Attracted to or Locked In? Explaining Consumer Loyalty toward Airbnb

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and the paper is developed adequately. I think it could be slightly improved by making the following changes:

1. Lines 89 to 109, refered to the context of research, would be better in the "Introduction" section than in the "Literature Review" section.
2. Lines 46 to 78 of the “Introduction” section could be summarized, reserving the details to complete the content of lines 110 to 140 of the “Literature Review”. In the present form it sounds repetitive.
3. A model of total mediation is tested. Has it been compared with alternative models of partial mediation? They can be more adjusted to the data (Authenticism, Trust, Price, Social Benefits, and Relative Atractiveness can have significant direct relationships with Loyalty).
4. The Price Fairness is proposed as an antecedent of the Affective Commitment, why not the Calculative Commitment? I think that this relationship can be expected in the context of reasoned choice theory (price can be an inhibitor in the choice of other alternatives).
5. Since the hypotheses are verified, the indirect effects of independent variables on loyalty through mediating variables should be incorporated.
6. The introduction of the calculative commitment as an antecedent of loyalty seems very successful. Loyalty is relatively well explained. However, the calculative commitment has a relatively low R2 (the antecedents selected are not enough to explain it). I think it should be pointed out in the limitations section and use the discussion section to propose other variables that could explain it.

Author Response

The topic is interesting and the paper is developed adequately. I think it could be slightly improved by making the following changes:

1. Lines 89 to 109, refered to the context of research, would be better in the "Introduction" section than in the "Literature Review" section.

→ Based on reviewer’s comments, we added the contents in lines 89 to 109 in the “Introduction” section.

2. Lines 46 to 78 of the “Introduction” section could be summarized, reserving the details to complete the content of lines 110 to 140 of the “Literature Review”. In the present form it sounds repetitive.

→ We summarised the repetitive contents in line 46 to 78.

3. A model of total mediation is tested. Has it been compared with alternative models of partial mediation? They can be more adjusted to the data (Authenticism, Trust, Price, Social Benefits, and Relative Atractiveness can have significant direct relationships with Loyalty).

→ Most works applied the affective and calculative commitments demonstrated the affective and calculative commitments are fully mediated between antecedents (such as benefits and investments) and loyalty or behavioral intention. This study also considered affective and calculative commitments as the mediator between antecedents and loyalty.

(1) Zhou, Z; Fang, Y; Vogel, D.R; Jin, X.L.; Zhang, X. Attracted to or locked in? Predicting continuance intention in social virtual world services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2012, 29, 273-306.

(2) Hur, W. M. et al. (2010) The role of commitment on the customer benefits–loyalty relationship in mobile service industry, The Service Industries Journal, 30:14, 2293-2309.

(3) Shukla, P. (2016). Customer commitment to luxury brands: Antecedents and consequences, Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 323-331.

4. The Price Fairness is proposed as an antecedent of the Affective Commitment, why not the Calculative Commitment? I think that this relationship can be expected in the context of reasoned choice theory (price can be an inhibitor in the choice of other alternatives).

→ I agreed with the reviewer’s opinion. Thus, we consider price fairness as the key driver of calculative commitment.

Research model

Analysis result

5. Since the hypotheses are verified, the indirect effects of independent variables on loyalty through mediating variables should be incorporated.

→ Based on reviewer’s comments, we added the indirect effects of independent variables on customer loyalty.

Table 5. Indirect effects of antecedents on customer loyalty.

6. The introduction of the calculative commitment as an antecedent of loyalty seems very successful. Loyalty is relatively well explained. However, the calculative commitment has a relatively low R2 (the antecedents selected are not enough to explain it). I think it should be pointed out in the limitations section and use the discussion section to propose other variables that could explain it.

→ In the discussion section, we discussed that issue.

In particular, this study asserts that customer loyalty is largely explained by affective commitment, implying that affective commitment is more critical than calculative commitment in determining consumer loyalty. In line with our findings, Shukla et al. [60] showed that calculative commitment is less important than affective commitment whey customers develop advocacy commitment. Even in Generation Y, calculative commitment negatively affects word-of-mouth in travel web site [70].

Reviewer 2 Report

A well presented study.  I made several comments below.  Many of my questions may be best addressed in future research, particularly regarding social benefits vs. societal benefts.  

Lines 31 & 32: Citations may be in order for both of these statements.

Line 46: Is this loyalty to a chain or individual property?

Line 47: A citation might be in order.

Line 56: What does service quality look like in an Airbnb?

Line 63 & 64: Behaviors such as…?

Line 67 & 68: Should calculative commitment be defined here?

Line 82: PLS should be defined prior to using shorthand.

Lines 90 & 91: Wouldn’t a hotel meet this definition as well?

Lines 97 through 100:  Wouldn’t a hotel meet this definition as well?

Line 129:  The idea of social benefit intrigues me.  Is this a social benefit to the individual or to society at large?  If to society, do Airbnb’s charge room taxes that are paid to the local tax authority?  If not, wouldn’t this be a societal detriment?

Line 158: How would Airbnb offer loyalty programs?  For the firm or the individual location?

Line 275 & 276: Relationships such as…?  Citiation.

