Search results

Previous studies support the notion that corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives can have a positive effect on customers in the hospitality and tourism industry. However, most of these studies have ignored response biases and none have incorporated them into their analyses numerically. This study aims at closing this research gap.

The authors utilized a hybrid choice model to test for the hypothesized effects of social desirability (SD) and cynicism biases on reported purchase intention. The authors further compared the results with those of analyses that ignore these biases to demonstrate their distorting influence.

The results indicate that SD and cynicism biases have a moderating effect on reported purchase intention. Older generations and frequent travelers seem particularly prone to bias, and the biases have a distorting effect on the overall survey results.

Traditional analyses that exclude biases, incorrectly, suggest several aspects of CSR that are significant (or insignificant) to purchase intention, provide unreliable results. The authors did not generalize bias-prone respondent segments but urge future research to investigate this.

Hotel managers aspiring to gain competitive advantage through CSR investment must consider biases in their market research. Otherwise, they risk developing CSR initiatives that do not instigate positive customer behaviors, leading to the failure of the investment.

The authors quantified SD and cynicism as significant causes of response bias, which distorts survey results. Previous studies have conceptualized SD without quantifying its impact, while cynicism has been identified as a novel source of bias in the industry. This study further introduces hybrid choice modeling as a novel approach to address response bias that could extend itself beyond the industry studied here.

The fierce debate on CSR is often linked to different understandings of CSR from different perspectives. Although there is no strong consensus on CSR, Carroll's pyramid of CSR encompassing economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1979) is a good starting point for discussion.

Subprime mortgage was a kind of high-risk and high-interest lending, especially targeted at low-income and minority borrowers. The majority of subprime mortgage loans were made to non-affluent, low-income and poor borrowers who were previously unable to buy properties and might have poor credit histories (Pitcoff, 2003; Schwarcz, 2009). Why did mortgage lenders compromise their lending standards and dare to take obviously huge risks in mortgage lending? It is clear that the origin of the aggressive subprime mortgage practices were linked to the US Government's policy for increasing national homeownership and encouraging lenders to provide mortgage loans and other credits to low-income and minority borrowers, as a specific stakeholder group.