 6.05, p < 0.001), H2: SWC→RI (β 5 0.48, t 5 6.59,
p < 0.001), H3: AA→DP (β 5 0.31, t 5 4.65, p < 0.001), H4: AA→RI (β 5 0.21, t 5 3.05, p < 0.05). The
decision
negative path coefficient is significant between DP and RI (β 5 0.36, t 5 5.17, p < 0.05).
Even though H4 and H5 had a significant path coefficient, the results were opposite, as
hypothesized. Therefore, these two hypotheses were rejected. Both SWC and AA explained
19.2% of the variance in DP and SWC, whereas AA and DP together explained 21.6% of the
variance in RI.

Mediating effect of decision postponement

To further explain the relationships among SWC, AA and RI, the mediation effect of DP was
tested. Specifically, bootstrap estimation with 2000 samples and a bias-corrected confidence
level at 95% were selected to operate the analysis. In Table 4, results show that SWC
(β 5 0.37, p < 0.05) had a positive direct effect on RI at significant level, whereas AA (β 5 0.07,
p > 0.05) had no significant direct effect on RI. Also, negative indirect links were observed
between SWC (β 5 0.06, p < 0.05) and RI, and AA (β 5 0.03, p < 0.05) and RI. DP (β 5 0.31,
p < 0.05) had a partial mediating effect on the relationship between SWC and RI. Meanwhile,
only the indirect effect of DP was found significant on the path from AA to RI, meaning DP
fully mediated this relationship. Thus, Hypothesis 6 is supported.

Moderating effect of time pressure

To examine the moderating effect of TP, respondents indicated less than 4.92 were included
in the low time pressure group (n 5 122), whereas respondents with above 4.92 belonged to
the high group (n 5 230). As shown in Table 5, TP was found to have a significant moderating
effect (p < 0.05) on the relationship between SWC and DP. In the high TP group (β 5 0.20,
S.E. 5 0.10, t 5 1.81), SWC was observed to have a stronger influence on DP than the low TP
group (β 5 0.41, S.E. 5 0.08, t 5 5.62). Thus, Hypothesis 7a is supported. Because the p value
of structural weights in model comparison were all above 0.05 for the other four hypotheses,
thus, Hypotheses 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e are not supported.

Discussion and conclusions

Conclusion
This study investigated related antecedents and consequences of decision postponement, as
well as the moderating effect of time pressure in the context of online hotel booking.
Considering decision postponement as an important psychological stage in decision-making
allows researchers to better understand why customers hesitate to make booking decisions.
The empirical findings also provide significant benefits for hotel practitioners. Hotels can

Mediation effect
Hypothesis Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Result

SWC → DP → RI 0.37*** 0.06*** 0.31*** Partial Mediation

AA → DP → RI 0.07 0.03*** 0.04 Full Mediation
Note(s): AA 5 Alternative attractiveness; DP 5 Decision postponement; RI 5 Repurchase intention Table 4.
SWC 5 Switching cost; ***p < 0.001 Direct and indirect
Source(s): Table by authors effect of DP
JHTI Low TP (n 5 122) High TP (n 5 230)
Baseline Nested model
model (freely (constrained
Paths β SE t B SE t estimated) to be equal)

SWC →DP 0.20 0.10 1.81 0.41*** 0.08 5.62 χ2 (116) 5 242.73 χ2 (117) 5 247.02a
SWC → RI 0.60*** 0.12 4.00 0.45*** 0.06 5.54 χ2 (116) 5 242.73 χ2 (117) 5 245.12b
AA → DP 0.65*** 0.14 4.88 0.14 0.17 1.91 χ2 (116) 5 242.73 χ2 (117) 5 243.89c
AA → RI 0.35** 0.15 2.14 0.05 0.12 0.63 χ2 (116) 5 242.73 χ2 (117) 5 244.59d
DP → RI 0.18 0.13 1.19 0.40*** 0.05 4.94 χ2 (116) 5 242.73 χ2 (117) 5 243.26e
Note(s): AA 5 Alternative attractiveness; DP 5 Decision postponement; RI 5 Repurchase intention
SWC 5 Switching cost; TP 5 Time pressure; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01
Chi-square difference test: a Δχ2 (1) 5 4.29, p < 0.05 (significant); b Δχ2 (1) 5 2.39, p > 0.05;
Table 5.
c
Δχ2 (1) 5 1.16, p > 0.05; d Δχ2 (1) 5 1.86, p > 0.05; e Δχ2 (1) 5 0.53, p > 0.05
Moderating test results Source(s): Table by authors

