Subjective Norms, Innovation Source and Customer Satisfaction Among Small Hospitality Firms in Ghana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I respect the authors for their hard work. I have some questions and need further explanations.

 

2. Literature Review

I think it would be better to describe the 2.2. Conceptual Review by dividing it into three parts: Subjective Norms, Innovation Source, and Customer Satisfaction.

 

2.3. Hypotheses Development

2.3.2. Subjective norm perceptions about innovation adoption and innovation sources seems to have misrepresented Hypothesis 2. Please correct this error.

Furthermore, the research background related to Hypothesis 2 appears unclear. Please provide additional research related to Hypothesis 2.

 

Hypothesis 4, related to the mediating effect, was not properly reflected in the research model (figure 1). Please redraw the research model by referring to other studies related to the mediating effect.

 

Please describe the research period in the 4. Methodology section.

 

4 (5??). Discussions

The Practical Implications are lacking, so please supplement them.

 

Please present the survey items in the paper. Please present the survey items in 3. Methodology, or 4? Results or Appendix.

 

The numbering in the paper's hierarchical heading structure is incorrect. Please correct it.

 

Author Response

See the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract 

The manuscript title is clear and appropriately reflects the key constructs of the study — subjective norms, innovation source, and customer satisfaction in small hospitality firms. The abstract provides a general overview of the methodology, sample, and principal findings, offering readers an adequate orientation.

However, a serious conceptual inconsistency appears between lines 18–24. The abstract reports a significant negative relationship between subjective norms and customer satisfaction, while the later theoretical justification and formulation of Hypothesis H1 assume a positive relationship. This contradiction remains unexplained and introduces theoretical ambiguity. The authors should insert a brief clarification between lines 23–24 explaining why the empirical finding diverges from expectations grounded in the Theory of Planned Behaviour, as well as outlining the theoretical implications of this deviation.

Additionally, the methodological description in lines 16–17 is overly general. While the use of PLS-SEM is mentioned, the measurement model specification and validation procedures are not identified. The authors should expand this section with concise methodological clarification to enhance transparency.

Introduction 

The introduction effectively positions innovation as a critical driver of competitiveness in the SME hospitality sector and identifies a relevant research gap. Nevertheless, between lines 65–75, the discussion shifts abruptly from general innovation adoption to the concept of innovation source without a clear theoretical bridge. The authors should include a transitional paragraph between lines 74–75 explaining the conceptual linkage between subjective norms and innovation sourcing decisions.

Furthermore, lines 88–96 reveal terminological inconsistency, alternating between innovation source and innovative source. This terminology should be standardized throughout the manuscript to maintain conceptual clarity.

Theoretical Framework 

The study claims grounding in the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), yet operationalizes only the subjective norms component. Excluding attitudes and perceived behavioral control requires explicit theoretical justification, since TPB is designed as an integrated framework.

Between lines 112–113, the authors should add a justification explaining why a reduced TPB model is appropriate for the study’s objectives. Without this clarification, the theoretical framework appears incomplete.

Conceptual Review 

A major issue of conceptual coherence arises in this section. Between lines 152–194, the manuscript introduces the construct employee perception of service encounter quality, which is unrelated to the research model, hypotheses, or results. This section appears disconnected from the study’s framework.

The authors must either:

• remove lines 152–194 entirely, or

• explicitly integrate the construct into the theoretical model (which would require additional hypotheses and analysis).

In its current form, this section undermines the conceptual integrity of the manuscript.

Hypotheses Development 

The hypotheses are generally theory-driven, but significant problems are present.

In lines 228–230, Hypothesis H1 predicts a positive relationship, yet the results indicate a negative effect. The theoretical argument should be expanded to acknowledge the possibility of alternative outcomes and contextual influences.

A more critical issue occurs in lines 247–248, where Hypothesis H2 is incorrectly stated as a relationship between subjective norms and customer satisfaction — duplicating H1. H2 should refer to the relationship between subjective norms and innovation source. This error requires correction.

Methodology 

The methodological description is generally clear, but numerical inconsistencies appear. Lines 311–314 report a sample size of 465 respondents, while lines 362–363 refer to 456 distributed questionnaires and 450 retrieved responses. The authors must clarify the sampling flow between lines 361–364 and reconcile these figures.

Additionally, essential PLS-SEM validation indicators — including model fit measures, bootstrapping procedures, and multicollinearity assessment — are absent. These details should be added following line 359.