Line 301: Please define P2P.

Lines 302 & 303: Wouldn’t trust in Airbnb and trust in host be two separate considerations?

Lines 318 through 321: Citation

Line 352: Wouldn’t affective commitment allow for a price premium?

Table 2 & 3: Were these data variable with the number of times a subject has frequented an Airbnb?

Line 581: “Therefore, grow their profits,”  Check grammar.

Line 594: Are hosts compensated for providing unique and memorable lodging experiences?

Author Response

A well presented study.  I made several comments below.  Many of my questions may be best addressed in future research, particularly regarding social benefits vs. societal benefts.  

Lines 31 & 32: Citations may be in order for both of these statements.

→ Based on the reviewer’s comment, we added citations.

Line 46: Is this loyalty to a chain or individual property?

→ Customer loyalty to peer-to-peer accommodations helps hospitality firms enhance their profitability and reduce their marketing costs

Line 47: A citation might be in order.

→ Based on the reviewer’s comment, we added citations.

Line 56: What does service quality look like in an Airbnb?

→ Other reviewer pointed out that the contents are unnecessary, so the contents were deleted.

Line 63 & 64: Behaviors such as…?

→ Consumer loyalty behaviors such as recommendation and revisit

Line 67 & 68: Should calculative commitment be defined here?

→ The definition of calculative commitment is addressed in Sect 3.3.1.

Line 82: PLS should be defined prior to using shorthand.

→ Based on the reviewer’s comment, we added the definition of PLS (partial least square)

Lines 90 & 91: Wouldn’t a hotel meet this definition as well?

→ Airbnb differentiates from hotel chains in that participants share under-utilized inventory or assets via fee-based sharing (P2P accommodation)

Lines 97 through 100:  Wouldn’t a hotel meet this definition as well?

→ Airbnb lodgings are often located in residential areas, consumers enjoy local restaurants and culture within short walking distance

Line 129:  The idea of social benefit intrigues me.  Is this a social benefit to the individual or to society at large?  If to society, do Airbnb’s charge room taxes that are paid to the local tax authority?  If not, wouldn’t this be a societal detriment?

→ Social benefits refer to the emotional benefits to the consumer – e.g., the experience they receive from their personal connection with the service and service providers

Line 158: How would Airbnb offer loyalty programs?  For the firm or the individual location?

→ We deleted the content since it is related to traditional hotel chains rather than Airbnb.

Line 275 & 276: Relationships such as…?  Citiation.

→ We added the references.

Line 301: Please define P2P.

→ In introduction, we defined the P2P(peer-to-peer)

Lines 302 & 303: Wouldn’t trust in Airbnb and trust in host be two separate considerations?

→ Yang et al. [41] divided into two trust types such as trust in Airbnb and trust in host. This study just focused on trust in Airbnb because customers consider trust in Airbnb as more important when choosing accommodation. However, since it is meaningful to distinguish trust in Airbnb from trust in hosts, we will investigate the exact roles of two separate trusts in future research.

Lines 318 through 321: Citation

→ We added the references.

Line 352: Wouldn’t affective commitment allow for a price premium?

→ Based on reviwer’s comment, we change the sentence due to the confusion of the content.

In short, price fairness would play an important role in enhancing affective commitment.

Table 2 & 3: Were these data variable with the number of times a subject has frequented an Airbnb?

→ Based on the reviewer’s comments, we added the average staying frequency of Airbnb.

The average staying frequency of Airbnb is 2.87, with a standard deviation of 1.74.

Line 581: “Therefore, grow their profits,”  Check grammar.

→ We checked grammar error.

Line 594: Are hosts compensated for providing unique and memorable lodging experiences?

→ When hosts provide unique and memorable lodging experience, they develop more positive attitude and commitment toward the accommodation. It ultimately increases the profits and revenues.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In terms of literature review, the paper does, unfortunately, take no unique or critical point of view. This is the crucial point in your manuscript.

I suggest to take into account a general / integrative theoretical approach in order to present your research model, and then write your paper from the angle of the chosen one. That is, carefully re-think your paper's positioning and justify the need for your study properly. So, a clear theoretical grounding and building of the hypotheses based on relevant theory is missing.  

Additionally, the instrument's design methodology requires further details in order to appreciate the content validity and face validity of the domain of the dimensions / factors included in the scale.  

Author Response

The topic is interesting and the paper is developed adequately. I think it could be slightly improved by making the following changes:

1. Lines 89 to 109, refered to the context of research, would be better in the "Introduction" section than in the "Literature Review" section.

→ Based on reviewer’s comments, we added the contents in lines 89 to 109 in the “Introduction” section.

2. Lines 46 to 78 of the “Introduction” section could be summarized, reserving the details to complete the content of lines 110 to 140 of the “Literature Review”. In the present form it sounds repetitive.

→ We summarised the repetitive contents in line 46 to 78.

3. A model of total mediation is tested. Has it been compared with alternative models of partial mediation? They can be more adjusted to the data (Authenticism, Trust, Price, Social Benefits, and Relative Atractiveness can have significant direct relationships with Loyalty).