achieve a better reservation management if they implement strategies to reduce customer

hesitation in option evaluation.
The positive significant relationships between switching barriers and DP indicate that
both a high level of SWC and attractiveness from alternative available options can increase
consumers’ willingness to defer their decisions. Individual consumers hesitate to make
booking decisions due to the difficulties of evaluating all competitive attractiveness from
other similar booking sites and marginal costs associated with switching from one booking
website to another. The hesitation can be explained by intrinsic complexity in decision-
making process (Xue et al., 2020). The complexity in the evaluation creates a certain level of
consumer confusion that further influences consumer behavioral intention, such as DP
(Walsh et al., 2007). To reduce perceived confusion, a significant amount of time is necessary
for conducting the comprehensive evaluation of all available booking options. Thus, the extra
required time could be considered a primary cost for the deferred decision. It is also
interesting to observe that DP has a significant negative relationship with RI. This means
that the longer one delays the booking decision, the less it is likely the consumer will book a
room at their regular booking site. In line with Shiu (2017), more comparisons among
alternatives can be made during the delayed time. Generally, the more time spent on
evaluation, the higher the chance to find a better option. Therefore, individual guests might
be more likely to switch to a better booking option after a series of booking evaluations.
The relationships between switching barriers and RI are partially consistent with the
literature (Chuah et al., 2017). Specifically, SWC has a positive effect on RI as proposed, meaning
the higher cost to switch, the more likely individuals are to stay with their current booking site.
Hotel guests prefer to make reservations from the same booking website, avoiding extra efforts
in searching and evaluating information. It is interesting to find that AA also shows a positive
effect on RI, as a negative relationship was hypothesized. This can be explained by product
similarity and consumer trust towards the website (Tandon et al., 2020). From the product
similarity perspective, it might not be worthwhile for consumers to switch to another booking
channel due to the high degree of similarity of the rooms sold. OTAs sell identical rooms
as brand hotels do, so there is no physical difference between branded hotel websites and
OTAs. The room rate between hotel websites and OTAs might be almost the same, except that
OTAs are able to lower the rate and to implement different terms and conditions (e.g. a non-
refundable policy). Although a difference of a few dollars is perceived as attractive, the price
advantage might not outweigh the cost of switching to another booking website (e.g. learning
cost). As a result, staying with their regular site and repeating purchase would be a secured
option to avoid confusion and extra mental efforts for using a new booking channel.
 For DP as a mediator, AA was found to have no significant direct effect on RI, yet a positive Consumer
relationship was found from the SEM result. To further investigate the contradicting results, a purchase
simple linear regression test was conducted for the impacts of SWC and AA on RI separately.
SWC showed a consistent positive significant association with RI, yet AA (β 5 0.04, t 5 0.71,
decision
p > 0.05) shows no significant impact on RI. The strength between SWC and RI is also stronger
in SEM (β 5 0.48, t 5 6.59, p < 0.001) than to the simple linear regression (β 5 0.31, t 5 6.15,
p < 0.001). These findings indicate that AA has a suppression effect on the relationship between
SWC and RI. That is, consumers prefer their regular website if they perceive that switching to
another website can cost them more than staying with the current one. However, they will put
more emphasis on the switching cost when finding more attractive booking options from other
channels. Eventually, the perceived benefits from the new options cannot compensate for the
cost resulted from switching. Consumers are thus more likely to make repeat booking decisions
with their regular website. As explained earlier, the rooms sold on brand hotel websites are
almost identical to OTA websites but with a price difference at a minimal level. When the rate is
not significantly different, consumers might tend to shift their focus to the additional cost of
learning how to use new booking websites. The time and effort spent on registering and
learning is more valuable than a few dollars. Therefore, making a reservation at the regular
website is more cost-efficient.
DP serves as a partial mediator between SWC and RI, indicating the compound effect of
SWC, and DP has a weaker impact on RI than the direct impact of SWC on RI. DP inhibits repeat
booking intention when the perceived switching cost makes consumers delay their decisions. An
individual consumer might take the option of delaying their decision to gain more time to learn
more about the booking options from the new websites. If a new booking site were found to be
much simpler and easier to use than their regular booking site, switching becomes an easy task
with no extra effort. DP plays as a full mediator between AA and RI, indicating that when
attractive options from other websites are found, delaying the decision is a necessary step before
booking from the regular website. Similar to the influence of SWC, the more attractive the