Results 

A critical error appears in this section. The HTMT table (lines 438–439) contains constructs unrelated to the study model (e.g., employee self-estrangement). This indicates a serious reporting mistake. The table must be replaced with correct discriminant validity results.

Furthermore, the omission of indicator CS3 in the construct validity table requires explanation or justification.

Discussion 

The discussion attempts to interpret the unexpected negative relationship, but lacks sufficient methodological reflection. Between lines 456–474, the authors should expand their discussion to include alternative explanations, contextual considerations, and research limitations.

 

Author Response

See the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the manuscript is rather lengthy. It is recommended that the authors consider simplifying and refining the title to improve readability and clarity for readers.
2. The research topic and the three key variables investigated in this study belong to relatively mature research domains. As such, the manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate research novelty. The authors are encouraged to enrich the literature review to clearly identify the research gap and explicitly articulate how the present study contributes novel insights beyond existing studies.
3. This study centers on Subjective Norms within the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and integrates sources of innovation and customer satisfaction, addressing a topic with practical relevance. However, the theoretical originality of the study has not been adequately highlighted. The authors should more clearly explain how this research offers new theoretical perspectives within the TPB or innovation adoption literature, rather than serving merely as a contextual validation of established relationships.
4. On page 7, Section Methodology should be revised to 3. Methodology, and on page 8, Section 3. Results should be corrected to 4. Results. In addition, it is recommended that the authors add a separate section following the Methodology to explain the questionnaire development process. This section should detail the variables included, the measurement items used, and provide comprehensive literature support for each item, which is essential for the rigor and transparency of the statistical analysis.
5. The results indicate that subjective norms have a significant negative effect on customer satisfaction, which contrasts with the predominantly positive relationships reported in prior studies. The authors are advised to further elaborate on this counterintuitive finding in the Discussion section by considering contextual factors (e.g., small hospitality businesses in Ghana), passive innovation adoption, or excessive conformity pressure, and to provide clearer theoretical and practical explanations with explicit comparisons to existing literature.
6. Although the empirical results support the mediating effect of sources of innovation, the theoretical justification for how sources of innovation effectively transform social pressure into customer satisfaction outcomes remains somewhat underdeveloped. The authors are encouraged to incorporate additional theoretical perspectives (e.g., open innovation, legitimacy theory, or institutional theory) to strengthen the logical coherence and scholarly robustness of the proposed mediating mechanism.

Author Response

See the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the reviewers' requests for revisions. I would like to thank the authors for their hard work.

- The research background related to Hypothesis 2 appears unclear. Please provide additional research related to Hypothesis 2.

- Please describe the research period in terms of year, month, and day rather than simply saying 6 months.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have complied with all the reviewer's suggestions, and I am pleased to suggest that the work be published in its current form.

Author Response

No revision required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The research topic and the three key variables investigated in this study belong to relatively mature research domains. As such, the manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate research novelty. The authors are encouraged to enrich the literature review to clearly identify the research gap and explicitly articulate how the present study contributes novel insights beyond existing studies.
2. This study centers on Subjective Norms within the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and integrates sources of innovation and customer satisfaction, addressing a topic with practical relevance. However, the theoretical originality of the study has not been adequately highlighted. The authors should more clearly explain how this research offers new theoretical perspectives within the TPB or innovation adoption literature, rather than serving merely as a contextual validation of established relationships.
3. The results indicate that subjective norms have a significant negative effect on customer satisfaction, which contrasts with the predominantly positive relationships reported in prior studies. The authors are advised to further elaborate on this counterintuitive finding in the Discussion section by considering contextual factors (e.g., small hospitality businesses in Ghana), passive innovation adoption, or excessive conformity pressure, and to provide clearer theoretical and practical explanations with explicit comparisons to existing literature.

The authors did not provide precise responses to the comments from the first round of review. Regarding the three issues mentioned above, the authors should cite a substantial amount of relevant literature to support their arguments, and even conduct a comparative analysis with findings from previous studies on this topic. The “Introduction” section should be rewritten with subheadings, including “Background of the study,” “Aim of the study,” and “Research gap in this topic.” These sections should elaborate on the beneficial goals of the study and must be supported by relevant literature to ensure the credibility of the statements. Everything important in the manuscript must be reflected in the “Introduction” section.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has been successfully edited. Thank you to the authors for your hard work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to each of the reviewers’ comments point by point and has incorporated extensive literature to support the arguments presented. Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be accepted for publication in Tourism and Hospitality.