→ Most works applied the affective and calculative commitments demonstrated the affective and calculative commitments are fully mediated between antecedents (such as benefits and investments) and loyalty or behavioral intention. This study also considered affective and calculative commitments as the mediator between antecedents and loyalty.

(1) Zhou, Z; Fang, Y; Vogel, D.R; Jin, X.L.; Zhang, X. Attracted to or locked in? Predicting continuance intention in social virtual world services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2012, 29, 273-306.

(2) Hur, W. M. et al. (2010) The role of commitment on the customer benefits–loyalty relationship in mobile service industry, The Service Industries Journal, 30:14, 2293-2309.

(3) Shukla, P. (2016). Customer commitment to luxury brands: Antecedents and consequences, Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 323-331.

4. The Price Fairness is proposed as an antecedent of the Affective Commitment, why not the Calculative Commitment? I think that this relationship can be expected in the context of reasoned choice theory (price can be an inhibitor in the choice of other alternatives).

→ I agreed with the reviewer’s opinion. Thus, we consider price fairness as the key driver of calculative commitment.

Research model

Analysis result

5. Since the hypotheses are verified, the indirect effects of independent variables on loyalty through mediating variables should be incorporated.

→ Based on reviewer’s comments, we added the indirect effects of independent variables on customer loyalty.

Table 5. Indirect effects of antecedents on customer loyalty.

6. The introduction of the calculative commitment as an antecedent of loyalty seems very successful. Loyalty is relatively well explained. However, the calculative commitment has a relatively low R2 (the antecedents selected are not enough to explain it). I think it should be pointed out in the limitations section and use the discussion section to propose other variables that could explain it.

→ In the discussion section, we discussed that issue.

In particular, this study asserts that customer loyalty is largely explained by affective commitment, implying that affective commitment is more critical than calculative commitment in determining consumer loyalty. In line with our findings, Shukla et al. [60] showed that calculative commitment is less important than affective commitment whey customers develop advocacy commitment. Even in Generation Y, calculative commitment negatively affects word-of-mouth in travel web site [70].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This research is based on a good review of existing literature, but the hypotheses are set out as specific objectives, that is, they may be too many for this study. The shortfalls that would have to be corrected or clarify are the following:
1. Considering an approach of theories of planned and reasoned behavior and actions to investigate the commitments and behavior in the context of Airbnb will be of great interest for authors. Additionally, the hypotheses can be summarized between the study variables in a maximum of two main hypotheses.
2. Methodological and empirical aspects. By contrast to the opinion of the authors, the instrument's validation methodology as well as the measurement scale are outlined in the text, but it requires further details. This paper is focused on diverse methods to collect and analyze data, but it is not focused on a methodology. Please, correct this consideration. Additionally, the profile of respondents have to be included in the next section, that is, Research Results (also table 1 regarding the demographic information of final respondents).

Author Response

Thank you for reviewer’s constructive comments.

1. Considering an approach of theories of planned and reasoned behavior and actions to investigate the commitments and behavior in the context of Airbnb will be of great interest for authors. Additionally, the hypotheses can be summarized between the study variables in a maximum of two main hypotheses.

-> Our main research theory is based on dedication-based and constraint-based mechanisms. Although TRA and TPB are well-structured research model, these model only focus on dedication-based mechanisms such as customer attitudes and customer satisfaction. Although the dedication-based mechanisms such as TRA and TPB is an important factor to understand customer loyalty, constraint-based mechanisms is also significant for explaining consumer loyalty. Our results showed that the constraint-based mechanism enhances the explorative power of customer loyalty toward Airbnb.

Although our study has 8 hypotheses, the main hypotheses are dedication-based variables and constraint-based variables.

As the reviewer points out, we re-number our research model.

Hypotheses 1(a-d): Dedication-based mechanism

Hypotheses 2(a-d): Constraint-based mechanism

2. By contrast to the opinion of the authors, the instrument's validation methodology as well as the measurement scale are outlined in the text, but it requires further details. This paper is focused on diverse methods to collect and analyze data, but it is not focused on a methodology

-> Generally, the survey-based analysis was conducted in two stages: an evaluation of the convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity of the measurement model, and a test of the structural model.

We followed this processes. In the Measurement model, we check Confirmation factor analysi in that the convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity of the measurement items.

I would appreciate it if you could suggest concepts that require further explanations and give me the references to the concepts.

3. Additionally, the profile of respondents have to be included in the next section, that is, Research Results (also table 1 regarding the demographic information of final respondents).

-> As the reviewer points out, we transfer the profile of respondents into research results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

While the paper is based on a good research proposal, the model requires further details.

In the new version of the manuscript, the eight hypotheses are set out as specific objectives. they can be summarized in a maximum of two main hypotheses according to your integrative theoretical framework regarding dedication-based mechanism and constraint-based mechanism. That is, H1a and H2a respectively.

Additionally, I suggest to re-number the rest of hypotheses as specific auxiliary hypotheses: Hypotheses H1b, H1c and H1d; and Hypotheses H2b, H2c and H2d. please, consider this recommendation.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments.

Based on reviewer's comment, I re-number the rest of hypotheses.