booking options seen, the less likely a consumer is to make repeated purchase from the regular
booking site, as becomes more evident when they take longer time to evaluate all options from
other booking sites. The important role of DP implies that consumers are self-motivated to spend
more time searching for additional information and learning more about other booking options.
As explained in the suppression effect of AA, an individual consumer could adopt other factors
to make their evaluations if the rate difference is insignificant. The amount of related
information contributes to the quality of the final decision. Thus, taking extra time to make
rational evaluations prevents consumers from making repeat purchase at the regular website
because a well-evaluated booking option can better fulfill their needs.
The significant moderating effect TP has between SWC and DP indicates that SWC has a
stronger influence on DP among the high time pressure group. Under a higher time pressure,
individuals might feel they do not have enough time to assess all potential loss from switching
to another booking site and so defer their decisions. In switching booking channels, the
potential loss is evaluated to reduce the risk of switching. For instance, the associated learning
effort/cost with booking procedure and policies in new environment can be considered
intangible and can be hard to evaluate. This requires consumers to take even longer to make
their decisions. When time pressure is greater, consumers might even become extra careful and
prefer delaying their decisions by learning such an intangible cost. Meanwhile, SWC showed
almost no effect on DP among the low time pressure group. That is, for the consumers with
enough time, making the final booking decision is not an urgent task. Thus, they can take the
time to evaluate all necessary switching costs and not feel pressured to delay their booking
decisions. This can be explained by the effect of consumer psychological laziness, which can be
stimulated when sufficient time is given to review overwhelming information (Ganggi, 2020)
and to make their final decisions rather than to defer.
JHTI Theoretical implications
The current study makes some critical theoretical contributions to the hospitality marketing
literature. First, the psychological concept of DP is examined to extend the framework of
customer retention theory (Li et al., 2023). Previous studies have focused on investigating
external factors for consumer purchase decision, such as price, service quality and consumer
relationship (Lee and Ro, 2016; Lien et al., 2015). Among them, DP is relatively under-studied
considering its important role in explaining the underlying reasons for delaying consumer
purchase decisions, especially in an online environment. The current study fills the research
gap by first connecting switching barriers with DP and then empirically demonstrates that
both switching barriers, SWC and AA, are significant drivers for DP. In addition, RI is
identified as a behavioral outcome of DP, providing evidence of how consumers’ purchasing
intention changes under the influence of timing.
Second, the negative indirect effect of DP provides support to extend Mitchell et al.’s (2005)
conceptual framework of consumer confusion by viewing DP as an important decision stage
rather than a coping strategy of confusion. DP can be triggered by other factors besides
confusion, such as decision difficulty, decision conflict and preference uncertainty (Cervi and
Brei, 2022). When facing these decision problems, consumers can make their own decision on
whether to delay or not prior to the final purchase decision (Shiu, 2021). Thus, the consumer
decision-making process is investigated from a more comprehensive view with an emphasis
on DP in the hotel online booking context.
Third, although the moderating effect of TP was only shown between SWC and DP, the
new view of TP in this study also contributes to the consumer decision literature. Examining
the moderating effect of TP on different decision-making stages (before and after
postponement) enables researchers to better understand how consumers react to time
limits. In addition, delaying the decision is viewed as an effective strategy to reduce
the impact of TP (Walsh et al., 2007). Consumers might not feel the same level of urgency in
the after-postponement stage compared to the pre-postponement stage. Specifically, in the
after-postponement decision-making stage, examining the moderating effect of TP on the
relationship between DP and RI contributes by providing more details about how time limits
influence consumer final purchase decisions.
Fourth, the social exchange theory is validated in the online hotel booking context with an
emphasis on two types of switching barriers. More interestingly, AA was found to have
suppressor effect with SWC. Although there was no significant effect on RI when examining
SWC and AA simultaneously, AA not only has a significant influence on RI, but also
strengthens the effect of SWC on RI. Such an empirical finding provides new insight into how
consumers evaluate attractive online booking options. That is, consumers weigh the
marginal costs more when a competitor’s attractiveness is perceived at the same time. The
possible explanation of this result could be the different booking procedure from various
websites. Associated learning cost cannot be easily identified; thus, it becomes difficult for
consumers to access both tangible (e.g. price) and intangible (e.g. learning effort) cost to
determine their purchase decision. This finding uncovers a complex scenario of the social
exchange theory in the specific context of online hotel booking.

Practical implications
This study also has some important practical implications. With an in-depth understanding
of predictors and outcome of DP, hotels should encourage consumers to book at the time
of searching and not delay their booking decisions. Providing a creative simulation could help
reduce consumers’ propensity to delay booking decisions. For example, a pop-up graphic that
shows the steps of hotel online reservation process on hotel websites can be adopted for
novice users (Kim et al., 2020b). Once they are attracted by this interesting simulation, they
could improve their familiarity with the reservation process. Eventually, both familiarity Consumer
with and the usability of the website can make it difficult for experienced consumers to switch purchase
to other new websites. In addition, to minimize the negative effect of DP on RI and encourage
repeat purchases, hotels must assist individual consumers in obtaining the necessary
decision
booking information as efficiently as possible to avoid wasting time searching for
information. Promoting the mobile hotel reservation application could be an effective way
to save consumer time on browsing information. In fact, both hotel booking sites and OTAs
develop their own applications on mobiles or tablets (Sun et al., 2020). These applications help
consumers save time on locating the needed booking information and make reservations
online quickly.
The positive influence of switching barriers on RI means hotels should increase
consumer perception of SWC and AA simultaneously. This emphasizes the importance of
hotel websites or booking apps to be convenient for making reservations, preventing
guests switching to other sites or apps. Bundling can be one of the ways for hotels to
distinguish themselves from other channels where very similar booking options are
offered. As a popular marketing strategy, bundling has shown that integrating price-
related information influences buyers’ perceived savings (Kwon and Jang, 2011). Hotel
rooms can be bundled with other services and amenities such as unlimited access to
business centers, faster internet connection or the head chef’s special breakfast. These are
all controlled within the hotel, which OTAs do not control. Bundling pricing can be seen as
a valuable cost-saving option for potential guests and can be a significant factor for
preventing switching behaviors. Not only the actual saving on the products but also time
saving and less efforts on searching and calculating for each added service separately
might help consumers to make a quick decision.
Lastly, TP is an important concern for hotel patrons. To overcome the influence of time
pressure, hotels might optimize a live chat function to help their consumers to resolve
confusion in a timely manner. Many live chat functions currently used in hotel websites
require consumers to type their questions in the chat box. It can be time consuming and
difficult for them to clearly describe their concerns in a text. To save time and avoid potential
ambiguity, a filtering technique could be a useful tool; it could categorize possible questions
(e.g. frequently asked questions) (Guillet et al., 2020). Consumers can then select a category for
their concerns before typing in their questions. In some cases, they might not even have to
type their questions as the category offers it. The service agents can have a brief
understanding of the questions raised before finding the solution, thus providing faster
service.

Limitations and future studies

Although the current study has important theoretical and practical implications, it also has a
few limitations that can be addressed in future studies. First, as the third dimension of
switching barriers, relational investment is not included in current study because
the interaction between consumer and service provider is at a minimum under the context
of hotel online booking. However, dealing with online complaints by dissatisfied guests
would be an interactive activity. Future studies are encouraged to include relational
investment to test the proposed model, especially for investigating service recovery in online
hotel booking. Second, a time limitation can shorten information processing and increase
confusion if options are equally attractive. TP is believed to have a potential mediating effect
(Mitchell et al., 2005) between switching barriers and RI because an evaluation of switching
barriers requires time and effort before arriving at a final purchase decision. Future study can
explore moderating and mediating effects of consumer time pressure simultaneously
between switching barriers and RI.
JHTI References
Akhtar, N., Jin, S., Alvi, T.H. and Siddiqi, U.I. (2020a), “Conflicting halal attributes at halal restaurants
and consumers’ responses: the moderating role of religiosity”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, Vol. 45, pp. 499-510.
Akhtar, N., Siddiqi, U.I., Akhtar, M.N., Usman, M. and Ahmad, W. (2020b), “Modeling attitude
ambivalence and behavioral outcomes from hotel reviews”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 2831-2855.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bhatia, S. and Mullett, T.L. (2016), “The dynamics of deferred decision”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 86,
pp. 112-151.
B€olen, M.C. (2020), “From traditional wristwatch to smartwatch: understanding the relationship
between innovation attributes, switching costs and consumers’ switching intention”,
Technology in Society, Vol. 63, 101439.
Cervi, C. and Brei, V.A. (2022), “Choice deferral: the interaction effects of visual boundaries and
consumer knowledge”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 68, 103058.
Chen, C.F. and Tsai, D. (2007), “How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1115-1122.
Chi, M., Wang, J., Luo, X.(Robert). and Li, H. (2021), “Why travelers switch to the sharing
accommodation platforms? A push-pull-mooring framework”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 4286-4310.
Chia-Ying, L. (2015), “Switching barriers and customer retention”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 370-393.
Chuah, S.H., Marimuthu, M., Kandampully, J. and Bilgihan, A. (2017), “What drives gen Y loyalty?
Understanding the mediated moderating roles of switching costs and alternative attractiveness in
the value-satisfaction-loyalty chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 124-136.
Chun, M.K., Yhang, W.J. and Kim, B.K. (2019), “Domestic free independent tourists’ satisfaction and
willingness to pay a premium, and intention to revisit: deluxe hotels in Busan”, International
Journal of Tourism Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 269-286.
Debrah, C., Chan, A.P.C. and Darko, A. (2022), “Green finance gap in green buildings: a scoping review
and future research needs”, Building and Environment, Vol. 207, 108443.
Du, H.S., Xu, J., Tang, H. and Jiang, R. (2022), “Repurchase intention in online knowledge service: the
brand awareness perspective”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 174-185.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fu, T., Li, S., Xu, J., Liu, M. and Chen, G. (2023), “Examining tour guide humor as a driver of tourists’
positive word of mouth: a comprehensive mediation model”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1824-1843.
Gambetti, E. and Giusberti, F. (2019), “Personality, decision-making styles and investments”, Journal
of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 14-24.
Ganggi, R.I.P. (2020), “Information anxieties and information distrust: the effects of overload
information about COVID – 19”, E3S Web of Conference, Vol. 202.15014.
Godinho, S., Prada, M. and Garrido, M.V. (2016), “Under pressure: an integrative perspective of time
pressure impact on consumer decision-making”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 251-273.
Guillet, B., Mattila, A. and Gao, L. (2020), “The effects of choice set size and information filtering
mechanisms on online hotel booking”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 87,
102379.
Guo, R. and Li, H. (2022), “Can the amount of information and information presentation reduce choice Consumer
overload? An empirical study of online hotel booking”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 87-108. purchase
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice
decision
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, H., Lee, K.S., Song, H., Lee, S. and Chua, B.L. (2019), “Role of coffeehouse brand experiences
(sensory/affective/intellectual/behavioral) in forming patrons’ repurchase intention: impact of
switching costs”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Inman, J.J. and Zeelenberg, M. (2002), “Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: the attenuating
role of decision justifiability”, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 116-128.
Jessup, R.K., Busemeyer, J.R., Dimperio, E., Homer, J. and Phillips, A. (2022), “Choice is a tricky thing:
integrating sophisticated choice models with learning processes to better account for complex
choice behavior”, Decision, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 221.
Kim, B. and Kim, D. (2020), “Attracted to or locked in? Explaining consumer loyalty toward Airbnb”,
Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), Vol. 12 No. 7, p. 2814.
Kim, Y., Cho, M. and Han, H. (2014), “Testing the model of hotel chain frequency program members’
loyalty intentions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 35-60.
Kim, M.K., Park, M.C., Park, J.H., Kim, J. and Kim, E. (2018), “The role of multidimensional switching
barriers on the cognitive and affective satisfaction-loyalty link in mobile communication
services: coupling in moderating effects”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 87,
pp. 212-223.
Kim, E.J., Choi, C. and Tanford, S. (2020a), “Influence of scarcity on travel decisions and cognitive
dissonance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 721-735.
Kim, J.J., Chua, B. and Han, H. (2020b), “Mobile hotel reservations and customer behavior: channel
familiarity and channel type”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 82-102.
Koo, B., Yu, J. and Han, H. (2020), “The role of loyalty programs in boosting hotel guest loyalty: impact
of switching barriers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 84, 102328.
Kwon, S. and Jang, S. (2011), “Price bundling presentation and consumer’s bundle choice: the role of
quality certainty”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 337-344.
Lee, C.H. and Kim, H.R. (2022), “Positive and negative switching barriers: promoting hotel customer
citizenship behaviour through brand attachment”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 4288-4311.
Lee, S. and Ro, H. (2016), “The impact of online reviews on attitude changes: the differential effects of
review attributes and consumer knowledge”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 56, pp. 1-9.
Li, Z., Long, M., Huang, S., Duan, Z., Hu, Y. and Cui, R. (2023), “Effects of inertia and switching costs
on customer retention: a study of budget hotels in China”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1030-1050.
Liao, C.C., Lin, H.N., Luo, M.M. and Chea, S. (2017), “Factors influencing online shoppers’ repurchase
intentions: the roles of satisfaction and regret”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 5,
pp. 651-668.
Lien, C.H., Wen, M.J., Huang, L.C. and Wu, K.L. (2015), “Online hotel booking: the effects of brand
image, price, trust and value on purchase intentions”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 210-218.
Liu, J. and Jo, W. (2020), “Value co-creation behaviors and hotel loyalty program member satisfaction
based on engagement and involvement: moderating effect of company support”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 23-31.
JHTI Lobbers, J. and Benlian, A. (2019), “The effectiveness of IS certification in E-commerce: does
personality matter?”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 233-259.
Mahmud, M.S., Rahman, M.M., Lima, R.P. and Annie, E.J. (2021), “Outbound medical tourism
experience, satisfaction and loyalty: lesson from a developing country”, Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Insights, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 545-564.
Mar
ın, L. and Ruiz de Maya, S. (2013), “The role of affiliation, attractiveness and personal
connection in consumer-company identification”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47
No. 3, pp. 655-673.
Marjerison, R.K., Hu, J. and Wang, H. (2022), “The effect of time-limited promotion on e-consumers’
public self-consciousness and purchase behavior”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 23, 16087.
Masiero, L., Viglia, G. and Nieto-Garcia, M. (2020), “Strategic consumer behavior in online hotel
booking”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 83, 102947.
Mathur, T. (2021), “Marketing health insurance products: sources and consequences of customers’
confusion”, International Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1337-1347.
McCormack, T., Feeney, A. and Beck, S.R. (2020), “Regret and decision-making: a developmental
perspective”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 346-350.
Mitchell, V., Walsh, G. and Mo, Y. (2005), “Towards a conceptual model of consumer confusion”,
Advances In Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 143-150.
Mourali, M., Yang, Z., Pons, F. and Hassay, D. (2018), “Consumer power and choice deferral: the
role of anticipated regret”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 81-99.
Patterson, P.G. and Smith, T. (2003), “A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and propensity to
stay with service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 107-120.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J., Yasin, N. and Abdullah, N. (2018), “Antecedents of switching intention in
the mobile telecommunications industry: a partial least square approach”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1087-1111.
Ranaweera, C. and Prabhu, J. (2003), “The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on
customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 374-395.
Sadiq, M., Dogra, N., Adil, M. and Bharti, K. (2022), “Predicting online travel purchase behavior: the
role of trust and perceived risk”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 796-822.
Saqib, N.U. and Chan, E.Y. (2015), “Time pressure reverses risk preferences”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 130, pp. 58-68.
Sharma, A., Pandher, J.S. and Prakash, G. (2023), “Consumer confusion and decision postponement in
the online tourism domain: the moderating role of self-efficacy”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Insights, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1092-1117.
Shin, M. (2022), “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade: post-COVID marketing strategy to
motivate travel by triggering traveler’s inaction regret”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 940-953.
Shin, M., Back, K.J., Lee, C.K. and Lee, Y.S. (2020), “Enhancing customer-brand relationship by
leveraging loyalty program experiences that foster customer-brand identification”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 12,
pp. 3991-4016.
Shiu, J.Y. (2017), “Investigating consumer confusion in the retailing context: the causes and outcomes”,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 7/8, pp. 746-764.
Shiu, J.Y. (2021), “Risk-reduction strategies in competitive convenience retail: how brand confusion can Consumer
impact choice among existing similar alternatives”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 61, 102547. purchase
Shukla, A. and Rodrigues, R.H. (2022), “Facilitators of online hotel booking through third party
decision
aggregators: measurement and validation in the Indian context”, International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 723-753.
Siegfried, N., Winkler, N. and Benlian, A. (2020), “Do bad experiences loom larger than good ones? The
role of prior purchase experiences on the effectiveness of IS certifications”, Journal of Decision
Systems, Vol. 29, pp. 101-179.
Sugandini, D., Susilowati, C., Pambudi, A., Aw, S. and Siswoyo, M. (2019), “The influence of self-
control, time pressure, information alternatives, and stock out on consumption delay”,
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 413.
Sun, S., Law, R. and Schuckert, M. (2020), “Mediating effects of attitude, subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control for mobile payment-based hotel reservations”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 84, 102331.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P. and M€antym€aki, M. (2020), “Why do people purchase from online travel
agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 88, 102534.
Tandon, U., Mittal, A. and Manohar, S. (2020), “Examining the impact of intangible product features
and e-commerce institutional mechanics on consumer trust and repurchase intention”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 31, pp. 1-20.
Thomas, R.W., Esper, T.L. and Stank, T.P. (2010), “Testing the negative effects of time pressure in
retail supply chain relationships”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 368-382.
Tiamiyu, T., Quoquab, F. and Mohammad, J. (2020), “To switch or not to switch: the role of tourists’
psychological engagement in the context of Airbnb Malaysia”, International Journal of Tourism
Cities, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 175-196.
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Mitchell, V. (2007), “Consumer confusion proneness: scale
development, validation, and application”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 7/8,
pp. 697-721.
Xue, P., Jo, W. and Bonn, M.A. (2020), “Online hotel booking decisions based on price complexity,
alternative attractiveness, and confusion”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Vol. 45, pp. 162-171.
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of
switching costs”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.
Yim, C.K., Chan, K.W. and Hung, K. (2007), “Multiple reference effects in service evaluations: roles of
alternative attractiveness and self-image congruity”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 147-157.
Yuen, K.F., Ng, W.H. and Wang, X. (2023), “Switching intention in the online crowdsourced delivery
environment: the influence of a platform’s technological characteristics and relational bonding
strategies”, Technology in Society, Vol. 72, 102167.
Zhang, J., Zhang, W., Li, Y. and Caglayan, M. (2021), “Decision time and investors’ portfolio
strategies”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 68, 101344.
Zhao, B.C., Rawwas, M.Y. and Zeng, C.H. (2020), “How does past behaviour stimulate consumers’
intentions to repeat unethical behaviour? The roles of perceived risk and ethical beliefs”,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 602-616.

(The Appendix follows overleaf)

JHTI Appendix

Switching cost
1. If I switch to another hotel booking website, I would miss some of the services and benefits from the site I
usually use (e.g. mileage points)
2. In general, it would be problematic to switch from the hotel booking website I usually use to another one
3. Switching the hotel booking website would involve major effort for me
Alternative attractiveness
1. There is a variety of hotel booking websites that I can choose from
2. I would be happy to use a different booking website than the one I used last time
3. Other booking websites are probably just as good or better than the last website I used
Decision postponement
1. Sometimes, it is difficult to make the final decision when making a hotel reservation
2. Sometimes, I delay the decision when making a hotel reservation
3. Sometimes, I postpone a planned hotel reservation
4. Sometimes, the choice is so large that making a hotel reservation takes longer than expected
Repurchase intention
1. I intend to continue making future hotel reservations from the booking website I usually use
2. I would recommend the booking website I usually use to other people
3. I plan to keep the booking website I usually use for the future trips
Time pressure
1. How much time do you typically have when completing your online hotel reservation?
Table A1. Note(s): For time pressure, 1 5 Not enough time, 7 5 Enough time
Measurement items Source(s): Table by authors

Corresponding author
Pengsongze Xue can be contacted at: pxue@uoguelph.ca

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com